Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. G. I. Miller: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out that the apples on the members’ desks today are compliments of the Norfolk apple growers. As a matter of fact they were provided by Tom Haskett of Vittoria on behalf of the apple growers in Norfolk county.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FISH STOCKING PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, there has been some concern expressed recently by outdoor writers and sports fishermen groups about our fish stocking program in Lake Ontario and particularly about that part of the program which involves coho salmon. I would like to bring the members up to date on the coho stocking situation. First of all, I would like to talk about the stocking we have been doing in Lake Ontario over the past few years.

In 1976 we planted 194,000 yearling lake trout; 108,000 yearling rainbow trout; and 165,000 yearling coho salmon. In 1977 we planted 287,000 yearling lake trout; 109,000 yearling rainbow trout; and 312,000 yearling coho salmon. In 1978 we planted 200,000 yearling lake trout; 120,000 yearling rainbow trout; 201,000 yearling coho salmon; and 392,000 fingerling chinook salmon. In 1979 we planted 201,000 yearling lake trout; 110,000 yearling rainbow trout; 151,000 yearling coho salmon; and 147,000 fingerling chinook salmon.

This level of effort in Lake Ontario compares very well with what we are also doing in Lake Huron, where we stocked 600,000 yearling splake last year, and in Lake Superior, where we stocked 500,000 lake trout yearlings. We hope to continue this program and to improve it as our capability expands.

In Lake Ontario our program tries to do two things: work towards the re-establishment of strong, naturally-reproducing populations with species such as lake trout and rainbow trout; and to provide some needed immediate fishing opportunities with the put-and-delayed-take stocking, using coho and chinook salmon, as well as the lake trout and rainbow trout. We are hoping to be able to add brown trout to the species and numbers in two or three years.

This year we have encountered a disease problem in the coho stocks which are scheduled for planting next spring. Some of them are infected with a viral disease called IPN, which means infectious pancreatic necrosis. We have had to keep them out of our regular fish-culture facilities in order to protect the healthy stocks of brook trout, lake trout, splake and rainbow in those facilities, so we have kept them in a separate, temporary facility near Uxbridge.

Although we did have considerable mortality, strangely enough, the coho themselves seem to handle the disease fairly well. However, when the virus is transmitted to other species such as brook, lake and rainbow trout, as has happened at a fish-culture station, it becomes much more serious. Naturally, we have been concerned about what might happen in other fish species in the wild if we plant coho that carry IPN. The discussion among our ministry biologists and fish health specialists has been: Should we plant or not plant the coho this year?

The put-and-take fishery we have created in this end of Lake Ontario has been popular and certainly it has partly filled a need. It has also given rise to a nice, modest new industry, the charter boat industry. We intend to continue the put-and-take plantings, at least until natural self-sustaining populations are re-established and that will take many years.

I hope the honourable members can understand my concern that by planting this particular coho--a small part of the put-and-take plantings, by the way--we may do damage to other native species and/or to the other fish we are planting. We just don’t yet know all the answers to that question. Would the planting provide the fishing opportunities needed, or would it actually reduce them?

If we were the only agency planting coho salmon in Lake Ontario I would have no problem deciding to destroy the infected stock, to control the disease and protect our native fish and other species involved in our planting programs, but that’s not the way it is. Some of the state agencies on the US side are planting coho which carry the same virus and the fish they plant don’t know about international boundaries. Even if we decide not to plant we may have the problem in our waters anyway.

Seriously--and I think this is a serious matter--there is an international agreement under the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission which commits all agencies to work towards eradicating fish diseases such as IPN. Some agencies are working harder than others to implement this agreement.

As an item of urgency and serious concern I will be pressing our federal government and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to convene a meeting of senior fisheries people from all member governments to address this international problem.

A few final points; first the IPN virus is not known to be a problem of human health concern. It apparently only affects fish. Second, I wish to further explore the science, the law, and other agencies’ intent before deciding whether or not to plant the coho stock next spring.

Finally, we intend to continue and expand the plantings of fish in this end of Lake Ontario to support the fishery which has been established.

COMPLAINTS AGAINST POLICE

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, today I will be introducing a new bill to be called the Metropolitan Police Force Complaints Project Act, 1979. The bill establishes a pilot project for Metropolitan Toronto which is designed to improve the processing of complaints by the public regarding the conduct of police officers. The project will be of three years’ duration.

I emphasize that it concerns Metropolitan Toronto only. It will be evaluated to determine if changes should be made and whether similar procedures can be used for other areas of the province which may wish to implement them.

The legislation was prepared only after extensive consultation with the Metro police commission, the Metro police association, the police chief and other interested members of the community. Indeed, after a meeting earlier this year with the Metro mayors, I was impressed with their desire for a review system which contains a greater civilian component and is equally fair to citizens and police alike. We think this bill clearly accomplishes that objective.

The bill provides for the establishment of a new independent procedure to deal with public complaints of police officers’ conduct.

A new public complaints commissioner would be appointed by the government and his office would be totally separate and distinct from the Metro Toronto police force. He will have broad general powers and adequate resources to enable him to perform his function in a completely independent manner.

The complaint of the citizen will be dealt with initially by the public complaints investigation bureau of the Metropolitan Toronto police force. Procedures are established for the making of complaints and the reporting, investigation, resolution and disposition of complaints by the Metro force. This process is monitored throughout by the public complaints commissioner.

If a citizen is not happy with the manner in which his complaint has been dealt with, he may request that the public complaints commissioner review the matter. It shall be an offence for any person to obstruct the commissioner or a person appointed by him, to make an investigation or withhold, conceal or destroy any books, papers, documents or other things related to the investigation.

After reviewing the citizen’s request, the commissioner may order a hearing which will take place in public before a new independent police complaints board which will be established for this purpose. He can order that a hearing take place before a three-person panel.

The board will be made up of 15 citizens appointed by the cabinet. Five will be legally trained, five will be appointed on the joint recommendation of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association and the chief of police and five on the recommendation of Metropolitan council.

If the hearing takes place before a single board member, it will be one of the legally trained members who conducts it. If it is a panel, one from each of the three groups will be selected and the legally trained member will be chairman. Both the police officer and the complainant would have a right to counsel as the public hearing is conducted.

Mr. Speaker, the new board will have disciplinary power and may impose a penalty within the range of penalties currently prescribed in the Police Act. The board’s decision will be provided to the citizen, the police officer and the public complaints commissioner.

I wish to emphasize again that the bill which is being proposed establishes a pilot project only, and the consultation process will continue. I know this is a matter of some urgency to Metropolitan Toronto officials and it is my hope that the bill will draw the support of the members and receive a speedy passage into law.

I want to repeat at this time that I have nothing but the greatest respect for, and confidence in, the Metropolitan Toronto Police Department, which force is undoubtedly one of the finest in the world. This legislation is being introduced at the request of their own governing body. We believe this new law will help to maintain the high level of confidence the public holds in its police force.

[2:15]

OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY AND TRESPASS REFORMS

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I will be introducing for first reading today two bills, the Occupiers’ Liability Act and the Trespass to Property Act. These bills are designed to reform two different but related areas of law--the law governing an occupier’s liability to those who come on to his land and the law protecting an occupier from trespass to his land.

In May of this year I tabled a discussion paper on these topics in the Legislature. Following its tabling, it was distributed throughout the province for public comment. Hundreds of letters have been received and 75 per cent of those responding indicated general support for the proposals contained in the discussion paper. The letters and other submissions have been carefully analysed and the bills I am introducing have been improved as a result of this public participation.

To serve adequately the needs of Ontario residents, the law must take into account the diversity and complexity of this province. The law must meet the needs of residents of wilderness regions, agricultural communities, areas relying on the tourist industry and urban centres. These bills are an attempt to meet the needs of all Ontario residents.

CANTRAKON CONFERENCE CENTRE

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to bring the House up to date on a subject which prompted much discussion several months ago in this very House: namely, the construction of a multimillion dollar conference centre by a company called Cantrakon.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Harry, I win. I figured I couldn’t get through that far.

At my request, Cantrakon has spent literally the past year trying to find a site less contentious than the site they had originally chosen in the town of Caledon, yet possessing all of the same general criteria, such as proximity to the Toronto Airport, an attractive natural environment and so on.

Mr. S. Smith: At your request? I thought we were going to have an election on that.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The Leader of the Opposition has no opportunity of ever suggesting to any of these firms what they should do. He can yak a lot but that’s about the end of his ability to do anything around here.

This morning at a meeting with the chairman of the regional municipality of Halton, Mr. Jack Raftis, the mayor of council of the city of Oakville and members of his council, Cantrakon announced that after much study and negotiation, including seriously considering staying out of Ontario altogether--

Mr. Nixon: That was a close one.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Very close, let me tell the former Leader of the Opposition--they have chosen a site in Oakville adjacent to, and part of, the property known as the Glen Abbey Golf Course, owned by Genstar Limited.

Needless to say, I am personally delighted with the decision of the company to remain here in Ontario, as I am sure are all of my colleagues in the House. The facility will cost in the neighbourhood of $15 million to construct and upon completion will employ over 150 staff members on a full-time basis.

Mr. Roy: It’s called retreat. It’s not walking backwards; it’s called retreat.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: If the member for Ottawa East would be quiet for a minute, rather than yakking constantly, he might hear something. When he appears in the Ottawa press one certainly wouldn’t think he had ever heard a thing around here.

Like the proposal for Caledon and Cantrakon’s current operation in Quebec, the architectural design for this project is such that the complex will blend into its surroundings. It is located about 20 minutes from the airport and so meets that essential requirement.

I am sure the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. Johnson) will be disappointed that his area will miss the income and job opportunities, but I am equally sure the riding of Oakville, represented by the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow), will welcome that employment.

HANDICAPPED PERSONS’ RIGHTS

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, on November 22, 1979, I introduced a bill entitled An Act to provide for Rights of Handicapped Persons, to protect handicapped persons from discrimination in relation to a broad range of matters, including employment, the provision of services, goods and facilities, accommodation and other matters.

As I said when the bill was introduced, the protection of the handicapped is and was an important priority for this government. In deciding upon separate legislation it was my hope that the rights of the handicapped could be protected without unnecessary delay and, more specifically, without awaiting broad revisions to the Ontario Human Rights Code which are still under review. I must frankly confess my disappointment in the negative reaction by a number of groups representing the handicapped persons and by both opposition parties.

The essence of the objections which I have received since the introduction of the bill are twofold. First, it has been contended that in substantive terms the bill does not go far enough in ensuring that the handicapped are protected from discrimination.

Second, it is argued that the handicapped, rather than being singled out for special attention in a separate piece of legislation, should be afforded protection along with other minority groups under the Human Rights Code.

As to the first ground of complaint, I have met with some handicapped organizations and have received representations as to ways in which they believe the bill might be further strengthened. Most of the suggestions made to me were useful and I have indicated to those groups that I am quite prepared to respond favourably and to introduce appropriate amendments on second reading.

However, it has been made quite clear by those groups that even if I were to respond affirmatively to all of their substantive objections, they would still strenuously oppose the legislation on the second ground: namely, that they are being singled out and somehow stigmatized in a separate piece of legislation.

In my meetings with them I have attempted to reassure them that there is no intent on the part of the government to treat the handicapped in any prejudicial fashion by enacting separate legislation. Indeed, if their rights were to be protected under general revisions to the Human Rights Code, it is almost inevitable that some separate sections of the code would have to be enacted and that alone would set them apart from other groups.

Moreover, a number of jurisdictions in North America have recognized this and prohibited discrimination against the handicapped under separate legislation. I might mention in particular the United States Rehabilitation Act of 1972, a seminal and extremely progressive piece of legislation that was enthusiastically supported by handicapped groups when it came before Congress. A similar approach was taken in the province of Quebec, in the neighbouring state of Michigan and in other state legislation, without apparent objection.

All of this was pointed out to the groups with whom I met, but I am sorry to report that so far I have been unable to persuade them of the need to proceed expeditiously to afford protection to the handicapped and that this need should transcend any concern about the separate legislative treatment. Their objections remain, even in the face of my undertaking to treat Bill 188 as an interim legislation to be incorporated in the provisions of the Human Rights Code when the broader revisions to the code are introduced in the Legislature.

I regret as well that both opposition parties saw fit to express their opposition to the bill, by way of press releases, without first availing themselves of the opportunity to discuss the matter with me to see whether any accommodation could be made along the lines outlined above. Had it not been for the precipitate action on behalf of the opposition, to which both parties are now apparently irrevocably committed, I remain convinced that a compromise could have been found which would have ensured protection for the handicapped population of Ontario in this session of the Legislature.

As a result of the objections taken to the bill, it is now apparent to me that our goal cannot be achieved before prorogation. I hope those in opposition appreciate the consequences of the rigid position they have so far taken and the effect it will have on the handicapped population of this province.

However, in view of the stand taken by those in opposition to the bill, which I regard as one of the most progressive pieces of legislation I have had the privilege of presenting to the House, I can see no purpose in proceeding with second reading. While I am prepared to continue to meet with organizations representing handicapped persons and to receive and seriously consider their representations, I am unable to say at this time how the government may decide to deal with the problem at the next session of the Legislature.

It is argued by some that the only acceptable solution is to include the handicapped in the full-scale revisions to the Human Rights Code. While this is certainly a possibility, I do not yet know when those revisions will be forthcoming. There are a number of serious and important questions relating to the code revisions still under review, not the least of which is the difficult question of discrimination relating to age, a matter which requires and is receiving the most careful and detailed analysis, here and elsewhere.

Moreover, it is clear to me that once the code revisions are introduced, there are a number of matters which will provoke considerable debate. It is only realistic to recognize the legislative process will be protracted and that it may be some time before revisions become law. My hope has been that in the meantime there could be all-party agreement on the need to protect the handicapped and agreement as well upon the substantive features of legislation which could immediately be put in place.

Accordingly, between now and the next session of the Legislature, I will be reassessing the matter carefully and will continue to consult with handicapped groups and with my colleagues in both opposition parties in an attempt to pursue the initiative commenced on November 22 in a way which is acceptable to all concerned--recognizing always that my overriding obligation is to the individual citizens of this province who suffer from disabilities and who are being unjustifiably denied the rights to which they are entitled.

EMERGENCY SITUATIONS SEMINAR

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I would very briefly like to inform the honourable members about a seminar taking place on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of this week at the downtown Holiday Inn.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. Since the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) wants to hear this statement will everyone be quiet, please?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: This course has been organized and co-ordinated by my ministry to cover the topic of contingency planning in emergency situations. It is being attended by approximately 100 individuals representing the RCMP, the OPP, various regional municipalities and fire departments, as well as Environment Canada, the ministries of Labour, Solicitor General and Attorney General and the fire marshal’s office.

The course is being taught by instructors from the Hamilton Fire Department and I would like to thank Mayor Jack MacDonald for his co-operation in this venture.

Because of the importance of this kind of training for all authorities involved in the handling of emergencies, my ministry is investigating the possibility of setting up similar sessions on a regular basis around the province.

ORAL QUESTIONS

DUMPING OF LIQUID WASTE

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Given that he knows as well as I that millions of gallons of liquid waste from outside Hamilton have been illegally dumped in the Upper Ottawa Street dump over the last several years; given the fact that members of his own ministry knew what was going on and decided, for their own reasons, to take no action on the matter; and given that his method of dealing with the situation by laying charges based on waybills has now been thrown out of court, will the minister now accept my suggestions for dealing with this matter which is to have a judicial inquiry to bring the facts to light, even if they implicate people in his own ministry?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I certainly don’t agree with a large portion of that statement. I think it’s a little ironic that on this particular week we should make comments about how well the courts are dealing with an environmental issue, particularly in the light of the debate that may happen on Thursday of this week; it rather surprises me that the member would abdicate.

Let me tell the member that we’re going to appeal that decision and I think he would have been wise to have perhaps questioned whether that wasn’t the logical first step. I would hope he might agree to appeal the decision is the logical first step. I hope, also, he would accept that is the way to deal with the environmental matters of our province. If he does then he might wish to reconsider his bill.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister must surely realize that the weakness of his laws is one of the reasons my bill is required in Ontario.

Supplementary: Given the fact that the minister intends to appeal the charges based on these waybills, which in my view were fundamentally a smokescreen in the form of charges, can he tell the House two things? Can he tell us on what grounds the ministry hopes to be able to appeal this particular decision and whether there are going to be any changes made in the law in order to plug any loopholes that may exist? Can he tell us whether if his appeal fails he will then have a judicial inquiry to bring the facts to light in Hamilton to stop the process of covering them over?

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The facts of the matter are simply as follows: We were well into the investigation long before the leader of the Liberal Party raised the issue in a public way. I think that is now on the record.

Mr. S. Smith: That doesn’t convince anyone.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The member wants to say the opposite, but he happens to be wrong.

Mr. S. Smith: You lost again.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am afraid he happens to be wrong on two accounts. The second account is there has been absolutely no suggestion by the police force of the regional municipality that the ministry staff were either incompetent or covering up, as he would be so apt to put on the record without foundation in fact. He has put no evidence forward.

Mr. S. Smith: I have proved it.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am sorry the Leader of the Opposition takes such exception to the facts. I don’t think he was in court. Am I in error in that regard? Did he go to the court and put all this evidence on the record? Maybe I have missed something, because he hasn’t put it forward to the ministry.

Mr. S. Smith: At a judicial inquiry I will put evidence forward.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The member has so much faith in the court system. Why didn’t he avail himself of it?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That wasn’t a part of the question. It isn’t within your province to ask questions; it is yours to answer them.

Mr. Isaacs: Supplementary: Will the minister assure this House that the necessary amendment to the regulations and possibly the legislation will be made to ensure that all parties involved in the transportation of liquid industrial waste and other hazardous compounds are equally responsible for correctly filling out the waybills?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I don’t think it is necessary to amend the legislation. Quite frankly, I don’t know how I can say this without being in contempt of court and I will try to frame it in the most delicate of ways, but I disagree with the court and its interpretation.

Mr. Makarchuk: The Attorney General is wincing.

Mr. Martel: I will come and visit you in jail.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: With respect, I would sooner take my advice on the courts from the man to my immediate front and left, rather than from across the way. I have far more faith in him. But I think the court in this particular instance didn’t see the legislation--I think it is section 101--and interpret it the way we expect and hope it will be interpreted in the higher court. We have full faith in that higher court to make that appropriate interpretation.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: For almost a year now I have been asking the minister to give us the site inspection reports for the Upper Ottawa Street dump. Why does he continue to keep those secret? Why will he not put those on the table so we can see what has been going on at the Upper Ottawa Street dump, instead of trying to cover it over with these charges based on waybills and instead of dealing with what actually happened at the dump? Why can’t we see the site inspection reports?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think the Leader of the Opposition knows we considered that material that should be put before the court and would at the appropriate time, and we are prepared to do so. If he wanted to join in the action and take a position before the court, he was free to do so. That seems to be his approach to dealing with things in the environment, but he chooses to take that role only when it is convenient, not when it is logical.

Mr. S. Smith: You are still keeping them secret.

TEACHER-BOARD NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question for the Minister of Education. Given that the trustees in the borough of North York are now threatening to close the schools if no contract is signed before the end of this calendar year, will the minister now admit that she is going to impose some form of arbitration on the two parties? If she is going to do that, why is she waiting and creating the bitterness, the division and the strife that exists now? Why is she extending that? Why does she not move now rather than wait until what might be seen by her as a more politically appropriate time to move? The minister is going to bring in arbitration at some point, she surely knows that, why doesn’t she do it now?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is no.

To the second question I would remind the honourable member that I did not create the strike and, indeed, the students of North York have been providing a model of rationality and sense which I trust the two parties to the negotiations will follow.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Do I understand the minister to say that she has no intention of introducing and will not introduce binding arbitration? If that is what she is saying, do I take it she is going to let the entire matter run its course and then have this Legislature called back some time in January perhaps, to legislate the matter back to regularity? Is that what her intention is and if so, isn’t that being awfully cruel to the children who are suffering under the present regime?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, that is not what I said. I answered the first question of the honourable Leader of the Opposition factually and honestly.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary; I understand the Education Relations Commission has not yet reported that the students’ education is in jeopardy. Can the minister tell me how they can reach that conclusion, given that they have not spoken to the trustees and they have not spoken to the director of education?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, that is correct. Indeed, the Education Relations Commission has made that report. Yesterday I inquired of the Education Relations Commission concerning the mechanism that was utilized in order to reach that conclusion. I have not received it as yet. When I do I shall report it to the House.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Will the minister not agree that the nature of a work to rule is that the process of education is continuing as it should, and will she not inform the North York Board of Education that for it to close the schools in January would jeopardize the education of children in North York, whereas those schools have been operating for seven weeks and the students are much better with the schools open than with the schools closed by the board?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I could agree whole-heartedly and totally with the assessment made by the honourable leader of the third party. I am attempting to do some monitoring of the situation on my own and I shall undoubtedly report to the House about that in due course as well.

FEDERAL BUDGET

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Treasurer relating to the federal budget which is coming down tonight.

In view of the commitment of the new federal government to increased consultation with the provinces, would the Treasurer tell the House what consultation has taken place with this province with relation to the forthcoming federal budget? Does that consultation differ in any material way from consultation under the former Liberal government and can he say whether we can expect any positive results from any consultation that may have taken place?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker, there was consultation, perhaps in the form that Ontario has practised for a long time. In advance of a budget in Ontario, the province invites people in to offer advice. Ontario does not, in return, offer opinions as to what will be in the budget.

That kind of interchange did take place. I have been asked to offer certain advice, opinions on the way the economy is going. I have been glad to answer the specific questions in confidence, as they are in other cases. Whether they will be listened to, I will know tonight.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: I haven’t heard the minister say that the consultation differed materially from the former government. Given that the federal excise tax being proposed tonight is expected to take about $1 billion away from Ontario taxpayers, and given the estimates made by the province itself that the proposals on the excise tax on oil and gas will increase consumer prices by 2.2 per cent next year and will cut real growth by a full percentage point in 1980, does the province have any plans to offset the destructive economic impact of that federal budget on the Ontario economy?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the question is still hypothetical.

Mr. Martel: Sounds like energy all over again.

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have a supplementary?

Ms. Cassidy: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Since the province has termed the excise tax proposals “a retrograde step” and since the province has stated specifically that the excise tax would undermine the extension of Canada’s national market and would expose our economy to further import penetrations as well as bearing particularly hard on poor families and on people in rural areas, what good is it to have a Conservative administration in this province and Tories up in Ottawa if they can’t agree about anything and if the policies that come out are so destructive for the people of Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I will be able to tell whether any of the insinuations made in the conclusions are right. All of the first parts of the honourable member’s statements were correct.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary: Given the unemployment figures that are out today indicating an increase of some 26,000 or 27,000 in the unemployed in this province, and given this certain whack that the federal Treasurer is going to give to the economy of this province tonight with higher interest rates, higher oil prices and everything else, what plans does the Treasurer of Ontario have to offset that program which is going to be introduced tonight? What is he going to do to stimulate this economy? What is he going to do about the unemployment in this province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am not sure where the honourable member gets his figures, but the actual number of unemployed in Ontario during November was 12,000 fewer than a year ago.

The actual rate of unemployment dropped from 6.6 per cent last month to 6.1 per cent. The decline in unemployment of the young people dropped from about 12.3 per cent to 10.8 per cent. Those figures are encouraging and, to some degree, surprising.

INDEPENDENT GASOLINE DISTRIBUTORS

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question of the Minister of Energy. In view of the announcement by Gulf Canada Limited that it is gong to cut back gasoline supplies to independent distributors who buy from Gulf over the course of the winter, is the minister not concerned that this may represent an attempt by Gulf to use oil shortages and gasoline shortages as a means of cutting independent distributors out of the gasoline market?

Is the government investigating this action by Gulf? What action does the government intend to take to protect these independent dealers and the consumers who have benefited from the competition they have brought to the market?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, knowing that the NDP research would dig out this information from the morning paper, I was attempting to get some information in time for the question period today. I have been advised initially and it’s my understanding that the company is simply going to hold its independent dealers to the actual amount of their liftings, I think they call them. It is what they have been actually picking up, rather than necessarily cutting them-off completely. But I have asked for some more information on that subject.

The honourable member will also know that about a week ago he drew my attention to his concerns in connection with the independents; and I have been following up on that. I have an appointment in my office, I think a week yesterday, with a new organization of independent petroleum marketers of the province that’s being established. I will have an opportunity to discuss with them, firsthand, the concerns mentioned by the honourable member along with those expressed in the correspondence he sent along to me following that question period.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since Gulf has invoked force majeure in its contracts with the independents, which effectively now gives Gulf the power to cut them off completely from obligations they thought they had assured in writings through contractual arrangements, would the minister not agree that the situation potentially is much more serious than just holding them to their deliveries of last year?

In addition to the meeting he has promised, what action will the government take in order to prevent multinational oil companies from squeezing independent distributors or shutting them out of the market completely using as a pretext the current oil supply situation?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I wonder if I could just repeat, for purposes of the record, the information I have received. I am advised that the action taken by Gulf, the company referred to in the original question and the supplementary, was to control the liftings of the independents to their average over the last 18 months. It was felt by that company such a move was fair in that it reflected a normal or a more normal growth situation.

[2:45]

That’s the information I received when I directed the question. If either the honourable member or the member for Carleton East (Ms. Gigantes) has other information, obviously I want to have it, because in response to the second part of the supplementary question I agreed with the honourable member when he raised this question a week ago that the activities or the involvement of independents was very important.

During the course of meeting with chief executive officers of oil companies I have specifically raised questions with respect to their relationships with their independents. In no case have I found any company admitting they were doing anything except honouring their contracts with the independents who have been shopping around and who didn’t have what would be defined in the markets as firm contracts because at that time the independents did not find it to their advantage to tie themselves down to firm contracts and thus not be able to shop around as far as prices were concerned.

It may be--and I underline the word “may”--that some independents now find themselves in a prejudicial position because they were not involved in firmer type contractual relationships with companies. Hopefully, next Monday when I meet with the organization representing the independents I will have the benefit of more up-to-date information from them on the basis of their own experience.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Since looking into this matter we have learned the force majeure refers to about 2,000 cubic metres per day which Interprovincial Pipe Line Limited has now had to reserve from Gulf. Instead of giving it to Gulf, it is now giving it to three independents, one in Toronto, one in Quebec and one in Montreal, the three divided equally.

Would the minister look into this situation to see whether it may have happened that oil which previously was reserved for Ontario has now, as a consequence of this decision, in some measure been reserved for another province? If so, would he be able to report to this House on the reasoning behind that and what the impact is on this province?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I have no evidence of that being the result but I will be very glad to investigate the matter as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Cassidy: Wouldn’t the minister agree Gulf is setting a very dangerous precedent when they say they will hold their independents down to the supplies of the last 18 months and therefore reserve any market growth, albeit, modest, for their own company stations? Wouldn’t the minister agree that once Gulf starts to discriminate between independents and its own stations in that way the stage is set for further discrimination to the point where the independents can be driven out of business?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I think the final part of that supplementary would be an unfortunate result. As I pointed out, the government was very quick to respond affirmatively to the recommendations in the Isbister report which saw the involvement of the independents as a very healthy part of the activities in the marketplace in so far as this area was concerned. I made it quite clear in talking to the companies that I attach a great deal of importance to that as well.

I will perhaps be in a much better position to have a first-hand account of what is actually going on once I have had a talk with the independents themselves, now I have completed conversations with the oil companies.

OPP SERVICES

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. I keep wanting to say acting Solicitor General, but I guess he’s decided it’s full time in both.

My question relates to a matter which I am sure has been brought to the minister privately by the member for Prescott and Russell (Mr. Belanger). Given that the Solicitor General made the statement last May or June that he intended to increase the complement of OPP officers in this province by 150, and given that in response to some of my colleagues recently he has indicated he did not increase the number of OPP officers, would the minister look at what I consider to be a very serious situation involving the OPP detachment in Rockland? This detachment, as the Solicitor General knows, has a large part of eastern Ontario under its jurisdiction and has not had any increase in complement since 1977, in spite of the fact the number of calls made to the detachment increased in 1978 by 60 per cent and in the first six months of 1979 has increased by 80 per cent.

Would the minister look at that problem and advise us whether he intends to increase the complement of officers in that area, in view of the fact, as well, that there is a very serious traffic problem, not only on highway 417 but still on the old highway 17?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I was almost tempted to say I would be delighted to reply to the acting member for Ottawa East, but I thought that would be unkind.

Mr. Roy: I tell you I am not an acting member. Look at the majority I get there.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I will certainly be happy to look into that matter because it concerns me. I will review it and discuss it with the Treasurer.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary: Would the minister, as well, consider the fact that not only has there been the increase I discussed with him in the original question, but under the jurisdiction of the OPP in that area there is also the township of Cumberland which has had one of the highest urban growths in the area? Would he consider that, as well, when considering the additional officers needed in that area?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am quite happy to do that. My concerns with respect to OPP resources are well known, and I will continue to express them.

Mr. Mancini: Supplementary: Concerning the hiring of new OPP officers to police certain municipalities, would the minister reconsider the policy of the freeze on OPP officers, in the light of the fact that there are some municipalities, specifically the municipality of Colchester North in my township, that would pay directly for the services of the OPP? Why can’t the minister keep his promise of hiring the 150 OPP officers he made grand statements about some time last year?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, I never made any such promise. I indicated that these additional officers are needed. The member’s own leader belittled the statement. His own leader showed total contempt for the OPP in his response on that occasion.

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: Withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. A provocative statement like that is deserving of some kind of reply.

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: On a matter of privilege, I would ask the Solicitor General to withdraw the comment, since be knows the comments I made at the time showed contempt for his attempt to grab headlines in asking for officers the cabinet had not even given him and did not give him later. My comments in no way indicated contempt for the OPP. I have a high regard for the OPP, but very little regard for the minister’s headline-grabbing tactics.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I stand by what I said.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Thank you. All I can say is if the Leader of the Opposition supports the OPP, he has a very strange way of expressing his support.

REFUGEE ASSISTANCE

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, you will never know how painful it was to have been away.

(Laughter)

Mr. Lawlor: I thought of all of you at least once a day.

I have a question for the Premier. While I was away the Clark government reneged, as I understand it, on its promises with respect to the Vietnamese boat people. What is the Premier’s policy and the position of his government with respect to doing something to alleviate the deplorable conditions, particularly in those camps in Hong Kong?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the government of this province has encouraged a number of people in the voluntary agencies in those areas of the province where people have expressed a very legitimate and personal concern, and we will continue to do so. The government of Canada, in what is a difficult area, has had a policy whereby support and encouragement has been given, probably on a scale greater than most other jurisdictions, including the United States.

Mr. Bolan: Would the Premier give assurance to the House that further roadblocks will not be placed in the way of individuals within this province who wish to assist families coming from southeast Asia?

Just to give the Premier a brief example, because this is what people are expressing concern about, those individuals are now required to pay their air fare--initially, they didn’t think they would have to--and there’s a complicated situation concerning who can act as a backup family. These are matters people are genuinely concerned about. Would the Premier assure us these roadblocks can be removed?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Obviously I can’t give that sort of assurance. We don’t control that part of the program in any way.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Premier will at least extend the province’s present program, which includes only children 13 years and over? Will that program be extended to bring over refugee children under the age of 13, who have been identified in many camps in various parts of southeast Asia?

Hon. Mr. Davis: On a matter of this kind I can’t give, on this particular occasion, any such commitment. This government has demonstrated genuine concern on this matter, as I’m sure all members have. It is primarily a matter for the government of Canada, I’m sure we all appreciate that, but we have been supporting those individuals and groups who are anxious to help in this very difficult situation.

FISH STOCKING PROGRAM

Mr. Bolan: To the Minister of Natural Resources: Could the minister explain to this House why some of his ministry officials are going around Ontario making speeches to gain public support to stop the stocking of salmon in Lake Ontario? I refer specifically to a speech made by John Byrne, head of the hatchery program to the Conservation Council of Ontario. Is he not aware this salmon- stocking program is a program of significant importance, unlike the splake program which has been going on for 20 years in Georgian Bay and has resulted in not one single splake being reproduced successfully anywhere in the Great Lakes? Should he not be intensifying the stocking program instead of having some of his ministry officials attempt to dismember it?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think the honourable member was here when I made my statement earlier. As far as I am aware, Mr. Byrne is not going around making speeches such as the honourable member suggests. I believe he did appear before the conservation council, or perhaps the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and several other organizations, to in effect point out the dilemma which we had in the case of the coho salmon with IPN.

I think I made it quite clear a few minutes ago that we’re looking at it very carefully and by no means have come to any decision. I think if we had, I would know about it.

Finally, as far as splake are concerned, if the honourable member hasn’t been there recently he ought to go to Owen Sound and hear how well--at last, I may say--the splake are biting up there. The fishermen are shoulder-to-shoulder in the snow.

Mr. Bolan: Supplementary: How long has the ministry known of the IPN problem? Is the minister not aware that other jurisdictions with salmon-stocking programs such as New York state and Michigan state, are continuing and expanding their salmon-stocking programs and do not regard IPN as a serious disease? IPN existed in the Great Lakes prior to the current salmon-stocking programs and the US states will continue with them regardless of whether the minister’s program is discontinued or not. Is he not aware of this?

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. Auld: I hope I have enough time, Mr. Speaker. I am told that infectious pancreatic necrosis or IPN came from Atlantic salmon. Nobody knows exactly how it got into the Great Lakes. I know the salmon we would like to import for brood stock, the coho salmon from the Pacific coast, cannot be certified as disease-free because they have another disease--K--

An hon. member: KLM?

Hon. Mr. Auld: No, not KLM. It’s a kidney disease and it’s endemic apparently to the coho salmon from the west coast. The two states the honourable member mentions, New York and Michigan, have indicated that they are in sympathy and think that the idea of stocking only disease-free salmon would be a great idea, but they propose to continue stocking the ones they are now stocking which are not disease-free. That’s the reason I said that it seems to me if we’re going to do something about this, it’s got to be a joint operation because the fish do not observe international boundaries and it’s very hard to stop them from not observing international boundaries.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Can the minister report to the House whether or not three groups have taken out injunctions against the ministry concerning destroying the stock of salmon they now have that are diseased? Can he give us any indication about whether or not the disease is communicable?

Hon. Mr. Auld: The answer to the first part is that I’m not aware of any injunctions. I don’t know who would be served with the writs, but I’m sure I would have heard about them, providing such events had taken place.

I’m sorry, I’ve forgotten the second part of the question. I’ve been getting a good deal of advice over here.

Mr. Foulds: Is it communicable?

Hon. Mr. Auld: It is communicable between eggs and brood stock in the hatchery. We do not know how communicable it may be among other salmonoids, which include lake trout, speckled trout and brown trout.

Apparently it is a disease primarily found in that species.

Mr. Worton: Serve them in the dining room end let’s find out.

Hon. Mr. Auld: It won’t hurt you.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary: I’m glad to hear the splake are biting. More importantly, are the things reproducing?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Particularly at this season of the year I wouldn’t want to be considered sacrilegious; on the other hand if they aren’t reproducing then there are stars in the north, south, east and west.

ALGOMA CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services resulting from the publication yesterday of the October 31 telegram to him signed by the executive director and the assistant director of the Algoma Children’s Aid Society.

Can the minister inform the House how he responded to their contention, based on their professional judgement, that the CAS could not provide minimal level service to high-risk cases and that immediate action was necessary to avoid potential disaster? Further, what connection, if any, did his response have to the subsequent resignation of the assistant director?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I’ll answer the second part first. To the best of my ability I know of no connection whatsoever between my response and the resignation of one of the employees of the children’s aid society there.

In terms of the response, we have been in communication with the director and the chairman of the board of the society. In fact I trust my staff have been in further communication with them today, assuring them, as we have up to this point, that we will continue to make efforts in the immediate future to improve the support we are offering to that society so it can continue to maintain at least minimum levels of service and ensure minimal risk to the children who ought to be being served by the whole society.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that the executive director, Mr. Hayes, has stated they are at least two people short of the required staff to provide minimum care and that he does not know what, if anything, the ministry’s figure of 11.5 people required means?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I haven’t had that specific discussion with Mr. Hayes, although there have been ongoing communications. As I said, I trust there has already been communication with him today to assure him the ministry will provide whatever degree of support is necessary to ensure the safety of the children involved.

FEDERAL BUDGET

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. In view of the fact there are only a few hours left before we hear the federal Conservative budget, would the Premier take this last opportunity to inform Joe Clark that this government is strongly opposed to the increase in the excise tax, in view of the fact that the federal Treasurer said some time ago--while the Ontario Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) was sitting right next to him--he had heard no complaints about the proposed increase of 25 cent per gallon in the tax on gasoline?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I didn’t hear the latter part of the question. The honourable member might like to repeat it--television isn’t here any more--I would like to hear the latter part.

Mr. Mancini: My question was will the Premier take this last opportunity available to him and inform Joe Clark that this government, in no uncertain terms, opposes the proposed increase of 25 cents per gallon in the excise tax on gasoline which we’re going to hear tonight from the federal Conservative government?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have a feeling the budget is printed and very little will change between now and eight o’clock this evening.

I can only say to the honourable member that we have used every opportunity to register our objections to an increase in the excise tax, which was initiated by the member’s former friends. We made our point when they introduced the concept of this excise tax several years ago and our point of view has not changed.

Mr. Mancini: Could the Premier table in the House--if he would only listen to the question I wouldn’t have to repeat it--correspondence he has had with Charles Joseph Clark about the excise tax and his opposition to it? Will the Premier stop trying to protect his friends in Ottawa and start protecting the consumers of this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m sure the honourable member has already read the submissions we have made, including the presentation to the first ministers’ meeting of some three weeks ago. If he will look about halfway through that presentation he will find it. If he would like to reread it before eight o’clock this evening, he should feel free to do so. My advice to him, though, is to fill up the tank of his car before this evening in any event.

GAS AND OIL SUPPLIES

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Energy. Is the minister aware of the recent activities of Ultramar Canada Limited, namely its claim that it does not now have the expected six-month supplies of crude for its Quebec City refinery and that it can no longer provide the expected amounts of petroleum products to suppliers?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Would the honourable member repeat the question. I didn’t hear the first part of the question.

Ms. Gigantes: I’m asking about the operations of a company called Ultramar Canada Limited and the statement by that corporation that it does not have the expected supplies of crude for its Quebec City refinery.

I’m asking the minister about this to know if he knows what implications this will have for Ontario suppliers of gasoline and heating oil.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I must admit I don’t have that information. Within the last few days I have had an opportunity to meet with the president of that company and he didn’t share with me any serious situation such as the one to which the honourable member makes reference.

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary: Could I ask the minister then, whether he will ask specifically, when he is having meetings with the independent suppliers, about the results of Ultramar’s activities; and perhaps take the opportunity to speak once again to the president of Ultramar?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I’m sure it hasn’t gone unnoticed that the member has now, in her supplementary, changed the question to talk in terms of the independents who may have been looking to Ultramar. That’s not the way the original question was framed. She talked with respect to supplies available to the company for its own operations. We have to have some consistency with respect to the question and supplementary question here.

TOLEDO SCALE DIVISION

Mr. Ruston: I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Is he aware of the recent announcement by Toledo Scale Division that they’re ceasing the manufacturing of scales in the city of Windsor and arc going to import highly technical electronic American scales? Is he doing anything to encourage Ontario and Canadian industry to use the electronic capacity of Ontario and Canada instead of importing from the United States?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I don’t happen to have the information on Toledo Scale with me. I have a fairly recent update on layoffs and terminations. I will be pleased to look into the situation with regard to Toledo Scale and report to the member.

Mr. Ruston: I have a supplementary of the Minister of Labour. Would he satisfy himself that those being laid off at Toledo Scale will have their pensions protected and have been given adequate notice of the layoffs?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I’ll take the question as notice and report to the member.

CHRONIC-CARE CHARGES

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health; it concerns the chronic co-payments charge. When the minister introduced that plan earlier this year he indicated his desire to do so in all fairness to all concerned. I am wondering, in light of a number of instances which have come to my attention, whether discrimination exists in relation to a portion of his announcement; I quote:

“For exemption purposes, spouses receiving old age security, spouse’s allowance or benefits under the Ontario Guaranteed Income Act are not considered as dependants.” That disqualifies the two-member family in the senior citizen category. Will the minister review that and equalize the treatment so any discrimination against senior citizens caught in this particular situation ends?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We have ensured that the system right across the whole spectrum of long-term care--homes for the aged, nursing homes, where the charges have applied now for seven or eight years, and chronic care--is applied the same, although in the chronic-care units, because in the main we are dealing with shorter stays in many cases, there are provisions for various other exemptions to be applied for through the administrator of the home regardless of the source of income.

At this point we only have about six months experience. I think it would be premature to say we’re going to change it, but we are keeping it under very close scrutiny to try to make sure that it is applied as fairly as possible. However, to suggest that we would move away from the principle of eliminating the double subsidy, I certainly wouldn’t want to leave that impression at all.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary: The minister must clearly understand that there is discrimination at present among those two-member families in so far as the $15,000 of aggregate annual income is concerned. Surely in the interest of fairness those people who have a dependant qualifying under the senior citizen categories enumerated deserve the same treatment as those who do not qualify in that area; surely he must be aware that this is having a very serious and negative effect upon a considerable number of seniors in this province. Can he further indicate whether or not it is his ministry’s intention to tell the people involved in this category they should sell their homes to meet the requirements?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I remind the member of the rationale, which was explained and discussed at length in the select committee and elsewhere before the introduction of this measure; and that was the concern that incomes are provided to maintain certain individuals in the community, but these individuals from time to time, in effect become residents of long-term care facilities. The principle, which I believe he supports, is that the state shouldn’t be paying twice: first in the form of an income to maintain the individual; and second to pay what can in the chronic-care hospital be anywhere from $70 to $100 per day, and sometimes more, to maintain them.

As the member knows, the provision is that taking the bare minimum income--OAS, GIS and Gains--and deducting the comfort allowance, we also then provide to the spouse still in the community the full senior citizens’ tax credits, along with the various other benefits that accrue to senior citizens, which are all designed to help the individuals stay in their homes.

[3:15]

We also look to the families to carry their responsibilities, since they ultimately will be the beneficiaries of the homes to which the member refers, and any estates attaining thereto.

WINDSOR HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Bounsall: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Is the ministry aware that local district Ministry of Transportation and Communications officials have asked the city of Windsor to indicate which phase, 1C or 2C, has a higher priority in this coming year for ministry funds? Would the minister confirm that both phases will be funded in 1980, as planned, so that both of these very important sections can be constructed on schedule?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, I will not confirm that, because yesterday I wrote a letter to Mayor Weeks advising him that both contracts would not and could not go ahead next year on the west end of the F. C. Row Expressway.

As I am sure the honourable member knows, there are several major contracts to be carried out on the east end of the expressway. I believe the tenders close tomorrow for one. There are two major contracts to be awarded there very early in 1980, probably in February or March. With those three contracts alone, that will mean there will probably be over $20 million-worth of construction work to put in place in that particular section of the E. C. Row during the 1980-81 fiscal year.

In addition to that, one of the contracts at the west end will be proceeded with during the year. It has been in our plans for a number of years. The second contract will have to wait until 1981.

Mr. Bounsall: Supplementary: Is the minister not aware how necessary both those west end pieces are? One will service the traffic between the bridge and the new Ford engine and casting plant, which starts to operate in early 1981. The other services the new Maple Leaf Monarch mill, one of the few plants to come into the city not associated with the auto industry. One of those two plants is going to be seriously disadvantaged in truck traffic not being able to get to it if both phases are not completed.

It is very difficult, if not impossible, to choose which of the two industries the ministry is going to discriminate against in terms of not building one section of those two phases.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t think there is anything more I can add. Over $30 million of additional road construction work has been carried out in the Windsor area in this 1979 season, and the jobs I mentioned will continue in 1980. That is in addition to the one contract at the west end that will proceed. It will proceed in rotation, as has been planned, to extend the expressway in a rational manner. There are just not the funds available to do any more.

Many other projects in the province are in the same position. I could give the member a list as long as his arm, or maybe even as long as mine, of other projects that have had to he delayed in the same way.

CHICKEN QUOTAS

Mr. Riddell: I have a question of the Premier. Since the chicken producers of Ontario are appealing the provincial quota allocation, which is most inequitable, and is one which was set up in the early 197Os with the former Minister of Agriculture favouring Quebec and its quota allocation as a compromise because of the chicken-and-egg war going on at the time, could the Premier tell me whether the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson), if he has recovered from his illness, is going to go down to Ottawa to support the case that is going to be presented by the chicken producers to try to get that quota at the 314-million pound mark, rather than the 278 million pounds which they have been allocated, and which I say is very inequitable.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, just so the record is abundantly clear for those who read Hansard carefully, the member was referring to the former federal Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Riddell: No. It was the provincial minister.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh come on, it was the federal ministry which did it.

Mr. Riddell: It was the provincial minister who did it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for Huron-Middlesex may not think I know much, but I know a little bit about this, and it was the federal government who made this determination. Don’t try and clothe it any other way, it was the former federal Minister of Agriculture.

With respect to the question asked, I will consult with the Minister of Agriculture and Food and we will have an answer for the member on Thursday.

Mr. Riddell: I have a supplementary, and I would also like to clarify this matter for the Premier. It was the former minister, a good friend of mine, Bill Stewart, who was quite prepared to accept the Ontario allocation at that time because there happened to be a price war going on with Quebec in connection with eggs.

My supplementary is: Since there is a move underfoot to combine Quebec and Ontario into one market area, which Ontario is very much against, does the Premier know whether the Minister of Agriculture and Food is going to object to one market area for Quebec and Ontario and keep Ontario in one market area of its own?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know anything about moves underfoot. I must confess the honourable member is always closer to those things than I am. I can only repeat what I said: I will discuss this with the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I really think he may be here on Thursday. I am told he is recovering and I expect he will be here Thursday. I know the member in particular will be delighted to see him.

BLUE CROSS STRIKE

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour with regard to the Blue Cross strike, now in its eleventh week.

Is the minister aware that last week the company granted all the employees who are crossing the picket line the full wage and benefit increases in the last company offer before the strike began, and posted the jobs of the striking employees in the premises?

Will the minister bring in amendments to strengthen our labour laws to outlaw this kind of unfair strike breaking against employees who are simply trying to assert their democratic rights to organize and bargain collectively?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I would submit to the member there is already a mechanism for parties to make submissions about unfair bargaining or unfair labour practices to the Labour Relations Board. She has seen that demonstrated very effectively last week in the Radio Shack case. It is now possible to determine those issues before an appropriate judicial or quasi-judicial body.

Ms. Bryden: I understand the labour law is not specific in outlawing this particular kind of practice of giving the benefits during the strike. In addition, does the minister know the company at the same time has advertised unlimited clerical opportunities in the paper. Those presumably are the jobs of the striking employees? I don’t believe that is outlawed by the law either.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I will be pleased to review the matter the member has presented and report.

GAS AND OIL PRICES

Mr. Bradley: A question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact the present Progressive Conservative government in Ottawa appears to want to give in to the oil companies at every turn, would the Premier assure us he would use his good offices as the Premier of Ontario to help persuade the oil companies not to charge an additional 25 cents, if that is the price, excise tax on those supplies of fuel that are presently in the service stations? Would he also use his good offices to attempt to persuade the oil companies not to use this increase that is coming tonight as an excuse to put on an additional two or three cents a gallon and rip off the consumers of the province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I really can’t believe the member for St. Catharines would advise me to counsel the companies to break the law. If a federal excise tax is imposed, whatever hour it is imposed, people have to pay it. That is a reality, that’s something I hope even the honourable member will understand. I know it’s hard, but that happens to be the fact. I can’t advise anybody not to pay a tax and I would advise the member not to advise anybody not to pay the tax.

With respect to the second part of the question, which has a little more logic than the first part of the question, if there is a price increase in crude oil my guesstimate--and it’s only a guesstimate--will be that that price increase will be as of January 1, as per the existing agreement. If that is the case, if it is a dollar, it means the price of gasoline per gallon related to a price increase of crude, will take place on March 1, and that figure will be approximately four cents. That has been the traditional pattern and I would expect that will continue.

Mr. Bradley: Supplementary: Considering the fact that at least one oil company at the present time has announced an increase, supposedly because of increased costs, and other oil companies are now saying they may be doing so in the near future, perhaps before January 1, would the Premier not agree if this is implemented this week or next week it is a case of taking advantage of a situation as an excuse to increase the prices unnecessarily?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am the last one to defend the oil companies, but I hope the honourable member understands--

Mr. Warner: Usually the first one.

Mr. S. Smith: You are prepared to let them have the first two dollars as their share.

Hon. Mr. Davis: My correspondence would indicate they are quite aware--

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What is the honourable member interrupting about?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I was just asking what he was interrupting about, I didn’t ask him to say anything.

Is it really true the honourable member has a full length mirror in his office to practise for television at three o’clock? Is that really true? Is it?

I would be upset if January 1 brought more than one dollar and I know nothing about what is going to be in the budget, but I think it will he one dollar for January 1.

What was the question?

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

REPORT

SELECT COMMITTEE ON HYDRO AFFAIRS

Mr. MacDonald from the select committee on Hydro affairs presented an interim report on the safety of Ontario’s nuclear reactors and moved its adoption.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, before I move adjournment of the debate, may I inform the House that I wish to be able to table, on behalf of the committee, another report on another topic of Hydro affairs on Thursday of this week. I understand from my House leader, that the debate is scheduled tentatively for a week from Thursday night on both of these reports.

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

MOTIONS

BUSINESS OF COMMITTEES

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the estimates of the resources development policy field be withdrawn from the standing resources development committee and be referred to the standing social development committee.

Motion agreed to.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that on Thursday, December 13, the House will meet at 10 am., with a luncheon interval from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. and with routine proceedings to be called at 2 p.m.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that private members’ balloted items scheduled to have been debated on Thursday, December 6, be debated on Thursday, December 13; and further that the present ballot schedule be continued during the fourth session of this parliament.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the time allocated for private members’ public business on Thursday, December 20, be used for the consideration of government business.

Motion agreed to.

[3:30]

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE COMPLAINTS PROJECT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 201, An Act for the establishment and conduct of a Project in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto to improve methods of processing Complaints by members of the Public against Police Officers on the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force.

Motion agreed to.

OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 202, An Act respecting Occupiers’ Liability.

Motion agreed to.

TRESPASS TO PROPERTY ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 203, An Act to protect against Trespass to Property.

Motion agreed to.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved first reading of Bill 204, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, honourable members will recall that the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act were amended in 1977 to introduce province-wide bargaining in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of that industry. Since then we have had a major round of collective bargaining in 1978 and we are looking forward to a further round in 1980.

The amendments being proposed are the result of recommendations made to me by the construction industry review panel. That group is comprised of senior representatives of labour and management in the construction industry. They have analysed the 1978 bargaining experience and have made their recommendations with a view to facilitating and stabilizing future bargaining in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of the construction industry.

The bill being tabled contains three basic provisions and these, I believe, reflect a balanced trade-off between labour and management.

First, it provides for the extension of the bargaining rights of the various unions to which the provincial bargaining applies. As a result of this amendment, an employer who is currently bound by a provincial agreement in a portion of the province will be bound by the provincial agreement throughout the province. This will only affect employers and trade unions which are obliged to engage in provincial bargaining, and only in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of the construction industry.

The remaining two provisions deal with the conduct of provincial bargaining. The first provision prohibits selective strikes or lockouts. In certain situations selective strikes were used during the 1978 round of bargaining and proved to be disruptive to good faith bargaining.

The second provision imposes a 30-day limit on the ratification of memoranda of settlement and is intended to provide increased certainty as to the status of the bargaining relationship following completion of the negotiations.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the answers to questions 366 and 367 on the Notice Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Parrott moved third reading of Bill 24, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act, 1971.

Ms. Bryden: I have a few comments on this bill as we consider it for third reading. This legislation was originally introduced in December 1978 in the form of Bill 209, and we had high hopes that it would solve the problems of the victims of polluters who were not getting adequate compensation and of society which is not getting cleanup, either enough or as rapidly as desired, due to weaknesses in our law and in the common law, and due to lack of a clear statement as to liability of the person who was the owner or the person in control of the hazardous substance.

We were hopeful this bill would solve problems such as what happened in the case of the PCB spill at Dowling or the gasoline leaking into the well water at Port Loring, and many other instances where the victims of pollution had not been compensated and society or the victims had ended up paying the bill. We hoped the bill would fully embody the principle that the polluter must pay, and that there would be strong incentives in the bill for those who use hazardous substances to take the responsibility for their use and liability for the risks that accompany such substances.

In March 1979 a new bill was brought in, somewhat revamped from the earlier one but still containing what were the basic principles of putting responsibility for cleanup and for rehabilitation of the environment on the owner or the person in control of the substance, providing for the ministry to move in if the cleanup and rehabilitation was not done, to charge the polluter if he could be identified and finally to put liability on the polluter for compensation for loss or damage from spills.

On the second reading debate, I indicated, as some of my colleagues did, areas where we would like to see improvements in the bill. We were particularly concerned about use of the word “direct” when stating compensation would be provided for damage incurred as a “direct” result of the polluter’s actions. We thought the word “direct” unduly limited the liability. We also thought the scope of the bill was somewhat limited by the exclusion of heat, noise, sound and radiation. We didn’t like the very broad regulatory powers given to the minister under the bill, without adequate provision for some public input.

We didn’t like one significant change between Bill 209 and Bill 24 which reduced the time limit for initiating an action for compensation from six years to two years after the person became aware of the damage. We also didn’t like the lack of protection for farmers who may be handling farm wastes since it appeared as though they might be improperly covered by the terms of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, during the past eight months since the bill was introduced and referred to the resources development committee it has been radically changed. The minister has brought in many amendments and this has prolonged the process of dealing with the bill greatly; in fact the last amendments just came forward in November.

The amendments that came very late were the ones that required new submission from the people who were concerned about the bill; we had to have many of the people in two and three times because there were so many changes. It’s unfortunate that because of this prolongation of the process the bill was not in place at the time of the Mississauga derailment. It might have strengthened the rights of claim there considerably; at least we hope it would have.

However some of the changes give rise to considerable worry about the strength of the bill and whether the principle that the polluter must pay has been departed from. For one thing, the minister has now added a compensation fund to be financed out of the consolidated revenue fund to the bill. The fund will not only provide compensation above a certain level to be specified by regulation, but it will also handle situations where the polluter cannot be found. While I support the principle of having an unsatisfied judgement fund I am somewhat concerned about the extent of the liability the province is taking on.

In addition, the bill does not contain any limit to the period over which the consolidated revenue fund will finance the compensation fund, even though the minister had indicated it would be limited to one year. When I moved an amendment that the limit should be written into the bill and that there should be provision for setting up some sort of contribution process from polluters and industry to finance the compensation, both those proposals were voted down by the Conservative and Liberal members of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, other changes that occurred during the eight month period appear to me to water down some of its liability sections, and this gives great cause for concern. First there was the removal of liability in the event of war, insurrection, terrorism, or from events that are due to a natural phenomenon or to the actions of a third party over whom the owner or person in control has no control. Some of these exemptions from liability can be supported, perhaps, because of the difficulty of determining the liability and the difficulty of determining insurance rates. However, they also lend themselves to considerable differences of interpretation--just what is terrorism, just what is a natural phenomenon of an inevitable nature; therefore I’m somewhat reluctant to see those exemptions written into the bill as a sort of afterthought until we’ve had some experience as to what the courts would consider liability and what they would consider defence.

[3:45]

Another change in the bill that may weaken the liability placed on the polluter is the adoption of a phrase which was virtually proposed by the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association. Association representatives spoke several times to the committee and were very concerned about the liability imposed by the bill. One can understand this. They use a great many hazardous substances in their operations and are interested in keeping the liability as small as possible.

But as many people in the committee said, they reap the benefits of using these hazardous substances and they make the choice of which ones to use. The public has little or no control over those decisions, which is an argument that they should be liable.

The clause the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association would like to have added would say that the polluter is not liable if he has taken all reasonable care to avoid the particular event. The minister’s amendment virtually says the same thing. It lets the polluter off if he “establishes that he took all reasonable steps to prevent the spill.”

I moved that this last clause be struck from the minister’s amendment, but both the Conservative and Liberal members of the committee voted against my motion. The inclusion of this phrase greatly weakens the liability clause in the bill. We’ll have to see how the courts apply this, how they interpret that phrase. If my misgivings are well- founded we will have to consider tightening amendments very soon.

The bill has been further watered down by striking the word “absolute” from the original clause in the bill which says, “liability under subsection 2 is absolute and does not depend on fault or negligence.”

In my opinion, that clause was the guts of Bill 24. It was the chief section of the bill required to put liability on to the owner or the person in control, and it was the clause which would have provided the incentive for users of hazardous substances to take the utmost precautions, to develop safe methods of transportation and handling and to use the least hazardous substances. Without the word “absolute” the section is much weaker, in my opinion.

According to the minister, the addition of the exemptions for war and terrorism and so on I mentioned made it improper to use the word “absolute” when defining liability. We do have a precedent in the federal Fisheries Act which says “the liability of any person”--I’m dropping out some words--“is absolute and does not depend on proof of fault or negligence, but no such person is liable”--and I drop out some words--“if he establishes that the occurrence giving rise to the liability is wholly caused by an act of war et cetera. In other words, it’s possible to state in the legislation that the liability is absolute except for specified exemptions mentioned in the legislation.

If the word “absolute” is retained, a much greater emphasis is put on the nature of the liability you’re trying to establish when it comes to the courts for interpretation.

Unfortunately, my amendment to the minister’s amendment striking out the word “absolute” was voted down by the Conservative and Liberal members of the committee. I had moved that the minister’s amendment striking out the word should itself be struck out. We lost a signal to the courts about how tough we wanted them to be on the question of liability generally, except for the exceptions mentioned in the. bill.

Other amendments which the NDP members of the committee moved to improve the bill included the following: first, one calling for a provision for class action against polluters to establish liability for compensation--

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I don’t think anyone wants to restrict debate, but surely these matters have been gone over. We have had a committee on this; we have had the hearings. I really don’t think it is appropriate on third reading that we go over everything all over again.

We have a procedure here by which we deal with these matters if there is something that perhaps was left out or forgotten, but to regurgitate all over again what happened in the committee and pound our breasts and carry on I don’t think is appropriate. I would ask for your ruling as to whether or not what the honourable member is speaking about in fact is in order at this time.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, if I could speak to that point of order, we had a precedent last night on one clause of a bill. A member of the Liberal caucus spoke for approximately an hour, and some of us felt that speech should more appropriately have been delivered on second reading or on leadoff to the estimates.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You could have gotten up on a point of order and suggested it

Mr. Foulds: I would have thought that in the last few days of the Legislature a certain goodwill would permeate the benches on all sides.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Port Arthur is referring, of course, to something that took place in committee; it did not take place in the House. The member for Rainy River makes a good point, and I know the member for Beaches-Woodbine will confine her remarks.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I’m simply trying to indicate the difficulties I have in deciding whether to vote for third reading, because the improvements I had hoped to see in the bill are not there. There is no provision in the bill for class actions, and my amendment to add them was defeated by Conservative and Liberal members on the committee.

Another amendment calling for prepublication of regulations and a 60-day period for public comment on them was also defeated by the Conservative and Liberal members, although I will concede that the minister did give a commitment to do just that.

He seemed reluctant, however, to have it written into the legislation, although the Ontario Securities Commission now goes through that process and both the United States and Britain do have pre-publication and public comment on regulations.

Another amendment we were disappointed was not accepted was the return to the original clause in Bill 209 for a six-year limitation on actions.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I rise again on a point of order. I can only repeat what I said before. The member who is speaking has been on this now for almost half an hour. She is repeating exactly what has already happened and what we’ve gone through in regard to the bill. If she likes, we will all admit her concern about this bill. Lots of us have concern, but I say to the Speaker that the member’s remarks are completely out of order and I think the question should be put.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I wish my friend would learn something about the rules of the Legislature. The standing rules say that people can comment on third reading, in fact that more than one member can comment on third reading. If my friend is prepared to study the rules and make a legitimate point of order then we’re prepared to listen, but if he isn’t prepared to listen to the rules, or learn the rules, then I suggest he shuts up, because we sat in here last night--and I heard him intervene on my colleague twice--we sat in here last night and went through a tirade from the member for Nipissing (Mr. Bolan) for an hour on what should have been a second reading speech which he didn’t make, but which he delivered on an amendment to a bill last night when he spoke for an hour.

We didn’t object. We thought it a little funny that he would make his speech in that way, but now I’m sorry we let him go. We had a legitimate complaint about that but we didn’t make it. The member doesn’t have a legitimate point of order according to the standing rules, so I suggest he should refrain from interfering, because all he is going to do is take a lot more time of the House than is presently occurring.

Mr. Eaton: You fellows would never do that, would you?

Mr. Martel: I didn’t say that at all. I’m prepared to take as long as the member wants in discussing this matter. But my friend will recall last Thursday that it was he who refused to give this House permission after an agreement to go back to committee of the whole with this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Eaton: And I will say to the member I am proud of it, or we would be having every one of those amendments over again.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: Well, we got my friend up in a hurry didn’t we. I might indicate that the House leader was prepared--

Mr. Eaton: Just going through what she’s going through now, repeat and repeat and repeat--

Mr. Martel: I might, for my friend, suggest to him that he should refrain from nonsensical statements, because his friend, the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), brought three bills in today and the member is going to need all kinds of time and co-operation to get those bills through. That sort of approach isn’t going to get him anything.

Mr. Eaton: What are you trying to do, threaten?

Mr. Lane: Does the member threaten?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I remind my friend--

Mr. Martel: Do you never use them? Oh!

Go home.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I would remind my friend who never adds any kind of reasonableness, rationality, and certainly no respect for the rules of this House when he rises to speak, that statements like “sit down and shut up,” I respectfully suggest, Mr. Speaker, do very little for the dignity and decorum of this House.

Mr. Martel: Oh! Don’t hand us that nonsense.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I often wonder about that member who used to be a school teacher and has classes in the gallery listening to that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I would draw your attention to the standing rules that deal with it.

Mr. Foulds: Cite the standing order. Mr. T. P. Reid: “In a debate, a member shall be called to order by the Speaker, if he or she “ ... speaks twice to a question, except in explanation ... ,” et cetera.

Number three under standing order of rules of debate 19: “ ... persists in needless repetition or raises matters that have been decided during the current session.”

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, we all try to be fair, but I think we’ve been more than patient with that particular member. I would suggest to the member for Sudbury East--

Mr. Mattel: Will Mr. Speaker rule the member out of order?

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, the member has now taken 25 minutes.

Mr. Martel: The member doesn’t even have a point of order.

Mr. T. P. Reid:--who knows less about the rules and certainly applies them less than anybody else here--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. T. P. Reid:--that he, in fact, read the rules of the House.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order. I think the member for Rainy River has just defeated his case, because the rule that he cited says the member cannot engage in needless repetition.

There has been no speech on third reading whatsoever, and every one of the points that my colleague, the member for Beaches-Woodbine, is making are new points in this debate on third reading and are absolutely in order.

Mr. Riddell: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. These amendments that the member for Beaches-Woodbine is referring to have all been debated at some length in committee. She is bringing them up again on third reading, which is certainly unnecessary. This business of making reference to opposition members, or the Conservatives and the Liberals voting against such amendments, to my way of thinking is completely irrelevant in this discussion on third reading. I say she is repeating herself. It has all been gone through in committee and I don’t think we should be wasting time listening to this on third reading.

[4:00]

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. A point of order has been raised and there has been considerable discussion. The question before the House is shall the bill be read a third time. The honourable member for Beaches-Woodbine will continue her comments and remarks and I hope keep them within that context.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, there is one more question regarding the third reading which should be considered by this House, and it arises out of something that has happened since the bill was introduced for second reading and debated in this House, the Mississauga derailment.

We discussed in committee the question of whether waivers should be outlawed. I think the members, in considering this third reading, should very seriously consider the refusal of the committee to outlaw waivers. In spite of the Attorney General having expressed considerable doubts about the necessity of the Canadian Pacific requirement that people should sign waivers, the Attorney General came before the committee and suggested that members vote against my amendment proposing that waivers be outlawed.

Mr. Speaker, I will now go on to the reasons I have come to the decision to vote for the bill on thrd reading, in spite of the failure to improve it as much as I would have liked.

First of all, we do want the cleanup provisions which will ensure prompt cleanup and the rehabilitation of the environment. The bill imposes this as an absolute liability on the owner or person in control, and I think that is a step ahead. It also authorizes the minister to move in, if the polluter does not act or cannot be identified, or to designate local government or others to move in and charge the costs to the polluter if he can be found.

I hope that the act really strengthens the rights of victims to compensation beyond what the common law now provides. We will not know if this is really the fact until we get some judicial rulings on it and have some experience with the settlement of claims generally. I am prepared to monitor this working of the act and I hope it will be advantageous for the victims of pollution.

I am disappointed that it isn’t as tough as it started out to be and I am worried that the consolidated revenue fund may be stuck with the costs of the compensation fund for more than a year if the minister does not get his proposed alternative method of financing the fund.

I am concerned about the number of people who may sign away their rights to future compensation in Mississauga when receiving out-of-pocket evacuation expenses, because I feel that evacuation expenses are in a somewhat different category to ordinary compensation. I think evacuation expenses should be covered by the polluter or by the person who caused the spill, but that they should not be given with a condition that one signs away all other rights to compensation for the effects of the spill, which may not be evident at the present time.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the bill will prove to be a useful addition to our environmental legislation; for that reason I will vote for third reading, but I hope it is not just another piece of window dressing like the Environmental Assessment Act.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, in recognition of the constraints of time and the workload before this House to be completed before it prorogues, I will be brief. I would like to convey the regrets of the member for Huron--Bruce (Mr. Gaunt), who was unable to remain in the House to participate in this third reading; he is chairman of the social development committee which is meeting this afternoon.

I know the member for Huron-Bruce was greatly involved in this most important bill; I believe the minister has a great deal of respect and listened very carefully to the reasonableness of the member for Huron-Bruce. Together, I think they have brought in a very important bill, although it is a compromise to a certain extent, between what the environmentalists groups wanted, and of course what the industry wanted.

It was a very lengthy hearing. Industry presented a very strong case, particularly in connection with the absolute liability section of the bill; the environmentalists presented equally as strong a case; therefore I think until we give the bill a chance to function we did have to reach a compromise. I believe both industry and the environmentalists groups are quite satisfied. If the bill doesn’t work to our satisfaction, we can always amend it at another time.

I was a little disturbed with some of the things that happened in committee. I know Dr. Landis was the one who you might say masterminded the bill. I am sure he had the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) well briefed. I think the minister handled himself very well in committee, but this was a bill that showed the work of Dr. Landis.

Dr. Landis sat and listened to industry prevent its case in connection with absolute liability, and he wanted to talk to the committee and convey some of his thoughts. We had such a meeting set up. I was a little disturbed when the Conservatives cut him short. I don’t know the reason. I was certainly prepared to listen to him to see what he had to say in favour of absolute liability, because there is no question there were many of us on the committee who were a little concerned about deviating so much from what we have accepted as common law, that is that a person or party is innocent until proven guilty. Here we were making parties guilty and really not giving them a chance to prove their innocence, which I say is quite a deviation from common law.

That is why I was concerned, and I know all of the Conservative members on that committee were most concerned about this particular aspect of the bill.

I felt we should have given Dr. Landis an opportunity to convey his thoughts to us about the absolute liability, but he was cut short. There was one Conservative member on the committee who I felt reprimanded him for really no apparent reason. I was a little disturbed that he was treated in this respect. The member may have something to say about it. I think it was a little unfair to a man who was so intent on seeing the bill pass in its present form, because as I say he was the one who masterminded the bill. I really think it was our responsibility to listen to what he had to say, but we didn’t have that opportunity.

We have reached a compromise position on the bill. We have absolute liability as far as immediate cleanup is concerned, but we have resorted to strict liability or reverse onus as far as compensating victims of a spill. I think this was the only thing we could do at this particular point in time. As I say, if we find that isn’t working and we have to go to absolute liability in respect of compensating victims of spills we can always amend the bill, but I think that has the makings of pretty harsh treatment.

I can never understand the members to my left and their philosophy on anything. They are the first to holler whenever people are put out of work, but they don’t seem to mind putting hardships on the very employers who are providing these jobs. If we are going to continue to impose hardships on industry in Ontario then we aren’t going to have it operating here. Companies will leave and we will have these people put out of work. I think we have to look at all sides of this, and if we want industry to carry on then I don’t think we can be imposing such things as absolute liability on these companies, which may be completely innocent as far as the spill is concerned, but are guilty according to the way a bill is formally written.

I think it is a good bill now. It is an important piece of legislation passed in connection with environmental matters. We certainly support the bill on third reading.

We in the Liberal Party are happy to see there is light at the end of the tunnel. I have wondered since we started this bill whether we were ever going to see it come into the House for third reading. I am sure the minister has wondered many times whether or not he should withdraw the bill. I am glad he stuck with it, and I commend the minister for listening to the amendments put forth by the committee members representing the Liberals and the NDP; and of course I think the minister brought in some important amendments of his own.

I think the committee worked well and brought in a bill that is workable. I would like to see it get third reading and be put into effect, so when we have another spill such as the one in Mississauga we have some legislation on which we can lean.

Mr. Kennedy: I rise to commend the minister, his ministry and the committee for bringing forth this legislation. As the previous speaker indicated, I am aware how hard and diligently they worked, listening to many representations in great detail.

I was sorry not to be able to participate in that discussion. Although any member can go, I don’t happen to be ‘on the resources committee. We all know there are other responsibilities. The chairman also worked very diligently to bring this bill through to third reading.

The issue of the derailment in Mississauga was brought up by one of the members and if the minister is going to respond when other members have spoken, I would ask him to comment on how this bill might have applied in that situation.

And could he tell me, if this bill is put in place now, would it be considered retroactive in relation to that derailment? Would it be pertinent to the issue of cleanup, what with the ongoing inquiry taking place to resolve that problem?

I note the act comes into force on a day to be named by proclamation following royal assent. Could the minister give some indication of when this bill will be in place?

Again I want to commend the committee and the minister on their work on this landmark piece of legislation. It is long overdue and we welcome it.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I am pleased to see the House is going to support this bill. We are, I think, justifiably proud that it’s going to be law here in Ontario before the festive season.

I too share the views of at least two of the previous speakers that the committee worked extremely hard and well.

I do want to clear up one or two misconceptions. First, when the bill was introduced we had high hopes, as one of the members said, that we would see payments to innocent victims, uninvolved victims.

Second, we hoped to see legislation which would allow the ministry to very effectively clean up the results of spills in the environment.

I am pleased to advise members that both those original objectives have been met, without being watered down as I think someone said. They have been met unconditionally.

Perhaps we are meeting them in a little different form than was originally proposed, but the very basic principles of the bill have been maintained.

[4:15]

I was concerned that there was some question about whether or not we would put more of the regulations into legislation. I made a commitment in committee, and now I am also pleased to put it on the record here in the House, that I am quite prepared to put regulations into the Ontario Gazette prior to their approval. In other words, they will go into part one and there will be notice of intent, and then they will be put to the committee for discussion.

There comes a point in time when, after you have had eight months of debate and after you have gone to the extent of publicizing the regulations, you have to get a little discouraged when some people say they still want more discussion; I don’t know how much is enough, in other words. I can’t imagine we can do more than we have done on this bill. I guess it boils down to this. The House, it appears, is going to unanimously support this legislation, and for that I am pleased and thankful.

I also want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that many of the decisions in the committee were made with a great deal of care and consideration. I should say all of them were made with a great deal of care and consideration. Frequently they were moved by members of the various parties. In fact, it was not uncommon for an amendment that I may have had printed, as a result of the work of the staff in the ministry, to be moved by someone from other than my own party:

I thought that committee functioned as well as any committee I have ever had the pleasure to attend and be part of. There was genuine debate and it was over two or three major issues of the bill. More particularly, now that the committee has met and had all of those deliberations, now that they have spoken and come to a consensus, and although I am proud of the bill on a personal basis and on behalf of the ministry, I hope we will find that the members of this House will be proud of that bill and not say, “Well, I agree with most of it but not that little section.” The committee system has worked; it has functioned. Surely now we should go forward and say that is our bill, one in which all of us had an opportunity to actively participate and we are proud of having done so.

I can’t answer the question of the member for Mississauga South as to when the bill will be proclaimed. As it says, obviously, in section 6, “This act comes into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor.” I would like to have the regulations gazetted first and then go back to the committee at least. If I thought that would unduly delay it, then I would, of course, ask Her Honour to proclaim it. I am sure my cabinet colleagues would agree to proclaim it earlier than that. I would hate to unduly delay it.

Mr. Makarchuk: Don’t wait for another disaster.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I agree. That’s one of the concerns. Let’s get it on here. If I hear the member say, “Proclaim the bill and do the regulations later,” then I am quite prepared to proclaim it at the earliest date. I am not sure whether the member is suggesting that.

Mr. Kennedy: Obviously we need regulations.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: We do, to make the bill fully effective. Therefore, I must press. We are pressing and I hope to be back to the committee with the regulations. Again, it was sort of a milestone in committee discussions. The give and take in that committee, I think, exceeded the give and take in most committees.

I would be absolutely wrong, in conclusion, if I didn’t say two things to you, Mr. Speaker. I want to say a very sincere thanks to members from all sides who participated in that debate. I would find them still discussing it after hours. It wasn’t a piece of legislation about which the various members came in and said, “Let’s get it over with”; indeed, they became caught up in this legislation and the importance of it. I just want to put on the record as clearly as I possibly can that that committee functioned well. They made joint decisions and I think they should be proud of a piece of legislation that I honestly believe will go down in the annals of our environmental law as one of the premier bills this province has seen and this country has seen. Indeed, it’s legislation that breaks a lot of ground in this country. Not only are we proud of this legislation, but I am very proud of the way the committee deliberated on this bill.

Motion agreed to.

THE CITY OF TORONTO ACT

Mr. Renwick moved second reading of Bill Pr5, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

THE SOUTH RUSSELL HOLDINGS LIMITED ACT

Mr. Eaton, on behalf of Mr. Rotenberg, moved second reading of Bill Pr3O, An Act to revive South Russell Holdings Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

House in committee of the whole.

CROWN TIMBER AMENDMENT ACT

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

On section 5:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that section 5a of the act, as set out in section 5 of the bill, be amended by adding thereto the following subsections:

“(5) Each agreement entered into under subsection 1 with respect to the lands to which the treaty known as Treaty No. 9 applies shall be subject to any aboriginal rights which may exist at the time the agreement is entered into and to any rights which may exist under the said Treaty No. 9.

“(6) Without limiting the generality of subsection 4, the said subsection 4 applies to every agreement entered into under subsection 1 with respect to the lands within which the communities known as Poplar Hill, Deer Lake, North Spirit Lake, McDowell Lake, Slate Falls, Aroland, Webequie, Lansdowne House, Summer Beaver, Long Dog Lake, Hawley Lake and Fort Albany are located.”

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I distributed copies of this amendment yesterday to all parties concerned. Members will recall that on second reading of the bill my colleague, the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman), raised the question of protecting the position of the Indian communities residing in the named 11 areas spelled out in subsection 6 of the proposed amendment. I have had some concerns for a long time with respect to the status of Treaty No. 9.

I specifically refer to Treaty No. 9, and not to that part of the lands covered by Treaty No. 3, nor to the Robinson-Lake Superior agreement, both of which fall into different categories. I refer specifically in this amendment to Treaty No. 9 because it is a treaty to which, in substance if not in precise technical law, the province of Ontario, along with the federal government, the Dominion of Canada as it then was, is a party with the Indian communities which are parties to that agreement.

I’ve spoken on other occasions of my concern about Treaty No. 9. Since that time there has been a significant development in the legal concept with respect to aboriginal title and aboriginal rights. Therefore, I wanted on this occasion to make certain that nothing we do in the Crown Timber Act is going in any way to affect whatever the rights may be of the native people with respect to the lands in Treaty No. 9, and more particularly the specific 11 communities.

The development of the law with respect to aboriginal rights is sort of a hallmark of this last decade. We are all quite aware that the encroachment of industrial society on tribal groups has been a feature of a colonizing policy of all of the European nations which came here to Canada and which took over and encroached upon the lands previously occupied by the native peoples. Many legal problems have been created as a result of the encroachment, but the law remains, as has been said, curiously imprecise as the rights of aboriginal peoples and the status of their treaties is obscure. Most jurisdictions have been slow to develop a coherent doctrine of aboriginal rights.

Let me refer in my remarks to an article which appeared in The Review of the International Commission of Jurists for June 1979 by Mr. Gordon Bennett on Developing Law of Aboriginal Rights. A portion of the conclusion of that article, I think, expresses the reality within which we live at the present time.

“The discovery of mineral wealth, expanding communications and the advances of industrial technology have already combined to deprive most aboriginal communities of the autonomy they once enjoyed. It would be idle to pretend that this process could be halted, still less reversed, by the enactment of laws.

“Political and economic considerations are the real determinants of the fate of native people, but the invasion of tribal land, hitherto almost invariably a lawless phenomenon, can be subjected to legal restraints and the intervention of indigenous and non-indigenous societies controlled within a legal framework.”

It is my personal opinion, which I’ve held for a long time, that properly prepared and properly submitted to the courts Treaty No. 9 would likely not withstand a positive attack as being a document which would stand up under the scrutiny of the circumstances under which that treaty was entered into. At some point in time I expect that challenge will be made.

Again I reiterate, the point of my amendment is simply to ensure that those rights, whatever they are, are not going to be affected in the interim by actions taken by this assembly under these agreements in which we are about to authorize the participation by the government with the various pulp and paper companies.

It is a long time in coming, but as recently as November 15 of this year a decision was given by the federal court in a matter, not within this province, related to Baker Lake Inuit Tapirisat of Canada versus the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and others who participated in that lawsuit, which clearly outlines and delineates the conceptual basis applicable to Canada on which claims for aboriginal rights can be based.

I’m not suggesting for a moment that question is open and shut on any of the issues that are involved in specific claims in specific areas. What I am saying is that the development of the law, or the clarification of what the law is with respect to the rights of the Indian communities with which the province is involved under Treaty No. 9, are matters which must at some time be clarified in law.

[4:30]

It is a long time since 1763 and the time of the royal declaration which spoke about the Indian peoples outside the province of Quebec and outside what were then known as the lands of the Hudson’s Bay Company, and the preservation of their rights. It is a long time since there has been any clear understanding as to whether or not under the common law of England there was an aboriginal right of aboriginal peoples to their land with respect to countries that were colonized by England in the days of the Empire.

It is sufficient to say that as late as 1973 at least three of the judges in a seven-man court held there were such rights. I reiterate that in the recent case of November 15, 1979 those particular rights are much more clearly indicated. It is now quite possible for lawyers to frame the kinds of issues which must be answered to establish whether there is aboriginal title or whether there are aboriginal rights and what the nature and extent of those rights may be in any particular circumstance with respect to any particular tribe or settlement.

The minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld) is probably quite aware that the Grand Council Treaty No. 9 has been very much concerned about this whole question of the status of the particular communities to which I have referred by name in the proposed amendment. As late as April 24, 1979, the whole question of the band reserve status was the subject of a paper by Fred Plain on behalf of the Grand Council Treaty No. 9, in which the very issues with respect to the title to those lands and the right to those lands is seen to be a matter of continuing negotiation with the government of this province.

Most of us recall--indeed the Speaker of this assembly certainly recalls--that the very lands included in Big Trout Lake, in that area, were finally resolved by joint order in council of this government and the federal government to establish the band reserve status of the Big Trout Lake settlements at that time. Since that time they have been engaged in negotiations, specifically with respect to Fort Albany, and those negotiations are stymied simply because this government has now said it is not prepared to grant any more lands and that all it is prepared to do is to sell them lands at something called “fair market value” or to exchange lands for other lands. That’s the kind of niggardly position I would anticipate this government would take, excepting this Minister of Natural Resources who has a degree of understanding of this problem which makes me believe the position of his government will at some time be reversed.

The Fort Albany negotiations are completely stymied at the present time because of this intransigent position of the government of Ontario and with respect to the fact that the other 10 communities have not even reached the point where there is any significant progress being made. I may say that behind the whole question of the validity of Treaty No. 9 lies the question of these particular 10 reserves, or 10 areas, or 10 communities--whatever one wants to call them. There are 11 communities if one includes the Fort Albany negotiations.

Let me just quote briefly from the paper to which I referred: “Through the research work done by Grand Council Treaty No. 9, by Jim Morison and the work done under the land-use study, it is clear that these so- called satellite communities did not just spin off or separate from a parent body. The government would like to convince us that this is what happened. The position paper that was submitted to the government of Canada by the people of Webequie, Lansdowne House and Summer Beaver clearly stated the fact that these communities pre-existed the 1905-1906 treaty signing at Port Hope. The fact is the same at all the other so-called satellite communities.”

I’m quite certain I need not go on at great length. This is not the proper forum to explore all the aspects of the concerns which I have about it. It is the proper forum, I suppose, but this is not the proper occasion in this forum to press that. But I did want to let my colleagues in the House, from all parties, clearly understand what our congard to the status of these communities.

May I point out very clearly that the terms of the agreement do not inhibit entering into agreements with respect to crown lands for the purpose of regeneration, as has been discussed for some considerable time, both on second reading and in committee of the whole House. What it simply says is that any agreement entered into “shall be subject to any aboriginal rights which may exist at the time the agreement is entered into and to any rights which may exist under the said Treaty No. 9.” The purpose is to clearly preserve within the statutes, to give public notice that that reservation has been made by this assembly, in order that in due course of time I would hope these particular problems about these particular 11 communities will he resolved in a way which is satisfactory to the native peoples and which will clearly indicate this assembly reserves whatever rights the native peoples may have with respect to Treaty No. 9. with which this government is inextricably involved with the federal government.

If in due course, as I believe will be the case, the matter finally goes in some way or another to the Supreme Court of Canada, we will have a definitive statement with respect to the validity, which I think is distinctly challengeable, of Treaty No. 9, and what is the nature and extent of the historical background which may have led to an assertion of aboriginal title to solve the vexed question as to whether or nut Treaty No. 9 operated to extinguish whatever aboriginal title there may have been and to determine to what extent the royal proclamation of 1763 affected the title of the Indian communities.

The division in the legal world, that has been trying to sort out, pretending that these rights always existed, but in fact trying to answer by way of the common law the very equity which is required, splits on the question as to whether or not all of the rights in that area flow only from the royal proclamation of 1763, or whether antedating that there was in fact a common law aboriginal title which must be respected so far as the lands now in the province of Ontario are concerned.

For those who are not aware of it, under Treaty No. 9 that great, vast land mass of the very northern part of the province was transferred to the crown in the right of the federal government and then transferred, in due course, to the province of Ontario for a pittance, in the negotiations which presumably took place. I may say, with great respect to the particular form of the Christian church to which I belong and to which the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) belongs, they had to use the bishop of the Anglican church in order to persuade the Indians that it was quite all right to rely upon the great white queen across the waters to look after their interests.

Somewhere along the line, the inequity of that treaty is subject to severe challenge, and I think this assembly at least has to do the minimum in this bill in preserving whatever those rights may be until such time as they can have a final and conclusive determination. I would therefore ask the support of the House for this amendment.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Does the minister wish to reply at this time. Sorry, I thought we bad come to the end of the speakers. The member for Algoma.

Mr. Wildman: I rise in support of the amendment proposed by my colleague from Riverdale. I bow to him and his legal expertise in these arguments with regard to the question of aboriginal claims, aboriginal rights and the validity, or lack of it, of Treaty No. 9.

My concern, as the minister will recall I raised this whole issue previously during this debate, is the 11 communities and what effects the proposed law, and the provision under it for forest management agreements, might have on the disputed lands that are now occupied by the bands at Poplar Hill, Deer Lake, North Spirit Lake, McDowell Lake, Slate Falls, Aroland, Webequie, Lansdowne House, Summer Beaver, Long Dog Lake, Hawley Lake and Fort Albany.

When I raised it earlier, the minister argued that this didn’t apply and shouldn’t be raised under this section. Obviously some of those communities we’re talking about are too far north to really be affected, but others could very well be affected by the forest management agreement. It seems to me that if we’re passing a bill which will be providing for management of lands on which people are now living and to which they claim title, then it is very appropriate that we should be debating it at this time. Although it isn’t central to the bill, it is certainly central to the lives and livelihood of the people living in those communities.

My colleague from Riverdale referred to the paper presented by Fred Plain to Grand Council Treaty No. 9 in April, 1979 with regard to the status of these communities.

I want to point out that whether you talk about the aboriginal claim or not, one thing that has to he considered in talking about Indian lands and Indian land claims generally, even in other treaty areas which didn’t directly involve the province because they were signed prior to the formation of this province--such as the Robinson-Superior Treaty for instance, or the Robinson-Huron Treaty--often when those treaties were signed they were signed with communities which were thought to occupy lands but it was very unclear as to which lands were occupied by whom.

In fact there is a substantial claim in the Pie River area right now over lands claimed by bands that according to the federal government have somehow been formed subsequent to the signing of the treaty; they have just appeared and are now occupying and claiming lands that were covered by agreements with other bands. One argument is that these are spin-off bands, but in fact these could very well have been bands in the interior that the people at the time of the signing of the treaty knew nothing about. That’s very unclear, it’s something that has to be cleared up.

In the case of Treaty No. 9, where this level of government has a direct interest because the treaty was signed after the formation of this level of government. This government was given jurisdiction over those areas by the federal government, and was in a sense a third party to the agreement that is central to the discussion here.

[4:45]

I would like to deal for a moment with the whole argument that these are satellite communities. That is very unclear and it would be very convenient for both the federal and provincial levels of government if they could indeed be seen as satellite communities.

One could argue that the people living in those communities are already provided for by the treaty in the reserve land set aside for the people occupying the area, but the research indicates these are communities which were not developed latterly as spin-off communities. They are long-time communities which have been standing for some time. They are communities which have developed as the people established a less nomadic way of life. They are really communities which should be seen to have reserve status.

Obviously the people who live there must be given title to the lands they are living on, otherwise they will be subject to whatever developments take place in the area, without having any say themselves.

I think this government and the federal government have already set a precedent for dealing with these problems in the Treaty No. 9 area. The Big Trout Lake settlement, which was referred to by my colleague, certainly sets a precedent. It is indeed unfortunate that this government has not decided to settle these other claims in a similar fashion, or at least appears not to have.

In the Big Trout Lake situation, which was finally agreed to in 1975, eight band reserves were established where previously there had been only one recognized. They weren’t reserves that were purchased by the people of the Big Trout Lake area but were transfers of title. I wonder why the government hasn’t chosen to take that same approach in the negotiations that are now taking place.

In the meantime, while the issues are not settled it seems imperative that we must protect the people living in those communities who are now in the process, through Treaty No. 9--the Grand Council Treaty No. 9 that is--in the process of negotiating with the two levels of government.

I wonder if the minister will be able to tell us--he wasn’t able to tell us when I raised this matter earlier in the debate on this bill--if the province will be prepared to offer the lands in fee simple as they did with Big Trout Lake?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Would the honourable member repeat that, I didn’t hear it?

Mr. Wildman: Will the minister be willing to offer these lands to the people living in the area, as reserve lands, in fee simple? In other words, will he transfer the lands? Is he willing to transfer the lands and make an agreement with the federal government for these lands to be given reserve status?

The one thing I am very concerned about--the individuals to my right, or one of them, doesn’t understand the situation in that we are talking here about lands that are under provincial jurisdiction, which were transferred to the province by the federal government; these are lands referred to in a treaty signed in 1905 after this province was established. In fact this province was a third party to that agreement.

The federal government has to be involved if one is talking about giving them reserve status, because reserves happen to be under the jurisdiction of the federal government. What we are talking about is transferring lands, I suppose, from provincial jurisdiction to federal jurisdiction since legally, reserves are seen to be held in trust by the federal government for the people living on them. That is why both levels of government are involved.

I want to emphasize this isn’t something to he just tossed into a tripartite committee for negotiations at some future date. It has to he resolved quickly and soon by negotiations directly with the people involved in the various communities through their representative, Grand Council Treaty No. 9, by the provincial Ministry of Natural Resources and the federal Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.

In the meantime, we must keep in mind how protracted negotiations between the two levels of government involving native peoples’ rights have been in the past. One just has to refer, as the minister knows very well, to the so-called 1924 land agreement negotiations, which have been going on now for what--55 years? I certainly hope this matter will not take that long to resolve. It must be resolved quickly. Keeping in mind how long these matters can take, in the meantime we must give them some kind of protection against losing complete control over the lands on which they live.

I would urge the members of the House to support the amendment proposed by my colleague from Riverdale to give protection to the 11 communities of the Treaty No. 9 area which at this stage do not have reserve status.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I have a certain amount of sympathy with these amendments. I am not sure, however, that they fit into the scheme of things in regard to this legislation. Like my colleague who has just spoken and the member for Riverdale, I have some knowledge of these matters and a great deal of sympathy with some of the land claims put forward by the bands.

Not being as well versed in the legal aspect as other members, I would have thought some of these matters would already have come under other legislation and other forms of protection. I don’t know if they should be put in the law to underline, as my friend from Riverdale says, the concern of this House that those rights and obligations, and certainly the resolution of those problems, would be protected.

Much of this area, of course, is in a part of northern Ontario which will not necessarily be affected by these agreements. But if there is any chance at all that some will be, I think we need a guarantee from the minister that he will be there at the very least to protect those aboriginal rights in land I believe the member for Riverdale is talking about specifically, rather than in some other species. Perhaps the concept of the aboriginal rights in regard to game and fish and the impact that harvesting and regeneration might have on those should also form part of the bill. I don’t know.

Could the minister tell us if he has given any consideration to the matters raised by the member for Riverdale and just where the situation lies? Fiow does he see this legislation affecting or not affecting these particular problems in regard to Indian land claims?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I will deal with the questions raised by the member for Rainy River in connection with fish and game and whatever rights there may be on the part of the native peoples for trapping, hunting and fishing. This is one definition of aboriginal rights. It’s by no means of legal definition, but it is one commonly used.

The land-use planning process now going on in the crown lands under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Natural Resources provides for land for timber, game and fish without straying too far from this bill. These are things I have mentioned previously in connection with the purchase of the Reed mill and existing licence by Great Lakes and the requirements we have in the memorandum of understanding which may be a part of that purchase.

I can assure this House we are very conscious of the need to preserve timber, game, fish, flora and fauna for everybody.

Going to the question raised by the member for Algoma, there is an existing provision that has been operative and used on occasion for the exchange of lands presently held by the crown in right of Ontario for lands now Indian reserves and held by the crown in right of Canada on an acre-for-acre basis. To my knowledge there has never been an exchange refused on that basis by the province.

On occasion a satellite or breakaway group has come to the province to ask for a specific piece of land. Such an incident occurred on land not too far east of the Lakehead, not too long ago. It is currently under negotiation

We agreed to sell--not exchange but sell--the land to the federal government for this group. I understand there are a number of satellite bands on crown land now in the right of Ontario and some reserve tracts owned by the crown in the right of Canada are vacant.

I have mentioned before, as has my predecessor, one of the reasons for setting up the original royal commission under Mr. Justice Hartt, now headed by Mr. Fahlgren, and setting up the tripartite process was to negotiate these matters, some of which are of great legal complexity.

I would like to comment briefly on the two amendments just moved by the member for Riverdale. I start off my comments by asking, what are aboriginal rights?

The member for Riverdale uses that expression in his proposed subsection 4. That use implies this expression is reasonably clear. However, I am advised by our counsel that the expression “aboriginal rights” is not a reasonably clear concept. It is reasonably cloudy, or I might even say, unclear, expression.

As I think all honourable members of the House are aware, the Supreme Court of Ontario has the Temagami case to consider and it is before the court at this moment. I understand one of the main issues before the Supreme Court of Ontario will be the nature and extent of aboriginal rights.

I believe it is our duty as legislators to employ in our legislation expressions that are reasonably clear, not expressions that because of their ambiguity are currently before our highest court for clarification. In addition, it strikes me as improper for the Legislature to propose legislation of the kind proposed by the member for Riverdale when the very subject matter is sub justice, that is, before the courts.

[5:00]

I am advised that some of the court cases in the context, as the member for Riverdale has mentioned himself, don’t use the expression “aboriginal rights” but the expression “aboriginal title,” as he used today. I understand the meaning of the latter expression is just as ambiguous as the former. Neither, in the absence of reasonably clear meanings provided by the courts, ought to be legislated into law, in my view and in the view of my counsel. To do so would be to legislate, in effect, ambiguity and uncertainty into our law. I think that result would tend to bring discredit upon this House.

The latter part of subsection 4 as proposed by the member for Riverdale provides in substance that the forest management agreement is subject to any rights under Treaty No. 9. My advice is that this provision is redundant by virtue of section 88 of the federal Indian Act which provides, in effect, that the laws of Ontario are subject to Indian treaties. Since this principle appears not to be well understood, I would like to read section 88 of the Indian Act for the information of all honourable members.

“Subject to the terms of any treaty and any other act of the Parliament of Canada, all ‘laws of general application from time to time in force in any province are applicable to and in respect of Indians in the province, except to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with this act”--that is, the Indian Act--“or any order, rule, regulation or bylaw made thereunder and except to the extent that such laws make provision for any matter for which provision is made by or under this act.”

I reiterate that the laws of Ontario are already subject to the treaties. Consequently, it follows that agreements made under Ontario laws would also be subject to the Indian treaties. With respect to the member for Riverdale, the latter part of his proposed subsection 4 is redundant. However I am advised subsection 4 also appears to be defective on constitutional grounds. I am advised that section 91, head 24, of the British North America Act provides that the class of subject, “Indians and land reserved for Indians,” fails within the exclusive authority of the Parliament of Canada. It is reasonably clear that Ontario has no legislative authority to deal with the rights of Indians and in our opinion subsection 4, as proposed in this amendment, purports to do what this Legislature cannot do. Putting this matter simply, to me the proposal appears ultra vires this Legislature.

Mr. Renwick: I don’t intend to prolong the matter because, as I said, this is not the occasion to debate all of the intricacies involved in it. I would, however, like to dissociate myself quite gently and I quite specifically from the minister’s version of what the effect, both in law and in reality, of the proposed amendment would be.

I stand by the amendment. I think it is necessary and that behind it is a real reluctance by the province to recognize that there are significant things wrong with the way the native people in this part of the world are being dealt with by this government when it could very well, in co-operation with the federal government, effect very significant and substantial changes which would eliminate the legalities and speak to the social and economic realities of the problem involved.

It is only because of that failure that one must rely upon the technicalities and the extreme difficulties of arguing the legal cases that are involved in the questions related to these matters. None of it, I say, is clear but it’s becoming clearer. Throughout the 1970s, it’s significantly more clear than it has been at any other time.

However, I do not intend to pursue the matter. I will let the record speak for itself at this time.

Mr. Wildman: I do intend to pursue the matter for some time, not for too long a length of time, though. I just want to reply to a couple of things the minister said.

He said he was aware of the fact that these kinds of disputes can sometimes be resolved through trade of land. I mentioned that when I was speaking and, of course, it is true, but that is not what is being asked for.

Here is a situation where, let’s say, you have two communities. One community is recognized to have reserve status. The people of both communities are recognized to be members of the band for which that land is reserved. The second community, which does not have reserve status, requests reserve status.

Hon. Mr. Auld: We can’t grant reserve status.

Mr. Wildman: It involves negotiations, as I said, at both levels of government, because the province has the jurisdiction over the land on which they live. The province says to the federal government, “We don’t want to give up any land.” The federal government then says, “This group of people want reserve status; they want land.” The province replies, “We are not willing to transfer land directly to the federal government so that they can be given reserve status, but we are willing to trade some land. We will consider that.”

In fact, what they are saying is they want to go to the first community that already has reserve status and say to them, “Look, will you divide up your land and give us some of what you have so that this other group can be granted land so they can have reserve status?” That is what the minister is asking and it is completely unreasonable, because if they are separate communities and they have been established as separate communities for a long time, unless there is a tremendous amount of goodwill and they have more land than most reserves, the people on the reserve are not going to be willing to give up some of their land. In many cases, because of the increase in population since the early 1900s, the reserves are much smaller than they need to be.

The minister did not reply to what I had mentioned, in that the agreement on the Big Trout Lake area did not involve a trade of land; in fact, it was a direct transfer.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right.

Mr. Wildman: If you could do it then, why can’t you do it now?

As a matter of fact, if I refer to the paper that my colleague mentioned, at the time of the negotiations with the Big Trout Lake band the government maintained that the land originally granted would have to be enough to support the band. I quote here, “The government said the assets of the Big Trout Lake band, including land and capital moneys, must be divided on a per capita basis to the eight communities.” That was the position taken by the government.

It was only after a referendum had been held requesting separate band status that the other seven communities were given band status and given land. It was a direct transfer as far as the Indians were concerned.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I think we have strayed somewhat from the amendment to the Crown Timber Act.

Mr. Wildman: All I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is that this amendment as proposed by the member for Riverdale would not be necessary, as I think it is, to protect those communities if the government was willing to make a commitment for a transfer of land to the federal government so that reserve status could be established. As a matter of fact, at the time of the negotiations on the Big Trout Lake situation, the Fort Albany people were petitioning for the same kind of reserve status, but it was refused. Why would the government give it to one but not to the other?

In 1975, the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) said that a provincial grant of land for Fort Albany similar to the grant made at Big Trout Lake was not possible. In fact, they would only trade land. If the minister would simply stand here and state he is willing to negotiate a transfer of land to the federal authorities for band status to be granted, this amendment wouldn’t be necessary. As long as he’s unwilling to say that, we must pass this amendment.

Mr. T. P. Reid: As I gather, the purport of the minister’s remarks was that these amendments were out of order. Was that what he was trying to say? If he was, then obviously the chair has to rule.

If they are out of order, I think the least we require in the Legislature this afternoon is some kind of commitment that the lands, particularly, of the Indian bands in the area who may be affected by these agreements, and their aboriginal rights--as I define them and as the minister indicates he does, although perhaps not sharply enough for the lawyers--but that their aboriginal rights in regard to hunting, fishing and trapping will be protected.

If these amendments are out of order--I’m not quite sure whether they are or not and I can’t make the decision on that--I’d like the minister to tell us what guarantees there are going to be. He mentioned the Hartt commission, or the Fahlgren commission, the tripartite situation with justice Hartt. I’m not sure, quite frankly, I have much faith in all of that. I think that whole northern environment commission was a con job. I think in many ways it did more harm than good. I’m not sure what they’re doing, if they’re doing anything at this stage.

I’d like something more concrete so the people we’re talking about have some protection. Perhaps these amendments should carry if we can’t get some kind of guarantee from the minister or if he can’t tell us under what mechanism these particular people’s rights, perceived or legal, are going to ie protected.

First of all, was the minister trying to say that these amendments were out of order?

Hon. Mr. Auld: What I said was that, first of all, subsection 4 appears to my legal staff to be redundant because of section 88 of the federal Indian Act which provides that all our laws must be in accord with the treaties made with the native people. They are subject to the terms of any treaty and to any other act of the Parliament of Canada. So it is unnecessary, in the first place, to have this amendment. Secondly, it also appears to be defective on constitutional grounds, according to the British North America Act and what I read a few moments ago.

I am not clear whether the member for Riverdale also moved at the same time “that section 5a of the act as set out in section 5 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection: (6 … ’” Is that presently before us? It is. Then let me expand a bit on this. I’m afraid I was thinking we only had the first part.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, on that point I nodded inadvertently. No, that is the second amendment. There’s some confusion about the numbers. Because last night the minister moved an amendment to add subsection 5, and because the document which I had sent to him was numbered 4 and 5, we then had to number it 5 and 6. But the one I will move subsequently is actually a new subsection 7, and it’s not before us at this time.

[5:15]

Hon. Mr. Auld: Then I can go back to the tripartite process. I think I can say for this government that we are anxious to reach a settlement on a whole variety of issues with the native people of Treaty No. 9, Treaty No. 5, the Union of Ontario Indians, the Iroquois and allied groups and others within the province on a great variety of matters.

As I say, I’m straying a bit from the Crown Timber Act, which is only one relatively small part. I think the biggest single issue is not the question of hunting, fishing and trapping. By and large, the only way there is agreement is because of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision as to the limitations imposed on all status Indians as far as hunting, fishing and trapping are concerned off the reserves--and how far off might be questionable because there are different provisions in different treaties, purchases and so on.

The Supreme Court has ruled that status Indians’ rights on the reserve are protected. Off the reserve, they are subject to the game and fishing laws, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, other federal statutes and those provincial regulations which are passed by the federal government at our request.

As far as land claims are concerned, that is a different matter. I think those must be negotiated. My information and the advice I have from the law officers of the crown are that those have to be negotiated jointly as between the crown in right of Ontario end the crown in right of Canada on the one hand, and the native people on the other. It may well be that the settlements arrived at will vary in different parts of the province, although I think a single principle will have to apply. Those negotiations are going on, albeit slowly.

In 1924, when those--I don’t really remember, as I wasn’t following the papers that closely. In fact, I was just learning to read at the time.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You were a 30-year-old man.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Not quite. Three maybe, but I looked older.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You were reading then.

Hon. Mr. Auld: There were some major questions to be resolved, and many of them remain, in terms of land claims. I can assure the member for Rainy River we are anxious to see some settlements. In some cases, we’re approaching some proposals that we will be able to put forward in connection with one or two claims I can think of in northwestern Ontario. I’m not sure of the matter the member for Algoma was mentioning about Big Trout Lake, unless that was in the time of the Honourable Kelso Roberts.

Mr. Renwick: It was 1975.

Mr. Wildman: It was 1975.

Hon. Mr. Auld: On a reserve in that general part of northwestern Ontario the original survey was shown to be wrong and an insufficient acreage had been granted for the reserve. I can’t remember the name of the band. A grant was made by the province.

Mr. Wildman: They had 126 square miles and they were given another 195 square miles in addition.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The minister has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Another 11 square miles, was it?

Mr. Wildman: Another 195 square miles.

Hon. Mr. Auld: That isn’t the one I was thinking of. At any rate, we are anxious to resolve these things, but we must do so within the laws of the country. I hope that satisfies the honourable member’s question.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The minister has said these are redundant and are not required. Can we then have a guarantee from the minister that if any of these agreements are to be signed that will come in the areas suggested in the amendments by the member for Riverdale, then at the very least, before any agreement is signed with any company, these matters will go to the tripartite committee where the native peoples in the areas, particularly Treaty No. 9 that we’re dealing with, will have an opportunity to put forward their point of view and stand up for their rights and protect themselves. Can we have that kind of guarantee?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I thought I had given that in the question about Reed. I just happened to have something here to cover that which I was going to read when the addition of subsection 6 was made.

Let me say that in administering forest management agreements I can assure the members of the House that due consideration and respect will be given to the legitimate interests of the relevant Indian communities. In this respect, the lands occupied by these Indian communities can be excluded from any forest management agreement.

Mr. Renwick: I want to make a brief comment. The questions are really all unsettled and all of the statements are argument-begging. Every one of the statements which the minister has made is an argumentative question. The fact of the matter is that the Parliament of Canada doesn’t recognize aboriginal rights. The Parliament of Canada thinks that Treaty No. 9 is sacrosanct. The question of whether or not we have any jurisdiction in these matters is because this is the only treaty which came into effect after the province of Ontario was established under the constitution in 1867. All of those matters are questions which are going to have to be resolved.

To say that it is ultra vires of us to pass this amendment is not particularly helpful. All this says is that whatever the rights are, they are entitled to be protected and any agreement is subject to them. That’s all. If they turn out to be nonexistent, that’s fine. If they turn out to exist, then the agreements are subject to them. It wasn’t an attempt to be legalistic about a problem. It was an attempt to make certain the social and economic realities exist.

It seems to me--and I don’t live in the northern part of the province--if you’re entering into agreements to cut timber and then to regenerate it, you can’t help but disturb whatever may be encompassed in the needs of the native peoples living in those areas. It seems to me somehow or another we’ve got to say to them we’re just not going to enter into agreements between the government of Ontario and a particular pulp and paper company for cutting rights over lands, without saying something about protecting the people who live there, particularly the native peoples who need that kind of protection. Whether the aboriginal rights are the limited ones referred to or whether there are some larger ones are not our questions. Those are questions which I see down the road are going to go to the courts.

I think we have a very profound obligation to say, “Fine, if they’re going to go to the courts, that’s all right.” But the social and economic reality is to say either we make them a party to the agreement and negotiate the agreement that way or to say these agreements preserve and protect whatever those rights are. I think we owe nothing less.

I don’t expect that I or my colleague from Algoma can convince the House. If my friend from Rainy River now believes that the point is not adequately covered or if he believes that an undertaking from the government has been given which removes the problem, that’s fine. We intend to record our position on the matter.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Renwick’s amendment to section 5a adding subsections 5 and 6 will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Amendment stacked.

Mr. Renwick: I have a further amendment which, if the numbering system can sort itself out--in the document I distributed it was referred to as subsection 6, I think now it is really subsection 7. That’s what we’re talking about.

I may say that if this amendment were to pass there would be a subsequent amendment, which I’m not going to put, which would add as a schedule to the act the description of the lands contained in the memorandum of understanding between the government of Ontario and Reed Limited.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that section 5a of the act as set out in section 5 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(7) No agreement shall be entered into under subsection 1 with respect to the lands described in the schedule hereto.”

Mr. Renwick: If I could just express my concern. I’ve discussed this with the minister in a very brief way. While I want to make a couple of remarks about the memorandum of understanding, what I’m saying to the minister is, because of the confusion surrounding that memorandum of understanding between Reed Limited and the government of Ontario and the proposed transfer of assets by Reed Limited to Great Lakes Paper Company Limited and because of the discussions which have taken place and the questions which have been asked, we simply want from the government a clear understanding, in nonlegal terms, as to whether or not the government is saying that we will take performance by Reed, or by Great Lakes, or some part of the performance from Reed and some of it from Great Lakes. Or, as we can say in ancient legal parlance, are they accepting Great Lakes as standing in the shoes of Reed Limited for the purposes of this agreement?

Let’s not talk about all the legal gobbledegook. The best lawyers in the world can differ on the question. The worst lawyers can differ on the question. That’s not the point.

The point is there is no specific provision at the signature clause of this agreement about any assignment, so it’s not in a relatively more common legal form. This only envisages two parties; Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario--God bless Her--and Reed Limited. That’s all. There are only two parties. It doesn’t say anything that one party may assign, or that the agreement will be binding on the heirs, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. It doesn’t use any of that jargon at all. It is totally silent with respect to assignment.

I have been taught trite law, simple law, that the benefit of an agreement can be assigned but the burden can’t, that the province of Ontario is entitled to performance by Reed Limited and nobody else and that the province is in a clear position where it can say to Reed: “You cannot assign the obligations to perform. We don’t have to accept performance of any of the conditions precedent to the licences that are included in this except from you, Reed Limited, and we won’t allow you to make a sham of the agreement.”

[5:30]

If the government wanted to it could simply say if there has been any proposed assignment of the burden of this agreement to Great Lakes the contract is frustrated and that is the end of it.

Alternatively, the government can say very clearly, “We may not have been a party to the agreement between Reed and Great Lakes, but we have in a sense let them know if Great Lakes takes over the whole of the Reed operation Great Lakes can stand in the shoes of Reed and we, the government of Ontario, will accept it.” That would be known in law as an ovation.

The orderly way to do it is for the three parties to sign a document saying that Great Lakes is inserted in place of Reed. Great Lakes perform the agreement and if they live up to that agreement, the government will feel bound to Great Lakes.

Instead of that, we have this continuous mishmash of questions and articles in the press and discussions about all the legalities. I introduced the amendment in an attempt, ineffectual as it likely will be in any event, to put a roadblock before this committee, before the minister, which I am quite prepared to remove if he will make a short, simple, understandable statement with respect to the present position of that agreement.

As to the performance at the present time by Reed, does the government consider the agreement, memorandum of understanding and any additional letters that have been exchanged in good standing as between Reed and the government, and are they going to accept Great Lakes in place of Reed?

It seems to me those questions are quite simple. One of the provisions with respect to termination says, in item (h) of clause 11 of the agreement and I don’t want to refer to all the other particular provisions, that the minister, and in this case I think it is the Minister of the Environment, perhaps the Minister of Natural Resources can clarify that for me: “The minister may, on written notice to the company, terminate this memorandum of understanding if, by January 1, 1980, the company”--that is Reed Limited--“has failed to obtain approval of the proposed development referred to in paragraph 2 by the Minister of the Environment.” No, it is the Minister of Natural Resources who has the right to give that notice.

I may not have expressed the questions as clearly as I want to, but I think the minister understands that we want to know what the state of that memorandum of understanding is. We are not making any value judgement but until we know its status we have no way of saying what we think the case should be. Will the minister please remove the confusion about this agreement he has allowed to develop through the mysteries of his legal advisers?

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments? Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to repeat what I said in the House on December 3, starting at page 5052 of Hansard. Perhaps I can sum it up by answering three questions.

I explained at the time the deadline of December 31, 1980 would not apply. because Reed did submit an environmental impact study. This was returned saying the rules have now changed and subsequently they were required to produce an environmental assessment, which is quite a different document.

In the meantime, we had also undertaken to produce--within 18 months, I think--a forest inventory of the area which we have not done and still have not forwarded, although almost everything except the inventory is complete. The land crews have completed. It is simply the air photographs which have not yet been assembled. I am advised that consequently that deadline has automatically been extended or, in effect, it is null and void.

The other question is whether the memorandum of understanding, whatever its value, is transferable or not and I have an opinion. I will just read it. It is very short: “In our opinion it would appear that Reed Limited may assign its interest in the above-noted agreement without the crown’s consent, since the performance of the agreement does not require any special skill, reputation, knowledge, knowhow or other such quality on the part of Reed Limited that the crown relied upon in entering into the agreement with Reed Limited.”

Put another way, that is to say that the Great Lakes Paper Company Limited has the same general skills, expertise and knowledge that Reed Limited has or had, and consequently Great Lakes could perform the obligations under the memorandum in the same fashion as Reed would. I could go on at some further length and quote from what I said in the Legislature, but I think in substance that should answer the two major points which the honourable member has raised.

Mr. Renwick: Let me assume that you as the minister have accepted the legal opinion you got. Are you therefore saying that if Great Lakes performs, it is as if the agreement originally was between Great Lakes and the government?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I am.

Mr. Renwick: That’s all we wanted to know. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Subject to all the provisos which I touched upon in my letter of November 5 to the chairman, president and chief executive officer of Great Lakes.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I think it is fair to point out as well that we went through this during the minister’s estimates. just so that I have no misunderstanding, nothing is going to be done until the West Patricia land-use study is completed in 1981 and until there is an opportunity for that to be looked at, and also the northern environment commission of Mr. Fahlgren. As I understand it, no licence will automatically be turned over to Great Lakes or whomever when that study is done. I hope I am correct in saying that. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Two more times, Mr. Chairman, and I could recite it by heart. I have it here and I would be delighted to read it again.

Mr. Renwick: I wasn’t in the standing resources development committee. Perhaps I could be told what the conditions are which now exist between the minister and Great Lakes. Either repeat it here or tell me where I can find it.

Hon. Mr. Auld: You can find it in Hansard in answer to a question in the Legislature on, I think, December 6, the day of the Treasurer’s announcement about the proposed negotiations for the sale of Reed’s Dryden operation to Great Lakes, I was asked the question and I think I read virtually all of the letter with the exception ‘of the first part, which said, “I have your letter of November 2 respecting your company’s plans and aspirations vis-à-vis Reed Limited,” and, “Yours sincerely.”

Mr. Renwick: Was that letter tabled in the assembly or in the committee?

Hon. Mr. Auld: It was read in the committee. I will read it again.

Mr. Renwick: No. I am not worried if you will just table the letter.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I’ll do better, I’ll give you a copy. Anyone else want a copy?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Yes, I’ll have one if you are handing them out.

Mr. Renwick: I want to say not only was I not at the resources development committee, but I guess I am dense today. Am I to understand that if I were to read the memorandum of understanding and the letter which the minister has just sent to me--and I now understand that Great Lakes stands in the shoes of Reed Limited--then I have all the conditions which exist between Great Lakes and the minister on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in right of the province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Except for the change in the environmental provisions because of the change in the legislation.

Mr. Renwick: Is that in some kind of a document as well, or is that just in the legislation?

Hon. Mr. Auld: It is in the legislation, as I understand it.

Mr. Renwick: So there have been no other documents exchanged with either Reed or Great Lakes except these documents,

Hon. Mr. Auld: No. I think there is a letter from the Treasurer, from which I believe he read, which indicates the position of the province regarding any claims against Reed in excess of $15 million.

Mr. Renwick: Would it be possible for us to have that tabled?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I believe it was tabled by the Treasurer.

Mr. Renwick: Was it read in full? Again, I have the memorandum of understanding. I have the letter which the minister sent over to me and the letter which was read by the Treasurer into the record. Does that tell me the whole story as it exists on December 11?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Except that I believe the member will find the memorandum of understanding refers to an environmental impact study. That has now been superseded by the Environmental Assessment Act which requires a different process.

Ms. Bryden: I would like to ask the minister what the Treasurer meant when he said that Great Lakes would meet environmental standards or even exceed them. What was he referring to when he said environmental standards?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I hate to say this, but I think the person to ask there would be the Treasurer. I heard what he said. I assume he was talking about the current environmental standards, but I would suggest the honourable member ask the Treasurer. I prefer to answer for myself and not for other people.

Ms. Bryden: It seems to me the minister should know what environmental standards are being placed on Great Lakes since it comes under his jurisdiction as well. Reed was under a very specific control order which was issued in August of this year. Presumably that control order died, or will die when Reed transfers the assets. The real question is will a similar control order be put on Great Lakes, or did the Treasurer have other environmental standards in mind.

Hon. Mr. Auld: On that, I think you had better ask the Minister of the Environment. He is the one who put on the order.

Mr. Renwick: In the light of the enlightenment the minister has provided for me about it, I am prepared with the consent of the assembly to withdraw the last amendment I proposed and which is before us.

[5:45]

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Renwick has asked permission to withdraw the amendment setting out a new subsection 7. Does the committee agree?

Agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Anything further on section 5?

Anything on section 6(2)(11)?

Mr. T. P. Reid: I want to ask one question, if I may.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: On what section?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Section 8, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Shall sections 6 and 7 stand as part of the bill?

On section 8:

Mr. T. P. Reid: Under what circumstances does the minister see any reason for variance? I am presuming that anything that happens under section 8 will also be tabled as an amendment to the original agreement as set out in the minister’s amendments thereto.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I would describe this as an administrative change. At the present time the procedure for cancelling or varying the term or condition in a licence requires the licensee to surrender the licence and for the Lieutenant Governor in Council to approve the issuance of a new licence. There is quite a time lag to allow the necessary paperwork to take place.

The amendment will permit a change to be made much quicker, with less paperwork and with no hiatus, so the operator will not be in a position of having to close down or operate without a licence.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I fully understand that. But in the case of agreement under this legislation and the licences that may flow from it, will the House be informed when this action is taken as if it were an amendment to the agreement as we discussed earlier?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Really, it’s not an amendment. A change in the licence might be required because of the provision in the agreement. It doesn’t affect the agreement, but the agreement might affect the licence. I got an affirmative nod.

Mr. T. P. Reid: If you vary the licence, then obviously you are going to be varying the amount of allowable cut and the harvesting and regeneration.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Because of the agreement.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Yes.

Section 8 agreed to.

Sections 9 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The committee has stacked one vote. I remind the members that there will be a bell up to 10 minutes.

The committee divided on Mr. Renwick’s amendment to section 5 of the bill, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 22; nays 68.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

Bill 77, as amended, reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with amendments.

Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.