Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

Mr. Chairman: Before we get started into committee of supply, I believe the hon. Provincial Secretary for Social Development has an announcement.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ruston: Welcome, Margaret.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I welcome this opportunity, through you, to invite the members of the House to welcome some of Scarborough East’s finest young people, all members of my baseball team in Scarborough, who are with us in the House.

Mr. Ruston: Your baseball team?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Exactly, please welcome them.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Chairman: I think it was the understanding that we were going to cover the whole estimate, and I believe that members of the committee had I believe to restrict their comments to no more than 15 minutes. The hon. member for Cambridge has the floor.

Mr. Davidson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I shall try not to take too much time. I had intended to speak only on one issue, but I instead will speak on two. In reading through the remarks by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier), I came across a rather interesting paragraph on page 27. It reads as follows:

I am pleased to assure the members the recommendations of the royal commission report on the Grand River flood are being acted upon. For example, additional funds were approved for both flood plain acquisition in Cambridge-Galt and for the Guelph dam in the current year.

Well, that may very well be, Mr. Chairman, but let me tell you that the people in Cambridge are not so sure that that money is being directed in the right direction by the Grand River Conservation Authority.

Let me just give you a little bit of history of the flood -- I can relate it to you. Those of us who have lived in the Grand River watershed for many years are well aware that there are occasions when that river overflows its banks, but not to the extent that it did in May of 1974.

There was an inquiry, and no one actually knows the actual cost of it. I have figures for the Attorney General’s department, and these alone were $176,451. But that does not take into account the Ministry of Natural Resources and the people they had there, nor does it take into account the amounts of money spent by the municipalities in the watershed, nor the conservation authority itself.

All that we have out of that inquiry, Mr. Chairman, is a beautiful little document called, “Royal Commission Inquiry Into Grand River Flood 1974.” In my opinion and the opinion of the people who live in the city of Cambridge and who received the most damage in that flood, all that report does in effect is kind of whitewash what actually happened. It takes away from the Grand River Conservation Authority the blame that in reality lies in their laps. Let me point out to you that in at least a couple of cases in this report there are things that do point to the fact that the conservation authority was partially responsible. I just quote from page 57:

The flood warning system, enclosed with the letter, contained the following significant paragraph:

“During the flood periods, authority staff will be on 24-hour duty at authority headquarters. Periodic bulletins will be issued to the radio and television stations at Waterloo region, Brantford and Hamilton.”

And then it goes on to say:

It will be seen later that the GRCA complied with very few parts of the new warning system on May 16 and 17.

Turning then to page 69, the last line, it reads as follows:

It is clear that the GRCA have to devise a better system.

And then going over to page 64, a questionnaire had been sent out by the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce to the merchants in the area and those who were in the watershed area. It reads as follows:

Replies to questions.

1. Did you receive any notification of impending flooding on May 17, 1974?

92 yes, 227 no.

2. If so, at what time?

Earliest time of warning was 9:30 a.m. Most were warned between 11:30 a.m. and 2 p.m. [when there was water already coming on to the street].

5. Were you advised to take any precautions?

45 yes, 237 no.

7. In your opinion, was the warning given in sufficient time for you to take the necessary precautions?

10 yes, 251 no.

8. Were you given enough information so that you knew what precautions you should take?

6 yes, 272 no.

That’s why I say the document was nothing more than a coverup for the Grand River Conservation Authority. The minister may not think so, but those of us who live in Cambridge and in the Grand River watershed think so.

Mr. Nixon: What about Judge Leach?

Mr. Davidson: I care not to comment on that either. There is a document which perhaps members of this House should be reading rather than the inquiry report, and it is a booklet which is called: “The May 17 Flood on the Mighty Grand River: The truth about it. Why the inquiry? No act of God.” Let me just quote one little piece of it. It was quoted by Robert Montgomery, who was general counsel for the inquiry, and he claims this:

The Grand River Conservation Authority had two guns pointed down the valley on the night of May 16. Both of them went off at midnight but they won’t be charged with attempted murder. No one died so they can’t be charged with murder. It is a terrible thing in this day and age with all the modern communications [Mr. Montgomery probably phrased it best when he said:] Paul Revere on a beat-up old horse could have done a better job than this warning system.

When he is talking about two guns pointing down the valley he is referring to the two dams, the Conestoga and the Shand, which were both kept above flood level. Those of us living in that watershed, contrary to the report, know for a fact that the water was kept above the normal level in those dams because it was coming up to the weekend of May 24 and they didn’t want to deprive the cottagers in that area of having a good recreational weekend; the problem being that when the rain started to fall they had to get rid of some of that water and they opened both dams at the same time. As a result -- knowing the Grand River watershed as we do, it is like a funnel -- that water came down there like a tidal wave and washed everything in front of it out of the way. The result was something in the neighbourhood of over $5 million damage to the city of Cambridge itself, and then we come up with a report that looks like nothing ever happened and that the conservation authority was not responsible.

Let me assure you, Mr. Minister, those of us in the Cambridge area and those below us in the Brantford-Paris and other areas know a little bit better about the Grand River than perhaps some of your people do.

I would like to go from that to recent events which have happened in the Cambridge area, namely the issuing of the licence to the company of Mr. Seegmiller, the owner of Preston Sand and Gravel, so that he can take gravel out of land which lies in the city of Cambridge and is owned by, it is my understanding at least, Peel Village Ltd., or whatever the name of the developing company is. However, I would like to just briefly on saying this, say to you, sir -- and I think probably you received the letter I issued to you today so you know very well my feelings on it but I would like the members of this House to be aware -- that the Ontario Municipal Board did, in fact, have a seven-day hearing at which time they heard considerable thoughts and feelings on the subject from both sides, both those who wanted to take the gravel off the land and those who were in opposition to it. Those who were in opposition to it were both the city of Cambridge and a group of ratepayers from that part of the area. I would like to quote a couple of things out of the Municipal Board report if I may, the first one being:

The instant application also changes the access to the pit from its original position to a point approximately 400 ft west of Waterloo Rd., being regional road No. 24.

I would like to point out to the minister, because he tells us that he has all kinds of experts that he based his decision on, I don’t know whether his experts are aware or not aware, but where they are locating that road is on a hill into a turn, and whether you are aware of it or not, that is in the area of the Conestoga College located in Doon. A considerable amount of traffic goes up and down that road. How he can possibly feel that 124 truck-loads per day, which averages out to possibly one every five minutes, are not going to impede traffic in that area I have no idea at all.

Continuing over to page 4, it is of some interest to note that the official plan which showed the subject area, when adopted by council, with a holding designation, was modified by the minister to show the area as agricultural. When they say the minister they’re referring to the Minister of Housing who in September designated that area as being an agricultural area.

Going over to page 10, I quote from the report:

It is the opinion of the board that the existing land use referred to in the official plan and applicable to this property is agricultural [and completing the statements from the document] the board is of the opinion that this application is premature at this time and that its granting would not be in the best public interest as reflected by the planning concepts of the municipality.

I cannot for one minute accept the minister’s concept that because application had been made prior to the development of the official plans in the area and the approval of those plans, somehow that application supersedes the official plans of that area.

Nor do the people in the area accept that with the possible exception of Mr. E. E. Seegmiller and the people who are the operators of Peel Village Ltd. The residents of Cambridge certainly do not want it.

It was pointed out to you in the letter I sent you today that the city of Cambridge is having an emergency debate by notice of motion either this coming Monday or the Monday following. They certainly are not pleased with the decision you have made.

You have arbitrarily taken out of the hands of the Municipal Board the right to make a decision. They have made a decision. They have made a recommendation to you but you seem to feel that your experts are far better than theirs. I’m not quite sure. I thought they all worked for the same government but apparently they don’t.

I, for one, find it very necessary to take you to task on this issue. I intend to keep pushing on it as hard as I possibly can. I’m quite sure in my own mind that you’re going to be a very difficult person to try to change. However, if necessary, we will continue with the efforts we are making and try to convince you that the decision you have made to excavate gravel in that area is a wrong decision.

Mr. Laughren: Shameful.

Mr. Davidson: That is agricultural land.

Mr. Laughren: Ridiculous.

Mr. Davidson: You have no verified proof that the land can be rehabilitated once the gravel is taken out and that it will be put back into the same condition it is in at the present time.

Mr. Laughren: Typical.

Mr. Davidson: At the present time it is class 1 and 2. If your decision is based on the belief that it can be rehabilitated to class 3 or 4 or 5 that is not good enough. We want that land, class 1 and 2, left the way it is so that the people who are living there can farm it the way it has been farmed for a considerable number of years.

I say to you it is this type of action on your behalf which, over the past few years -- not only on your behalf but that of other ministers like you who make arbitrary decisions and bring the heavy hand of government down on the small people within communities --

Mr. Laughren: Hamfisted.

Mr. Davidson: It is that kind of decision which has depleted the ranks of your government sitting on that side and if you continue to do that, you will be depleted even further. You will no longer be the government because the people will not allow you to be the government.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister have any comments?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, that was a very passionate plea.

Mr. Ferrier: An excellent plea.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I wish the new member for Cambridge would be as informed as his father was. I’m sure he has not taken the time to familiarize himself with all the facts and I would say to him that if, in course of --

Mr. Davidson: A point of privilege, Mr. Chairman. He should familiarize himself.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I didn’t interrupt you.

Mr. Davidson: The other Davison is at that end. Norm Davison was not my father.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Well, whoever it is --

Interjections.

Mr. Laughren: Get your facts right. It’s not even spelled the same way.

Interjections.

[8:15]

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- you should maybe follow his astuteness in this Legislature and become fully informed of all the facts. First of all, on the situation with regard to the flooding of the Cambridge area. A royal commissioner was established in the person of Judge Leach. I would question the ability of the member to question his conduct of that particular royal commission. A man of his ability and his integrity is certainly above any questioning by any member in this Legislature, and you’re included. I would say that with all sincerity.

The royal commissioner completely exonerated the conservation authority of that particular area. He did make some criticism, if I recall correctly, about one or two local police forces and made some comment about the breakdown in communications to which the member refers and which I accept. But I have to say to him with all sincerity the conservation authority, after a complete review and after hours and hours of public hearings and testimony by numerous people from across that particular area, was exonerated, completely and totally, in the royal commission report.

In case the hon. member is not aware, a royal commission is the highest investigative body that this province can set up. Surely after going through that exercise, he would in all honesty accept that commissioner’s report. We have accepted his recommendations and we are acting on those particular recommendations.

Mr. Ferrier: It the royal commissioner always infallible?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In connection with Preston Sand and Gravel being granted a gravel permit in that particular community, I’d have to reiterate what I said during the question period, that the Ontario Municipal Board holds a hearing and it makes certain recommendations to the ministry. In this instance and on other occasions, we have not accepted their recommendations and we didn’t accept them in this particular instance after careful examination of all the facts and of all the needs as we saw it on a broad general basis.

I feel very confident in the weeks, the months and the years ahead that the people of the Cambridge area will see we have made the right decision in allowing this particular company to move in under very strict controls, which will be approved by the municipality of Cambridge, so that we can use this valuable resource. I say to you as strongly as I can that the needs and the demands of southern Ontario for good aggregate are extreme.

There is a limit on the aggregate that is available in southern Ontario. They are not making any more of it today. That is a known fact.

Mr. Nixon: Why are you taking it all out at once then?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You have got to get it where it is. The aggregate in this particular instance is of extremely high quality. It is for a limited period of time, five to eight years. We have told the mayor -- and I called him personally -- to indicate to him that any fears he had we would alleviate by putting those conditions into the licence when it is issued, and there has been no licence issued as yet.

I have to say to you that you should spend some time looking at the needs of your particular area as it relates to aggregate because there is a real need and there is a demand.

The tighter we get with our controls and restrictions, the higher the price goes. Municipal leaders are coming to me since we brought in the Pits and Quarries Control Act, asking us to be a little easier and a little considerate because the price is going up, and they can’t afford it any more. They say we are too restrictive, and are protecting it. Looking towards sequential use, they say let’s take the resource out and let’s rehabilitate it and use it for the purposes we can -- even for farming. In this particular case, we know that we can remove the topsoil, take out the aggregate, replace the topsoil and still have good agricultural land.

I have to say to you that the application was in many months before the official plan was in place. In all honesty and justice how do you, months later, accept an official plan being in place when the application was in months ahead? You have to accept their honesty, their concern and their need at that particular time, which we as a ministry and a government accepted in that application. In those times under those conditions, that’s when we accepted the application and we sent it to the OMB for their recommendations.

I feel very strongly about this after a very careful consideration. It wasn’t something that we sloughed off lightly and which we gave no consideration to. The senior staff in my ministry reviewed it in detail. The deputy minister was totally involved, and he became very conscious of the situation. We reviewed it two or three times. We spent hours on it and we have come up with the conclusion which we think is a right conclusion, and in the interests of that particular area.

Mr. Ruston: I have two or three brief items, Mr. Chairman. One, Mr. Minister, and you might be aware of this personally, is the provincial park in the county of Essex. It was acquired, I think, in 1970 by the former minister, the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Brunelle). There have been some problems with high water in that area.

In 1973, if I remember correctly, it was pretty well flooded over, and it’s been more or less flooded ever since. In the last three or four months, however, there has been very little water in it. As you might be aware, the beach was eroded by the big storm on March 17, 1973.

I have had the reeve of the township of Tilbury North, and some of his councillors, inform me that they feel, in its present condition -- with the water table down about two feet from normal -- there is only one spot in the frontage of the park that is low. I think the frontage is about 80 rods wide. They feel that this would be the opportune time to go in with some form of machinery to raise the grade. They think that without a severe storm they could protect this, and get it back to the point where the rest of the park could be rehabilitated. If you remember at the time they were putting drainage and everything into it. The park was going to have a form of drainage system that they could pump out. Then the storm, of course, took off the frontage.

What we are saying is that if this were filled in now, temporarily, it would not be very expensive, or so I gather from the municipal authorities and others in the area. Then probably in the near future, you could look at the idea of having what I call groynes, which protrude out in the lake probably 100 to 150 ft, about every 200 ft down the shore. What these do, depending on the angle at which you put them in, is that as the waves roll in, they allow them to bring in sand and drop it on the beach, which is then protected in the future.

There are a number of areas there where people have done this with their own properties, and it works very well. We know that the high water has given many other people in the area a real problem but all they did was put up a straight steel breakwall, and that spoils the whole effect of the park. I can understand that, but I wouldn’t agree that that’s a good thing to do with the park. But what you can do with these groynes is that if the water does go down in the next few years, you can remove them. They could either be stones, put in temporarily, or they could be regular walls with stones in between them.

That has been done in some areas. I have been down there only once or twice, but I have seen places in the southern United States where they have used these -- in the Gulf of Mexico and other areas and it does protect the beach.

I am also aware that the ministry feels that perhaps it should abandon the park or have someone else take it over. I question this very much. I know that there has been some talk of this, but I would hope that that wouldn’t be the decision of the ministry.

I think that once we acquire a lakefront property we should keep it and I think you should look at the idea of these groynes that I am speaking of. This might be the most economical way to protect your park. I realize that in the time of the then minister, Mr. Brunelle, it was a beautiful looking area. We have lost many of the trees since. There were many beautiful trees in there. We have lost some of them because they have been under water so long. But it still can be rehabilitated, and I would hope that we’d find some funds available to do something.

The one thing that I am saying right now is that this one low area lies in about the centre of the park and it could be filled in by bulldozers or a dragline. From what I can gather from the municipal officials who are well experienced in this, because they have many more miles of lake frontage, if this could be done at this time, it would no doubt stop any more future water from coming in except, we understand, in an extreme storm. Whether we will have another storm like the one we had in 1973 is very doubtful.

We can recall that on that particular day we had snowmobiles running in Essex county as well as the greatest flood we ever had on the shore. It was just one of those freak storms. Someone said it was because of the day it was, March 17. Well, I don’t think that’s quite so. However, that was one of those days that we would rather not think about. It may only be one in 100 years. No one else in the area who has lived on the lake for 50 to 75 years ever saw one just like it. This was something I wanted to bring to the attention of the minister.

One other thing, and maybe you can make a note of it, is the conservation authorities. Are you making any plans to change the operations of the conservation authorities as they are now? Are you regionalizing them in different parts of the province? I know in our own area we had a resource manager and I believe now that they no longer have him. Maybe I will just read what Mr. Powell said at a meeting in the area:

Mr. Powell explained it was understanding that the conservation authorities branch was effectively reducing the complement of staff. The reductions appeared to indicate a move toward the phasing out of the majority of functions of the conservation authorities branch in an effort to decentralize the existing system in order to regionalize.

Maybe the hon. minister could comment on that.

One other thing was hunting moose, deer and so forth. Are you giving any consideration to prohibiting the hunting of does and fawns in the Nipissing and Algoma districts? Are your people aware of any depletion of the deer in that area? What are your thoughts with regard to licensing or prohibiting the hunting of deer and fawns in those two areas? I think that’s all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister have any comments?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Essex North. I sense a real concern for -- I think it is Tremblay Park you are referring to.

I would have to say to you that this is an area we have been looking at; we are actively working on finding some alternate use for that particular area. We are aware of the flooding and the erosion that has taken place over the last year or two. We are looking at the possibility of day-use for that area. As you point out, maybe equipment could be moved in to level off the area and to bring it back to where it was.

We even had some preliminary discussions with the conservation authority. That may be an area that they could take over. We also have, in the back of our minds, that this may be an area that we could lease out to the private sector to operate. We have a number of options that we are looking at.

I noticed the hon. member squirming when I said “lease out to the private sector.” I have to say to you that with this budgetary constraint that we are moving into it may well be, as funds become tighter, that this is an area that we could promote. We could try it as an experiment: The private sector takes a particular park and operates it to our standards, to provide the public with continuing and ongoing service, and recreational opportunities that are afforded in some of our provincial parks. This is one of the areas we are looking at at the present time.

[8:30]

In connection with the comments which you made about conservation authorities: There is, I suppose, a feeling among the conservation authorities that because we are decentralizing -- moving them out to the regions and making our engineers available to them at that level -- that they feel that we maybe disowned them. I don’t know if that’s the right wording or not, but they feel as if they’re not attached to head office any more.

This is entirely incorrect. We’re trying to make better use of our resources, and in particular, our human resources, to give better service. In fact, the dissension to which you refer, has caused me to call a meeting with all the chairmen next Tuesday to outline our goals and our policies, to reassure them that the government is sincere in the conservation authority movement established 25 or 27 years ago when Hurricane Hazel swept through southern Ontario. They’ve done a tremendous job; we recognize that and we want it to continue.

But, in this period of budgetary constraints, and in this period of decentralization, they’re going through a certain reorganization themselves. This is something we hope to clear up, to clear the air once and for all, so they will have a better understanding as to what we expect from them, and what they can expect from us.

I think that’s just about it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ruston: What about the hunting?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I didn’t catch the comment about the deer and the fawns.

Mr. Ruston: I was wondering about the deer count in the Algoma and Nipissing areas, and if you’re giving any consideration to prohibiting the hunting of does and fawns?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I’ve just been informed we have an internal task force within the ministry, comprised of a number of biologists who are looking at the deer range districts throughout the province.

I think it’s fair to say we’re very cognizant of the public concern with regard to the deer population, and the possible decline of the deer population in specific areas. We’re paying particular attention to the areas to which you refer. I’m hopeful we’ll have some solution and some remedial measures in the very near future. That may well be one of the areas we’ll be attacking -- moving in a direction to control fawns and does. As I say, we’re actively pursuing it.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Algoma.

Mr. Wildman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a number of questions I’d like the minister to respond to. I’ll try not to take up too much time. The first one deals with native rights that pertain to hunting and fishing.

I’d like to know what the ministry’s position is regarding treaty rights for treaty Indian peoples on reserves and Crown land. I understand some treaty natives have been charged with fishing in contravention of the ministry’s normal regulations. I’d like to know if the minister is prepared to recognize native treaty rights by changing the fish and game laws and regulations specifically to exclude the treaty Indians.

On the question of resource management, I’d like to deal first with commercial fishing on the eastern portion of Lake Superior, north of Sault Ste. Marie. There are 33 licensed fishing operations in that area. Most of them are small operations, and a number of these fishermen are afraid the ministry intends to set fishing quotas for commercial fishing in that area without thorough study. They are afraid such quotas might have the effect of pushing the small operations out of business.

I’d like the minister to clarify the situation in regard to contemplated quotas, and if so, what studies have been done by the ministry upon which they are to be based? For instance, are they based simply on the catch over the last year or years?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Would you repeat that, please?

Mr. Wildman: Commercial fishing quotas: I’m wondering what studies have been done; if you intend to bring in quotas; on what you’re going to base the quotas if they are brought in; and how you expect they might affect small fishing operations in the eastern part of Lake Superior.

Are studies done simply on the catch which might be affected by the market? Fishermen may not be taking certain fish because that part of the market is down in that area. I would like to know if quotas are contemplated and, if so, on what basis.

With regard to forestry management, I would like the minister to explain in the allocation of timber limits what emphasis is placed upon the economic and social well-being of a local community. For instance, in the southeastern part of Algoma, there is an excessively high unemployment rate as you know -- over 20 per cent. Since the closure of the McFadden mill at Blind River both federal and provincial governments have had very little success in attracting viable alternative industries to the area. As the minister knows, at present the allocation of limits north of Blind River is under study. Weyerhaeuser is at present carrying on a study of the timber in the area. These limits have been applied for by a number of companies, I believe, but if they are given to a company that does not intend to use the Blind River mill they won’t benefit the local community.

There is also a native mill at the Mississauga reserve which is dependent upon the availability of saw logs in the area. This mill has been shut down for almost a month and officials in the ministry have assured me that the needs of the people of Blind River and Mississauga will be taken into account in allocating the limits. It is imperative that the ministry commit itself, in my opinion, to the position that the allocation of timber limits in the watershed of the Mississauga will lead to employment in the Blind River area. I hope the minister shares that opinion.

I have one other question on mine safety which I would like to ask, after the minister responds to those questions, if possible.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I would like to respond to the hon. member for Algoma. The question of native rights as it relates to fish and game is a very complex one. The treaties were entered into by the federal government. In the Province of Ontario we have the responsibility of administering provincial jurisdiction over those particular resources. I have to say to you that in a number of cases treaties are different for certain resources. We have always treated the needs of the native people in relation to their own needs and their own consumption as a need which we accept and with which we agree.

If an individual on an Indian reserve wishes to go off the reserve to obtain fish or deer or moose for his own family, we have not prosecuted. When they do that for commercial purposes we have laid charges. The court recently convicted a couple of native people in the Chatham area for moving into that particular area off the reserve and harvesting large quantities of pickerel for, as we suspected and the courts upheld, commercial purposes. In that case, charges were laid.

Basically, the generally accepted or unwritten formula has always been that if they need it for their own use then there is no problem as far as we are concerned. As for changing the Game and Fish Act to allow those people to harvest those resources on a broad general basis, I don’t think we could do that because we have the responsibility to deal with those resources, to allocate those resources and to harvest those resources in the best interest of all the people, including the native people of this province, so we can’t separate or segregate.

As we heard this afternoon in the debate about the pulp and paper industry from that party which strongly advocates that resources belong to all the people --

Mr. Ferrier: That’s true.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They do. To give special consideration over and above the treaties which were signed and agreed upon and entered into several years ago -- I have never had any pressure from the native people. I think I deal with the native people more than anyone else in this Legislature really, be it treaty No. 9 or treaty No. 3.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. As you are not able to defend yourself sitting in the chair, I think that I should challenge the minister on the statement and say that the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) encounters native problems as much as the member for Kenora, if not more so.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I will refute that, because the chairman is not in my particular position.

Mr. Makarchuk: He does it more successfully.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: While he may deal with the native peoples in his own particular riding, I have the entire north, all across the north, to deal with.

Mr. Lewis: The chairman very nearly swallowed his gum.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Not really, but I think that’s a very sensitive area, a very complex area. I don’t treat it lightly and I know the concerns. I really know the concerns of the native people and their leaders as they relate to the resources of this province. In fact, I have been in some very sensitive debates concerning the wild rice situation where the native people have accepted this as an exclusive resource. These are some of the problems we are facing and we are moving into them. Our discussions are continuing. We are not shutting the door on those discussions at all.

In connection with fish quotas, I think you referred to Lake Superior and you questioned if our quotas are set relative to the markets or the demands.

Mr. Wildman: First I wanted to know if you are going to set quotas in the eastern part of Lake Superior.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think it is fair to say that we are looking at quotas in a number of areas. We don’t have any firm position at this point in time. The demands are coming to us from the north end of Lake Superior around Thunder Bay -- I think the chairman may be aware of this -- where they want quotas established.

Here again, the native people have difficulty competing with the efficient white man’s fishing rigs. For that purpose they are saying to us: “Give us a specific quota, so that we don’t have to rush out with our mediocre rigs and compete with the more sophisticated equipment of the white fishermen.” That’s an area we are looking at.

But if we set up quotas, it’s on a very sensitive and carefully calculated sampling basis. We work very closely with the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission so that a tremendous amount of information is funnelled in. The biologists have certain rules of thumb that so many acres of water can support so many pounds of lake trout. This is all considered very, very carefully so that the setting of quotas as they relate to markets is certainly not the way that we go. In Lake Superior and in many areas of course we do have quotas of lake trout right now. It is on a quota system so we do control the catch.

In connection with the allocation of timber limits as they relate to the smaller communities, we hear this on a regular basis and we are very cognizant of it. I live in a small town of 500 or 600 people. I know what it’s like to see our resource taken from our doorstep to be processed at a plant at Thunder Bay 200 and 300 miles away. I have lived through it and I have seen my own community hanging on by a shoe-lace because nobody would develop those resources and process them at the local level. I think I can use my own community as a typical example.

The timber north of Sioux Lookout was allocated to a specific company on the condition, specifically written into the licence agreement, that that wood resource would be processed in that specific area. That’s the kind of movement we are going into.

Relating to your own question with regard to the Blind River area, we have had a lot of discussion with regard to the Champlain limits. You will recall they went bankrupt. We have a number of people interested. Our discussions have, just as late as last week --

Mr. Martel: How many times have they gone bankrupt?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The mayor of Blind River, every time he comes in to see me, says: “Let’s not have a repetition of the last one.” I think he has done that three or four times.

[8:45]

Mr. Martel: That’s what I said.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It seems to be a plague that comes to the Blind River area. They try in desperation to bring an industry to their community, and I appreciate and I admire their enthusiasm really. Red Venturi, the mayor, is a tremendous fellow, really a promoter for his particular area. “Let’s develop the resource here in Blind River,” he says; and I have to take my hat off to him because I admire his tenacity -- or whatever it is -- to come back for more.

Mr. Martel: Coming back for more.

Mr. Ferrier: I heard him tell the Premier (Mr. Davis) that the member for Algoma was in good shape, but --

Mr. Martel: We won’t tell you which party.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I can assure you --

Mr. Makarchuk: Physically if not morally --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I can reassure the member the allocation of those specific timber limits is being very carefully looked at. We want to look after the needs of Espanola area, and the needs of Elliot Lake.

There’s an Indian band there that requires timber, we’re cognizant of that. We’re also cognizant of the veneer potential of that particular limit, we think there’s a potential that should be developed and could be developed right in Blind River. So the whole area is being looked at very carefully. We just don’t hand them out to anybody without due regard or recognition of the needs of the specific communities along the north shore or anywhere in the province of Ontario. I guess I’m more sensitive than previous ministers are as to the utilization and development of those resources on your doorstep.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Algoma indicated he had one more question.

Mr. Wildman: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. In regard to the reply, I don’t want to debate, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to comment that it’s my understanding that in the problem of native rights, hunting is not necessarily as much a problem as fishing, and the sports fishery has led to the charges and convictions. I would hope the minister would want to recognize the treaty rights and try to make certain that the provincial government honours those rights.

Just one comment about Blind River. The mayor certainly has tried to do a great deal for that community and it’s very important that some kind of industry be brought into Blind River. To give you an example, in a population of about 3,200 during the mail strike about 900 unemployment cheques were being distributed by your ministry through northern affairs. That indicates something about the situation in Blind River and it’s very important that not only the Ministry of Natural Resources but the government in general ensure that whenever anything is done in the area regarding resources or industry, it benefit the people who are in need of jobs.

The other comment I want to make is in regard to mine safety. From Hansard, I understand that on May 6, 1975 the minister stated that mines had been instructed to post ventilation plans. This would require posting of general and specific ventilation plans so that workers would know in detail the exposure levels in each working place. I’m informed by a union official in Elliot Lake that this has not been done at Denison Mines; and if it hasn’t I’d like to know why not.

Also on May 6, the minister stated that instructions had been issued to mines to provide ventilation to ensure a minimum of 100 cfm -- cu ft per minute -- of fresh air per diesel horsepower in each working area. My information is that this level has not been reached in each working area. Could the minister tell us if it has; or if it hasn’t why not and what the ministry is doing about it? Because if it has gone on this long, after the instructions, is it really going to still be left to the workers to negotiate these things instead of having them set by government regulation?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Well Mr. Chairman, the question concerning the posting of ventilation plans is something that, as the member correctly pointed out, I announced -- I think it was in this Legislature -- about a year ago. I’m told that the plans as to our information are being posted in the various lunchrooms of those particular mines, and if they’re not of course then I want to know about it.

Mr. Wildman: Have you investigated that?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I beg your pardon?

Mr. Wildman: Have you investigated that?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: My staff who are responsible have just informed me that that is the case, but I’ll certainly have them check to make sure that it is the case.

In connection with the amount of air being provided to the various working areas, I indicated at that time that the 100 cu ft per minute is to be achieved. I am told that the mines generally are reaching that particular level; although Denison, which has spent $3 or $4 million putting in a new ventilation system, is having difficulty getting a certain number of fans and a certain amount of equipment that would bring them up to this particular level. Our goal is there and we will keep the pressure on them to make sure it is achieved.

Mr. Martel: There are certain areas where the union agrees the environment is getting better, but there are certain areas still --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There is a question whether even more air would improve the situation. I think in our discussions with the union officials just a week or two ago, they said there is a lot of air coming in, but that the dust conditions may be even a little bit aggravated.

Mr. Wildman: Did you have a time limit on conformity with the regulations?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Time limit?

Mr. Wildman: A time limit which required mines to have fulfilled your requirements by a certain date, a certain time?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think it is according to how we can force them to install the equipment and for them to get the equipment. We keep the pressure on, and of course the tests are ongoing on a regular basis. The heat is on them on a continuing basis to make sure the quantity of air, and of course the dust levels, are maintained at a proper standard.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to raise a few issues with the minister. He has been aware of them in the past and I wanted to get his replies to them today.

First, I wanted to commend the minister for his Junior Ranger programme. I have been a very strong advocate of it ever since I have been in this House. I would like to ask the minister if he plans on enlarging the programme or not. Are the fiscal restraints going to affect the programme for the coming summer?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, Mr. Chairman, we don’t think the fiscal constraints will affect this very positive programme. I might say that I have to compliment the member for Windsor-Walkerville, because I think that on a per capita basis or per capita per member basis, the member for Windsor-Walkerville has a tremendous representation in our Junior Ranger programme. It must be because of his aggressiveness and his interest in the Junior Ranger programme.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Minister, it is a good programme, and if it’s a good programme I think it is worthy of selling. I know the people from my part of the province would like to enjoy a little fresh air. We have to smell a little too much of the stuff being exported by our American friends to the north. When we can get some of that good fresh northern Ontario air, we appreciate it. In addition to the --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Once they come to northern Ontario they will come back.

Mr. B. Newman: They speak very highly of it, Mr. Minister, which I would assume pleases you; it pleases me very much.

Now, is the programme being expanded for the young ladies or is it going to be maintained at the same level as it was last year? I think last year you had 72 or so young ladies in the programme.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: If you just bear with me for a minute, I’ll get the exact figures of what we had last year. Last year we had a total of 1,618 participants. The male participants decreased last year from 1,450 to 1,162. The female participants -- and I must say that the response and the enthusiasm and desire to join the Junior Ranger programme among the young ladies of this province far exceeded that of the male -- increased from 168 to 456.

Mr. B. Newman: Very good, Mr. Minister. The other issue I wanted to raise concerns the licence of occupations or the two licences of occupation held by the BASF -- Wyandotte Corp. in Wyandotte Mich. This corporation -- formerly Wyandotte Chemical -- have rights to dump the effluent from the manufacture of certain alkali and chemicals in the US. Now, the licence of occupation was originally given to Wyandotte Chemical back in the early 1940s, if I am not mistaken, or thereabouts. I happen to have one that is dated 1949, and the other is also dated 1949. There are two occupation licences, No. 3879 issued in 1936; and the other is No. 6641, issued in 1949.

Would you, Mr. Minister, have the amount of funds you are receiving from the corporation as a result of giving them the privilege of dumping their wastes on a Canadian island in the middle of the Detroit River? If you don’t, Mr. Minister, I would appreciate your officials looking into it, and then replying maybe a little later on, because I think the fees you are charging are by far too low for the privilege you are giving to this corporation in the disposal of its liquid wastes.

Were they required to dispose of those wastes in some other areas in the state of Michigan, it would be far more costly to them. So as long as you are going to allow them to dispose of the wastes on Fighting Island, as it’s called, please, Mr. Minister, get everything you can from them in the way of dollars.

You can reply to that later.

Are you aware, Mr. Minister, that the US Corps of Engineers are contemplating dumping polluted materials from Rouge River -- that’s the Detroit manufacturing complex, which includes Great Lakes Steel, the Ford factories, and other steel companies in the city of Detroit -- they plan on dumping those wastes -- solid wastes, dredgings -- on Grassy Island in the Detroit River?

That island is just west of Fighting Island. I am sure you are aware of the location, Mr. Minister. It is right at the mouth of the Canard River. Are you aware of that, and how are you going to control it so that the wastes that are being dumped on this small Canadian island, close to the Canadian shore, are not too polluted and will not damage the island permanently?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I don’t have any figures on the Fighting Island fee structure -- oh here they are, right here.

Well I think you would want a broader explanation. The charge that we normally apply is 10 per cent of the appraised value. I think since you have raised the question, and it’s a very good one, I would endeavour to get the exact dollar figures for you and let you know the actual fee we charge that particular company for the use of that island.

In connection with Grassy Island in the Detroit River, I will endeavour to get all the facts and correspond with you directly so you may be assured the environmental impact will not be such that it will ruin that particular island, which is Canadian territory.

Mr. B. Newman: Right, thank you, Mr. Minister. The next issue is a third island in the Detroit River, and that is Peach Island. You can recall, Mr. Minister, that at one time the municipalities were interested in having that island developed as a provincial park. I can recall bringing this up in my early days in the House, and the late Kelso Roberts remarked, for the eighth time, that he wouldn’t accept that as a provincial park. Well Mr. Minister, it is a provincial park. You people did recognize the need in the community and as a result you purchased the island.

Now you did come up with a fairly elaborate scheme for the development of the park. The scheme was approved by the municipality and we all think the proposition you have for its development is a good one. I am just wondering now, Mr. Minister, why nothing has transpired over the past few years other than a SWORD programme in which they attempted to clean American beer cans and Coca-Cola bottles off the island. I don’t think much more than that garbage pickup took place on the island. What are your immediate plans for Peach Island and when do you intend to proceed with the plans you had drawn up for the island?

[9:00]

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I have just been informed that my ministry has refused the application for a lease on Grassy Island because the applicant could not attain the environmental standards we would require. That is one problem we don’t have to correspond on or deal with because it has been denied.

In connection with Peach Island, the member is quite right. We own it and we have been, I suppose tending it through the use of students during the summer. Because of budgetary constraints we will have to continue for another year working, with the board of education, in doing the services, the interim resource management, and the garbage collection to which the member refers.

The master plan, as the member well knows, has been ready for some time now. As funds become available this is a project that has a priority within the Ministry of Natural Resources. I regret that in the coming year we will not have the funds to go into a development programme as outlined in the master plan.

Mr. B. Newman: Have you programmed it for any time in the near future? A news item back in August, 1974, indicates that at that time the province’s master plan for converting the island to a 100-acre medium intensity recreational and educational park was accepted by city council in early 1973 and your district manager said that the development of the park was scheduled to begin in April, 1974.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: If I could just reassure the hon. member, when funds become available it is on our priority list.

I just don’t have a position for it. We have a number of parks -- a number of acquired land areas that we do want to develop as provincial parks. I think last year we developed something like four parks which were in operation at the latter part of this year. If I could just reassure you, when funds become available, that is one that will be looked at very seriously.

Mr. B. Newman: I’d like to commend your officials in the area on their co-operation with the board of education in conducting of the overnight and weekend programmes they have on the island. The co-operation has been very good. I have heard a lot of complimentary remarks, not only from the teaching profession but also from the students who have had this unusual experience, coming as they did from a city, of being able to sleep in the outdoors completely surrounded by water; not even realizing previously that so close to home they have this beautiful island, which has a real future.

I hope it isn’t in the too distant future; that you continue with the master plan. It really is needed in the community and it would be appreciated whenever you can do it; the sooner the better as far as we are concerned in the community, but we do understand fiscal restraints.

The other issue I would like to bring to your attention concerns the salt mine in the community -- Siberia isn’t the only place that has salt mines. You are aware of the unfortunate incident that took place back late last year where a gentleman by the name of William Shajgec was killed as a result of the setting off of dynamite. What has been the result of that? I can recall the coroner mentioning that there had been no formal training to individuals responsible for the setting off of charges in the mine. He also mentioned there were no set procedures for setting off the charges; there was no formal training given to the person who would set off the charges and a new man on the job actually learned the task simply by looking at the way an experienced man did it.

That certainly isn’t the proper way of educating one to set off dynamite or explosive charges in a mine. What was the outcome, Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I have just been informed that the outcome of that particular inquiry was that the employee himself did not follow the procedures or the rules laid down. I would have to say there were some other circumstances related to this.

Mr. B. Newman: I understand from the hearing, Mr. Minister, and this is from the inquest, that there were no set procedures for setting off charges; so how could the employee have broken any types of rules if there are no procedures at all?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am informed, Mr. Chairman, that there are specific rules and procedures. I’m sure that with a mining industry as old as this one is in the Province of Ontario, that is one area where there would be set procedures. It’s plain and simple that he didn’t follow the procedures laid down, and they are very basic.

Mr. B. Newman: Well, I will accept your comments on that, Mr. Minister, but I think it should be looked into again. I think your inspectors should examine the mine when they can and see that such procedures are being followed. Now are there any rules or regulations concerning the use of explosives -- rules and regulations set down by the ministry?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, there are certainly some very explicit rules and procedures. In fact one of my senior staff has just whispered to me there is a whole book of this. So they’re pretty broad and extensive. Of course, each company has its own rules and bylaws as related to the use of explosives, because that is one of the basics of mining. That’s one area we’re very sensitive about, very cognizant of the dangers. Certainly it’s well laid out in the Mining Act.

Mr. B. Newman: I don’t know how to pursue this, Mr. Minister, but in the removal of pilings in the Detroit River, on the Windsor side, explosives were used and the Windsor Star editorial of just one month ago has the following comment: “Similar overall legislation covering the use of explosives would be worth considering by the provincial government.” I’m referring to the use of explosives for the removal of pilings, I’m not referring in this instance to the use of the explosives in mining. I would assume, being in the water, that would likewise come under your responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I’ve just been informed that since it is not directly related to the mining industry, the Mining Act wouldn’t apply in that instance. It might be under the Navigable Waters Act, which would make it a federal jurisdiction.

Mr. B. Newman: I accept that. The only thing is, would you not have some jurisdiction over the setting up of the explosives in this instance where they’re eliminating pilings by blowing them up at the base of the piling?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am wondering, Mr. Chairman, if that wouldn’t be a responsibility of the Ministry of Labour? I don’t think we have it in the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Minister, would you mind having your officials look into it, because the community is concerned that there seem to be no regulations concerning the use of dynamite, especially in an instance like this.

I wanted to raise one other issue with you, Mr. Minister, and that is the phasing out of the use of lead shot in hunting and having it replaced by steel shot. I can recall reading not too long ago that a natural wildlife federation in the US has been waging this battle for years. They claim that five per cent of the ducks in the United States die -- that is the type of ducks that are hunted --

Mr. Chairman: I would like to remind the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville that he has one minute.

Mr. B. Newman: I will complete it right away, Mr. Chairman. It is the phasing out of lead shot and replacing it by steel shot. Has the ministry looked into that and the approach the US authorities have used?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I have just been informed by the deputy that he is aware of the federal government which is conducting very close studies with the industry in trying to come up with a type of shot that won’t rust or corrode. It may be in the form of steel but not lead, because we fully recognize the lethal potential of lead pellets in relation to ducks and other wildlife which pick them up in their feed. There are studies going on in concert with the federal government.

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I simply wanted to bring this one short sentence to the attention of the minister: “Studies going back to before the turn of the century indicate that at least five per cent of the continental supply of ducks and geese are lost to lead poisoning.”

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Chairman, I would like to get back to a matter that was raised by my colleague from Cambridge regarding the Grand River Valley flood investigation. Sometimes I wonder what the province would do if they didn’t have Judge Leach, because whenever there is a welfare inquiry, there is Judge Leach. Whenever there is a flood, there is Judge Leach. Whenever there is a police situation in Haldimand-Norfolk, there is Judge Leach. He is a very convenient man to have around for inquiries. He handles things with great delicacy, and still greater selectivity.

I think one of the things in that inquiry, Mr. Minister, is the fact that the judge did not examine the matter of priorities, the matter of provincial funding, the fact that the province is really responsible or sits on top of the conservation authority and dictates to them, through budget and through suasion, just exactly what they can do and what they cannot do.

When I made my presentation to Judge Leach’s commission, I pointed this out. It is suggested he investigate these things because whatever the cause of the flood or whoever is to blame for the flood, I think you have to look at the fact that the province is sort of the Godfather of the conservation authorities. You really tell them what to do, what money to spend, what projects to embark on; or what projects they can do or what projects they cannot do.

That is the kind of investigation and that is the kind of report that was lacking in the report on the Grand River Conservation Authority. There is nothing on the relationship that exists between the conservation authority and the province. There was nothing to question the priorities, which are set by your ministry when they deal with the conservation authorities; whether these are right priorities, whether they are the proper priorities or what effect they would have.

The other related point that concerns me is the fact that in many cases -- and I am thinking more in this case of the Grand River Conservation Authority but I am sure it is common to a lot of other authorities -- in many cases you have a very inbred group of people who have been there on the authority for a long time and continue to be there.

In the matter of the Grand River Conservation Authority, you have a very unrepresentative group sitting on the executive of that authority. Because of the figures -- because of the appointments and because of the number of members and the number that are on the executive -- they manage to re-elect themselves to the authority every year.

The question I would like to raise with the minister is about the local reorganization that is underway. They have urged reorganization, which was prodded by representatives of other areas interested in the Grand River Conservation Authority. They have come out with the suggestion that there be some representation, either by taxation or population or something, on the executive of the Grand River Conservation Authority.

[9:15]

I haven’t read the report in great detail, but as I understand it the people who should be on the executive of the authority, in this case the Grand River Conservation Authority, would have the Kitchener-Waterloo region with five, Brantford with one, and some other communities with definite, permanent representation on that authority.

I want at this time to ask the minister if he has read the report. Is he considering bringing in legislation to amend the Grand River Conservation Act to ensure there is representation on the executive from these communities, particularly large communities like Brantford?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I believe the hon. member is a member of that particular authority.

Mr. Makarchuk: I used to be.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You used to be? Were you not involved at the municipal level at all?

Mr. Makarchuk: I can’t very well be when I’m a member, Mr. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, but you were?

Mr. Makarchuk: That’s right, yes.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Were you the mayor of that particular area?

Mr. Makarchuk: No. I was the council representative on the Grand River Conservation Authority.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The point I’m driving at is that the majority of representatives are selected by municipal governments in their respective areas. The province has a limited number of appointees. I think it’s normally three or four --

Mr. Makarchuk: Ten.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: But the majority come from the local level on an appointment basis, so that the autonomy is left at the municipal level.

Quite frankly, this is the first I’ve heard of a suggestion that members be elected at large, or be elected from specific communities so that there is proper representation. It is an interesting one. I am sure the members of the conservation authority will be looking at it very carefully.

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Minister, the concern is the fact that you’ve got about 16 members on the executive. If you have about 30 members on the authority, and about five or six members are away, and if all the members on the executive vote for each other, they will re-elect themselves every year. That is really what is happening up there. In the process, Mr. Minister, you keep out other people.

Mr. Martel: It’s self-perpetuating.

Mr. Makarchuk: It’s a self-perpetuating kind of oligarchy, if I can use that word. In the process you keep other people out; and what you do, and what in effect is happening on the Grand River Conservation Authority, is that you have major communities without representation on the executive.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They have a different formula there.

Mr. Makarchuk: That is not fair.

The other question I wish to raise with the minister is the matter of priorities for construction, development, flood control and so forth. Are you going to follow any particular guidelines for next year in terms of cutting back? Are you going to permit a 10 per cent increase? Are you going to cut back a certain percentage in the amount of money the authority is going to be spending or the amount of money you are going to permit the authority to spend?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, in regard to the funding for the conservation authority, this is something that has not been established as yet. We have indicated to the authority that because their fiscal year is on a calendar year basis we hope to be in a position late this month, or early in January, 1976, to let them know, after the budget has been temporarily approved and we have some indication from the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) as to what our expenditures might be. We hope, of course, to meet this goal again, but as yet I can’t give you any firm commitment.

As soon as we have information from Treasury it will be communicated to the conservation authority so that they know what their administrative grants will be; and not too long after of course, what their capital grants will be. They can then plan their year accordingly.

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Minister, the problem now developing up there is that half of the communities on the Grand are embarking on flood protection projects, particularly dikes. Paris and Brantford are examples, as is the community of Cambridge. The authority itself is embarking on some major environmental assessment studies, as well as the West Montrose dam or the consideration of the construction of the dam. It seems to me that at this time we were sort of closing the barn door after the horses have been stolen. The authority is quite serious and quite concerned, because of the experience of the flood a couple of years ago, about doing something to ensure that we don’t have a recurrence of that kind of catastrophe. If you are going to either hold the line on the amount of money that you are going to allow them, or if you are going to cut back, they will not be in any kind of position to be able to construct or to embark on those projects.

I am trying to emphasize to the minister right now how important it is to the community there. As the member of the Liberal Party once pointed out, perhaps we couldn’t argue with you on sort of the moral aspect of this thing, but perhaps we can argue with the Tories on the economic point of view.

The fact is that if you have another flood, you’ll be asked by the municipalities to contribute a few million dollars in flood relief, and so on, as you had to in the flood of 1974. Surely it is a lot wiser to spend the money now in terms of flood control and flood prevention than to spend it afterwards in sort of trying to assuage the people in the area, and then two or three years later or five years later go through the same exercise. It seems to me it’s a rather futile and senseless situation.

As you say, at this time you cannot tell us what you are going to do, but hopefully you will bear in mind what has happened there and the concerns of the people in that community and the concerns that have been expressed by the member for Cambridge (Mr. Davidson). I am sure they could be expressed by the thousands of people living in the Grand River valley who are concerned about these things. Every spring when the snow starts to melt there is quite a concern in the community as to whether or not we are going to have a flood.

The other point which I wish to raise with you, Mr. Minister, is the bridge over the Elora Gorge. Of course, I’ve had some personal involvement in that, as well as some other members of the Grand River Conservation Authority. Is the minister, or his ministry, prepared at this time to take any kind of action in preventing the construction of the bridge over the gorge as is planned by Wellington county? Would you care to comment on that?

Mr. Chairman: While the minister is looking for his answer, I would like to remind the committee that I have got six people on my list, and if they each take 15 minutes and the minister has time to reply, you are not all going to get on by 10:30. Is it the wish of the committee that members restrict their time to 10 minutes? Agreed?

An hon. member: Ten minutes.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Brantford has used seven minutes and 52 seconds.

Mr. Makarchuk: I’ll restrict my time to 10 minutes, if the minister restricts his.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, I will, Mr. Chairman; I’ll do my utmost to get as much information and help as I can for the hon. members across the other side.

In connection with the comments regarding the additional funding for the Grand River area, substantial increases were given this year to several projects in recognition of the flooding problems. For example, $800,000 for the Guelph dam to speed up its completion. The Woolwich dam and reservoir was completed; it cost about $2 million. The Guelph dam and reservoir, at a cost of $15 million, will be ready for controlling the water flows this spring. So there have been additional funds, as you correctly point out.

In connection with the Elora Gorge, I think it’s something that I would not want to make any comment on at this particular time, because I think that the hon. member is aware that the Environmental Law Society has appealed that particular decision, and it is before the Supreme Court at the present time. So, under those circumstances I would not want to comment.

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Minister, as one of the individuals who brought the original injunction against the authorities, there is no appeal at this time. There is a period for an appeal to be filed, and there may be an appeal filed, but at this time there is no appeal. We’d certainly like to appeal. The judge pointed out that a lot of the decisions are in the hands of the ministry, and your ministry is in a position to make some decision on that and perhaps take it out of the courts and resolve it where the people are concerned. I want your opinion on that. It is not before the courts at this time.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It is an appeal.

Mr. Makarchuk: It is not.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The request for an appeal is before the courts now.

Mr. Makarchuk: No.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: So the appeal is there. So under those circumstances, I feel that it is not my position to comment.

Mr. Makarchuk: First, I don’t agree that it is before the courts; but the other point is that certainly there is still nothing restraining you from offering an opinion on that matter. I have one final item. I was approached by some people in Paris who are concerned about lands in the flood plain. There is a problem of infilling of flood plain lands. I phoned your ministry up and they said they were going to arrange a meeting with the Paris town council. This happened about three weeks ago and they said they were to have a meeting in about three or four days.

Could you tell me why you’re not meeting with these people -- not yourself, but the officials in your planning department? I phoned up the council and told them that I had been informed you were going to contact them and arrange a meeting. Why aren’t you going to have this meeting?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There’s no one at this table that’s aware of that request to meet with me. The deputy is not aware of it and the director of the conservation authorities branch is not aware of a request to meet with the Paris council. If you’ll put us in contact, I’m sure we’d be glad to oblige.

Mr. Makarchuk: The problem is the same as in Housing and Environment. Plans for subdivisions and so on get down to your ministry and they get lost. You don’t come back to the people who are concerned about them. You don’t notify them and say you are holding them for this reason or that reason. You don’t bother going back and trying to resolve it with the people in the community. That’s something you should he doing. You don’t get a piece of paper or a request from a community and let it lie because it’s rather difficult to deal with. You try and resolve it. I’ll get back to you on exactly who I talked to.

Mr. Gaunt: I want to make a few comments with respect to what the minister said in his opening statement. I’m quoting from his opening statement under the conservation authorities heading where he indicated that the provincial flood-plain mapping programme to pinpoint vulnerable areas is being accelerated with grants in excess of $1 million earmarked for the purpose. I want to suggest to the minister that as far as I’m concerned that $1 million isn’t being well spent. I’ll tell you why.

We’ve had some meetings with the minister and with the conservation people with respect to flood-plain mapping and the minister was quite enthusiastic about it when he spoke about it in his opening statement. I’m afraid I’m going to dampen that enthusiasm somewhat because I think we’ve got a problem here. Flood-plain mapping is a commendable objective but its application in my view is something of an abomination. That’s the only way I can describe it. The application of it at this particular point in time is nothing but an abomination. In my view, there has been something serious happening to the objectives of the programme which I thought were well-meaning and were laudable, but some place in the translation we’ve got a way off the track.

As I understood it, the benchmark of the programme insofar as the flood-plain mapping was concerned was the Hurricane Hazel flood. That was supposed to be the benchmark.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: As transposed.

Mr. Gaunt: As transposed.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: To an area where it didn’t happen but where the high water would have been if it happened there.

Mr. Gaunt: May I say to my friend across the way that in the transposing we’ve certainly lost a lot in the translation, and maybe that’s where the problem is. All I’m saying is that we’ve got a problem. We’re now talking about a situation where there’s a chance of a flood once every 50 years. In some cases, we’re talking about once every 100 years.

[9:30]

I know I have some support, because my friend the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) is nodding. I’m sure she’s had some experience with this too. It’s a very frustrating exercise. Here we’re talking about something that might happen once in 100 years. It’s very difficult to pinpoint that kind of thing. It may happen, it may not.

May I say to the minister that, as far as I’m concerned, it’s impossible to take all of the risk out of these things. I don’t know what we’d have to do. If we move in terms of flood-plain mapping, are we going to move in terms of wind control? Are we going to insist that every building that’s built in the province has to be strong enough to withstand one hurricane in 50 years, or perhaps a tornado every 50 years or 100 years? Surely not. I don’t think we can take all of the risk out of these things, because the costs involved are too great. If we were to do that with our buildings, then I think we would be talking about a horrendous cost.

As far as I’m concerned, and I’ve made this point before, I don’t think conservation authorities should be engaged in planning. That’s precisely what they’re doing now. They’re engaging themselves in planning, because I can tell hon. members that in Huron county, the Maitland Conservation Authority has done a flood-plain mapping study, and that particular flood-plain mapping plan is superimposing itself on the official plan of the county. In my view, the conservation authorities must have an input in this particular matter, there is no doubt about that, but the final resolution surely has to reside with the planners. It’s a planning function and there’s where it should be.

Let me cite a few examples of what is happening. I’m going to quote two letters here. One is from the Wroxeter group, with whom the minister and I met, along with a number of the officials in the ministry. I’m going to quote a portion of this letter, which was written on Oct. 7, 1975. It says:

On Thursday, Sept. 25, 1975, a meeting of interested residents of Howick township was held in the Howick Community Centre to review the revised Howick secondary plan proposed by council, which incorporated many of the recommendations and suggestions made at a series of public meetings held this spring.

To a great many people from Wroxeter, one of the most significant aspects of the amended plan was the proposed change to the flood-line mapping which, in its amended form, was by and large accepted by the Wroxeter people.

It should be pointed out at this time that the mapping was confirmed in its revised form by the exceptionally heavy rains experienced in the area this summer, resulting in no serious flooding. However, during the discussions it became apparent that the Maitland Valley Conservation Authority, as stated by one of its employees present, has no intention of considering the revised mapping and is determined to stay with the original criteria.

It is deeply regretted that the members of the Maitland Valley Conservation Authority executive committee chose not to attend the meetings and left their presentation to one of their staff.

They make some rather uncomplimentary remarks about the staff, and I don’t want to comment upon that. That’s the end of that quotation. Going on a little further, they say in the second last paragraph:

The flood-plain mapping, as originally set out by the authority for the village of Wroxeter, is a crime. The authority and its creator, the provincial government, has no right to create economic hardship for those who own land and wish to build or to those who own land and property and wish to sell.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member has two minutes in which to complete his remarks.

Mr. Gaunt: I think I can do it in two minutes, Mr. Chairman. I just want to give you another short example of a person who started a subdivision in the town of Southampton. He bought the land in 1969, 12 acres; he’s been trying to work his way through the red tape ever since and he still hasn’t got approval.

To top it all off, on Nov. 22, 1973, after working out a subdivision agreement with the town and having surveyors and engineers engaged in getting the plans ready for final approval, he received a letter from the ministry stating that he could not get approval until a study by the Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority was carried out on a flood plain. The developer was directly involved as a creek ran between his subdivision and the existing subdivision to the south.

I was not worried [he says] as my land was higher than the existing subdivision and was over 30 ft higher than the populated lands below me toward the lake, where there is approximately 200 cottages and a town campground.

In other words, he’s got 200 cottages down below him and they’re telling him he’s in the flood plain and they won’t give approval to his plans of subdivision -- nor have they to this day. He still hasn’t got approval because of that fact.

I suggest to you that in the application of this particular programme we’ve just gone from the sublime to the ridiculous and I think that the minister should re-examine this entire programme. As far as I’m concerned, the areas that continually flood, that have a history of flooding perhaps in the last 10 years, obviously should be in the flood plain. I would even accept the areas flooded during the Hurricane Hazel storm being placed in the flood plain. But this business of putting land in a flood plain on the off-chance that it might flood once every 50 years or once every 100 years is to me just ridiculous and assinine.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Gaunt: And I really hope, I sincerely hope, that the minister will review this programme because I think that it’s out of line and I’m sure given the minister’s common sense, he will review the programme. I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I’m through.

Mr. B. Newman: No, you’re not, you are good for a few more years.

Mr. Chairman: Can we get a brief reply?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I’ll respond to the hon. member for Huron-Bruce; I certainly appreciate his remarks in this particular field. I know his sincerity because he has met with me on a number of occasions, not only by himself but with delegations from his own area, to bring home the words he has reiterated tonight.

I have some personal observations and personal feelings of which I think he is aware, but I just want to make him aware of the Conservation Authorities Act, revised in 1970; the record will show that under section 27 it states: “Subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, an authority may make regulations applicable in the area under its jurisdiction” and subsection (e) points out “prohibiting or regulating or requiring the permission of the authority for the construction of any building or structure in or on a pond or a swamp or in any area susceptible to flooding during a regional storm and defining regional storms for purposes of such regulations.” I think that’s the nub of the whole problem.

I appreciate the member’s concern and I am much aware of the feeling of other members in this Legislature as it relates to the conservation authority becoming involved with planning. They’re accused of holding up certain developments but they should be mainly involved of course in setting standards, regulations and policy. I have to agree with you that I don’t think they are part of the planning process but they do become involved because of the policies and the standards they set relative to the flood-plain lands.

Mr. Gaunt: They have an input into it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In fact, I will have to agree with you that society has to take a certain amount of risk. I don’t think we can get ourselves clean and 100 per cent pure. There is going to be a certain amount of risk, as the hon. member points out. It may well be that the 100-year flood is just going a little overboard for this type of protection. We have set up flood-plain mapping in the specific areas to come forward with perhaps some new revised criteria. The criteria we are using may be a little too rugged, a little too tough --

Mr. Gaunt: I think it is.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: When I look around and see the demand for housing, the demand for development and the demand for a backyard fronting on to a flood-plain area, I have to agree with the member’s remarks. I do appreciate his commenting on this particular area; it’s an area, as I said earlier this evening, I have a great deal of concern for.

I am meeting with the chairmen of the conservation authorities next week, and we will be going over all these points. I think they are a dedicated group; I don’t think we take that away from them. They are very conservation-minded, and the further responsibility of controlling flood-plain areas is indeed an onerous responsibility and one that they take very seriously.

I can assure the member that his feelings and his comments will not go unnoticed. We will make sure that they are gone over very carefully. In fact, I will review them myself; and I know the staff will, because what the member has expressed is the feeling that a number of members have expressed, and I do want to thank him for it.

Mr. Bain: This evening I would like to discuss with the minister a problem that is very serious for the people of Kirkland Lake and area; that is, the closure of the Kokotow Lumber mill. This took place, as the minister is well aware, towards the end of October; and one of the first creditors to act, indeed one of the creditors that many people feel precipitated the present difficulties, was the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Right now, two major problems have existed for almost a month and continue to exist; that is, whether the workers will be paid for the wages that are owed them, and what steps the government will take to alleviate the situation in general and to ensure that the jobs will not be permanently lost from the community.

Presently, we are told that there are the secured creditors, which include the Bank of Nova Scotia and Industrial Acceptance Corp., and the preferred creditors, amongst whom are the workers. Perhaps it is a comment on the legislation in existence that the secured creditors are the banks, which have first call on the money, and the preferred creditors, amongst those being the workers, have last call on the money. By the time the secured creditors get theirs, there will be precious little left for the preferred creditors, the workers.

The provincial government, through the Ministry of Natural Resources, allowed the company to owe the government $750,000 in stumpage fees. I understand it was a condition of operation that the company have enough lumber in its yard at all times to cover that $750,000; and in the event that the company experienced financial difficulties, it was the plan of the Ministry of Natural Resources to seize that lumber to make sure that they got what was owed them.

This severe problem was dealt with by the cabinet as early as Wednesday, Oct. 29. On Nov. 7, I petitioned the Premier (Mr. Davis) for action; it is now more than a month later, and nothing has been done. As Christmas approaches, the workers quite justifiably would like to know when they are going to be paid. I noticed that the government, through the Crown Timber Act, has made sure that it will get what it is owed. I would wonder if the government now will be as diligent to ensure that the workers get the money that is owed them.

[9:45]

Will the minister use the prestige of his own office and that of the Premier to ensure that the workers will be paid, and that the small businessmen in the community who have been damaged will be paid as well? And that he and the Premier, over the long run, will lend their good offices to try to resolve the problem of jobs in the future that will be lost if the lumber company is permanently closed?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, if I may comment briefly on the member’s remarks. I appreciate his concern for that particular industry; it saw 400 or 500 men abruptly laid off. I think he knows the background of the operation. It was a very successful operation until a fire occurred and wiped it out. Then, of course, it was rebuilt. But they had labour problems when the economics of the saw mill industry were at an all-time high, and the return to work happened when the lumber market was on a downhill turn. And then it seemed that they had one financial problem after another.

I would point out to the hon. member, and I want to make it very clear, that it was not the Ministry of Natural Resources that pulled the so-called plug to Kokotow Lumber -- it wasn’t. Cheques were bouncing prior to Oct. 29, and on Thursday, Oct. 29 they closed down their plant. On Friday morning our people were there to protect the rights of the Crown to the tune of $600,000 or $700,000. We seized the inventory and the 60-odd carloads of chips that were in that particular siding, because we have an obligation to protect the Crown. This is our obligation and we must do it, so we did it.

But if you’re asking us to release or to sell that inventory, legally we can only sell up to a certain figure, or to what is owing to us. If the figure was $650,000, that’s all we could legally sell. After we’ve sold that particular amount and redeemed what was owing to the Crown, then we would take the seizure notice and the seizure tags off the remaining inventory. Then, of course, the receiver would take over and he would handle it the way he would in any other situation.

I would point out to the hon. member that there’s an advertisement -- I don’t know if he’s aware of it -- in a recent newspaper, put in by Clarkson Gordon, the receivers, asking for tenders until Jan. 12 for the operation and various aspects of it.

I regret that I just have no legal right nor jurisdiction to guarantee that the wages owing will be paid. I’m very sympathetic, really, because I know the hardship it’s causing to those workers in the Kirkland Lake area. They expect a paycheque and face problems at this time of year. I’m very cognizant of that and very sympathetic, but I don’t have any authority or any legal jurisdiction to move into that particular area. Possibly the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) does, under the Employment Standards Act -- I’m not sure. It may be something that the member would want to follow up with her.

We’ve gone every route as laid down by the Crown Timber Act to protect for the Crown what is legally its own. We regret the situation the way it is; nobody in these times enjoys moving in and doing these types of things. We bent over backwards to find ways to keep that particular operation going, but it just got to a point where we just couldn’t go any further.

You know the story with the other financial institutions -- they were just hovering in the wings waiting. So, in my own opinion, the steps taken by us were the correct ones in response to the responsibilities that we have.

Mr. Bain: I would just like to comment that the Ministry of Labour certainly has already been contacted, and what I mentioned about the setup of secure creditors having first call on the money and then preferred creditors comes directly from the Minister of Labour. So, unfortunately, there will be no assistance from the Minister of Labour to help the workers at Kokotow.

I don’t say that the government acted illegally or anything like that in the seizure of the timber and the sawn lumber. It was perfectly within your jurisdiction. However, I would suggest that by oversight you are at fault, you and the ministry, because there is a Woodmen’s Lien for Wages Act which covers the workers in the bush but you have no corresponding Act that would cover the workers in the saw mill. By literally leaving the workers in the saw mill helpless, you have left them the prey of the Bank of Nova Scotia and Industrial Acceptance.

You have a moral obligation if there is any excess money after you have sold the lumber that you have seized, if in fact you have seized more than three-quarters of a million dollars in tree lengths and chips. I would strongly suggest that you have a moral obligation to take that extra money and give it to the workers.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: As I pointed out, I’m as sympathetic as you are about those outstanding wages owing to those employees. If there were some way we’d take it, but we don’t have the legal right. If we sell the inventory and have excess funds, as you correctly pointed out we could under the -- is it the loggers’ lien Act?

Mr. Bain: The Woodmen’s Lien for Wages Act.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The Woodmen’s Lien for Wages Act. Yes, they come after the Crown, and that would be the next step. But I have no legal right and no jurisdiction to sell and to pass on to those workers in essence what is theirs and what has covered them for their toil on behalf of that particular company, as much as I would like to.

Mr. Bain: So, in fact, you are saying that the workers in the saw mill probably will never get paid the back wages that are owed them.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, not at all. I am very confident that this can be a viable operation. I’m firmly convinced of that. They have the resource; I’m sure if the markets are there at a level that can support that industry, it can be viable with good management. Let’s be honest. The management in that particular company was one of the major problems.

Mr. Bain: So you will be making every effort to see that the new purchaser of the company, in fact, pays the back wages?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We will be in there and making sure that they are aware of those outstanding wages. I can assure you of that.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I would like to speak also on the Grand River only at the lower end. I think the Grand River has got much attention at this particular time and I would like to bring the minister up to date on the back history of the lower Grand. There are two dams -- one at Dunnville and one at Caledonia. I think they were built something like some 100 years ago and I believe the river was used as a navigable stream from Lake Erie up to Brantford.

Since the industrial park has come out into the Haldimand-Norfolk region, they have made a Highway 6 study and there has been a request, I believe, by the Grand River Conservation Authority to perhaps rebuild the dam at Caledonia which, as I pointed out, is something like 100 years old. There seems to be considerable discussion on who is the rightful owner and who has the responsibility of maintaining the dam at the present time at Caledonia. Up to this point in time I don’t think it has been determined who is responsible.

It could last for another 20 years; it could go in the near future. I don’t think a study has been made on it in recent times. I’d like to point out too that at the dam at Caledonia there have been fatalities, at least one a year over the past -- well, as a matter of fact, the chairman of the Grand River Conservation Authority said the past 100 years. I don’t know if that is true or not, but I know in the past year there have been two fatalities and there have been fatalities at the dam with regularity.

I was wondering, therefore, if they may consider replacing this dam along with the construction of a new bridge which will bypass Caledonia on the Highway 6 corridor. Is this going to be given consideration and priority? I would like to point out too that if the dam should happen to go, the recreational activities on the river would deteriorate considerably. There has been money spent on a couple of parks in the area, and I think they are being developed from year to year. I think perhaps there is a priority there, and I wonder if consideration is being given to upgrading this dam.

I think there is a tremendous potential on the lower Grand River for recreational purposes, not only for the people in our area, but for people in the surrounding area. Southern Ontario and particularly the Niagara Peninsula could get a great deal of benefit from that river if it was developed.

As I stated before, I think there is 50 miles of river from mouth to Brantford, and that would provide access to a lot of good recreational facilities.

I have three other questions I would like to ask, but maybe I should let the minister answer this one first.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, we are aware of the situation and the dam conditions to which the hon. member refers. I have been informed that this dam was carefully reviewed after the 1974 flood. The reports we have -- and we are continuing periodic surveys of that particular site -- state that it is reasonably safe. I think that is something that we will be watching, of course, and we are very cognizant of it. I just want to assure you that the information we have is that there is no immediate danger in that particular area.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Then one further question: Who is responsible for protection -- as far as the fatalities are concerned? Who has control of the dam, to keep the people off, or warn the people at the dam site?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That is a private dam, as the hon. member knows. As to who would be responsible in the event of a fatality, I suppose it would be something that the courts would have to adjudicate. But at the present time I just cannot answer that specific answer. It has to be a legal question, I would think.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Minister, do you not feel that it would be better for the Grand River Conservation Authority to determine ownership, so that it could be clarified and somebody could take the responsibility?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think if the conservation authority saw fit to take it over, then obviously they would be and could be held responsible. It’s in their flood plain, but I don’t know how you could attach any blame to them when they are not totally responsible. Maybe it is something you would want to discuss with the conservation authority -- about taking it over.

Mr. G. I. Miller: At the mouth of the Grand River there was considerable storm damage, as I think you are aware. The permanent residents there feel that they should get much more protection. They have made several requests for a retaining wall, apparently at the mouth. Would that be your responsibility? Could your ministry give any assistance to supporting their wishes?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That would be shared responsibility with the conservation authority. They would have to submit to us their request and their plans; they would be approved within the ministry.

Mr. G. I. Miller: That is not a federal responsibility, being along Lake Erie?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, I am told that it is not. It’s shared between the conservation authority and the ministry.

Mr. G. I. Miller: There is another problem at the Selkirk Provincial Park. Sandusk Creek enters Lake Erie at a point in front of the park. Again, as a result of the storm, the mouth was built up with sand. I think there is a marina using the creek bed. Would there be any assistance from the ministry for cleanup purposes in this particular creek?

[10:00]

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am not aware of that specific incident, but I am going to ask my staff to review it; possibly they could correspond with the member as to whose responsibility it is and whether funding would be in order.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Thank you. I have one further question. The Lake Erie commercial fishermen have requested support for a restocking programme. Has any thought been given to assistance for a restocking programme for Lake Erie and perhaps the Great Lakes generally to assist the commercial fishermen?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I have a short note here which indicates that currently perfected cultural techniques, which will only produce fry, have been proven ineffective in maintaining established fish populations in Lake Erie. More advanced methods, which would produce fingerlings or larger fish, are experimental, both technically and economically. Regrettably, there are neither funds nor facilities available for this experimental work at this particular time.

In the absence of viable alternatives, harvest levels will be controlled to ensure that the survival of adequate spawning stock is maintained. Prolific species such as perch and pickerel can recover naturally under appropriate exploitation practices and the federal-provincial strategic planning group for Ontario fisheries has identified as a major issue the need to rehabilitate the Great Lakes fishery stock. The role of fish culture will be assessed in its recommendations.

I would say to the hon. member that the fisheries programme for the Great Lakes is a very interesting one, one where we are co-operating very closely with the federal government in order to deal with the issue and the situation as it relates to the fish population in all our Great Lakes.

It is an ongoing study, an ongoing work with the federal government, and of course it involves the International Great Lakes Fisheries Council, which takes in the American side too.

Mr. G. I. Miller: So, in other words --

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member’s time has expired. The member for Cochrane South, please.

Mr. Ferrier: I would like to ask the minister three or four questions concerning the Algonquin Park master plan. As I understand it, in that master plan there were at least five considerations recommended to be implemented in 1975. The first one had something to do with non-burnable, disposable containers. I remember discussing that on the Algonquin Park advisory committee when the late Leslie Frost was the chairman. We had agreed on that matter and it was in the plan but, as I understand it, the Ministry of the Environment killed it because if they were going to apply it to Algonquin Park, they would have to apply it to the rest of the province. Is that true and are you going to implement that in 1976?

Apparently, the master plan also said that there was to be a restriction of motor boats to Lake Opeongo on 26 cottage lots; apparently that isn’t being done.

There was to be a prohibition of mechanically assisted overland transportation of watercraft. That’s another thing that was supposed to be in 1975, and the Algonquin Wildman League says that that is not being done. Those vehicles encourage litter in the parks. They make serious ruts in the portages and they do damage to the park.

The fourth thing that was called for in the plan but not implemented in 1975 was the imposition of quotas on the number of watercraft to leave each access point on peak days. Apparently we are not enforcing that. And on some of these peak days there’s a good many more watercraft leaving the access point than should be leaving. You’re not policing it.

The fifth item: The master plan said that there was to be a limitation on the size of the camping parties to nine people at any one campsite. There’s no enforcement of that. I wonder if the minister would comment as to why these things in the Algonquin Park master plan that were recommended to be implemented in 1975 have not been implemented. Can we look forward to action from the ministry in 1976?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, let me thank the member for Cochrane South for bringing this issue up because the leader of the third party, and I think the leader of his own party, were in eastern Ontario making comments about some of the recommendations of the Algonquin Park advisory committee recommendations, recommendations that will be eventually enforced by this government. They are accepted. They will be part of the Algonquin Park policy. That is a stated policy statement.

I was interested in the opposition’s remarks with regard to the complete removal or the banning of outboard motors. I think they both support it. I don’t know if you’re up to date on that particular statement, sir.

Mr. Ferrier: I didn’t quite hear it, but --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think your party supports that small boats be allowed in those specific lakes as does the Liberal Party. We, of course, have indicated that we would bring this ban about after a period of education. This year, 1975, we went through an exhaustive educational process telling the public at large and the people moving in that this ban would be imposed. After this year we felt that a further year was required.

Even with the application of the critical part of the advisory committee’s recommendations, the members on that committee have approached me and said: “Phase it in but phase it in over a longer period of time. Don’t cut it off bang, because these people have to adjust.” We think that with another year of education, as it relates to the mechanically assisted operations on the portages and the smaller outboard motors, that it will give us a better relationship and more co-operation with the public at large.

In connection with the policy that only nine campers be permitted at one campsite, we haven’t as yet passed the regulation on that aspect. There is some strong feeling among the various camping groups that that should be increased to 12. This is an area we’re looking at very carefully before we pass that regulation.

I do want to assure the member that on the matter of the Algonquin Park advisory committee, I think we accepted something like 28 of the 32 recommendations. We accepted parts of two and two were rejected; our batting average is extremely good. They will be implemented, given a due course of time to educate the public. When you get 750,000 people visiting Algonquin Park in one particular season, you just don’t change those people in one season. I would hope that you would understand that and bear with us. But our goal is there. It’s established and it has been stated as policy.

Mr. Ferrier: If I could just pursue this. What about the imposition of quotas on the number of watercraft to leave each access point on peak days? Does it take some extra time to implement that?

And what about those non-burnable whatever they are? Was it the Ministry of the Environment that killed that?

I understand these are the proposals that you accepted and you agreed to implement in 1975 if possible. So we’re not saying something that you hadn’t already accepted.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I’m very much aware of that. But Algonquin Park is something that’s very dear and close to me as is Quetico Park. Certainly nobody wants to see it preserved any more than I do. Our stated goals are there. In all fairness to the general public, as it relates to returnable containers, we will again conduct a very extensive educational programme this year for final implementation in 1976.

That is the thrust of where we’re going as to the number of boats at that particular landing site. We’re going through an educational process and much of this will fall into place in the year 1977.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Carried.

Mr. Nixon: Oh, look who is back.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for Grey please.

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Chairman, there are two areas that I would like to get the minister’s comments on. One is our opposition to the Pits and Quarries Control Act and the other is --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Shame.

Mr. Ferrier: Where did you do your research, Darcy?

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. McKessock: The other is the further development of sports fishery in the Georgian Bay area. First, we greatly oppose the pits and quarries Act in the riding of Grey. The large majority of our roads are gravel and unless the government would like to supply the money to pave them all, we really need this gravel.

We agree with rehabilitation of these pits when they are depleted, but not every time that we take a load of gravel out of them. The new laws are putting the small operators out of business and playing right into the hands of large operators. We don’t think we need any regulations at all except for the rehabilitation of the pits.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Be careful how far you go on that statement.

Mr. McKessock: Gravel in our area is not taken out of good agricultural land. In fact, it is kind of hard to find in our area and in no way does it hinder the beauty of the countryside. We would like to have these laws slackened a great deal so that the small operator can still get in to draw gravel to the local farmer without having to take a permit out every time that we open or go into these pits.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Not in the Escarpment, I hope.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I’m just a little bit shocked with what the hon. member has set out and that he would not agree in principle with the thrust and the goals of the Pits and Quarries Control Act. To say to me that those small gravel pits will not desecrate the beauty of your countryside sir, I just can’t accept. As one who comes from northern Ontario where 90 per cent of the area is Crown owned, even I take exception to a gravel pit that is left unrehabilitated. I’m sure, with all due respect, if you check with your people back home, you would find that rehabilitation alone is enough to warrant anyone wanting the controls and the regulations of the Pits and Quarries Control Act.

I’m very much aware of the concern that you have for your small operators. I’m very much aware of the restrictions and the filing of a site plan and the costs that they have to go through and the regulations that they have to live up to. But I wish you had been around here three or four years ago when the pits and quarries problem was at its height.

Mr. McKessock: My people wish I had been here, too.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Not for that purpose. Just to inform yourself of the magnitude of the problem. The member who preceded you was very concerned and very much in the pits and quarries of that particular area. But I say to you that there are 14,000 abandoned gravel pits in southern Ontario alone that are desecrating this countryside. We had to do something. I said at the time we introduced Bill 120, the Pits and Quarries Control Act, that it was a new piece of legislation. We looked all across the North American continent just to find something we could copy. There was nothing.

Mr. Nixon: You broke new ground.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We’re the leaders. They’re coming to us now and looking at our legislation and we have established under the Mining Act an aggregates committee to look at the Act. In fact, just next week, that particular committee will be doing an extensive review of southern Ontario to picture in their minds the problems of how the Act is worded and the rehabilitation that’s been carried out. We will be making some changes and bringing in some amendments to the Pits and Quarries Control Act. If you have some suggestions as to what we should be doing or how we should amend the Act, I would welcome hearing from you.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Carried.

Mr. Ruston: The Chicago gang is back -- it’s like old times.

Mr. McKessock: I agree with the rehabilitation of the pits but not until the pit was depleted.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Carried.

[10:15]

Mr. McKessock: Another thing, we don’t feel that you have to set the same standards for all of Ontario. We’re quite happy with our pits. We don’t feel that they are an eyesore in our area, because of the contour of the land, the tree coverage and other things.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Carried.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. McKessock: Anyway, I’ll move on to different areas where it does show up differently in your countryside.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Will the hon. members please extend to the member and the minister the courtesy of a quiet time so that we can hear what is being discussed?

Mr. McKessock: I will move on to the establishment of a greater sports fishery in the Meaford area.

In the northern part of the Grey riding in the Georgian Bay area the sports fishery advisory board has been working for many years to promote sports fishing in the area. They feel that a development programme should be established and the government should send a biologist into this area to find out what type of fish would be best suited for these waters and how many it would hold. Maybe the Atlantic salmon would be able to be put into these waters.

In the State of Michigan, I believe they have cancelled the commercial fishing licence because they have more sports fishing than commercial, and we feel in this area that the same situation applies here. What the advisory board would like the government to do is research the waters in the Georgian Bay area and see that a biologist was put in the area to do more stocking of fish both in the bay and in the inland waters. They could also re-establish the fishing licence and this money could be used toward establishing greater sports fisheries.

It was also suggested that maybe we could buy out the commercial fishermen, or give them a grant to change their commercial fishing boats to sports fishing boats. Turning again to Michigan, the sports fishery boats there charge $34 an hour per person, so this can be a profitable business for these people if they would change to sports fishing.

I would also like to see loans and grants provided to private hatcheries to provide fish for these Georgian Bay waters, and also a closed season on fish when they come in to spawn.

Apparently Ken Loftus, head of the sports fisheries branch, 15 years ago told the people from the Meaford area that they would be having lake trout stocked in the Georgian Bay area in seven years. Seven years has come and another seven years has gone and we have still no fish. I would like to know what your comments are on providing some of these services.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Carried.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hon. member’s concern and his suggestion with regard to sport fisheries. As he mentioned, the Lake Huron fish assessment unit has been operating in that particular area for a number of years, but I will personally make sure that your comments will be passed on to them for further consideration.

You mentioned about lake trout being stocked in Georgian Bay. This has been going on for some considerable time.

Mr. McKessock: What kind of trout?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Lake trout, splake, kokanee and rainbow trout, so there is some planting going on at the present time.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Carried.

Ms. Sandeman: I would just like to revert, Mr. Minister, if I may very briefly --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No reversions.

Ms. Sandeman: -- to a question you were discussing with my colleague from Algoma, the question of fishing and hunting rights of the native peoples. If I understood your attitude correctly, I think you were saying that, in effect, the treaty Indians may fish for their own consumption but that charges will be laid outside fishing seasons if they are fishing for commercial purposes.

I hope the minister will make sure that message reaches his wildlife wardens in the field. Within the last year we have had recent experiences with the Mud Lake Band or the Curve Lake band in the Kawarthas, who have been fishing for their own consumption. They have been charged by game wardens, brought to the provincial criminal court, and finally, staged what they described as a fish-in to try to bring to the minister’s attention the fact that they were continuously being charged under the Game and Fish Act for fishing in areas where they believed they had treaty rights to do so.

The problem is compounded at the moment, Mr. Minister, by the fact that even if the ministry officials would allow them to fish in waters which traditionally are open to them, they would have a great deal of trouble in doing so, because the water in that area is now choked with Eurasian milk oil.

Mr. Ferris: The wrong substance.

Ms. Sandeman: I would like the minister very briefly to tell me what steps his ministry is taking, either alone or with other provincial ministries, to make sure that the traditional fishing for the Indian bands can continue in areas where the milk oil is taking over, and also of course, the very important recreational fisheries.

I am aware this is a problem that can’t be solved by your ministry alone, but I believe you should be taking some initiatives in this area with the minister responsible for recreation, also with the federal ministers and with the federal-provincial group, such as CORTS, the Canada-Ontario Rideau-Trent-Severn authority. I think the people in the area of the Kawarthas, and in other areas of the province, are becoming more and more desperate about the weed situation in their lakes, and would like to have more statements than they are currently getting from the ministry about the direction in which you may be going.

We understand that at the moment there is no quick, easy, overnight way of removing the milk oil. But I would like to hear where you are going next in this problem. I would like some assurance from you, too, that the natives at Curve Lake and other groups may continue to fish in their traditional treaty areas, without finding wardens breathing down their necks every other day.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the hon. member for Peterborough, in connection with the treaty rights, I think I mentioned in my remarks those various treaties are different and are looked at very carefully. It’s not easy for the conservation officer in the field when he apprehends an Indian or a native person who has large catches of fish as we did in Chatham area where the Indian had a half-ton truck -- you consider that more than his normal consumption. This is where the problem comes in. But if it is for normal consumption, that consideration is always given. This has been communicated to the various bands.

In connection with the milk oil, I would have to say my ministry doesn’t become involved and has not. But the Ministry of the Environment, the minister just informs me, has continuing programmes, one of harvesting and one of chemical treatment, in that particular area. This will be an ongoing experiment, I guess you might call it. In fact, just recently I think you met with the committee. They displayed an interest and a concern, and hopefully we will be able to get the federal government involved in their particular waterways over which they have control. I know the interest and the concern expressed by the CORTS committee that particular night assures me we are on the right track.

So that with the three forwarded moves, with the harvesting and chemical treatment and with CORTS, we can come to grips with a very complex situation. There is no easy solution to it, we know that; it is a complex problem and one we are very cognizant of.

Mr. Chairman: Shall vote 2201 carry?

Votes 2201 to 2204, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Lewis: Shall the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) be carried?

Mr. Chairman: This completes the estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Hon. Mr. Irvine moved that the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of supply begs to report a certain resolution and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, because of the lateness of the hour, I move that we adjourn. Tomorrow the House will deal with the Throne Speech debate and I think, Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate to adjourn at this particular time.

Hon. Mr. Irvine moved the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:25 p.m.