The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

FOOD PRICES

Mr. Swart: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, in a delayed reply to a question of mine, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations gave incorrect information to this House, inadvertently I am sure, and in so doing attacked, I suggest, my integrity.

I will supply him with the simple corrected math and he would then perhaps like to correct his statement. He said one litre of US Miracle Whip at $1.31 should have been $1.13. I will send this over to him.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I will stand by what I said yesterday.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

REVISED BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, today I am making available for comment a proposed revision of the Business Corporations Act.

The act originally came into force on January 1, 1971, and introduced for the first time anywhere in Canada the concepts of the one-man business corporation and incorporation as a right. Last May we amended the act to facilitate over-the-counter incorporation and to provide a means of speedy incorporation for the business community. Apart from housekeeping amendments, no further significant changes have been made.

Specifically, the act must be amended to make it uniform, where practical, with the Canada Business Corporations Act, which came in force in December 1975. That act, though modelled on our own, introduced new concepts and reflected growing public interest in the rights of minority shareholders.

In addition, the select committee on company law, in its 1973 report on mergers, amalgamations and certain related matters, recommended substantial changes to the act. Members of the legal profession, businessmen and the Trust Companies Association of Canada have also requested amendments which would overcome problems and correct deficiencies encountered in working with the act.

In March, the staff of my ministry drafted a proposed revision which was sent for comment to certain interested parties. A committee of the commercial, consumer and corporate law section of the Ontario branch of the Canadian Bar Association was appointed to review and comment on the proposed legislation. It was also reviewed by the corporation legislation committee of the Board of Trade, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, by the Trust Companies Association of Canada and the law schools in Ontario. Revisions were made on the basis of comments received during the summer, resulting in the proposed draft I bring to the members’ attention today.

We are circulating this draft because we feel it is essential that a revised Business Corporations Act for Ontario be acceptable to the business community and its legal and accounting advisers, be workable and reflect the latest concepts in corporate law. Following this review, we will be in a position to introduce a bill incorporating the necessary changes.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO HYDRO EXPORTS

Mr. S. Smith: A question to the Minister of Energy, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister confirm if it is correct Ontario Hydro is selling surplus electricity to American utilities for as much as one cent per kilowatt hour less than Ontario consumers are paying? Is it also correct that some of this surplus power is being sold below Hydro’s production costs?

In this connection, is it also not true that American utilities buying this power are retailing it to their consumers at profit markups of as much as 50 per cent of their cost?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I have been awaiting a more detailed response from Ontario Hydro which has not arrived as yet. But certainly when it does arrive I will be glad to share additional information with the honourable member.

I am told, by way of a preliminary examination of the story which appears today in the Toronto Star, there is a comparison between the wholesale price of exports and the Ontario retail price, which makes the comparison more marked. Under the circumstances, if the Leader of the Opposition wouldn’t mind, I will wait until I get some further information from Hydro, which had not arrived at the beginning of question period.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: On a matter as important as this, while I realize it is not reasonable for the minister to have at his fingertips all information, I would have thought the minister would know. Is it the minister’s contention that it is justifiable to ship to American profit-making corporations at the same price charged to utilities here, if it is a question of wholesale versus retail?

Does the minister recognize the rural consumer who buys directly from Hydro is paying much, much more than these American utilities are paying by buying directly from Hydro? Why should it be that American utilities can buy the power more cheaply than our own consumers?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier there is an unfortunate comparison between wholesale export and Ontario retail prices. The information I have, and I want it to be accurate and I’m sure the Leader of the Opposition would want that, is, first, that Ontario Hydro does not sell power below production costs. In fact, the policy is not to sell below cost plus 10 per cent.

Second, the Star comments that, “Last year, Ontario consumers bought 88 billion kilowatt hours of electricity ... worth $1.8 billion.” Any pocket calculator shows that is 2.04 cents per kilowatt hour. The Star also notes that last year 10 billion kilowatt hours of electricity worth $290 million were exported. That averages to 2.9 cents per kilowatt hour. The Star’s own figures show Ontario consumers paid less than foreign customers.

Third, average production cost at Nanticoke is 1.6 cents per kilowatt hour, not 2.38 cents, as is claimed by the Interested Citizens Group.

Fourth, the sales to the United States are on a bulk basis, delivered at either 230,000 or 115,000 volts.

Fifth, sales to municipal utility customers include facilities to transform the electricity downwards to household levels and Hydro’s share of this is reflected in the cost to utilities’.

Sixth, the rural rate includes all the facilities to transform the power down to household levels and distribute that power to each household. These costs are reflected in the rate.

Seventh, the power exported is surplus to Ontario’s needs at that time and the sales, which are on an interruptible basis, are cancelled immediately if the power is needed in the province.

In the first 10 months of 1979, Ontario Hydro exported 10.4 billion kilowatt hours, worth more than $300 million, with a net return or profit of about $136 million so far this year. This margin affects rates to all Hydro customers. Without the export sales margin rates would be higher in the province.

Finally, Ontario Hydro must obtain a licence to export power from the National Energy Board. It must satisfy the National Energy Board that among other things the cost of energy to be exported must be recovered fully and, second, it must not be less than the price to Canadians for comparable service.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think what I’d like to ask is really a supplementary. It may be in the way of asking your advice. When the further information comes to the minister, will he be making a statement? Can we ask supplementaries then?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, just to comment: The information which I’ve just shared in point form is the information which arrived between the main question and now. I’d be quite prepared to respond, or to attempt to respond, to any questions based on the information I’ve just shared with the House.

Ms. Gigantes: On a point of order: as the information which the minister has just given us almost amounts to a new statement of information from the minister, because this question has already been raised recently in the ministry estimates, I wonder if we could ask him to provide a copy of this statement to us.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I’d be very happy to see whether we could get some run off now. It was actually just a matter of point form in response to the story which appeared today in one of the Toronto papers, but I’d be glad to get the honourable member those points.

Mr. Blundy: I have a supplementary of the Minister of Energy. Given the fact it is commonly said in Sarnia-Lambton that 100 per cent of the production of the Lambton generating station is sold to Detroit-Edison, is the minister willing to categorically assure the users of Sarnia and Lambton that they are not paying more for hydro than is being charged to the Detroit-Edison Company?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I thought I handled that particular question, in so far as the story was concerned, in the comparisons. I would point out to the honourable member that as far as any comparison of monthly residential electric bills is concerned, if one were to look at the July 1979 figures it’s $28 in Toronto compared with $46 in Detroit. Certainly there’s a very remarkable difference as far as rates are concerned.

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary: Could I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, why it is that if Ontario Hydro is involved in a sale which involves selling bulk hydro on an interruptible basis to another utility which then sells it to yet another utility, Ontario Hydro doesn’t seek to get the middleman profits out of the deal by contracting directly with the final user?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Does the honourable member mean the residential user in the foreign jurisdiction? It obviously deals with the utility in the foreign jurisdiction which in turn deals with its own utilities.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister has answered point by point an article which appeared in the Star. Actually, I did not ask him to do that. I asked him a specific question.

In particular, one aspect he has not addressed himself to is the question, not of what the users of Detroit-Edison pay, or what the users of Niagara-Mohawk Power pay, but of whether those utilities are retailing Ontario Hydro power to their consumers at a 50 per cent markup. What I’m asking the minister is whether he has information to confirm or to deny that particular possibility.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I have no information that would confirm that the assumption which the Leader of the Opposition has made is correct.

[2:15]

Mr S. Smith: The member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) would have asked a very important question on behalf of his constituents, Mr. Speaker, about the lack of transmission to the Ottawa area. I will ask a different question now there is no chance to get that on record.

OHIP PHYSICIANS’ DEBTS

Mr. S. Smith: A question to the Minister of Health: Since it has become apparent that of the $1.2 million still owed by physicians and practitioners to OHIP, $208,000 of that is unrecoverable because these doctors no longer reside in Ontario, is the minister giving any consideration to how to deal with that problem? Is he prepared, when doctors give notice of opting out of OHIP, for instance, to make sure that any debts they may have in this regard have been recovered? Is there any way he and other provinces could get together so a doctor can’t simply leave the province and leave behind a debt without any possibility of any attempt being made to collect that debt?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, first of all, once the MRC or the practitioner review committee has made a finding, the physician or the practitioner in question has the right to appeal. That, you will understand, not unlike legal matters involving the courts, can be a lengthy procedure, in which case we are not, as I understand it, in a position where we can legally begin to institute recovery. I suspect that that has contributed in many of the cases in which we are all interested.

I am advised by my officials in OHIP that in most cases involving a recommended recovery from the MRC or a practitioner review committee, once either an appeal has been foregone or the appeal process has been concluded, the recoveries are made, in the main, within a month.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, I address a question to the Minister of Government Services. The manager of the central collection services in his ministry has indicated that they do not pursue individuals who have left the province, other than by writing such individuals and advising them of their outstanding obligation. Is it the policy of the province of Ontario that when people owe money to the people of Ontario we have a collection agency in his ministry that basically just writes them to remind them of their debt, but makes no real effort to pursue them and to obtain recovery in the courts of other provinces or by any other means?

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, we do try to recover, but I think when the manager within my department was asked he mentioned that we didn’t have a very good rate of recovers? when the doctors in question go outside of the province. I don’t believe he said we wouldn’t try to recover, only that we didn’t have a very good record of recovery in those cases.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister, now that he has admitted that the provincial auditor was right, what is he going to do to recover that better than $1 million?

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: The figure I have is approximately $202,000 and, as I said, we will try to recover that. But as the manager said, we don’t have a very good rate of recovery when they leave the province. That is not to say we won’t try and put forth all the effort we can to collect those funds.

Mr. S. Smith: I guess this is by way of supplementary, but I really want to correct what the minister has said. I have a quote here attributed to the manager of the collection services. It is possible he has been misquoted, but it is in the provincial auditor’s report and it says, “They do not pursue individuals who have left the province, other than by writing such individuals and advising them of their outstanding obligation.”

Why would that be a policy? If it is not the minister’s policy, would he please state what his policy is? Does he hire lawyers in the jurisdictions to which these people have moved? Does he try to take them into court in those areas as most businesses would try to do? Why doesn’t he try to collect debts, both on behalf of other ministries and on behalf of the crown generally in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the honourable Leader of the Opposition and all the other members that we will try and do our best to collect these debts. I would think, as you look around to some of the other debts that we collect, we do have a pretty good rating.

Mr. Foulds: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment.

Mr. Conway: Does organized labour really want Bob Rae?

Ms. Gigantes: Do the Liberals really want Pierre Trudeau?

Mr. Foulds: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could at least ask the government members to join with me in a moment’s silence for our colleagues in the Liberal Party.

Mr. Speaker: Now that your privilege has been taken care of, will you ask your question?

Mr. Peterson: Why have you got Michael Cassidy tied up in the basement?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Now you will be running around the province saying that you believe in the resurrection and the life. That is going to be tough for you, really tough for you, Stuart. It is a conversion.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Community and Social Services says that we must believe in the resurrection and the life, or something of that kind, in keeping with the season and all that. The real problem we have is we are among the very few people in Ontario who actually believed his leader when he said that Joe Clark was raiding the province of Ontario. We will be working against Mr. Clark.

Mr. Speaker: Now back to the question period.

Mr. Foulds: The spirit is indeed upon us.

Mr. Pope: What is the oil price policy in this election? Have you decided yet? Tell Bob Andras.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The real election is out there. This is the question period.

URANIUM MINING BUFFER ZONES

Mr. Foulds: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment, who I am sure is waiting in eager anticipation.

In view of the very strong recommendation made by the Environmental Assessment Board in its final report in May of this year on the expansion of the uranium mines in the Elliot Lake area -- the recommendation that further development of residences within two kilometres of tailing areas not be permitted -- and in view of the minister’s own communication to the Steelworkers’ representatives in Elliot Lake that “it might be prudent to bear in mind the Environmental Assessment Board’s categorical recommendation on this issue,” doesn’t the minister think it is prudent at this time to step in directly and declare a clear policy implementing that EAB recommendation in view of Rio Algom’s reapplication to the Elliot Lake town council for rezoning in order to build bunkhouses in the two-kilometre zone?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think I was more intrigued with the point of privilege than I am with the question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Foulds: Maybe you should be more intrigued with the question, as a minister.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Well, it didn’t get the same response.

We will, as the member knows, prepare a draft response to the report and if he is asking me to take another look at that particular section we are prepared to do so.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The minister does understand, does he not, that he did not reply to that recommendation in his response at all? There is no reply from the government. Surely the minister must be aware that during the course of the hearings and subsequent to the hearings construction of bunkhouses was going on in that two-kilometre zone, construction that is now being objected to by the Steelworkers. Doesn’t the minister think it is about time he made a firm stand on that matter?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, I simply said that is a very large report with a great number of recommendations. If he wishes me to take another look at that specific item, we will.

Mr. Wildman: Wouldn’t the minister agree that while he is looking at it again, as he suggested he would, and until such time as his ministry is ready to make a response to that recommendation as well as others, Rio Algom should cease and desist from further construction within the zones prohibited, or recommended for prohibition by the Environmental Assessment Board?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am afraid the member is making the assumption that second look would take a long time. Not necessarily. I’ll get back to the member in due course and give him some indication.

Mr. Foulds: Is the minister not aware that in the health and Safety estimates of the Ministry of Labour last night, spokesmen in that ministry considered the two-kilometre buffer zone inadequate? Isn’t it about time the minister had a program for monitoring the present bunkhouse facilities in that zone, for establishing a firm buffer zone and for an orderly phase-out of the construction that is already in that zone? Isn’t it about time he had a program?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No. It is reasonable to tell the member I was not aware of the comments of last night in that committee. I am sure, in due course, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) will make me aware of it. Now that notice has been served I will accept it and will check that out. There is very little more I can say than what I have already said in answer to that question.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you. By the way, that was a too-conservative buffer zone the Ministry of Labour people were talking about.

EMPLOYMENT IN FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr. Foulds: I would like to ask a question of the Treasurer. In view of the slowdown in housing starts because of the high mortgage and interest rates and the adverse effect that is having on the woods industry in northern Ontario, can the minister tell us what steps, if any, the government is planning to avoid the 30 to 35 per cent layoffs predicted in the woods industry by Mel Soucie, the northern economics officer of the federal Ministry of Employment and Immigration, and Tulio Mior, the Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union president?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the honourable member knows the great slump in the market is basically in the US. The great percentage of the lumber produced is going to the US, therefore any action taken in Ontario would not affect the eventual consumption at all.

The slump in Ontario housing is more related to demand for starts than to any other single factor. I suggest that the figures I have seen recently from the real estate boards have shown that sales of housing in Canada have stayed amazingly buoyant. I even saw figures for Windsor that were high.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: In view of the absence of a federal government, does the minister not think some initiative could be taken by the provincial government at this time, particularly in terms of improving Ontario’s building code in energy-efficient standards so that some crash winter works program could take place in construction over the winter months to take up at least some of the slack?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I assume the member is talking about amendments or adjustments to existing housing rather than brand-new starts, is he? Those kinds of things do need to be looked at. An expansion of the CHIP program was promised and perhaps even its jurisdiction changed when the federal budget was being discussed.

Mr. Roy: There was nothing in the federal budget about that.

Hon. F. S. Miller: They said they would be putting money into that kind of a program -- expanding the CHIP type of program. I am almost sure it is in the basic text. There was some discussion whether it should remain federal or become a provincial jurisdiction.

It is the kind of thing I have to consider as I am going through my warm-up to my own budget. It is going to be even more difficult, I am sure members will appreciate, this year. No matter how I liked or disliked the government’s budget, I now don’t have any budget to guide me while I do my own.

Mr. Foulds: It will always be difficult. But doesn’t the minister realize the problem is immediate, over the next few months? Does he not realize the waferboard plants at MacMillan Bloedel and at Great Lakes have already given notices for two- or three-week layoffs starting December 23 that affect 300 workers. There are projected layoffs in Geraldton. Is there nothing that the Treasurer or the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) plan to do over the next three months?

[2:30]

Hon. F. S. Miller: I cannot say there’s nothing. A great deal of the export of those products is to the States. I recall the company in Atikokan -- I don’t know how it’s doing -- Pluswood Manufacturing, which told me that something in excess of 80 per cent of its production at one time was going to the States. It’s awfully hard to replace that kind of a share of your market. Virtually all of the material I have seen coming from our new mills in northeastern Ontario has been bound for the northeastern United States.

One of the things I am happy to see is the comparison in the cost of western plywood with eastern chipboard and flakeboard and particleboard; our product is coming out on the good side. While there is a declining market it is interesting to note that one or two companies even at this moment are considering installation of extra capacity because they do see the long-term market as being good.

SOYBEAN PRICES

Mr. Ruston: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Has the minister taken any action yet to resolve the problem of the soybean industry in Ontario as to the subsidy being paid on rape-seed coming into Ontario by the three prairie provinces? It comes into Ontario for $30 a ton and soybean oil goes out at $73 a ton.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Earlier this year when the soybean processors and growers got together they recognized that the subsidy on the rape-seed was making it very difficult for them to compete on the local market. At this time the soybean pricing people got together with the federal Minister of Agriculture. In turn, the minister appointed a committee and this committee went into it in detail. The effect is that it doesn’t leave any room for the soybean producers to keep up with the prices.

This committee suggested to the federal Minister of Agriculture several weeks ago that consideration be given to give the same subsidy to the oil produced for export by our soybean producers. The federal minister went into this in detail and has concluded that if he starts subsidizing our soybean oil, he would be getting into difficulty with the American soybean industry. It would appear that we are hooked with this problem for an additional three years because of a program initiated by the government of a few years ago.

Mr. Kerrio: That’s pretty weak.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Maybe it’s pretty weak, Mr. Speaker, but it’s factual.

Mr. Ruston: Supplementary: Since the program is also in co-operation with three Conservative governments and one NDP government, surely the Minister of Agriculture and Food, acting for the farmers of Ontario, should have a little power to go to Ottawa and tell them to start changing something.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well what the agreement is. He knows full well the restraint programs that our federal colleagues have been carrying out and he knows full well that there is just not the money for the subsidy that we think the soybean producers should get.

AID TO CHRYSLER

Mr. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism. In view of the fact that yesterday’s Financial Post carried an article indicating that according to Ontario government estimates, a Chrysler bankruptcy would push unemployment in Windsor to 40 per cent; that 15,000 direct jobs would be lost and about 30,000 jobs indirectly lost; that UIC payments as well as lost revenue would cost governments $1 billion; in view of the fact that there is a great deal of uncertainty in Windsor right now as to whether or not the payroll of the workers will be met after January 15, would the minister clearly get that information and present it in a statement to the Legislature before we adjourn Friday for Christmas so he can assure and reassure the people of Windsor and the retailers in Windsor who are very much afraid of what’s going to happen over the next few weeks, especially during the Christmas season and with the uncertainty that’s affecting the retail industry even more? Would the minister make a statement?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would be happy to rewrite and present the statement for this House. I can tell the member that the statement would roughly confirm the figures he read into the record a moment ago. The information he indicated a moment ago is basically accurate. The estimates made by the federal government and by ourselves indicate that would be the impact of Chrysler of Canada going down. Anything I might add by way of a statement would only confirm those figures and the member may take this answer as a statement as to the impact of Chrysler going down.

I can tell the member that it is because of the impact he has just stated, in terms of unemployment and the cost to the taxpayers in the event Chrysler went down, that we have -- just to clarify the record -- strongly supported proper and carefully considered assistance for Chrysler, in the event Chrysler Corporation in the United States is saved by the Congress of the United States.

I should add that my information is that Congress is scheduled to finish this Friday and take its customary one-month break. Lord knows why it is such a short period of time, but they take only one month off. I am informed that if the Chrysler legislation does not pass the Congress by December 21, it is likely that Congress will be reconvened in the first week of January solely to consider the Chrysler situation. So if there is assistance by the American government it will be in place before the date the member referred to, which would be the date when Chrysler may run out of money.

Mr. Cooke: Supplementary: Could the minister make a statement and specifically give us the details on the financial situation and the payroll, in view of the fact that when we contacted Chrysler Canada this morning, the public relations people had no idea what was going on and referred us to UAW local 444 and said they would have more up-to-date information?

Secondly, would the minister make a statement as to what the Ontario government position is on the bottom line, on what conditions he wants to see to protect the auto workers of this province in any federal government assistance to Chrysler in Canada? We have not heard that kind of information from this government and its role in the negotiations is fuzzy, to say the least.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: With respect, we went over the matter of Chrysler in my estimates; we have gone over Chrysler here on several occasions in the House. I know it is easy for the member to say our role is fuzzy. I have made it quite clear that no government could have had more input into the national government discussions than we have. No government could have given them more specifics as to what we will require in the event any Ontario taxpayers’ funds are required.

There have been no direct negotiations between ourselves and Chrysler because those negotiations would not be very useful unless the main negotiations between the national governments are in place.

If the member would be happy to have me take the time tomorrow or on Thursday to give a statement to the House reconfirming the statistics and the position we would like to see develop and the position we have been taking, I will be happy to accommodate him.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: we would certainly look forward to such a statement from the minister. May I ask the minister whether he has informed the people in Ottawa that any participation by Ontario -- a participation which we support, by the way -- would be accompanied by the placing on the board of directors representatives of the government of Ontario, to be sure that the money being utilized is utilized basically in the long-term interest of the people of Windsor, as well as the people of Ontario generally; that none of the funds find their way across the border; that parts are sourced properly in this province and in this country, to be more specific?

In general terms, is the minister prepared to make that demand as one of the contingencies upon which any assistance would be based, that is representation on the board of directors?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We haven’t given consideration to that particular item at this time. I should say, ultimately, if we were to consider that it would only be something we would require in the event that we had any reason to believe there was an opportunity for the funds to slip away to the United States or that they not be applied for the purposes for which we have given the money.

Mr. S. Smith: Look what happened in England.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, but I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that he didn’t make that request at the time we gave a grant to the Ford Motor Company.

Mr. S. Smith: It’s a totally different situation.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is not a bit different in terms of the participation of the government of Ontario.

Mr. S. Smith: Totally different; it’s the same people who took money and left England.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We have made it quite clear that before we would commit any grant dollars from this province we would have to ensure that Chrysler had received enough financial assistance for it to be viable for the next period of time.

Given a healthy company or a company that had a reasonable prospect of being healthy I have made it quite clear that we would approach it on basically the same grounds as we approached the Ford situation which was, given a company which is looking at some new investments in this province, what kind of direct grant or other assistance might we give in order to get specific new investment in this province?

I’ve made it quite clear that we were not looking to assist in any prop-up mechanism. We were not there to stuff money into Chrysler in order to make sure it gets over its short-term financial crunch. The role of this province would be direct investment to ensure new plants, overhauling of old plants and ensuring that those jobs would remain in those modernized plants. Given that situation --

Mr. S. Smith: Watch them like a hawk.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I say to the Leader of the Opposition, at the time of the Ford situation, which was the equivalent because we were giving money for a new plant equally, he didn’t raise that situation.

Mr. S. Smith: Come on, all you have to do is make sure they build the plant.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Leader of the Opposition didn’t say we needed a position on the board to make sure the Ford Motor Company used the money for the reasons we set out.

I should also remind him -- before he runs out to the TV cameras -- that what we did in the Ford Motor Company situation was simply have them draw down the money as the work commenced on the factory. I know if he’s been to Windsor he’s seen it under way. As they prove to us they’re doing the work, we hand over the money. It would be the same sort of situation with Chrysler.

If the member perceives that the NDP position -- having our people on the board -- is receiving any sort of public acceptance then I know he will adopt that position, so I’m not surprised. He didn’t take it at the time of the Ford grant. He shouldn’t adopt it now just because the NDP position seems to be currying some favour with the public.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of the Environment has an answer to a question asked previously.

CANADA METAL COMPANY LIMITED

Hon. Mr. Parrott: In response to a question asked yesterday by the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) regarding the Canada Metal Company, the first deadline on the Canada Metal control order was December 15, 1979. The member is aware of that.

The company was to submit complete results of stack emission tests on the RotoCast operations, which is the brass foundry segment of their plant. They submitted some preliminary data for the test results last week. The final completed report and test results were delivered to the central region on Monday -- that is two days after date. Ministry staff is now assessing this report to check its accuracy and to see if the lead emissions from the brass foundry are significant.

If the test results indicate that the total lead emissions do not comply with the Environmental Protection Act then a bag house or equivalent control mechanism must be installed on the Roto-Cast section by March 31, 1981. The control order was issued on November 15 and the final completion date of all aspects required in the order is June 30, 1981.

In summary, they did comply with the first date save for two days and, of course, we were quite prepared to accept that two-day delay.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary: When would the minister’s staff be in a position to report to the minister, and through him to the House, on their findings as a result of the study of the data supplied?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, if the member would accept it it will be certainly after the House adjourns for this session and before we reconvene for the next. Therefore, I’ll be quite prepared within the month of January to supply that information to the member in a personal way by letter.

ALLEGATIONS RE BRANT COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General relating to the allegations made by the member for Brantford (Mr. Makarchuk) about improprieties in the spending of the Brant Board of Education.

Since, according to the member for Brantford, the basis of the charges was in information provided for him from the local crown attorney, can the Attorney General make a statement to the House about any such information? Since the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) said yesterday that anyone who has information about this matter should bring it forward, would he not think the same advice should apply to him and his officers?

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am not aware of the member’s allegations in detail with respect to the alleged financial impropriety. I thought from the member’s question yesterday to the Minister of Education that there had been some suggestion of an investigation of a criminal nature being conducted into the affairs of this particular board of education. I have confirmed overnight that at no time has there been any such investigation and at no time has the local crown attorney suggested such an investigation. He assures my office that at this point he has absolutely no reason to believe such an investigation is warranted.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Will the Attorney General then explain the basis of the statement made by the member for Brantford that the information came to him from the crown attorney?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Again I am a little handicapped, not knowing precisely what the member for Brantford said. I do know there was a conversation on some social occasion between the member for Brantford and the local crown attorney about the overall administration of the affairs of the board of education.

I have not spoken directly to the crown attorney involved but our director of crown attorneys has spoken to him and has been assured that at no time did the local crown attorney suggest any impropriety that would involve any degree of criminality.

Mr. Nixon: An additional supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister not think he should consult with the Minister of Education since this is an important matter brought forward publicly as an allegation, without any foundation that I am aware of, by the member for Brantford? Would he not think the air should be cleared in this respect, particularly since one of his employees, the crown attorney, has been involved in almost every press report?

Mr. Breithaupt: Is the conversation denied?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No. There was a conversation in general about the board of education, but there was no suggestion that there was a criminal investigation or that any would be warranted. It was the suggestion that the local crown attorney may have made such a statement that gave me great concern.

The Minister of Education did bring this matter to my attention towards the end of last week. I am just not sure in what manner the member wants me to clear the air. My concern was and is whether or not the local crown attorney had suggested a criminal investigation should be undertaken, or was in fact in place. I have been assured that at no time did he suggest any such investigation had taken place or should take place.

Beyond that, I just don’t think what the local views might be as to the effectiveness of the local board of education really falls within my purview.

AUTO INDUSTRY LAYOFFS

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Ministry of Industry and Tourism. Is the minister aware that as of today we have about 1,500 auto workers on layoff in the Oshawa area, 210 on indefinite layoff at Houdaille Industries in Oshawa and another 300 indefinite and 1,000 temporary layoffs at the Chrysler trim plant in Ajax? If he is aware of those layoffs, would he share with us what contingency plans he has for these two major parts plants in the Oshawa area?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Ministry of Industry and Tourism doesn’t have programs to supplement wages, if that is what the member is looking at. He may direct that sort of question to a reference under either the union contract or to the federal government Department of Labour.

We have no programs which are tilted towards supplementing income when there is a layoff period.

Mr. Breaugh: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister then saying that he has made no recommendations about a transitional assistance benefits program for the area, or that he has not attempted to get new contracts from the parts sector for either one of these two plants, or that he probably doesn’t give a damn at all?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’m not saying either two or three. In the case of two, of course we tried very hard to continue to get new parts programs for those plants. I would remind the member -- and I think I’m correct in saying this -- the last time I looked at the figures General Motors had been the best of the big three in terms of giving Canada a fair deal in auto parts. In fact, I think GM is in rough balance in terms of auto parts, under the auto pact. GM is looking after their Canadian responsibilities pretty well, more or less, in terms of auto parts and such things as might help in those plants.

In terms of item three, I can assure the member I do give a damn and we’ve spent a lot of time looking into the situation and talking to everyone involved.

In the case of the first item, which was a TAB program, as the member knows that was a federal program which was instituted several years ago -- I think it was either 1974 or 1975. In those cases, the situation, in terms of sheer numbers, was a lot more critical than the situation is at the present time.

As the member has acknowledged, some of those layoffs -- 1,000 of them, I think -- are temporary and they will depend, literally, on how sales go from week to week in North America. There is little we can do about the sales of GM throughout North America.

LAKE SIMCOE-COUCHICHING REPORT

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Will the minister advise the House as to the status of the Lake Simcoe-Couchiching report, which was completed last April, after two years of meetings? Has it been presented to cabinet? If not, why not?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, it hasn’t been presented to cabinet as yet. I guess the only defence I can offer as to why not is because so many other things have been at cabinet. Hopefully, that will get to cabinet and a decision will be made in the month of January.

There was some work required of our ministry prior to submitting that report. I had a visit with the appropriate staff some time last week. It is in hand and it should be going forward to cabinet in the month of January.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Why, during the preparation of the strategy report, did officials of the Ministry of the Environment push for the target of 103 metric tonnes as the maximum phosphorus loading limit for Lake Simcoe when the report itself makes it clear that this target is self-defeating?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: As I recall discussions both with the committee and among ourselves, I don’t think it is quite appropriate to say we pushed for that 103 metric tonne limit. I think we were aware of the tremendous difficulty of getting below that figure.

As a matter of policy, we would like to be below that figure. There was a great number of people who could certainly support a lower number than 103 metric tonnes. As a matter of policy, so would we. It’s easy to accept that position. We also have to recognize the tremendous costs that go along with it.

Before the member asks me I will also say we recognize the tremendous cost if we don’t. I don’t deny that.

Consequently, because of an excellent presentation by the local committees to a cabinet committee and with the help of the other ministries we’re going to try to respond to that report in detail in the near future. I don’t want the honourable member to take it as read that we’re supporting the 103 metric tonnes as a ministry position, even though logic could assume that from the initial discussions. It is my personal belief that we should do better than that.

MEDICAL SERVICES IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of Northern Affairs. Is he aware that the Lakehead Social Planning Council has just published the findings of its health transportation survey showing that in 1977 750 Thunder Bay district residents had to travel to Toronto and/or Manitoba hospitals and 183 to Minnesota hospitals for care, and that it has recommended that OHIP pay for round trips for patients and escorts?

Is the minister also aware that his colleague, the Minister of Health, in a letter to me has again refused to even consider having OHIP cover these costs? If so, what measures is he, as the minister responsible for co-ordinating government policy for northern Ontario, prepared to take to assure equal access to specialized medical care for residents of the north?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, let me point out to the honourable member that I have not seen the report to which he refers. I would say to him that it’s not necessary for the people of northern Ontario to go to Minnesota -- to other parts of Canada, yes. I do realize there is a great attraction there with the facilities at Rochester, Minnesota. I think there is a need for the facilities and the expertise there.

What we can do with the excessive costs is something we have been looking at for considerable time within my ministry. We have not had any direct contact with the Ministry of Health but I can assure the honourable member we will be discussing it with them.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary: In contacting the Ministry of Health the minister may find that his colleague believes nonemergency trips are a social problem rather than a medical problem and thus should come under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Community and Social Services. If that is the case, if that’s the government’s position, what action is he prepared to take in getting these two ministries together to implement the report’s recommendation that either the government establish a regularly scheduled monthly or bimonthly air or land shuttle service to transport non-emergency cases, or that a budget be provided to the Thunder Bay transportation officer for transportation costs for non-emergency cases?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think the honourable member is very much aware that there is excellent air transportation services throughout all of northern Ontario. There is no necessity for the special type of service to which he refers. We will be looking at the whole aspect of the needs of northern Ontario as they relate to the very special cases and when there are emergencies.

CALAND ORE COMPANY LIMITED

Mr. T. P. Reid: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Has he, the Minister of Northern Affairs, the Treasurer, or the Premier (Mr. Davis) been in touch with Inland Steel Company in Chicago in relation to Caland Ore Company Limited’s premature closing down in Atikokan? Has he been in touch with that company to ask them to continue mining until that ore body at Atikokan is completely mined out? Has there been any discussions at all with them?

Hon. Mr. Auld: There have been discussions with the local manager --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Nat Scott.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Yes, Mr. Nat Scott. I believe some of my officials have been or are in touch with Inland Steel in the States. I haven’t any results to report, other than the fact that originally they indicated that because of the softening of their market to the US automotive industry the operation of the pellet plant was going to be shortened, as the honourable member is aware, and will probably close at the end of April or early May, rather than later in the summer as had been anticipated several years ago. I will be delighted to report to the House any further news as it comes along.

[3:00]

Mr. T. P. Reid: Supplementary: I trust the minister will pursue this as aggressively as he can. Can he report, as I asked in a letter to him, on exactly how much mineable or economic ore is left in the ore body and will not be mined at all by Caland and will be left there and become completely uneconomic for any other mining company to move in and mine?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I have that information. I think I can give it in a general way to the honourable member and the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds), who has asked a similar question.

The indication that was given of some 16 million tons of ore is incorrect. The studies done both by our own ministry and by Caland indicate that it was something in the order of 5,000 to 10,000 tons, without an incredible amount of stripping, because of safety reasons, because of the shape of the pit.

I think perhaps I would be wiser to make a statement on this than attempt to give a full answer when I haven’t got all the details in front of me. I am hoping to be able to do that before the close of the session.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable minister said he would be making a statement about it. If the member has a brief supplementary I will allow it.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister explain when he makes his statement why his ministry officials have tamely and so easily accepted the suggestion of Caland that there are only 5,000 to 10,000 tons of ore there, when Steep Rock Iron Mines, which owns the whole body and is leasing to Caland, as early as 1973 in their annual report to shareholders was claiming -- and I quote from memory but having read the report just yesterday -- that there would be 16.3 million tons of ore left when Caland terminated its operations in 1973?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I anticipate making reference to that question in my statement, as the honourable member may recall when we discussed this matter with Mr. Cook of the Steelworkers and others last week.

CLASS STRUGGLE GAME

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Speaker, as a working class member of the Legislative Assembly I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Considering his well known and cosy relationship with the corporate elite of our society, has the minister been in consultation with, or did he indeed advise, the president of Eaton’s on that company’s banning of the game Class Struggle? Does the minister not find it ironic and peculiar that there are still big business games on the shelves that encourage people to lie, steal and cheat their way to the top, when this most excellent game has been banned?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I will give that question the consideration and the intelligence it requires.

PUBLIC HOUSING

Mrs. Campbell: My question is to the Minister of Housing. In view of the fact persons belonging to the third party have been organizing meetings across Metro, addressing Ontario Housing tenants and advising them, presumably as a result of the minister’s negotiations with Metro and a report prepared by Metro staff in conjunction with the minister’s staff, that the sale of Ontario Housing properties in Metro is contemplated which will necessitate the relocation of the tenants in such housing, would the minister make a clear and unequivocal statement in this House to calm the very real fears in the minds of people in this Metro area?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I had many discussions with the Metro chairman, the mayor of this municipality and with individuals representing other types of housing in the area of Metropolitan Toronto. It doesn’t stop at the borders of Metropolitan Toronto, it continues across Ontario as it relates to the 93,000 units the people of Ontario happen to own which house people less fortunate than some sitting in this Legislature.

It has been very clear that both provincial and federal policies on where we are going in public or publicly-supported housing over the next number of years is being analysed carefully. As I said at the time of the estimates of the Ministry of Housing, one thing we had been able to do over the last 20 years in Ontario, without the greatest foresight but with the assistance of federal, provincial and municipal governments, was to develop large housing projects which do not bring a great deal of credit to either the community they are in nor to the government that supplied them, nor ultimately to the tenants who reside therein.

With the non-profit housing corporations we have established in Ontario, through the municipalities and other organizations, we are looking at some way of reducing the number of public tenants we have in the various projects across Ontario, more specifically in the major cities.

It was not our intention, except where there might be some single-family ownership units provided by the province or through Ontario Housing Corporation which we could dispose of in the free market system, we might sell those units -- and I add the words “we might sell them.” However, we are looking very seriously at trying to achieve this goal, in conjunction with the federal government and in programs implemented recently in allowing people of higher incomes to remain within the public housing portfolio. We will get a better blend and a better cross- section of the community, and as a result we could find it will have rewarding experiences both socially and from a protection point of view.

We have indicated, federally, provincially and municipally, that if some of our units should be used for people of higher income factors within the public ownership portfolio at the moment, that a similar if not a greater number will be secured under contract arrangements with the private sector under rent-supplement programs, further dispersing people currently supported through the public purse into more projects and more areas of our community.

We hope to reduce some problems we have experienced in these large projects in Metro Toronto, Ottawa and other communities in the province. If we succeed in doing that we will have great rewards, first for the tenants who reside in the major housing portfolios and second to the coffers of the provincial and federal governments.

REPORT

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Villeneuve from the standing resources development committee presented the committee’s report on the annual report of the Ontario Highway Transport Board for 1977, and moved its adoption.

On motion by Mr. Villeneuve the debate was adjourned.

MOTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the House meet Wednesday, December 19, in the chamber at 10 a.m., with a luncheon interval from 1 p.m. until 2 p.m., with the routine proceedings to be called at 2 p.m.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 206, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of York Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: This bill is for first reading only at this time. It represents an amendment to the Regional Municipality of York Act requested by the region.

The proposed legislation would transfer the responsibility for solid waste disposal within the York region to the regional council. The legislation would grant an area municipality the right to an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board if it objected to the acquisition of a particular solid waste disposal site within the area municipality. We have included this appeal in the legislation so that the area municipalities in York region would have rights similar to those enjoyed by area municipalities wherever regional councils are responsible for solid waste disposal.

However, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) and the government have stated their wishes to streamline the hearing process regarding solid waste disposal site hearings. It may be that in the future policy and legislation will be introduced where there would be only one hearing under either the Planning Act or the Environmental Assessment Act.

HOME BUYERS’ PROTECTION ACT

Mr. Isaacs moved first reading of Bill 207, An Act to provide Protection for the Buyers of Homes.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Isaacs: The Home Buyers’ Protection Act would require vendors and realtors involved with the sale of new and previously owned homes to provide buyers with a signed statement of facts about various aspects of the homes.

The bill provides that the seller of the home or the realtor acting on behalf of the seller shall provide to the buyer of the home a document which sets out the following facts: the zoning of the land; the official plan designation of the land; the type and quality of the water supply provided to the home; the type and condition of the sewage disposal facilities available to the home; any record of flooding which has affected the home; the storm drainage facilities provided to the home; the location of existing and planned schools in the area of the home --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Surely the honourable member knows that all that is required and all that is permitted is a very brief explanation as to what the bill is attempting to achieve. We don’t want you to read the bill.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, there are just two more provisions that the bill contains, and they are distinct provisions.

Mr. Speaker: If you can capsulize it in one sentence I’ll allow it.

Mr. Isaacs: If the information required by the bill is not provided to the buyer of the home the bill provides conditions whereby the buyer may cancel the agreement to purchase the home.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the answers to questions 374, 378, 379, 380, 391, 392 and 393; and the interim answers to questions 375, 376, 377 and 381 standing on the Notice Paper. (See appendix, page 5679.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House I would like to suggest a slight change in the business of the House today from that which is printed on the Order Paper.

I thought we would proceed with some third readings and then second and third readings of some private bills, followed by Bill 204; and then go to Bill 127, An Act to revise The Pits and Quarries Control Act for this afternoon, followed then by Bills 202 and 203, either this afternoon or this evening as required. Then we would go to the budget debate.

[3:15]

Mr. Speaker: While I am wishing the first clerk assistant a happy birthday, maybe he could call the first order.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 77, An Act to amend the Crown Timber Act.

Bill 154, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth Act, 1973.

Bill 173, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Bill 174, An Act respecting the Composition of the Council of the Town of Midland.

Bill 176, An Act to amend the Architects Act.

Bill 180, An Act to amend the Unified Family Court Act, 1976.

Bill 194, An Act to amend the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act, 1975.

Bill 195, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Peel Act, 1973.

Bill Pr5, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

CITY OF SARNIA ACT

Mr. Blundy moved second reading of Bill Pr18, An Act respecting the City of Sarnia.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved second reading of Bill Pr21, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF NORTH BAY ACT

Mr. Nixon, on behalf of Mr. Bolan, moved second reading of Bill Pr28, An Act respecting the City of North Bay.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

SARNIA PORTABLE EQUIPMENT RENTALS LIMITED ACT

Mr. Blundy moved second reading of Bill Pr31, An Act to revive Sarnia Portable Equipment Rentals Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

TOWN OF COBOURG ACT

Mr. Rowe moved second reading of Bill Pr33, An Act respecting the Town of Cobourg.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

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

Hon. Mr. Elgie: These are amendments to the provisions of the Labour Relations Act which require province-wide bargaining by trade in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of the construction industry, not in residential construction.

These provisions passed in 1977 resulted in a compulsory massive restructuring of collective bargaining in construction. Some 250 bargaining sessions were reduced to 25 bargaining sessions, with the consequence that those bargaining were able to more rationally approach that difficult task.

As a result of the experience with the first round of provincial bargaining, and in view of the rapidly approaching 1980 round of bargaining, certain changes in the province-wide bargaining scheme have been proposed. I should point out that these recommendations result from proposals put to me by the construction industry review panel.

This review panel is advisory to me and is a joint labour-management advisory body. As such, it represents the positions of both labour and management, in an attempt to continue to improve labour relations in the construction industry. I am advised by the panel and by members in industry that these recommendations have broad-based industry support.

There are three basic provisions in these amendments, and they reflect a balanced tradeoff between labour and management. The first provision extends the bargaining rights of the various unions to which the provincial bargaining applies. Currently, there are a number of employers who have only recognized a union in particular areas of the province. By this amendment, such employers would be deemed to have recognized the other locals of the same craft union throughout the province.

It must be emphasized that this only affects employers who are bound by an agreement with the union, and only in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of the construction industry.

The second provision in the bill prohibits selective strikes and lockouts. These occurred in 1978, as you are all aware, and proved to be very disruptive to good faith bargaining. By this provision, if a provincial agency calls or authorizes a strike then all the locals comprising the provincial agency will be required to call a strike.

The remaining provision imposes a 30-day time limit on the ratification of memoranda of settlement. By this provision, the settlement must be either accepted or rejected within 30 days. It is felt that this period of time is ample time to explain and rule on any proposed settlement. It will, in our view, thus lead to increased certainty as to the status of the bargaining relationship following the completion of negotiations.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address some comments to this bill. I think we all recognize that the most important aspect of the bill is the requirement that an employer who recognizes a union in one part of Ontario will be deemed to recognize that union throughout the province. This recognizes the mobile nature of the construction industry and appears to be complementary to, if it was not in fact envisioned by, Bill 22 which brought about province-wide bargaining on a single trade basis within the construction industry.

We note the bill has the support of the construction industry review panel, as mentioned by the minister, and it also seems to be favoured by the many representatives of employees and employers in the construction industry with whom I and members of our caucus have spoken in the past several weeks. I would make brief reference to the Christian Labour Association of Canada, with which we have spoken; the Mechanical Contractors Association of Ontario and the members of the construction industry review panel, to whom we have also spoken. Without exception there is general support for this, even though there have been some concerns which I will bring to the attention of the minister, and to you, Mr. Speaker, in these next few moments.

I would point out that my colleagues from the Kitchener area -- the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt), Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) and Waterloo North (Mr. Epp); and also the member for Wellington South (Mr. Worton) -- all four have been spoken to by small contractors who have concerns. I would like to expand on that just briefly and point out that in one instance the member for Kitchener was in receipt of a copy of a letter signed by Mr. Frank H. Sheppard, which was forwarded to the minister and which reflected concerns of the general contractors in the Grand Valley Construction Association and that general area.

I think it fair to ask the minister in his concluding remarks, if indeed he intends to respond, how he intends to respond to the concerns raised by the members of the Grand Valley Construction Association and those other members in the Kitchener area who have also expressed concern to my colleagues.

Let me just say next that we do see three contentious issues with respect to bargaining in the construction industry which are not addressed by this bill. We would ask the minister’s indulgence in considering them and also in responding to us as soon as possible about these concerns.

The first concern we have is the question of the legality and desirability from a public policy point of view of subcontracting and affiliation clauses in agreements between unions and employers in this industry. There are agreements whereby a group of employers agree they will employ only members of a particular union and they will employ only contractors who employ members of a particular union or a particular group of unions.

I do not believe the Labour Relations Act or any other legislation addresses this problem specifically, although I believe there has been a decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board which touches on this matter. I believe these types of agreements could have wide-ranging consequences in the construction industry effecting the rights of both organized and unorganized workers.

I would suggest the minister establish an industrial inquiry commission under section 34 of the Labour Relations Act to examine all aspects of these clauses, not just their legality but their overall effects. Again, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister’s indulgence and urge him to do this as soon as possible.

The secondary item of concern which requires further examination is that of secondary picketing. As I understand it, the Labour Relations Act neither sanctions nor forbids this practice. I believe the time has come to see whether the provisions of the Labour Relations Act and the interpretations of the act by the labour relations board deals with this problem in a clear and satisfactory manner. I would ask that the minister also take a look at that problem of secondary picketing.

[3:30]

The third issue which is touched on by section 1 of Bill 204, concerns the application of the bill only to the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector to the exclusion of the electrical power system sector. When we were debating Bill 22 the Liberals proposed that the power systems be included in the bill as most of the contractors and employees involved in that sector also worked in the industrial, commercial or institutional sector. Our proposal was defeated by the government and members of the third party.

However, the government did appoint an inquiry headed by Dr. S. Ronald Ellis of the York University law school to examine the problem. The study done by him was known as the Ontario Electrical Power Systems Sector Inquiry Commission report, or the Ellis report. Dr. Ellis did a thorough report on the matter, but the government has seen fit not to act on the report, at least as far as we know at this point. We believe the government should have moved on this problem back when we were discussing Bill 22, and we certainly feel that, not having done it then, it should have done it between that time and now.

In summary, we feel Bill 204 is important enough to be dealt with as expeditiously as possible, even though I have listed some concerns we have, particularly when one is aware of the problems of dealing with the negotiating process in the year 1980. We understand no non-union workers will as a direct result of the action of this bill be immediately unionized. We understand it will not affect residential contractors. Even though we have brought to the minister’s attention the concerns about subcontracting, picket lines and the lack of progress on the Ellis report, we will support this bill because we feel it is in the best interests of the greatest number in our province.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I see the bill as a continuation of what I guess could be called a new era in collective bargaining in the construction industry. While I have some unease at giving up any tools the workers may have, including the localized strike, I think it is a further attempt at a useful rationalization. I think the trade-off is probably as effective or more effective for the construction workers as it is for the construction industry. I think the bill should be given a chance. We support the bill.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the member for London North raised several concerns, and I will try briefly to deal with some of them. In particular he asked about the concerns expressed by a number of small contractors making up the Grand Valley Construction Association, who are also members of the Ontario General Contractors Association.

I tried to make it clear in my opening remarks the panel has confirmed that the recommendations I have put forward have broad general support. That is not to say they have universal support. This group from Grand Valley, which I met this morning in my office, does have concerns about the impact of this legislation on it. These are contractors who operate union in some board areas and non-union in others.

I have to be frank. As I have told the member before, it will have some impact on them; but I don’t believe it will have the impact they are concerned about. Frankly, in the collective bargaining process the employees will have the same concerns as the employers about retaining work in all areas. I think the collective bargaining process, as it has done in other areas, will establish wage differentials depending upon the board area involved.

Mr. Haggerty: Non-union?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am talking about the organized sector, where there are differential wage rates for different board areas. I think common sense and a bit of self-interest will prod those negotiating to recognize the realities of certain areas. It is my belief in that regard that these particular contractors will not have their business impeded in any significant way. One member of the panel who knows the industry particularly well advised me there would be something less than a dozen companies that might have serious concerns. To date, that has, indeed, been the case.

To further substantiate the feeling that has been made clear to me, the labour relations bureau of the Ontario General Contractors Association has written a letter to me clearly supporting the contents of this legislation, speaking on behalf of general contractors throughout the province. I have to assume that labour relations bureau is speaking on behalf of the majority of contractors in this province and are seeking to act in the best interests of all parties in the province.

The member for London North raised three other issues that he referred to as contentious issues. The first has to do with subcontracting clauses and non-affiliation clauses. As I’m sure the member knows, they are not quite the same thing. In any event, both subcontracting clauses and non-affiliation clauses have, in this jurisdiction, been declared legal. By that I mean that the Ontario Labour Relations Board commented on a case before it and that decision was taken to the divisional court for appeal. At appeal the position that it was legal to have such contracts was declared.

At the present time, many of the trades in provincial bargaining do have subcontracting clauses, but there is no provincial non-affiliation clause. Therefore, I think it would be inappropriate at this time to comment on the appropriateness of a clause which the court has held to be legal and which is not yet part of any provincial agreement.

The member did, however, suggest I should consider an industrial inquiry into these. Without giving any commitment or any suggestion that something like that might be forthcoming, I have no hesitation in saying I will be glad to review it and I will be happy to let the member know the results of that deliberation.

The member referred to secondary picketing. It is my belief that secondary picketing is not a problem in this province. Picketing in this province is not dealt with under the Labour Relations Act because we have established over the years a body of jurisprudence in common law which has fairly well categorized the limits of picketing. To my knowledge, secondary picketing has not been a problem in this province, because in common law it is not permissible.

If the member has other information I would be pleased to hear about it. I do know there are some groups in the community that feel there should be a code of picketing. But frankly, advice given to me is that there is indeed now a code of picketing; even though it’s not codified and not in the Labour Relations Act there is a common law code of picketing practice.

The member for London North further made reference to the Electrical Power Systems Construction Association and the Ellis inquiry into the electrical bargaining sector. Following that report, as I’m sure the member is well aware, there was considerable voluntary restructuring with Hydro, which had previously had a majority interest in the EPSCA bargaining group, giving up that majority and appointing Dr. Ellis as the new chairman of the EPSCA bargaining group to hold the deciding vote.

I like to feel that for the time being there has been considerable voluntary effort to restructure that sector. I’m satisfied that good progress has been made to date.

We will continue to meet and to discuss it, as I have been doing over the past year, but at the moment I want to assure the member that in my opinion, and in the opinion of advisers in my ministry, there has been considerable satisfactory restructuring. Dr. Ellis, who wrote the Ellis report, is now the chairman of that new EPSCA bargaining committee, and I am satisfied that there is no need to intervene at this time.

Mr. Van Horne: I rise on a point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What is your point of order?

Mr. Van Horne: The minister was questioning one of my comments, and I would like to respond. If it is not a point of order, I would seek the Speaker’s direction.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the bill going to committee?

Mr. Breithaupt: It probably won’t have to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for London North, briefly.

Mr. Van Horne: Yes, very briefly. The minister asked if I had any information I could give him with regard to picketing. I would simply submit that this bill came down the line in rather short order and some of the people in the industrial sector are only aware of it now. As a result of that recent awareness, this morning I received a call with the suggestion that farther information is on its way to me. I simply cannot give him the detail now, but I want him to know that when I get it I will share it with him.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: On picketing?

Mr. Van Horne: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I would be pleased to receive that information, Mr. Speaker.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, is it appropriate for me to introduce two minor amendments at the time of third reading?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No.

House in committee of the whole.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 204, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Elgie moves that section 131a(1) of the Labour Relations Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by striking out the word “an” in the fourth line and inserting in lieu thereof, “a designated or certified.”

Hon. Mr. Elgie further moves that section 131a(2) of the Labour Relations Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended similarly by striking out “an” in the fourth line and inserting in lieu thereof, “a designated or certified.”

Hon Mr. Elgie further moves that section 131a(3) of the Labour Relations Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by striking out “an” where it appears the first time in the second line and inserting in lieu thereof, “a designated or certified.”

Hon. Mr. Elgie: If members want that clarified, it is simply to clarify with certainty that we’re talking about the central bargaining agency and not one of the local bargaining agents.

Motion agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Section 3 agreed to.

On section 4:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Elgie moves that section 134a(3) of the Labour Relations Act, as set out in section 4 of the bill, be struck out.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Chairman, the reason for striking out this section is that I’ve had some legal advice that it might be interpreted that that remedy section apply to other sections; and indeed that section 79 of the Labour Relations Act would apply in any event, therefore it’s unnecessary.

Motion agreed to.

Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.

Bill 204, as amended, reported.

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

[3:45]

AGGREGATES ACT

Hon. Mr. Auld moved second reading of Bill 127, An Act to revise the Pits and Quarries Control Act, 1971.

Hon. Mr. Auld: By popular demand, Mr. Speaker, having learned my lesson, I have a brief statement; a little of the past history and comments on the principle of Bill 127.

Aggregate is like all our other mineral resources: it is non-renewable and we have to mine it where we can find it. Nature was generous in Ontario, however, as most of the resources in this province, probably nearly three quarters of the total of aggregate resources, are located within 75 miles of our major demand points.

While the resource was deposited in abundant quantities, it became clear over 10 years ago the province faced shortages due to loss of resources through pre-emptive land usage. In addition, it was clear that regulation of the industry was required if aggregate extraction was to remain an acceptable land use.

As a result, the Pits and Quarries Control Act, 1971 was proclaimed on November 3, 1971. That act has been in force for eight years. It has solved many of the environmental and rehabilitation problems associated with the aggregate industry; however, it has not accomplished all the results it was intended to achieve.

For example, the ambiguous and ineffective language of a number of sections in the act make it difficult to administer and enforce; the rehabilitation security deposit is inadequate and does not promote rehabilitation; the act does not provide for adequate liaison with municipalities; it does not provide for the industry to carry all the costs incurred as a result of pit and quarry operations; there is no effective provision for suspension of licences in order to alleviate problems; there is no provision to deal with the rehabilitation of abandoned pits and quarries; and finally, the act does not cover crown land pits and quarries in designated areas.

As a result, as the honourable members are aware, my ministry appointed the Ontario mineral aggregate working party in December, 1975 to examine those concerns. The working party examined the full range of economic, social, environmental, legal and technical aspects related to mineral aggregates. From the beginning, the working party solicited wide-ranging public input to ensure that all points of view were considered.

Accordingly, a public participation program was established, briefs requested and six open houses held in the areas of high aggregate production. Over 600 written comments were received and there were more than 800 participants in the open house.

The working party handed down its report in December, 1976. The report recommended new legislation be drafted to replace the Pits and Quarries Control Act and set out 64 recommendations to be taken into account.

Over 100 submissions were received from municipalities, both local and regional or county, special interest groups, industries and associations, and from other provincial ministries with regard to the report of the working party.

This bill, the Aggregates Act, flows from the report of the working party and the experience gained over the years by various interest groups concerned with the Pits and Quarries Control Act, 1971.

The new act has three purposes: (1) To provide for the management of the aggregate and crown aggregate resources of Ontario; (2) to control and regulate pits and quarries, wayside pits and quarries and crown aggregate pits and quarries; (3) to require the rehabilitation of lands from which aggregate or crown aggregate had been excavated.

The Aggregates Act provides for: (1) Wording which will result in better administration and enforcement; (2) increased rehabilitation security which should generate better and more rehabilitation; (3) more liaison with municipalities; (4) remuneration to municipalities to compensate them for costs resulting from the operation of pits and quarries; (5) the immediate suspension of licences and more detailed site plans resulting in stricter control over the industry; (6) the rehabilitation of abandoned pits and quarries; (7) crown land pits and quarries in designated areas to be administered under the act.

The rehabilitation security deposit is increased from two cents per imperial ton to eight cents per metric tonne to adequately cover the cost of rehabilitation. Detailed site plans are required, and progressive and final rehabilitation standards are established. Funds will be available to rehabilitate abandoned pits and quarries. New provision is made for extensive liaison with both the local and county or regional municipal governments.

The annual licence fee is six cents per tonne of material removed from the site and the money will be dispersed as follows: four cents per tonne to local municipalities, one half cent per tonne to counties or regional municipalities, one half cent per tonne to an abandoned pit or quarry fund and one cent per tonne to the province.

In concluding these opening remarks, I would just mention to the House I have several amendments to introduce at the committee stage of this bill and will forward copies to the opposition critics and so on prior to that stage, in fact as soon as I have them all together.

I am hopeful the standing committee on resources development will be able to deal with this bill during the winter recess, and I am also hopeful we might, with the cooperation of all members present, be able to complete second reading by six o’clock.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister has indicated his willingness to have a standing committee examine the bill. There is no doubt a number of interested citizens as individuals, and others as members of groups, want to express views pertaining to sections of the bill.

I can recall very well when the original bill was debated in the House in 1971. Most of us, as members of the Legislature, had received a good many complaints from citizens who felt the development of the aggregate industry was haphazard and willy-nilly. The pits were opened without any responsibility in the long term under law or regulation requiring the pits to be operated safely and cleanly. At the time there was no control as far as dust and noise were concerned, and the wear and tear on sometimes very small, in fact inadequate county and township roads, was such that it was felt definitely that a control measure should be introduced.

In many constituencies, including my own of Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, there are very large deposits of high quality gravel. I have been informed locally that for especially important concrete construction such as the Pickering nuclear plant, and even the CN tower, the aggregate near Paris, Ontario is considered to be the best and I believe a premium is paid for it. Many truckloads have come down into this area to the profit of the owners, and I have no objection to that.

I was particularly interested, however, that many people feel the 1971 bill has been a failure. Most of the reason for the failure has been directed at the ministry, and I believe the ministry in turn has indicated their staff is inadequate to enforce the law and the regulations applying to it in an effective way.

While the intentions are expressed in the bill and the regulations, and there are many of them, have been promulgated in an effort to bring adequate controls to the aggregate industry, still both sides, those who feel that the aggregate industry is too restricted and those who feel it is given much too much leeway in its development, are dissatisfied.

The thing that must concern us is one of the pieces of important information that came from the Ontario aggregate working party. It is suggested that based on recent estimates of demand, sand and gravel reserves in the central region of Ontario should be sufficient to the year 2005 and crushed stone to the year 2025. With respect to Ontario as a whole, total supplies of aggregate were considered adequate to the year 3000, which is a bit beyond the area of concern of most of the members here.

The concern does apply however, when we are informed that because of zoning policies, official plans, regulations and other restrictions, the amount of available sand and gravel in the central Ontario region is really reduced by about two thirds, and the amount of stone available for crushing in the central region is reduced to about a tenth. These are rounded figures, but they indicate that although the resources are there the plans and restrictions that have been put on, particularly over the last decade, have reduced the availability of those resources so that naturally costs have been forced up.

The government has had to deal with that. On the one hand, naturally, they have to respond to citizens who are very concerned at the depredations worked on the community and the landscape and the roads and the air by the removal and the utilization of the aggregate; and on the other hand, those same people who are complaining about it naturally want to have an adequate supply of high quality aggregate at reasonable price so that our building industry and the basis of our economy is not going to be hindered.

In this respect I have a certain degree of sympathy with the minister, his colleagues and his predecessors. It is very difficult to bring those two opposing views into some kind of reconciliation where justice is done for both sides.

One area that is of substantial concern is that maybe even this bill, elaborate though it is in some respects, is not going to fulfil the needs, that the same seeds of failure that were sown in the original bill in 1971 remain in the present legislation before us, Bill 127.

Many responsibilities are given to the minister -- I won’t list them, they are listed in the bill -- but one of the problems is that perhaps this minister has too many responsibilities. He is seen not to be a controller of the aggregate industry but really the developer himself. It is his responsibility to search out the resources and see that the amounts are properly sealed so they are made available to industry in a fair and equitable way. It almost seems that the Minister of Natural Resources and his advisers become really the operators of the overall provincial industry. Of course at the same time they have the responsibility to control it. There is no procedure whereby the Ministry of the Environment can under its regulations come in with any of their specific and special responsibilities to protect the environment.

No sanctions of the new act will allow assessment of site locations or enforcements by the Ministry of the Environment. The same ministry, in this case the Ministry of Natural Resources, is empowered with the responsibility to find the aggregate, to do the resource research and to administer and promote its removal in an orderly way; and at the same time to exert control over the operation.

[4:00]

The second substantial objection comes to us from municipalities. In this area, the township of Mono has taken the lead, as well it might since it has had considerable experience in this regard. Several municipalities have indicated they are offended that this bill would give the ministry the power to overcome and supersede the planning restrictions that the townships have put on. In fact as I understand it the aim is that the minister, through his powers, can distribute responsibility for the extraction of aggregate so no one area has to bear the brunt of the depredations, the excavations and so on; but this responsibility, and I suppose to some extent assessment benefit, is distributed over the municipalities that have the aggregate to contribute to the economy.

There is a very substantial objection to the removal of this basic planning power, which has always been associated with the municipalities and has been theirs under the Planning Act and its various amendments, and to some extent under the Municipal Act itself.

The resolutions put forward by the township of Mono have been reviewed and supported by a long list of municipalities which are directly involved. Their main objection is that they feel local control in this matter is being removed from them by active legislation; and while they are not commenting on the ability of any individual minister, they are concerned that this power should not be centralized in a way which in the long run might not be to the benefit of the individual municipality. I have to put forward that concern since in many respects it is the main one, and certainly one of the very important ones.

The third point that I believe merits comment on second reading, is our support for the concept of providing funds to do a cleanup job on worked-out pits or abandoned pits where the owner cannot be held responsible. We feel, of course, the owner, who had the benefit of the removal of the aggregate in the first instance, should be required to pay, if not the full cost to bring it up to government standards, at least a part of it. We can see, however, the problems in either locating the person who benefited financially from it or finally enforcing the cleanup, particularly when the aggregate was removed before regulation amounted to anything, essentially before 1971 but in some respects even earlier. For this reason, we agree with the concept of setting aside -- what is it, five cents per ton? -- never mind, don’t look it up -- a few cents from each ton extracted so that the money can be applied for that purpose.

A large number of organizations, very reputable ones dealing with the environment particularly, have brought to public attention, or to anyone who would read their report, the fact that these moneys are going to be inadequate. One of them even projects that with the budget that would be based on the removal of aggregate now it would take more than a century to clean up the abandoned pits that already pockmark many parts of the province.

There are mitigating factors in this connection, however, and many townships, several in my own constituency, have taken an initiative not to spend tax funds to clean up those abandoned pits but to approve building permits on those pits and allow them to be sold for building lots. In these instances it’s obvious that the property, if it is left the way it is, is not going to be good for anything except short-term evening parking and things like that, but if it is clearly made known that the property would have the benefit of a building permit if sold under those circumstances -- the smaller municipalities in the rural areas are having great success in adding in many instances to their own revenues by selling these small properties -- the owner then can spend his own money to change the profile of the property in any way he wants. I know of several instances where very fine homes have been built on the properties and the private sector has taken the responsibility for a cleanup.

The argument, however, is that although the concept and principle of cleaning up abandoned properties is an excellent one and one which we support, there is some indication that the financing of it is going to be inadequate. It is, as politicians often say, a step in the right direction.

The planning authorities of the province, in May 1979, issued a white paper dealing with the Planning Act. In its terms it deals with the pits and quarries problem. I quote from three areas from the white paper, issued in May of this year, that have some application.

The first is as follows: “The province would be concerned with examining an official plan in the context of provincial interests and policies.” I now say, in my own term, that of course that is an indication the white paper envisages the centralization of the responsibility of circumventing or overriding local planning authorities in the context of overall provincial policy.

The second deals with housing: “The Minister of Housing, either independently or jointly with other ministries, will publish policy circulars. Municipalities will have to take the policy circulars into account in formulating any planning policy.” I say now, in my own terms, that inherent in that is the fact it would not lie with any municipality to forbid the extraction of aggregate by zoning procedures where government policy, clearly stated, indicates those areas should allow the extraction of aggregate. Once again, local autonomy is removed, is completely removed in this particular instance.

The third point extracted from the white paper is as follows: “The minister will have the power to request any municipality to incorporate into its official plan any matter specified by the minister. Where the municipality fails to amend its plan the minister may cause the plan to be amended.” That specifically reiterates the position that local autonomy is completely obliterated in this regard and the policy of the government, as expressed in the statement of the minister, in fact the will of the minister, will prevail in each and every case.

There is no doubt then, and no reason not to clearly understand the objections put forward by many of the municipalities in this connection; and I know other speakers, in response to resolutions passed in their own areas, will want to bring that forward.

It is clear, as well, that the powers of the minister have been greatly reinforced by the provisions of the bill. Under the 1971 enactment it was quite possible for individual’s not directly concerned to express public objection, and of course that always remains, but also to require hearings before the board if they felt the minister had not acted responsibly, or at least in conjunction with their views in regard to approvals or control of a pit.

This power is now largely removed. The minister may, by his own judgement, indicate that a person does not have the power to require a hearing. It is quite possible then that those people who object to the decisions taken by the minister do not have recourse, because the very minister whose decisions are objected to has the power to indicate whether or not a hearing may be held on the basis of the objections.

I find this procedure unacceptable. It seems the minister, in his efforts to reduce the time consumed in hearing objections and having an impartial judgement made, is to a degree greater than necessary arrogating to himself the powers to decide where the pits will be located, how they will be operated, when they will be closed, and in some detail the procedures associated with those decisions.

As we supported the principle of the bill in 1971 we support the principle now. There are so many individual areas which should be discussed, and could be discussed on second reading because they are far from superficial, that this debate could go on for a good long time.

At one time I attempted to make a list of interested organizations and didn’t bother completing it. The number of organizations which have spent many hours and many dollars researching the concepts of control of aggregate and pits and quarries, in this jurisdiction and in other jurisdictions, is very impressive. The Foundation for Aggregate Studies has presented an extremely useful paper, and naturally the aggregate producers have put forward their views. Most of the organizations dealing with the environment have reviewed it. At least one of the municipal organizations has put forward a remarkably useful review of the bill, going through it by section and expressing what it considers to be objections, also approvals in many instances, and proposed amendments.

I’m sure all of that material will be put to good use by the members of the House who are members of the committee reviewing this during January and February, or whenever the committee hearings are held. The information is there. I believe the objections are particularly well founded and that the bill can be improved by the kind of committee review the minister has now agreed should take place and should occur.

We hope the bill can receive second reading this afternoon. We look forward to the kind of committee review involving testimony from those individuals and groups directly concerned that have already put their views before us as individual members’ of the House.

Mr. Swart: In rising first to speak for my party, I want to say that the critic of the Ministry of Natural Resources is not abdicating his responsibilities nor am I usurping them. I have another commitment rather shortly, so he permitted me to speak first on this bill.

I speak on this bill in a mood of some frustration, anger and disgust, because I have been involved with the matter of pits and quarries, the management of them and their rehabilitation with the municipal associations and in other ways for many years. After many reports, the situation today is very little better than it was 10, 15 or 20 years ago. If anything, it’s probably true to say it is worse than it was back in those days. As many people were, I was very pleased when the Pits and Quarries Control Act was brought into being in 1971. Although we didn’t think it was the panacea for all the problems, we thought it would go a long way to resolve some of the difficulties. In fact it has done very little to improve the situation.

As everyone knows and as was mentioned by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, the municipalities are unhappy. The quarry operators in many respects are unhappy. Most of all, the citizens of many municipalities are extremely unhappy because of the numbers of pits and quarries, and the conditions which prevail in them.

I admit, as did the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, that it is a difficult problem. There are conflicting views on this matter and there are conflicting interests; as a result it’s extremely difficult to resolve them. I recognize that most municipalities, if it were permitted, would like to have no pits or quarries within their boundaries. We have to have aggregate, so there have to be rules and regulations.

What makes me most annoyed and angry about this bill before us is that it is largely a façade. Anybody who has looked at it realizes there are only the bare bones, and maybe not even the bare bones. There is no life to it and there is no flesh to it. Flesh could be put on it by regulations and life could be given to it, it has possibilities; but with the record of the ministry and the government to this date it’s fair to conclude, as most people have, that this bill is not going to resolve the very real problems that exist.

[4:15]

It would seem to me in a bill like this, when so much of it is left to the discretion of the minister, there would have been some principles stated in the bill, which in fact simply refers to three purposes:

“(1) To provide for the management of the aggregate and crown aggregate resources of Ontario” -- management is left totally to the minister, there are no principles established; “(2) to control and regulate pits and quarries, wayside pits and quarries and crown aggregate pits and quarries” -- there are no details of how this is going to be done, that is going to be left to the minister; “(3) to require the rehabilitation of land from which aggregate or crown aggregate has been excavated” -- again all of those decisions are really left to the Minister of Natural Resources.

I want to point out a number of areas where this discretion is left to the minister. First of all, it is left to the minister to determine to what part of the province this shall apply. It is true the part to which the Pits and Quarries Control Act applies at present will automatically be included, but the minister has the power to make the final determination where this shall apply.

Section 11 says, “The minister in considering an application for a licence shall have regard to ... ” -- but it only sets out the guidelines he shall have with regard thereto, no firm policy statements are made there.

Under section 12(7), which deals with the issue of the notices and appeals: “The minister may, upon receipt of a notice under subsection 6” -- when somebody wants to be heard before the Ontario Municipal Board -- “that in the opinion of the minister discloses an interest in the matter that is sufficiently substantial to warrant a hearing ... ” The minister makes a determination whether anybody affected by this will even get a hearing before the Ontario Municipal Board. When we recognize there is no compulsory notice to be sent even to abutting property, we can see what little control the public is going to have over assuring there will be a hearing before the OMB.

Section 13(1), regarding the issuing of licences, simply says, “The minister may in his discretion issue a licence subject to such conditions as he considers necessary.”

Section 13(2): “The minister may at any time add a condition to a licence or rescind or vary a condition of a licence.”

Total and absolute control over the conditions under which a licence will be issued, and whether or not it will be given to the applicant, is at the discretion of the minister.

Section 14 refers to the licence fees and the distribution of those licence fees; again it is left entirely to the minister. It would seem to me the minister could readily have provided in this bill that a certain minimum percentage would have to go to the municipality to cover the extra cost created; but that is not provided in this bill, it is left totally to the discretion of the Minister of Natural Resources.

Section 22 provides that the Ontario Municipal Board assumes a role it hasn’t had to date, which in effect makes its decisions much weaker than all of the other decisions it makes. In this case, unlike planning and all the other matters that come before the board where its decision may be appealed to cabinet, here it provides only for a recommendation to the minister. So the power the board has as an independent body, to which many citizens look for their protection, will be weakened and less meaningful than it is at present.

In section 27 dealing with wayside pits and quarries, again the minister may in his discretion issue a wayside pit or quarry permit. Subsection 2 says, “Where the location of a wayside pit or quarry, for which a wayside pit and quarry permit has been issued, contravenes any relevant restricted area bylaw, the permit prevails and the bylaw does not apply to the wayside pit and quarry.”

Anybody who has discussed the problem that municipalities now have with regard to quarrying will realize there is as much objection to the situation with regard to wayside pits and quarries as there is with regard to quarrying generally; yet they have practically no regulation whatsoever, only that the minister may issue this permit as he sees fit.

In section 33 of the act, dealing with abandoned pits and quarries, once again the discretion as to whether it is to be an abandoned pit and quarry and whether funds are to be dispersed is left entirely to the Minister of Natural Resources.

The same thing is true of section 41; the very important matter of rehabilitation is left to the minister without even any guidelines set for the ministry to operate by.

The rehabilitation security payments are again, under section 48, left to the minister. Even the right of an individual to prosecute has to be approved by the minister before that person can proceed with a prosecution. It is the same with all of the important regulations. We’ll find if we look at section 62: “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations respecting the management of the crown aggregate resources of Ontario, prescribing or providing for the calculation of fees and providing for the payment thereof.”

All of the important parts of this bill are not put into the bill itself but are left to the discretion of the minister. Actually, this bill should be before us as a one-paragraph bill. It could simply say the Minister of Natural Resources is hereby authorized to establish policy and make regulations as he deems desirable for the establishment and operation of pits and quarries in the province. In effect, that is largely what is being done by this bill.

Somehow or other I have the strange belief that it is this Legislature, through acts of this Legislature, which should make policy; that should be the purpose of the bills we have before us. This bill doesn’t do that, therefore it is largely a sham and a hoax.

This bill is an insult to this House because while the 1971 bill was still in force, at the same time that this bill was being circulated fur comment, the government had stated its policy in clear and unequivocal terms.

I have a letter here to the Ontario Municipal Board dated September 11 and signed by the Minister of Natural Resources, in which he states the policy of the government of this province. This was written, I think I’m correct in saying, because there was a hearing on Durham region’s official plan before the Ontario Municipal Board. The minister sent this to them as a statement of government policy.

I want to read most of this into the record because I think it is important. We look at the bill on the one hand, that skeleton that says nothing, and then look at this letter on the other hand.

It is headed Mineral Aggregate Policy for Official Plans:

“1. All parts of the province possessing aggregate resources shall share the responsibility for future demands, at first approximately in proportions existing under present market patterns until new, long-term sources of supply can be made available, based on efficient, long-distance transportation systems;

“2. That aggregates must be available at reasonable cost to the consumer, including environmental, transportation and energy costs;

“3. That licensed pits and quarries under provincial legislation must be recognized and protected in official plans ...”

Then there is a section about the province providing some basic information to municipalities.

“5. That the province, in co-operation with the municipalities, must identify areas of high aggregate resource potential and define those areas required for possible future extraction adequate to meet future provincial demands;

“6. That the identification, designation and protection of high aggregate resource potential areas should occur jointly by the regional county and local official plans;

“7. That uses of land which would preclude the possible future extraction of aggregates should not be permitted in required areas of high aggregate resource potential. Prohibited uses would include residential, commercial and industrial development. Other land uses would be permitted, such as agricultural and forestry;

“8. That because of time and cost constraints there should be special approval procedures for wayside pits and quarries; therefore, policies should be included in official plans to allow the opening of wayside pits and quarries without amendment to the plan or its implementing zoning bylaws;

“9. That the Ministry of Natural Resources should have ultimate authority to ensure that adequate supplies of aggregate are available for future use, and official plans should not be approved until they ensure the municipalities will have available their fair share of future aggregate supplies; and,

“10. That the province require rehabilitation of land after excavation, either through restoring the land to its former use or condition or to another use or condition that is or will be compatible with the use of adjacent land.”

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that is the policy of this province, not what’s in this bill. When the minister determines whether he is going to give approvals to wayside pits and quarries, that is the document that is going to be used. I say it’s deliberate that they don’t set out the principles in this bill, because they want to retain unto themselves the principles and the policy. This bill becomes very much a sham.

It’s essential in any bill where you delegate authority to the minister that you establish the principles of the act. The government did that in the Niagara Escarpment Protection Act. Maybe that’s why they don’t do it here. There were principles established there. They succeeded in backing off, of course, but it makes it much more difficult; that is perhaps why they don’t have them in here.

It seems to me there are at least four principles that should be included. One is that priority should be given to maintaining prime farm land. It’s not even mentioned in the bill. Two, the number of pits and quarries should be related to need and no municipality should be expected to take an excess of pits and quarries. Three, the views of local councils and citizens’ groups should be a major factor in the decision-making process. Four, the payments to the municipalities should be at least adequate to meet all other additional costs.

At the present time those things are all left to the discretion of the minister. They are very basic principles which, to me, should have been embodied in Bill 127.

I’m not going to go into any great detail on the other aspect of the bill which is weak, but I know some of my colleagues will. There are many sections to that. I would just say to the minister that he could do no better than to read -- and perhaps he has already read it -- the article by John Swaigen of the Canadian Environmental Law Association in Municipal World. I believe it was in the September, 1979, issue. It sets out the policies which ought to be included in this bill and points out the weakness of the bill as it now stands.

[4: 30]

There is just one other point I want to make while I’m on my feet, I will leave the rest to my colleagues. It is this: This bill is really predicated on the proposed new Planning Act white paper and the Planning Act which is going to be brought in based on that white paper.

What we have in this bill, therefore, are policies that make it even more meaningless, because that bill is not in force at present. When that bill is in force it will in some respects even further weaken this legislation. I say that because as it is proposed in the white paper the Ontario Municipal Board only makes a recommendation, it doesn’t make a decision -- it only makes a recommendation to the Minister of Housing and the public doesn’t have a right to appeal that to the cabinet, which means there can be even more in-house manipulation by this government.

Look at the procedure that will be followed. There will be an area where pits and quarries will not be permitted to be established, perhaps in a municipality or parts of a municipality. There will be a pit and quarry operator, because there is aggregate there, who will want to develop. He will go to the municipal council and the municipal council will say, “No, we don’t want those pits and quarries in that area.” So he will appeal directly to the Ontario Municipal Board.

The people in the area who are opposed to it may not even be notified of it, but there will be an announcement in the paper. Conceivably they will have the right to be heard, if the minister doesn’t think it is a frivolous application, and after a long and lengthy hearing takes place there will be a recommendation to the Minister of Housing on whether the zoning or the official plan in that area should be changed.

Obviously the Minister of Housing will consult with the Minister of Natural Resources. He will pull out another document like this, which says that aggregate resources must have the highest priority, and the zoning change will then be made.

There is no appeal for the people in that area, or even for the municipality in that area, except directly to the minister. The official plan will be changed to permit it and the minister will issue a permit.

I say that is not just some sort of abstract theoretical thing; that is, in effect, what will most likely take place.

What we have here really is a meaningless bill, because it is not fleshed out. Further, we have a minister, perhaps I should say a ministry because this minister has not been there all that long, who has refused to enforce the present bill -- and the aggregate working party says that; and finally we have the likelihood of the OMB losing much of its power to protect the citizens.

It becomes very difficult, under those circumstances, for us to support this bill; but because the one we have now is ineffective and there may be the possibility in committee of putting some flesh on these weak, bare bones, we will be supporting it so that it can go out to committee.

Mr. J. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to support this bill and ask the honourable members opposite if we could have it pass second reading before six o’clock so it could be referred to the resources committee and dealt with in the January/February sitting of that committee.

I have a riding that has a lot of quarries and pits, and I have a lot of people who would like to make presentations; municipalities as well as owners of the pits and quarries, and naturally the people who are opposed to the pits and quarries. If it is referred to the committee I would hope that we could have public hearings and allow full participation from all the interested parties; then, hopefully, we could come up with a bill that would be acceptable to the majority of people.

I would simply ask the members if we could pass second reading before six o’clock.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I want to address myself to Bill 127, an Act to revise the Pits and Quarries Control Act, 1971.

I listened to the previous speaker for Welland-Thorold, who pitches gloom and doom on the industry, and then finally says he will support it. I am just a little amazed at the comment. If one would take his attitude, perhaps we would not have seen any construction in the city of Thorold; such as the tunnel constructed some 10 or 15 years ago when we had difficulties at that time in removing sand and gravel from around Fonthill and the town of Pelham where people were a little up tight about the removal of the sand and gravel in such amounts and quantities.

When I first entered the Legislature, I was one of those persons complaining about this issue. I thought municipalities did not want to initiate controls under the Planning Act at that time, I believe it was section 35 of the Planning Act that they could have brought in controls for operation of pits and quarries in the municipalities. Many municipalities did not wish to go in that direction. I think this is where many got themselves boxed into the problem, with residents protesting and objecting to the opening of new quarries and pits in the area.

I endorsed the bill in 1971. I thought it was a step in the right direction. I thought the municipalities did not want to shoulder that responsibility and that some other level of government must take that initiative to provide protection to residents and municipalities as a whole.

Some mention was made about the Niagara Escarpment control order that was applied. It was a great piece of legislation in the sense it did result in the abandonment of a great number of quarry operations along the escarpment. That caused problems in other areas. The operators of the quarries immediately started looking for other sources of material; they bought up a number of small quarries in my area and they are expanding that into quite a business.

I know there is some criticism by councils in my area about one particular quarry, to the effect they are not doing enough. I find after reviewing and looking over the sites in my area that they are going out into the area of rehabilitation to the extent it has led to an additional cost onto the price of stone, which eventually will be passed on to the consumer. As far as I am concerned they are doing an excellent job. In some cases they have gone to a considerable extent in rehabilitation; they have even established ponds which they have been able to stock with fish. It has been very successful. I am referring to the Port Colborne quarries. I suggest members should be looking at this operation.

In Fonthill, after removal of the sand and gravel in that area one of the quarries had been rehabilitated into a golf course and is even used for housing.

I don’t think we should be picturing doom and gloom here. We do have quarry and pit operators in business in Ontario; we have to have the aggregate to build industry, bridges, housing and highways.

I live close to one of the best tourist attractions, the best tourist sites in the province. I have given the minister a copy of a brochure about it. It is the Sherkston Beaches. The 27-acre quarry there just goes to show what rehabilitation can do. It is one of the major tourist attractions for campers and swimmers, for fishing; in fact for everything. It is right there. The operator owns one on the other side of Ridgeway which is a successful tourist attraction as well, providing camping facilities for many of the tourists coming in from the United States.

I would suggest any quarry operator who wants to abandon a pit or quarry can give it to me because I think I can make it work and be profitable. It has been shown here and in other areas that there is good use for abandoned pits and quarries. It can raise the watertable, although at times it may cause some difficulties when they are drilling. Certain water supplies may be depleted for some period of time and they may lose a well.

Hopefully in this new proposed taxation program which is an increase of about 800 per cent, from two per cent to eight per cent or something like that, there is provision for funds to go back to the municipality. Where there is difficulty with persons living around a quarry or pit operation who have lost their water supply that funding should be allocated to putting in services.

The more I look at this particular bill, the more I realize I have never seen a piece of legislation like this before the House at any time. It discriminates against a certain business practice carried out in the province. The excuse is we are afraid it will give four cents back on every ton to the municipality to build roads et cetera. I am sure the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) will look at the operations of the large steel mills in Welland which are bringing materials in by heavy trucks using roads in the municipality. They are not taxed additional tax for making use of that road, but the truck operators from the quarry are. If exemption can be provided for a number of industries in this particular area, then I think the minister had better reconsider his position so there is not discriminatory taxation of this industry.

In the long run, it’s the municipality that will pay for it, because the industry is going to pass it on to the consumer. It will cause some difficulties. Under the present scheme of the $100,000 set aside for funding for rehabilitation, it’s a benefit to the province because of the low interest rates. I suppose those in the industry look at that and they say, “Well, we are only getting six per cent buildup in this fund, it could go up almost 12 per cent.” That is what needs looking at. Perhaps then the minister wouldn’t have to go back and put an extra tax on the consumer purchasing the stone, aggregate, gravel or whatever it may be.

I suggest to the minister he is discriminating against a certain industry, the nonmetallic industry. There is nothing mentioned in this bill to include the other industry, open pit mining for example. Yet it can cause just as much of a nuisance and a problem to the rest of Ontario as a quarry at the present time. There is nothing in there that says open pit mining operators, when they abandon a mine must rehabilitate it. There is nothing in this act, yet I believe should be included in it.

I don’t think we can single out one particular area of the mining industry in Ontario to carry the whole shot, particularly the taxation proposed today. It is an injustice, I think, when we look at other areas like open pit mining where tax depletion is allowed when they gradually phase out.

I suggest the minister take a second look at this thing. When we talk about heading for double digit inflation this is certainly going to add to it.

I am not here to defend the quarry industry. I think the bill itself is a good bill. It has brought control and order in a number of municipalities. I don’t think municipalities can complain too loudly about the loss of some of their authority, because they had the powers years ago to move in that direction and they didn’t. That is why the ministry is faced with some of these problems today. I have to commend the ministry for moving in that direction even back in 1971.

There are some conflicting views, as expressed by previous speakers, and that relates to the white paper on the Planning Act and the powers vested in the minister under this particular section. On the white paper on the Planning Act it said the minister will have the power to request any municipality to incorporate into its official plan any matters specified by the Ministry of Natural Resources; I suppose where the ministry fails to amend its plan the minister may cause the plan to be amended.

[4:45]

I have to agree; I think there has to be some form of appeal here. That appeal should go to the Ontario Municipal Board where people do have a right to be heard and to object to it under sections 2, 3 and 6 of the Pits and Quarries Control Act. I think this should still be part of the bill. It stipulates that the minister shall not issue a licence when the location is in contravention of any official plan or municipal bylaw, and that where a local municipality does not have an official plan or bylaw governing the location of pits and quarries, the minister may not issue a licence if the council objects to the location.

Both of these provisions have been deleted from the new act. I suggest that people should have a right to appeal to some other agency so that their side of the story may be heard. I don’t think even the Environmental Assessment Act applies to certain areas of this particular bill. It does give the minister rather broad powers under this new bill. I suggest that they are perhaps just a little bit too much.

There has been some concern about the regulations. I believe there is a resolution from the regional municipality of Waterloo which the regional municipality of Niagara has supported. They want to delay Bill 127 until they can see the regulations. I suppose they are more concerned about what regulations will follow the act. Again I suppose they will give the minister rather broad powers.

I want to say to the members of the House that I think it is discrimination against a certain industry in Ontario. There must be some other measures by which a tax can be added to cover the cost of rehabilitation.

On this matter of rehabilitation, as the minister indicated in his opening remarks he’s going to spend quite a bit of money on rehabilitating old pits and quarries in the province. I question that. The question is who owns the property in the first place? Does it all belong to the crown? Is the minister going to rehabilitate these quarries and add value to them? Are they then going to be sold or go back to their original owners to be sold at a gainful profit?

I talked about rehabilitation of some of the quarries in the Niagara Peninsula. The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority bought vacant quarry land from Canada Cement LaFarge of Montreal. They spent -- I could be wrong on the figures -- around $300,000 for this abandoned pit operation which they are going to rehabilitate. The city of St. Catharines has spent around $1 million on buying out an old quarry operation on the top of the escarpment just behind the Shaver Hospital in St. Catharines. They are going to use it for a garbage disposal or waste disposal site.

I suggest that almost all of these abandoned quarries do have some good value. I am talking about dollar value that can be developed. If the minister is spending taxpayers’ money to rehabilitate some of these old quarries, I hope he is not going to rehabilitate them with the owner still sitting there waiting for all this major work to be done to beautify it and then turning around, selling it and making a huge profit on it. Again that would be at the expense of the taxpayers who are purchasing and the consumers who are buying the aggregate. I hope the minister may have some comments on this area.

That’s about the only thing I can add to the bill. J think it’s a good bill. It does give the minister additional power. Once it’s referred to the standing committee I am sure these matters can be ironed out and amendments will be coming forward that will make it a workable bill for all parties concerned.

Mr. Wildman: I want to rise in this debate to say that along with my colleague from Welland-Thorold I support the principle of the bill. However, we find some very serious shortcomings in the bill as drafted. At the committee stage we will be introducing extensive amendments to try to respond to some of the questions that are being raised and will be raised at committee stage about the bill by the various groups and individuals involved.

The previous speaker, the member for Fort Erie, talked a lot about discrimination. Mr. Speaker, I know this may be close to your heart. I want to talk about discrimination in this bill and the whole government’s approach to regulation of pits and quarries in this province, and I want to speak specifically to section 5 of the bill.

Mr. Eaton: You don’t speak to sections during second readings. That’s done in committee.

Mr. Wildman: I am going to speak about this section as it embodies the whole principle and the whole approach of this government towards regulation of pits and quarries in this province.

It is interesting that when we look at this bill we find that it follows the old act, the Pits and Quarries Control Act, 1971, in terms of the sections of the province that will be covered by the bill. Then there is another proposal in the bill, of course, that the Lieutenant Governor in Council can designate parts of Ontario in which this act and regulations will apply, over and above the parts of the province that are now designated under the Pits and Quarries Control Act.

When I mention discrimination, you just have to look at the areas of this province which are now designated to discover that much of northern Ontario does not come under this bill as it is proposed because it is now not designated under the Pits and Quarries Control Act. I have had correspondence with the minister about this to find out what he has against northern Ontario. Why is it that the north should be treated differently from any other section of the province? Why is it we should have less control over pit and quarry sites in our part of the province than other sections of the north, there are a few sections of the north that are designated, and most of southern Ontario?

Mr. McKessock: You are right on. Let’s change the licence fees.

Mr. Foulds: And give us the same gas prices.

Mr. Wildman: Do you realize that licence fees save you about 40 to 50 bucks a year, where it costs us over $100 more in gasoline prices in a year?

Mr. Kerrio: Gas is cheaper in Sault Ste. Marie than it is in Niagara Falls.

Mr. Foulds: Go ahead, save money; drive to the Sault and fill up your tank.

Mr. Wildman: You can’t drive from the Sault to Thunder Bay on one tank of gas. You have got to fill up in Marathon or White River, and the Speaker knows exactly how much it costs up there.

But to get back to the bill, what I am concerned about is the fact that the pits and quarries along Highway 17 are not going to be governed by this bill.

I had some correspondence with the minister about what I see as two different attitudes by the government towards management of pits and quarries in southern as opposed to northern Ontario. In response to my inquiry the minister pointed out that at the present time 287 townships, including the Sudbury region, an area around Sault Ste. Marie and the La Cloche Islands near Manitoulin Island, are designated under the Pits and Quarries Control Act, therefore they will be designated under this bill when it comes into effect.

He pointed out, and I am quoting the minister: “Although the designated area is relatively small, over 80 per cent of aggregate production in the province is covered by the act. The reason for the larger designated area in southern Ontario is because of the problems associated with the high production in the south.”

It may be that 80 per cent of the aggregate production in the province is covered by the old act and therefore will come under the purview of this act when it’s passed. However, it still escapes me why the other 20 per cent should not be covered.

‘The minister tried to explain that away by indicating to me that in addition to the designated area in the north, all pits and quarries on crown land operate in accordance with the quarry permit issued under the Mining Act. In other words, the Ministry of Natural Resources controls directly the operation of pits and quarries on crown land. The impression the minister tried to leave apparently is that because these pits and quarries would come under the Mining Act, there was no need to have the bill applied to the whole province in terms of designated areas.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, if the member looked at subsection 2 of that section he would see that the Lieutenant Governor in Council can designate other areas, so that there is provision to deal with the north.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that when I began. I’m not satisfied with that. I don’t think it should be left purely to the discretion of the minister -- basically that’s what it means -- to decide whether or not he is going to designate the other areas.

I’ve been concerned about this for some time. When it was announced by the minister that he was going to bring in changes, I thought finally they’re going to include the north and they’re going to deal with that. But when we come back to the bill, all it does is deal with the areas that are already designated under the old act and makes a provision, as the minister points out, that other areas may be designated. I emphasize “may be designated.” We have no commitment that they will be.

On the point made by the minister in his correspondence with me that these other areas are controlled by the Ministry of Natural Resources under the Mining Act, I have a number of problem’s with that. In the areas that are not on crown land, in the pits and quarries that are not on crown land but are not in the three small designated areas of northern Ontario, in that whole area of northwestern Ontario there is no control.

There is no control at all if it is on private land in an area that is not designated. As a matter of fact there’s a place in my riding -- the minister may correct me on this -- where I’m pretty certain that the township of Thessalon is not part of the designated area immediately around Sault St. Marie; it’s too far out. There is a great deal of aggregate in that area. As far as I know that area is being mined indiscriminately for transportation of a great deal of that aggregate to southern Ontario.

They’re taking a whole hill; they’re going to wipe out a whole hill -- a small mountain. They put it on trucks and then barges at Thessalon for transporting it across the lake to Collingwood. There, it is put back on trucks and brought down here to Metro because apparently these isn’t enough aggregate available in this area to meet demands. I suppose because the minister has control here, there isn’t as much indiscriminate development of aggregate deposits in southern Ontario as it is possible to carry out in the Thessalon area. So fine, they go and get it from Thessalon.

I want to make clear I’m not opposed to the development of aggregate deposits in the north. Obviously, if we’re going to build roads -- and we need roads, we need a lot more roads and a lot better roads -- then we’re going to need aggregate.

[5:00]

Why should we have the aggregate without the control? Those pits are going to be worked out eventually. Right now there is no provision for a pit on private land in an undesignated area to be rehabilitated. Anyone who has travelled across northern Ontario has seen and experienced not only the great scenery and beauty but also, every few miles along the highway, an abandoned pit.

It appears, despite what the minister says about control under the Mining Act, that the main culprit is the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. MTC seems to have a licence to develop whatever pits it wishes, wherever it wishes, whenever it needs aggregate for repairs to highways or for rebuilding highways.

Mr. Foulds: Including in provincial parks.

Mr. Wildman: That’s right; there are even some in provincial parks.

I want to conclude by saying that although I support the principle of the bill, we should have more accurate and determined methods of control over the development of pits and quarries and for their rehabilitation. My position is that it should apply right across the province. The north should not be singled out.

I want to make one other point. The minister made an argument in which he stated: “No new designations have been made in the last three years because of government constraints on personnel and funding. Because of the relatively large increase in staff and funding required to cover the whole province, the original plan was that the new act would apply only to the parts of Ontario that are designated under the Pits and Quarries Control Act. We have a number of requests to designate the whole province, with the result that the matter of further designations is under review.”

Obviously it was under review, but it wasn’t decided that it should be included in this bill. I wonder if the minister could indicate how much more money it would cost in terms of funding and personnel in order to designate the whole province -- or at least to designate the populated areas. I am not asking him necessarily, although the Speaker may disagree with me, to designate the Hudson Bay area, but surely he can designate the areas where we have highways, populations, municipalities and where we have private land. That’s the important thing -- the areas where we have private lands that are not located in designated areas. Maybe the Mining Act will cover crown land, although I have some serious doubts about MTC and the way it operates on crown land. But what about the private lands in undesignated areas? This bill should apply to the whole thing.

When it goes to committee, I assure the minister we will be proposing an amendment so we no longer have the discrimination this bill proposes between southern and northern Ontario.

Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this bill because it particularly concerns my riding. I guess 90 per cent of the resource in five or six counties in southwestern Ontario is located within the boundaries of my riding of Middlesex.

I also want to put on the record some comments on behalf of my colleague the member for Durham-York (Mr. W. Newman), who wanted to speak on this bill but who had to attend a meeting. He indicated he wants to see this bill go to the resources development committee. It is a matter of importance to him as well, since there are some 50 pits in his riding he is interested in and concerned about. He is prepared to have a lot to say on the bill when it gets to committee. I assure the minister that I will have a lot more input at that time also. I just wanted to speak briefly to the bill now, because I know there are others who want to speak on it and the time is somewhat restricted.

This bill concerns a matter with more than one side to it. There are people in my riding who would not allow another pit to be developed if they had their way, yet it is a resource of the utmost importance to the progress and needs of our area. There are others who would go ahead and do just about anything they pleased on the operating of a pit and not have any controls put on them whatsoever.

Neither position is acceptable. I think we must look for a position that is suitable to see the needs of the area supplied, with controls acceptable to the communities in which we live.

I’ve seen a situation I particularly don’t like; it’s hard to take a shot at one’s own ministry, but I’m going to have to do it. We have situations where time has been spent in public hearings meeting the requirements of the previous act, to see a pit licensed and all the necessary -- I think they are necessary -- steps taken in getting that licence and in seeing that all the requirements of operating that pit are met. Then, within a week, someone comes along and applies for a wayside-pit permit and it is issued very easily and very quickly; they don’t have to meet the same requirements. They haven’t had the cost of developing the pit and they’re in competition with the people who have already gone through all the steps of developing a pit.

I say to the minister that there is going to have to be a solution worked out between his ministry and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications to eliminate this conflict. I know it means cheaper supplies of aggregate to our Ministry of Transportation and Communications when a highway is being built, but it is utterly ridiculous to put some operators through what they have had to go through to get their licence for a pit and operate a pit and then see someone else come in a mile down the road and not have to meet those requirements.

I say to the minister, that goes a little further. It goes not only to the operations between the two ministries, it goes to the controls the townships have been able to have over some of these operations.

The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) talks about all the pits around the country that haven’t been taken care of. A lot of those pits are there because of our municipalities. They were municipality-operated pits and at that time they didn’t take any responsibility. Now the very same municipalities are turning around and holding up for ransom legitimate pit operators who are putting up their berms and meeting all the requirements and carrying out their work properly and who have already rehabilitated some pits and done a good job, an excellent job, at it. The municipalities are taking money out of the operators they shouldn’t be taking out of them, for road work and so on which has already been committed, through licensing fees and other methods.

This legislation is going to get some working over in committee. The resources development committee has been one to do that, as some honourable members who have been on it have seen in the last little while. My friend the member for Durham-York, who’s on that committee, and the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. Johnson), who will be on it in this next session, are prepared to work on those kinds of items to see this bill come around.

We support this bill in principle on second reading to see it come to committee. But I assure the minister that a lot of us are going to have a lot of input into this bill when it gets to committee.

Mr. McKessock: Bill 127, An Act to revise the Pits and Quarries Control Act, is welcomed by my riding, realizing that changes were needed. This bill is of much concern and significance to Grey county because of the fact two thirds of the aggregate reserves of southwestern Ontario are located in Grey county.

The mineral aggregate study which was conducted by the Ministry of Natural Resources determined that southwestern Ontario had about six billion tons of high-grade, quality sand and gravel and that four billion tons of this are located in Grey county. However, we are concerned about the impact the removal of this natural resource will have on the individual municipalities and the county as a whole. We do not want to suffer environmentally or economically because of this natural asset. Removing such a large amount of aggregate will have a very serious effect on our road system, both in trying to maintain these roads to accommodate large trucks and in inconvenience due to extra traffic in the years of gravel extraction. Our roads and bridges are not built for such a venture and building and rebuilding roads would be a continuous task.

Most natural assets such as large waterways, which have encouraged cities and industries, tend to continue to benefit the area as time goes on. It’s hard to see anything but hardship from this natural resource; depleted gravel pits, poorer roads, business tax gone, thousands of acres of topsoil gone. What then will this land be good for? What will the townships do with all this residual land?

Residual land is what Art Fields, chairman of the Grey county aggregate committee, told me we would have. I was not sure what residual meant so I looked it up in the dictionary. It says: “Residual: A disability remaining after a disease or operation.” Disabled land is what we’ll have. It would never be reclaimed for farming.

For these reasons, we feel it is very important that to compensate for these hardships and depleted resources a licence fee of 10.5 cents per ton be charged. The minister will notice this is an increase in what he has suggested, but we feel it is very important that this licence fee be increased, eight cents per ton to go to the local municipality from whence it came; one cent per ton to the counties or regional municipalities; a half-cent per ton to an abandoned pit or quarry fund and one cent per ton to the province.

I realize these fees are going to be set by regulation, but I want the minister to take note of the increase Grey county has suggested for the municipality. This is an increase of four cents over what the government suggested back in June when they put out information regarding licence fees.

Some have requested that the regulations be put before us at the committee stage and I would ask the minister if he is I going to do this.

We feel certain other parts of the act are wrong For example, only some areas of southern Ontario are covered by the act. We feel that all of southern Ontario should be covered. Under section 7, we feel the figure of 20,000 tons of aggregate is not high enough. We feel 35,000 tons of extraction should be allowed under a B licence. Having to jump to an A classification puts considerable hardship on a small operator with the extra cost in acquiring an A licence.

Municipalities should be contacted and given a chance to be heard under the annual review and not just once in five years as has been suggested in the bill. Some consultative mechanism should be set up so the minister has to consult with the local municipalities before he overrides a local bylaw to issue a permit, as he could do under section 27. If an agreement hasn’t been reached with a municipality after this consultation, the municipality should have the right to take the issue to the OMB. Too many times in this act the minister has power to override municipal restricted-area bylaws.

The minister should not be allowed to alter permits, which this bill allows, without consulting with local municipalities.

When it comes to crown land, the licence fee should not go directly to the Treasurer of Ontario but should be disbursed in the same manner as if it were non-crown land. After all, the local impact will still be there, the same municipal roads and bridges are going to be used.

It is my understanding that nothing in this act allows the minister to freeze aggregate areas. I want the minister to assure me that this is correct.

[5:15]

I understand this bill is going to committee for clause-by-clause examination and that municipalities and interested groups will be allowed in at that time to make their views known; certainly Grey county representatives will be there.

This concludes my remarks on second reading and I look forward to the bill going to committee.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I doubt whether I will have an opportunity to make any submissions or participate in the hearings on this bill when it is in committee. Undoubtedly, if time permits I will because of its importance.

We in this caucus had difficulty in deciding whether to support the bill or not and the effective words which led us to support the bill are contained in the purpose clause which states the purposes of this act are, amongst other things, to provide for the management of the aggregate and crown aggregate resources of Ontario.

It goes on to other matters, but the key words and the matter which is of immense concern to us is that finally the government has assumed the responsibility for the management of these public assets. I will be interested, when the minister winds up this debate on second reading, if he will clearly indicate the extent, degree and ways in which he intends to carry out the mandate he is asking from this assembly and which we gladly give to him to manage these public assets in a way that will best serve the purposes of the people of the province. Particularly when they are in a very real sense fungible, they are not going to be there at some point after they have been used, even though they can be qualified and a price ascribed to them.

In that sense the depletion of provincial resources today is of immense importance to our party because we are interested in the conservation aspect as well as the exploitation aspect of the resources of the province.

There are two or three matters which specifically concern me. One is I hope the minister will allay the concerns of the assembly when he says the Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate parts of Ontario in which this act and the regulations apply and put us all to rest on that question. The intention should be to make this act apply to the whole of Ontario, right from its inception and from the assumption by him of the management of these resources. For him to accept the responsibility for management and then to wait a period before he assumes the jurisdiction to manage those assets across the province seems to us inadvisable.

I don’t have very much of value to say, but I may just wait for the minister to take his seat and perhaps listen to the debate. Maybe we could recess for a few minutes and have a cup of coffee or something like that. I have great respect for the minister but I will just wait until he has finished his discussions around the chamber.

I won’t repeat myself, Mr. Speaker, because I know the minister always reads what I have to say in Hansard.

I did want to say I would like an explanation on why the definition of aggregate is different to the definition of crown aggregate. For example, I find that diatomaceous earth is included in crown aggregate but must necessarily be included in other aggregate only by way of prescription, as well as marl, for example. Marl is included in crown aggregate but is not, by name, specified in the definition of aggregate.

As a layman in the assembly, expecting people in the province as laymen to read this statute and understand it, it seems to me one could have said aggregate was the same whether it was crown aggregate or not crown aggregate. Perhaps the minister can in some way explain that to me. If the minister is not aware of them, I do have the definitions here of diatomaceous earth and of marl. I could put them on the record but I am quite certain the minister is familiar with those totems, as I know he is with berm and hectorage as well as the other technical terms which occur throughout the bill.

One of the other matters of very real concern to me is the whole process by which the public is involved in participating in the decisions which are made. Because I believe it to be part of the bill, I particularly refer the minister to the provisions of section 12, which again, together with section 21 applies when the Ontario Municipal Board is holding a hearing under section 22 of the bill. For example, I am extremely concerned when it is the decision of the minister as to who may be given standing before the Ontario Municipal Board. This whole question of standing in process before any of the bodies which the government establishes, let alone the question of standing before the court, is really becoming a mess.

I notice the introduction of what to me are significantly new and different and inconclusive words. For example, section 12(7): “Upon receipt of a notice” -- that is, a notice from a member of the public that a hearing is required before the board. “Upon receipt of a notice under subsection 6 that in the opinion of the minister discloses an interest in the matter that is sufficiently substantial to warrant a hearing and is not frivolous or vexatious, he shall refer the application and the objections to the board for a hearing.”

Surely it should be possible for the board to make that decision. Surely the notice which the minister is to receive could be transmitted to the board and the board could make the decision as to whether or not it disclosed an interest in the matter that is “sufficiently substantial to warrant a hearing and is not frivolous or vexatious.” It is customary to allow the body which conducts the hearing to make the determination about whether or not the board should hold a hearing with respect to it. In this instance I think it is just too restrictive in as important a consideration as this for the minister to be able to make that decision.

In section 22 when the board decides, as I understand it the board can specify who shall be parties to the proceedings. Again that raises the question about what the criteria will be which will determine whether a member of the public has standing to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board. It is very much the kind of basic and fundamental question which was raised in the bill debated in this assembly last week by the leader of the official opposition, the member for Hamilton West (Mr. S. Smith).

I trust that during the course of the committee hearings on this bill the whole procedure of public involvement and public participation and the right to appear before the Municipal Board will be thoroughly canvassed so that we have the reality of public participation and not just the form of it; so that we have the substance of it and not just a bill that sets out an elaborate procedure, about which, by the time one has completed it, one has the sense that one has chased a shadow rather than the substance of the kind of participation which should take places

There are few if any extant pits and quarries in Riverdale, but I think the issue of the way this government is finally going to deal with the pits and quarries operations across the province and the way in which we dispose of this public asset, defined of course in technical terms in the bill, is of such immense importance that regardless of the areas we represent, we are concerned about the process of the bill.

It was interesting to me that a member of the government benches, the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton), would speak critically about the bill. We all recognize there are very real conflicting interests involved in the settlement of the questions as to the extent and time and way in which these resources will be exploited

It is the very need to resolve and to compromise those conflicting interests which may be involved on any application for a licence or for a permit that requires these public hearings to make certain the public participation role is guaranteed in a real and substantive way in the procedures finally adopted.

Mr. McGuigan: My purpose in rising in this debate is because I live on a gravel ridge on highway 3, between Blenheim and Ridgetown. It is actually the former shoreline of the lake and has two great purposes; growing fruit and being used as an aggregate. I am sorry to report the second is really becoming the dominant force. As one drives along highway 3 today it’s pretty much a matter of pits.

I remember as a child when many of those pits were established, some of them going back to the turn of the century. I don’t go back that far, but I remember the pits from about 1930s. They were used for indiscriminate uses; for dumping, for storing old abandoned equipment and were a general eyesore. When the act came in in 1971 to provide for some rehabilitation, it was quite an improvement. Since that time the active pits are being managed in a much better way.

I just point out I am very much in favour of the purpose of this bill. It provides for the management of the aggregates. When the aggregate is taken from our pit to neighbouring towns or villages and put into parking lots or concrete or whatever masonry structures it is put into, it has a limited life. At some time or other it is dug up again and taken away. Most of it comes back onto our clay lands in landfill sites. Perhaps it is there for good engineering reasons, but certainly not reasons that the local people are willing to accept. It seems to me that a good deal of that rubble, without garbage or organic matter in it, should come back into filling up these gravel pits.

To some extent that is beginning to happen, no thanks to government regulations but mainly because of the opportunities some of the owners see in rehabilitating this land. Quite recently, in putting in a connecting link in the town of Blenheim -- and it is sort of ironic that the town of Blenheim sits on gravel -- the engineering specs called for the excavation of the subsoil, which was gravel. They have taken it out now and are filling up one of the gravel pits with that subsoil. In the meantime they’re digging another gravel pit to replace the soil in the town of Blenheim, which is already gravel.

[5:30]

We need better management of these resources. If this act brings about better management, it will be appreciated by the people of my riding and especially by the people in the two townships of Harwich and Raleigh, where the gravel ridge is covered.

I would just like to say a word or two about the rehabilitation. Many of the pits in my area go back to the turn of the century, and the people who benefited from the sale of that gravel have gone to their reward; the land has passed to their heirs and is of doubtful value to them. I rather balk at the suggestion that all of the costs of these rehabilitations should go to the present owners. When the land was originally sold, it was not sold at a price that would include the cost of rehabilitation.

Another point about rehabilitation is that the cost of rehabilitating various pits or quarries can be quite different. It seems to me it’s very cheap and very easy to do it in the sand and gravel pits in my riding, because it simply means a matter of sloping the sides, planting a bit of grass and leaving it in a level condition. I would hate to see a situation where one type of pit or quarry is cross-subsidizing another type of pit or quarry. I would suggest that matter be looked at in committee.

Also, on the matter of insuring the permission of present owners as to whether or not it should be rehabilitated, I’m not suggesting that the ministry would want to run roughshod over the present owner, but it would seem to me that in the event that permission was not granted there should be some method of appeal, possibly to the Ontario Municipal Board, or a hearing in which it could be decided that rehabilitation should go on in spite of the fact that the owner might not be in the health or state of mind to grant permission to do the rehabilitating.

The hour is getting late, Mr. Speaker, and I think most other points have been covered, so it’s with a great deal of pleasure that I give my support to the principle of this bill. I look forward to making further comments in committee.

Mr. Warner: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. For me the issue of abandoned pits and quarries goes back to July 17, 1978, when, unfortunately, a young lad who I had known for some time -- a friend of the family -- drowned in an abandoned pit located near Military Trail and Morningside Avenue in Scarborough. From that day until now I have spent a great deal of time doing research and contacting people in various fields throughout the province regarding the safety aspect of abandoned pits and quarries.

I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I’ve been quite encouraged by comments from people in my own municipality, from my own municipal council and from members of this assembly. I am not going to take the time to go through and read the letters I received back from members of each of the three parties, but I can tell you that I certainly appreciate the interest that members have taken in this very serious issue.

It is fair to say there has been a great deal of confusion over the years about who is responsible and who should be responsible for the safety aspect of an abandoned pit or quarry. I realize -- and I don’t mean to say it in a highly critical way -- the government has had some difficulty in determining where the responsibility should lie.

In August 1978, I got a letter from the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), who was then Minister of Natural Resources, which mentioned that the responsibility really rests with the Ministry of Labour and that he had forwarded my inquiry to the director of the mining, health and safety branch of the Ministry of Labour.

Then the portfolios were changed and the member for Leeds (Mr. Auld) was appointed the Minister of Natural Resources. I wrote to him, and I got a letter back on November 24, 1978. He told me there would be a new act, “but the new act will not include any legislation pertaining to safety problems, as this responsibility falls within the purview of the Ministry of Labour.”

I wrote to the Minister of Labour, and on December 7, 1978, I got a letter back from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie). It is a lengthy letter, but in part it reads: “With the passing of Bill 70, all provisions of the Mining Act will be administered by the Ministry of Natural Resources, except those relating to health and safety while the mine is in operation. Thus, once that takes place, perhaps you might wish to approach Natural Resources again about changes to that act.”

He sent me back to Natural Resources, so I then drafted a bill, a private member’s bill, and introduced it in the House. I was quite pleased that in the May 1979 edition Gravel Extract, the magazine put out by the Foundation for Aggregate Studies, they mentioned the bill I had put forward and they supported it. They also ran articles on the same subject in the issues of February 1979 and October 1978. In October 1978 they said something I thought was quite significant:

“The rehabilitation of pits and quarries should involve more than building a berm or planting a few scraggly trees to screen off the view of the mess inside. It should at least restore to a good condition, if not make over an improved form. It is important to think of rehabilitation not as an activity separate from mining, but as a part of the total process. This means that the planning process must encompass efficient operation of the pit right through to final rehabilitation.

“Two criteria must be met in good rehabilitation: (1) restoration of a landscape that is in character with the area; (2) creation of a condition that relates to and supports future land uses beneficial to the community.”

Encouraged by that, I started to make contact with every municipality around Ontario and I discovered from the correspondence that then took place that I was on the right track. I had mailed to me an article from the Ottawa Journal, dated April 25, 1979, regarding the “death quarry” on Montreal Road. The city of Ottawa, faced with the serious problem of an abandoned pit where there had been a drowning, attempted to pass legislation which would render that area safe. They lost in the courts. The message was that they couldn’t do it; it required provincial legislation.

Knowing I was on the right track, I maintained my correspondence with the municipalities. I’m pleased to report there are approximately 150 municipalities in the province that have supported my private member’s bill.

Before the chair gets all excited about me talking about a private member’s bill, knowing that this bill was coming forward I took my private member’s bill and had it drafted into an amendment. The amendment fits into section 33 of the government bill, perfectly in keeping with the principle of that section. It will allow for the safe restoration of abandoned pits and quarries.

The correspondence from the municipalities was quite rewarding. I heard in positive support from the regional municipalities of Durham, Niagara, Waterloo and Peel; from the counties of Huron, Kent and Perth; from the municipalities of Port Stanley, Machin, Nottawasaga, Galway and Cavendish; from the villages of Zurich, Paisley, Lakefield, Elora and Chesterville; from the corporation of Ridgetown, the district of Sioux Narrows, and the improvement district of Opasatika; from the cities of Guelph, Thunder Bay, Mississauga, Barrie, Scarborough, Kingston, St. Catharines, Windsor, Nepean, Toronto, Kitchener, Orillia, Burlington, Brantford, East York, Oshawa, Thorold, Stratford, Metro Toronto, and North York; from the towns of Renfrew, Perth, Onaping Falls, Fort Erie, Kingsville, Prescott, Goderich, Milton, Ancaster, Dresden, Whitby, Deseronto, St. Mary’s, Ajax, Pelham, Fort Frances, Tecumseh, Rayside-Balfour, Thessalon, Paris, Blind River, Newmarket, Blenheim, Little Current, Wallaceburg, Napanee, Valley East, Bradford, Exeter, Gananoque, Aurora, Powassan, Parry Sound, Vankleek Hill, Ingersoll, Oakville, Durham, Grimsby, Petrolia, Markham, Elliot Lake, Whitchurch-Stouffville, Kirkland Lake, Geraldton, Richmond Hill, Newcastle, and Amherstburg; and from the townships of Anderdon, Plympton, Chatham, Red Lake, North Dumfries, Colchester North, King, West Carleton, Adjala, Hinchinbrooke, Papineau, Hay, Anson, Hindon and Minden, Romney, Ops, Coleman, Pittsburgh, Manitouwadge, St. Joseph, Georgian Bay, Michipicoten, Cardiff, Admaston, Sonth Dumfries, Malden, Schreiber, Sebastopol, Thurlow, Barclay, Harwich, Ennismore, Tiny, Wellesley, Baldwin, Raglan, Brock, Lavant, Dalhousie and North Sherbrooke, Owens, Williamson and Idington, Norwich, Faraday, Gosfield North, Maidstone, Eilber and Devitt, Georgina, Smith, Johnson, Verulam, Stanhope, and Flamborough.

Not only did those municipalities and towns, villages and cities send me their support but many of them elaborated. Many pointed out the serious problems they have had over time with the abandoned pits and quarries and they’re concerned that there be some legislation around the safety aspects.

For example, the township of Schreiber -- I’m sure the real Speaker, not the deputy, would enjoy the comments -- whole-heartedly supports the minister’s Bill 185 and any amendments to the Pits and Quarries Control Act that would allow the township of Schreiber to take action necessary to eliminate a long-standing hazard in Schreiber. Like Scarborough, Schreiber lost a life in an abandoned pit some years ago and is vitally concerned in preventing a similar incident.

Unfortunately, we’re not able to force the owner and operator of the pit to rectify the situation as contemplated in the bill. Council has since purchased the abandoned pit with the long-term view of providing parking for an arena. Council, however, wishes to commend the minister for his initiative and expresses its support of the bill.

[5:45]

The town of Blenheim mentioned they’ve had similar tragedies as referred to in the correspondence “with gravel pits adjacent to us in Harwich township.” The town of Little Current mentions they do not have any pits or quarries, but can certainly understand the problems and hazards they can create.

Fort Erie says they hope the bill, if passed, will eliminate the dangers that sometimes remain with abandoned pits and quarries.

Durham, Ontario, mentions that in addition to the support letter they sent back they will be notifying their local member of Parliament, the Minister of Natural Resources and the Premier regarding the town of Durham’s concern over the condition in which some excavations have been left around the province. It is their council’s feeling these should be rectified immediately.

Perth, which is close to home for the Deputy Speaker, says at a meeting of the Lanark county roads committee held on March 13, 1979, this matter was thoroughly discussed by the committee. “Although the members of the committee support the intention of the bill, it unfortunately will not solve the problem in this area due to the fact that the townships within the county of Lanark are not designated townships under the Pits and Quarries Control Act.”

While the minister may very well agree with the amendment I am putting forward, one of the problems raised by Perth is the problem to which my colleague from Algoma referred. They mention here that although Perth supports the bill which I put forward, the problem in their area is the fact that the townships within the county of Lanark are not designated townships under the Pits and Quarries Control Act. It would make sense then that we have to deal with the entire province.

They go on to say, “Some municipalities have passed bylaws under the Municipal Act in order to reduce the type of hazard you have described. However, an amendment of the Pits and Quarries Control Act would not cover any of these townships in our county. Perhaps you could consider this aspect when proposing your bill, since it is my understanding that the new mineral aggregates act to be presented to the Legislature also only covers certain municipalities within the province of Ontario.”

The town of Thessalon mentions: “There are a number of large pits in its area and within a few years one or two of them close to Thessalon will likely be abandoned when they could be a serious hazard if not made safe before abandonment. At times they constitute a danger to children even when dry and in use.”

Gateway to the Kawarthas, Lindsay: “At a meeting members considered the problem which exists in many parts of the province and passed a resolution to support your efforts in this matter. I have taken the liberty of sending this on to our own member to see if additional support can be provided to you.”

From Anson, Hindon and Minden: “Council members are genuinely concerned about the dangerous situation abandoned pits create and trust suitable measures will be introduced to protect the public from such hazards.”

From the town of Napanee: “It was felt abandoned quarries do cause a very serious hazard and your orders should be required to make these as safe as possible.”

The town of Whitchurch-Stouffville not only supports the bill but says: “There should be more control over the construction of berms between pits and abutting owners. This municipality wants assurance that four cents a ton will be paid to municipalities on gravel mined. Processing plants should be licensed and regulated. Site plans should be circulated for wayside pits before licences are issued.”

That is just a sampling, Mr. Speaker. There is widespread concern across this province about the safety aspect of abandoned pits and quarries. Quite frankly, I was very disappointed when the bill came forward that it did not provide all of the measures needed. The bill does provide some measure of safety with respect to the new licence procedures but not for the abandoned pits and quarries. It’s deficient.

It seems to me if we are going to pass a comprehensive bill dealing with pits and quarries in this province, we owe it to the people to make as sure as possible we will have safe conditions. I don’t ever want to experience another drowning in my own area because an abandoned pit was not rehabilitated in some way, was not made safe.

The minister well knows and I’m sure he will speak positively about it -- a variety of things can be done to an abandoned pit. It can be drained and made into useful agricultural land. On the opposite side, I have a lengthy and detailed proposal from the Ontario Water Ski Association which claims they can make excellent use of an abandoned pit which contains water for safety instruction and teaching water skiing.

What I’m saying very clearly to the minister is that regardless of the use to which the abandoned pit or quarry is put, the very first consideration is an obligation to make that area as safe as is reasonably possible. That concern is reflected throughout this entire province, as shown by the sample letters I read.

I look forward to this bill going to committee because it is my intention, to bring forward at the appropriate moment an amendment to section 33 which will accomplish the very thing I’ve been talking about.

I indicated to the minister back in 1978, at the very beginning of this issue, that I thought this is the kind of thing we can do together, as a Legislature. The last thing in the world I want is to see it become some kind of political issue. I don’t think it has to. But I also indicate to the minister I will not be moved from my position. If the minister cannot simply accept the amendment I am putting forward, I will have to move it in committee and I will have to ask for a vote.

I hope it doesn’t come to that because I think one thing we all have in common in this place is an abiding concern about the safety of the citizens of this province. That’s what I’ve attempted to address.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks I would like to make in winding up for my party the debate on this bill. I rise with some reluctance because we have serious reservations about the bill, and while we will not oppose it on second reading, if the bill is not substantially amended in the committee hearings that have been mentioned time and time again this afternoon we reserve the right, and serve notice now, that we will be voting against the bill on third reading because it is seriously flawed.

However, at the present time, two elements and two principles embodied in the bill are supportable and are the reasons why we will not vote against the bill at this stage.

The bill is a rare one for this Conservative government. It provides for two positive steps. First, unlike the Mining Act, the bill actually envisages, as my colleague from Riverdale indicated, the management of a resource. Would that we had that principle embodied in the early history of this province, either in the Mining Act or the Crown Timber Act, or both. For that small mercy, that small principle, we in this caucus, to whom the management of conservation of our resources, and the wide use of them for the development of this province are essential, are thankful and support the bill.

Second, the bill does provide for a rehabilitation fund so that pits and quarries need not remain the blight on the province they have in the past. It is on those two critical points that we are in agreement with the government.

However, we have serious reservations. One, the environmental provisions of the bill are woefully inadequate. Two, the appeal mechanism is lopsided; it favours only those who are seeking a licence. Three, municipalities are given very little protection. The minister’s authority to override the municipality zoning bylaws is enormous; we feel that either the municipalities must have the right to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board to overturn the granting of a licence when this happens, or the municipalities must be given the power to deny the licence, which the minister can then appeal to the OMB. There must be that right of appeal.

It is a disappointment -- in fact I’m insulted by the map that was included in the Mineral Aggregate Resource Management booklet, a map of southern Ontario barely including Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury. It doesn’t even include the real north. This bill should include the whole province; those areas that the minister wants exempted should be exempted specifically and he should have to come in with a new bill every time he does that.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: The bill’s the pits.

Mr. Foulds: The bill’s the pits, right. We find it an insult to the people in northern Ontario. There is far too much ministerial discretion.

There is a point, if I may say so. The record of the mines branch of this ministry in the proper development of the resources in this province has been woefully inadequate. We do not see any hope if that branch has the responsibility for this act -- or the lack of this act -- in northern Ontario.

Interestingly enough, we also have embodied in this bill the principle of taxation by regulation that we, in this party, have consistently opposed. That is the assessing of the fees for the licences is set by regulation. That is taxation, as OHIP fees are taxation, by regulation, to which we object because every time the government is given power to tax by regulation they are being given power which they should not have, that they should have to come back to this Legislature for.

Those are the very serious reservations that I have about this bill. There are many others that I won’t go into in detail but, as I said, it is important that there be substantial revision of this bill during the committee stage or, frankly, we will clearly vote against it and call for division on third reading.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I will be brief and, hopefully, you will find that the clock is a little fast, Mr. Speaker. I want to make a couple of comments.

It is true that we are anxious that the bill go to the standing committee. I anticipate there will be a good deal of discussion on the various detailed points of the bill; this is apparent from the debate this afternoon and it is apparent from the representations that have been made to the ministry since the bill received first reading.

I would like to touch on some of the points. First of all, naturally I’m pleased to see that both parties are supporting the bill, although the New Democratic Party has some reservations. However, generally speaking, I think it has been recognized that the present act requires substantial revision; that is what we are proposing to do.

Our intention is to improve the whole process of protecting the resource, planning the operation and, finally, returning the land to a form compatible with its original condition.

[6:00]

A number of points raised by honourable members are matters of detail and will be dealt with in the clause-by-clause discussion, but the Ministry of the Environment will continue to review and comment on site plans for pits and quarries and continue to enforce the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act with regard to pits and quarries. There was some misunderstanding there.

Pits and quarries must comply with restricted-area bylaws under the proposed legislation, except for existing licensed pits and quarries and established pits and quarries in newly designated areas.

We conducted research through the University of Waterloo which indicates the amount of money provided under this act for rehabilitation of abandoned pits and quarries would cope with the problem in about 10 years, which is a reasonable time frame as the people who will be paying for it are not the people who caused the problem.

One other minor point: notice is published, according to the act, in a newspaper in an area where the pit or quarry is proposed and anyone can object and appear before the OMB.

The member for Algoma asked about the approximate number of people and the additional’ money required to cover the whole province. I am informed our current estimate is about 21 people and about $850,000, not quite double the budget and the staff we currently have.

The member for Riverdale asked me to describe how we propose to manage the resource. I am afraid that would be impossible. We propose to manage the resource using the various sections of the bill, many of which are interrelated and I hope when the committee meets we will have an opportunity to make a presentation indicating the mechanics involved in the bill before we start dealing with it clause-by-clause.

The reason for the two different definitions, the definition of aggregates and of crown aggregates, is because crown aggregates will include all those substances now dealt with under the Mining Act, which the member for Algoma referred to and subsequently will all be dealt with by this act. We will no longer be dealing with pits and quarries under the Mining Act in northern Ontario and under the Pits and Quarries Control Act in southern Ontario.

Finally, to the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, I can only repeat what I wrote him in a letter. I appreciate and thank him for his concern. This bill is an act to control and regulate the operation of pits and quarries and to provide for their rehabilitation. It has not been designed to deal with safety matters. As he is aware, safety matters in an operating pit or quarry is currently a matter for the labour safety branch of the Ministry of Labour. It may be that it is an appropriate matter to be brought before the committee and I have asked my staff to look into the situation and maybe we will have further remarks when we get to the relevant section in the bill.

With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I close.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for standing resources development committee.

The House recessed at 6:05 p.m.