role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

December 3, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

The House met at 1001.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Conway moved resolution number 34:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that the forest industry of the Ottawa Valley is in serious difficulty, that this difficulty arises from many factors including a marked deterioration in the availability of good standing timber on both public and private lands, that this difficulty has resulted in hundreds of workers losing their jobs in communities like Pembroke, Eganville and Barry's Bay where this industry is vital, the government and the Legislature of Ontario should

(

a) recognize the economic importance of the forest industry to areas like Renfrew county;

(

b) take immediate steps to stabilize and support the forest industry, including taking sensible and timely action to implement the recommendations of the Central Ontario Wood Study, which was completed by the Ministry of Natural Resources this past year.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to simply take a few moments this morning to bring to the attention of this Legislature one of the most serious economic pressures in my part of eastern Ontario, and that has to do with the very serious state in which the oldest of our industries, namely the forest industry, now finds itself. It is not overstating the case to suggest that the forest industry in Renfrew county and in the upper Ottawa Valley is currently on the critical list. Hundreds of jobs have been lost in communities throughout the Ottawa Valley, as they have been lost in other parts of eastern and northern Ontario over the past number of months.

Last night I had the opportunity to attend a briefing from the Ontario Forest Industries Association, at which briefing the group provided a copy of a recent analysis of the forest industry in Ontario by Price Waterhouse. I'm sure members of other caucuses will have the opportunity, if they have not already had the opportunity, to see this submission. It's quite clear that in the past number of years we have been losing the battle in this sector. I hope it is but a cyclical downturn, though there are very clear indicators that in fact there is a fundamental restructuring occurring.

In the brief time that I have available to me this morning I want to indicate that this issue is, as I indicated earlier, of priority concern to my constituents. I mentioned three communities in the resolution: the city of Pembroke and the villages of Eganville and Barry's Bay. They are only three; I could add to that list several others. I see in the chamber this morning my colleague the member for Victoria-Haliburton. He knows only too well what his area has experienced, particularly in the last couple of years with mill shutdowns.

I'm not here this morning to say that there are any easy answers, because in fact there are not. What we face today is a problem that has been developing over the past number of years and over the past number of decades. The solutions are not easy, but it is my contention that if government, business and other stakeholders in this debate do not turn their minds, and turn their minds quickly, to some of the difficult choices and painful decisions that have to be made, we are going to be presiding shortly over an Atlantic fishery debacle.

That is not something I would want to see happen in my part of the province, particularly in this industry, which is the lifeblood of so many of these communities and quite frankly has been the reason for settlement in that part of the province for the past 150 years.

At the present time all three sectors of our local forest industry are in trouble. The sawmill sector is a mess and getting worse, not better. Wood chips are piling up in the mill yards from Pembroke up to Huntsville because that market, as my friend from Muskoka knows, is very soft. The veneer sector is perhaps in even more trouble. We've got four mills operating now in the area from Pembroke up to Sault Ste Marie. Really only three of those mills -- Canada Veneers in Pembroke, Columbia Forest Products in Rutherglen and Birchland at Thessalon -- are now operating. The Lajambe mill at Sault Ste Marie is down.

We've lost hundreds of jobs in the veneer sector over the last couple of years, and I'm afraid more jobs are going to be lost if we don't take some corrective action very soon.

I mentioned in the resolution something called the Central Ontario Wood Study. This is a study that has been completed in recent months by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. I think it does provide a good focus for some of the decision-making I believe has got to be undertaken. Let me say, in a critical way, that I believe one of the most serious aspects of this difficulty has to do with an attitude in the Ministry of Natural Resources, which for the past number of years has, for probably the best of reasons, sought to overcommit a declining supply.

The Ministry of Natural Resources admits in this study that it does not have a very good handle on what is in the bush. The evidence strongly suggests that in the past number of years decisions have been made by governments, on the basis of MNR advice, that have overextended or overcommitted the natural resource base, which cannot sustain the capacity that's out there. As a first step, I think it is very important that we all take a very realistic, and quite frankly a more conservative, assessment of the standing timber that is on both crown and public lands.

We've gotten ourselves, in my view, into the current difficulty because we have imagined that there was more material available than there actually was. Politicians of all stripes in all governments have been pressured into some bad decisions because they didn't understand that there simply was not the material there to sustain the capacity that was either being installed or being expanded.

The veneer sector is a classic example of that. We have some tough, painful decisions to make if we're going to keep the 250 jobs in Pembroke, the 200 jobs in Mattawa at Rutherglen and however many jobs are in the Sault Ste Marie area. There is no easy answer. In my view, the key to that sector is a much more hardheaded, realistic assessment of how much veneer material there is in my part of the province and reaching up to Sault Ste Marie and trying to reapportion that allocation on the basis of the existing capacity, with probably the painful realization that everyone's capacity is going to have to come down.

We have in the past taken the view that somehow we could find all that was needed to keep these operations going on an established or expanded basis, and that overestimate of what was available from crown and private lands has bedevilled this debate for a long time. It must end. The Central Ontario Wood Study essentially states that.

There is a plan currently before the Minister of Natural Resources that is going to have a very considerable effect on Algonquin Park. I know my friends on all sides do not necessarily agree with me that multiple use should continue to be the operative principle in Algonquin Park. As the general manager of the Algonquin Forestry Authority said the other day, 40% of the feedstock for all of the sawmills through Renfrew and north Hastings and south Nipissing and north Haliburton derives from Algonquin Park.

If we intend -- as the minister is now being pressured to, and in fact has indicated he wants to do -- to expand a very substantial wilderness zone on the east side of Algonquin Park, honourable members have to know that that is going to substantially reduce the available materials for these area sawmills.

If that decision is made, somebody from government in this Legislature ought to go to these communities, from Huntsville to Bancroft to Pembroke to Barry's Bay and Whitney, with padlocks because it's going to shut down even more of this capacity and throw even more people out of work in places like Palmer Rapids and Madawaska and Stonecliffe and Harcourt and other places where this is the only game in town. Harcourt is an inappropriate example. I should retract that because that's one of the big mills already down.

We have to understand that if we want to reduce even further the availability of supply, it is going to have a very real effect on jobs in these communities.

The government is also going to have to understand that as we proceed with the very sensitive negotiations around the Algonquin land claim, that too will have an effect on the wood industry in our part of the province. I am hopeful that those negotiations are going to continue in a way that is going to resolve the concerns of the Algonquin community but is also going to understand and respect that this forest industry is the lifeblood of these communities. It is in dire straits at the present time.

A number of the recommendations contained in this study -- let me just quickly touch upon some of these: that we do not increase the commitment for quality-graded material from crown land and that we examine, in my view, fundamentally the way in which we allocate timber resources from crown lands. I am personally of a view now that the timber allocation methodologies we have are no longer appropriate to the contemporary reality. It's an enormously sensitive and complicated question, but I think it has to be examined.

Finally, as my time runs out, I agree with the Central Ontario Wood Study, which suggests that the time has come for a much better, much more specific, much more comprehensive system of inventory of what's out there so we can make more informed decisions on these key supply questions.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment briefly on this important resolution from the member for Renfrew North.

The member's resolution points out that the forest industry of the Ottawa Valley is in serious difficulty, caused by deterioration in the availability of good standing timber in both public and private lands, which has resulted in hundreds of workers losing their jobs in communities like Pembroke, Eganville and Barry's Bay.

This resolution calls on the government to recognize the economic importance of the forest industry to areas like Renfrew county and take immediate steps to stabilize and support the forest industry, including taking sensible and timely action to implement the recommendations of the Central Ontario Wood Study, which was completed by the Ministry of Natural Resources this past year. That is important. The recommendations that have been made by that Central Ontario Wood Study should be looked at more seriously than I believe is happening now within this ministry.

While I congratulate the member for Renfrew North for bringing this situation in the Ottawa Valley to our attention today, I think it should be pointed out that it applies to the forest industry in the entire province of Ontario. Clearly, it is not restricted to only one area.

The Minister of Natural Resources, in accordance with his government's attempt to cut spending, has applied major cuts to Ontario's tree-planting program and seedling nursery operations. These measures seriously threaten forest regeneration and the future of this province's forest production industry.

On February 12, the Minister of Natural Resources announced Operation Tree Plant, a stunning retreat in terms of his government's commitment to tree planting. This program's fancy and somewhat misleading name is an attempt at covering up the fact that the minister is actually planting 35 million fewer trees this year. Unacceptable. Clearly, this is not responsible or professional forest management.

Then, on March 24, the minister announced that he is closing four of Ontario's 10 tree nurseries: the Chapleau and Gogama facilities this year and the Midhurst and Thunder Bay sites in 1993. Again, this decision was not made on the basis of any long-term forest management considerations; it was based purely on fiscal desperation.

By any objective measure, there isn't any question that the minister's misguided policies and actions seriously threaten forest regeneration, the future of the forest products industry and jobs. The very essence of this member's resolution this morning is jobs and forest industry protection.

The minister's current budget allocation of approximately $230 million to forestry over the next three years: He plans to cut that budget by $100 million, and $40 million is to be slashed in the first year alone. Obviously, the minister's commitment to Ontario's forests is dead, and he's killing off jobs at the same time.

The Ontario Silviculture Association estimates that 2,000 to 3,000 jobs, mostly for students, were eliminated in the industry this year. The ministry itself estimates that the closing of the four tree nurseries will cost 50 permanent jobs and 180 temporary positions. In the Thunder Bay region alone, the minister's cutbacks are costing an estimated 770 jobs.

Thunder Bay city council, as I've mentioned before, has endorsed a report from the local tree seedling growers association, which calls on the NDP government to ensure that 165 million trees are planted annually -- falling on deaf ears, I may say.

I support the member for Renfrew North in his effort in bringing this deteriorating situation in the Ottawa Valley to the attention of the Minister of Natural Resources and his government, but I would expect and demand that the minister make a new and comprehensive commitment to our forests throughout all of Ontario, one that's bolstered by a long-term, comprehensive plan and sound professional management.

I would like to urge the minister to form a partnership with such organizations as the Ontario Tree Seedling Growers Association. It should be a partnership dedicated to maintaining and enhancing the public's forest ecosystem for all environmental, social and economic uses.

Just this week the Ontario seedling growers association has been in touch with me again, wanting to know what has happened with regard to the ministry, with regard to its programs, with regard to its commitment for these seedling trees that it wants to sell, as it has over the past years.

Tree planting should be a commitment utmost in the mind of the minister and his parliamentary assistant from the north, to make sure that these areas that have been cleared and are ready for replanting are replanted. I met this morning with some people within the industry. They're indicating to me that these areas are not being replanted. So I think the commitment from the minister to his forest management should be utmost on his mind.

When we look at the four mills that the member talked about, from Pembroke to Sault Ste Marie, that were probably closing and laying off people, we've got to look at that whole aspect, and that's only one area that he's talking about. There are areas in all of Ontario that is the same.

The assessment of standing timber: Has there been assessment made by the ministry that will determine for us exactly what is out there that you could make and sell to the cabinetmakers, for wood-finishing people? Do we have those stands?

When we look at the economic policy of the government relating to forest management, the Ministry of Natural Resources commitment to the people of this province is failing. It's going to get a failing mark because the $40 million this year alone that is being cut is unacceptable. I think that priorities within the ministry have to be put in place whereby forest management is its number one priority.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I just want to take a little bit of time to address the resolution that the member for Renfrew North has brought forward. He's referred a number of times to the wood study -- and that is not the Len Wood study. That is the wood study of the central Ontario area that he's referring to.

I have a copy of the study here. There are a number of recommendations -- I believe they number up to eight -- that have been brought forward on that study.

In the resolution, the member for Renfrew North's comments are to "take immediate steps to stabilize and support the forest industry, including taking sensible and timely action to implement the recommendations of the Central Ontario Wood Study."

This is a study that started in September 1990 and was completed in September 1992. A number of actions will be taken from recommendations brought in in the fall of 1993.

There's going to be an improved inventory: "the importance of improved inventory to our future management," and "We're actively working to incorporate the inventory projects into our ministry budgeting process." These are some of the comments from MNR.

One thing we have to remember is that in the area where the wood study was done, there are 250 operating sawmills. Out of these 250 sawmills that are operating, there are 43 sawmills that produce over one million board-feet of lumber a year, and 13 of these mills provide over 90% of the lumber produced.

Of those 13 sawmills, there are logs available from crown and private land to meet the demands of approximately only eight. I'm talking about running full production, because in my riding of Cochrane North, all of the communities are single-industry towns. They're dependent on the renewable resources that we have. I'm talking about Hearst, Mattice, Opasatika, Kapuskasing, Smooth Rock Falls, Cochrane. Each one of these communities depends for its livelihood either on sawmills, pulp mills or paper mills.

The member mentions that there are a lot of jobs lost. There's no doubt about it. In my riding of Cochrane North, over the last number of years, there have been a lot of changes taking place through modernization -- mechanization of the forest and modernization in the pulp mills, paper mills, sawmills -- and downsizing. There are a number of sawmills that haven't been able to continue to operate.

For example, in Hearst right now, unemployment is close to 40%, but we're hoping that this is going to turn around as the community works together with government, with the various ministries and with private enterprise to be able to get the best use of what forest is there and to maximize employment.

You can go back 20 years, where in one community there were 12 sawmills operating, and now there are two operating at approximately one and a half shifts. They cannot make ends meet, spend the money for capital to modernize the places, and at the same time create jobs. So they need full operation and they also need wood to be able to do it, and trees that are out there.

So there are a number of recommendations in the Central Ontario Wood Study area that will be addressed in the fall of 1993. The ministry staff in Pembroke are presently working with local sawmillers and Renfrew county staff on a variety of proposals for the utilization of the large volumes of low-quality material in eastern Ontario.

One of the options being considered is the development of a wood-fired generation plant in Renfrew county. While there are a number of problems that will have to be dealt with, the project provides a wide variety of benefits, including the stabilization of the local forest industry. We'll continue to work with Ontario Hydro, private investors and local representatives to develop a viable project for Renfrew North.

This is one example of private enterprise, government, the county and the municipalities in any community throughout Ontario trying to create other jobs and value added products from waste from wood, to get the maximum amount of jobs out of a renewable resource. If we're cutting down trees and using them to make pulp and paper and two-by-fours and things of this kind, then we have to reforest. I disagree with the member for Simcoe East; we are planting the trees, there are a number of trees being planted out there.

In a lot of cases there are fewer being used because of recycling of newsprint and things of this kind, but during the recession and hard times that we're going through, the worst recession we've had in 50 years, we are making an attempt. I believe that Bud Wildman is doing a very good job of bringing forward a lot of proposals that are going to address the issues brought up in this resolution.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): It certainly is a privilege to stand and support the resolution of the member for Renfrew North today. I think it indicates a strong concern, not only in his constituency but across the province, for what's going on in the forest industry and the forests of Ontario today.

Mr Conway represents many single-industry towns whose only reason for being was the forests of Ontario and the wealth they could bring to this province. Historically, these communities have brought that kind of wealth not only to the people within the region, by creating employment, but for the province as a whole. They have been strong engines of Ontario's economic development since people first started to use those resources to make this a better place. Ontario forests provide 20,000 fewer jobs today than they did about two years ago. That, to me and to the members of my caucus, is unacceptable.

We find that the numbers in the forests and the wealth produced from these forests are just unacceptable, given the government's policies.

There's some information that I don't think people are well aware of, but forests, of course, are a renewable resource. Forests can be used over and over for many things, including the commercial uses. I want to talk just a little bit about the regeneration because, in estimates, our party spent a lot of time talking about wood supply and about what we are going to do 50 years from now. I want to tell you that the cuts to the regeneration programs in this province have been unconscionable.

Strangely, if you look at regeneration on crown land, what New Democrats are doing in 1991 and 1992 looks almost precisely like what Tories did in 1981 and 1982.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): But what we want to know is, what did the Liberals do?

Mr Brown: The graphs are very similar; it's exactly the same thing.

We have an opportunity to improve forest regeneration, to do better things --

Mr Martin: You had five years.

Mr Brown: Well, we did have five years, Tony, and I'd like you to look at the graphs, because they go like this. They go straight up, and now they're going straight down.

I want the New Democrats over there to understand that the 30 million trees that aren't being planted on the crown lands in Ontario today are a direct result of misguided policies over there, and not only the trees being planted because that's only part of the story. You can't just plant a tree, you have to tend a tree, and if you think that the number of trees planted have gone down significantly since this government came to power, and that's a fact --

Mr Martin: You don't harvest trees in five years.

The Deputy Speaker: Heckling's out of order.

Mr Brown: -- the tending of the forest has fallen right off the chart. This government is spending virtually -- well, it's just not there. They're not looking after the investment the previous governments have made in the forests of Ontario, because you have to tend the site for five to six years. We are not doing that in this province.

Members from the north would know that there were about 2,000 people less in Ontario's forests last year providing planting and tending, and those 2,000 people were mostly young people. They were people who were going to universities, they were people who wanted to improve their opportunities for education, and in a time when a government is cutting back on the assistance that it provides to students in northern Ontario as well as across the province, it is really unacceptable to me and should be to all members of this place that the government is not doing things that make sense.

It makes sense to tend the forest. It makes sense to take advantage of the opportunity we have in the forests of Ontario today and to make sure that the renewable resource is in fact renewed.

I estimate we learned a lot of very amazing things. We learned that the Ministry of Natural Resources has increased the amount of money it is spending for information, research and policy by 23%. They're paying for a lot of consultants out there, but they're paying 6% less in operating costs. The actual amount of work being done in the forests of Ontario and all the other programs of the Ministry of Natural Resources has been cut, and on top of that -- and this is shameless -- the staff payroll within the Ministry of Natural Resources has increased by 11% in one year, and the inflation in this province was about 1.5%.

If Mr Wildman can explain that to the people I represent, to the people who aren't working out there, how ministry staff can have their salaries and benefits globally increased by 11% --

Mr Wood: It was all explained to you in estimates, if you were listening.

Mr Brown: I cannot understand. The people I represent won't be able to understand that. We have to be able in this time to set some priorities, and our priorities are the people who Mr Conway represents, the people I represent, the people Mr Miclash in Kenora represents, who rely on the forest products industry for wealth. We hope our children and grandchildren will be able to do that. Without regeneration, without proper timber allocations, we will not have the opportunity of doing that, but we know that the bureaucracy is being well looked after.

The amount of money being spent on operations by the Ministry of Natural Resources is down significantly. It is the old "pay more and get less," and this government continues to do that in just about every facet of its operations.

I represent communities such as Mr Conway's. I represent communities along the north shore of Lake Huron. I represent the town of Espanola. Just outside my riding is Nairn Centre, some of the largest forest industry operations in this province. They are experiencing great difficulties. The industry was in to see us, that is, a committee of the Liberal caucus, last evening, and they showed what dire shape that industry is in these days. They told us that they are losing hundreds of millions of dollars. They're in very difficult straits. As I said, they've lost about 20,000 employees over the last two years.

They told us that there are problems out there, and they don't only relate to timber management. They don't only relate to regeneration. They relate to an unconscionable energy policy in the province of Ontario that is forcing them out of business. They are becoming very uncompetitive with their neighbours in even Michigan because of hydro rates. The numbers are astounding.

To survive that industry is going to need a rational policy by this government to make sure that they are economically viable. That applies both to Mr Conway's constituents in the forest industry or the people he and I represent on the farms of Ontario or the senior citizens. I want to just leave this government one message. The message I want to leave them is that your hydro/energy policy is killing the competitiveness of this province and it must stop.

With that, I'm going to ask that I can give my time to the member for Lanark-Renfrew so he may finish his remarks, if that's possible, sir?

The Deputy Speaker: Yes, it is.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): It's my pleasure this morning to join with my colleague the member for Renfrew North in support of this resolution number 34.

The

preamble of the resolution asks this House to recognize that the forest industry is in serious difficulty. While this difficulty arises from many factors, the primary factor is the deterioration in the availability of good standing timber.

The resolution also acknowledges the fact that the current forest industry crisis has led to the loss of many jobs in the riding of Lanark-Renfrew, and I will say that these job losses have been particularly hard on the economy.

The resolution also states that immediate steps should be taken to implement the Central Ontario Wood Study, which was released over the past summer. This study is proof that the government is aware of some of the problems with the forest industry. Despite the fact that the government is aware of the problems inherent to the industry, it has failed to implement the recommendations of its analysis. The longer the government delays, the more jobs will be lost.

The industry is in trouble not for lack of natural resources, because there is still abundance of harvestable trees within the Ottawa Valley. The forest industry is dying because of excessive intervention and regulation on the part of the Ontario government. Rigid environmental policies, set out and enforced by bureaucrats from the Ministry of Natural Resources, are simply incompatible with the economic realities of the Ottawa Valley. As a result of these unsuited policies, companies are going bankrupt, hundreds of people are losing jobs and communities are actually falling apart.

The closure of Stone Consolidated at Braeside is the clearest example of this negative dynamic between economy and government policy. It is evident in the village of Braeside in my riding of Lanark-Renfrew. In this village of only 500 people, 155 individuals have lost their jobs because Stone Consolidated, formerly known as Gillies Lumber, went out of business.

Stone Consolidated was not the only industry located in Braeside, and its closure put a total of 300 people out of work in the valley as a whole. This mill did not go out of business because it was uncompetitive or for the lack of markets. Stone Consolidated closed operations because it wasn't granted sufficient timber allocations by the provincial government.

The closure of the mill has had devastating effects on the community. This mill had served as a mainstay of economic activity for over 25 years and formed a major component of the unique tradition of history in the Ottawa Valley. It had shown that forestry was capable of sustaining jobs and investment within our local economy, because forestry is one of the few natural resources available to our area and because the Ottawa Valley has been hit particularly hard by the recession.

In discussing this closure with the reeve of Braeside, Mr Neil Mullins, he states, and I quote:

"The community of Braeside has been hit very seriously. Assessment from our mill took care of our school and county taxes and now the county taxes will have to cover our losses and as a result everyone in Renfrew county will pay and there will be more taxes for everybody."

The economy of the valley is already suffering from hard economic times and cannot sustain any further tax increases. Taxes will also have to be increased in order to cover the welfare costs of the unemployed from this mill. This is particularly frustrating given the fact that every taxpayer knows full well that forestry is still viable in Renfrew county. What is even more frustrating is the fact that the mill at Braeside is capable of sustaining 400 to 450 jobs if the government would allow it to operate at its potential capacity.

When asked to explain why the Braeside mill went out of business, Reeve Mullins said, and I quote:

"I blame the government because they would not grant the necessary timber allocations to keep the mill open. By not allowing the mill to obtain these timber allocations, it's as though the government wants us to be on welfare."

We feel there is still hope for the renewal of the forest industry in Renfrew county and there is still a possibility that the Braeside mill can go into operation again, only if, though, the government starts to rethink some of its forestry policies. Instead of crowding out economic activity and placing unnecessary limitations on resource allocation, the government must work towards cooperative agreements that will ensure that local mills have access to the timber allocations that they deserve.

There are currently buyers who are interested in purchasing the Braeside mill, but there is one problem. The investors will not buy the mill unless there's assurance from the Ministry of Natural Resources that it will allow for sufficient timber allocations. This deal is thereby contingent on whether the government can cooperate with the forest industry. In essence, this government can make or break the industry in the riding of Lanark-Renfrew. The obvious solution is for the government to become more realistic in the implementation of its environmental policies. They should work towards sustainable development and not zero development.

Another problem with the forest industry in my riding is the cost of energy. I know my colleague the member for Renfrew North is well aware of what's happening. He has many more businesses and industries depending on the mills than in the south part of the riding that I have, along with Lanark.

The mills were actually guided and directed to use electricity for their operations not that many years ago and now, due to the policies of this government and the policies at Ontario Hydro, which is under direct control of this government, that energy is no longer feasible simply because of the cost. That, along with the drop in the availability of timber rights to the mills, is causing the real problem in my

section of Renfrew county.

I am pleased this morning, along with the member for Simcoe East, who used to work in the sawmill and is very well aware of the number of people it employs and the type of employment, to be able to be here and support Mr Conway on this bill.

Mr Martin: It gives me great pleasure this morning to rise in the House and speak on this issue. We in this government inherited two and a half years ago a great challenge re the management of the resources of the province, a challenge that I think was heightened by the non-management of the resource over the last 10 or 20 years or more in the province, and particularly in the five years proceeding the time we came into office.

There has been a history of misuse and abuse and of catering to interest groups and particular groups. We decided that we would stop that and that we would try it in partnership with all the vested interests in the forestry sector, particularly in our neck of the woods as northern members, and do it in a way that recognized all the interests: certainly, the interests of the industry, the interests of the workers, the interests those of us who live and breathe in northern Ontario, and the interests of the environment and those kinds of concerns.

We have done a number of very interesting things by way of that unique partnership. My colleague from Cochrane tells me of the success of the Spruce Falls restructuring. I know that in my city Algoma Steel was restructured in a way that spoke to a new partnership and coming together of people, and we will continue to do that. In this forestry sector particularly, there is a need to sit down and seriously look at where we're going. That's not done overnight. It takes some time. We're well on our way and I think it won't be long before we will be able to see some of the fruits of the work we are now doing.

I will give you some examples of some of the recent activity in the north and particularly in this central region that my colleague, friend and neighbour Bud Wildman is leading as the competent minister that he is in Natural Resources.

The ministry is working with all parties to ensure that no additional commitments are being made on a very limited resource in the north. We are presently reviewing with industry representatives the allocation of the crown licences associated with the Stone Consolidated mill in Braeside, Ontario, that closed last May. Our operating principle in the review is that these licences should be redistributed among existing mill operations in the Ottawa valley area.

The recently announced wood rationalization program in central Ontario will be attempting to deal with the issue of improvement to our present wood allocation and licensing systems. This program has started with a target of late 1993 for recommendations. Representatives from the forest industry in the Ottawa valley and those members of the public concerned about this issue will play an active

part in the wood rationalization program.

We recognize the importance of improved inventory to our future management and we are actively working to incorporate inventory projects into our ministry budgeting process. We are also taking initiatives to try and modernize the mills, which I think is important for the long-term viability of those operations and those enterprises. Incentives for the modernization of mills is closely linked to the availability of a long-term wood supply, of course. Before the industry can move ahead with modernization we have to sit down together to talk about long-term available timber volumes and sustainable forestry.

There is recognition within the industry that things are changing and we will be going through a period of restructuring. Our challenge is to ensure that whatever changes are made are done in such a way that the sustainability of the resource is ensured.

I think that's the key issue here this morning, the issue of sustainability and working in an intelligent fashion in front of that to make sure that all operations, including the ones that are most particularly being targeted here this morning by the member for Renfrew North, that are a concern, certainly to my colleague the member for Cochrane North, Mr Wood, and myself re the operations in my riding.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I'm glad to rise in the House and speak to the resolution set forth by Mr Conway, the member for Renfrew North. Our ridings are very similar and Haliburton county is very close to Renfrew county and has similar territory and similar concerns. We in Haliburton county experienced a very difficult time under the Liberal government when the Harcourt mill was closed down. It was closed down for many of the issues that have been raised here today, because of the deterioration in the availability of good standing timber.

The Harcourt mill was seeking ways to expand its procedures for getting lumber. They were going to the government, and they asked for an agreement with the government to go into certain crown lands. The government, under the Liberal regime, was unwilling to do that.

I must say, although I was very much against the process of what happened around the Harcourt mill, I really felt for the government in those days because the government was faced with a very difficult problem, and it's a problem that all governments, including our own, are facing today, and that is on one hand, we have the reality of government intervention, the government having to decide what are the priorities in terms of the forestry industry and how those priorities are to be met.

On the other hand, we have a growing consciousness and understanding about ecological considerations, and it is these two very strong competing forces which have pushed governments into having to make very difficult decisions.

I live in Haliburton county, in that part of the county where there's been a significant amount of lumbering. It's a historical industry, going back to the Boyd family of Bobcaygeon, which was one of the barons of the lumber industry in the 19th century. I go through my area and I see the kinds of lumberings that are going on now in the forests, I see the wood that's coming out, and if you look at the stumpage, if you look at the size of the logs that are coming out of the forests, they are not very large any more. In fact, we have forested and overharvested to a great degree throughout our part of Ontario.

Again, we have this constant tension between government intervention and setting priorities for government and trying to help the industry along, and on the other hand, ecological considerations about the viability of the forests. How is that to be resolved?

I agree with the honourable member for Renfrew North when he says that the recommendations of the Central Ontario Wood Study be taken very seriously, and in many cases, implemented. I think on the whole that it's a good study. It needs to be taken seriously and I want to support that part of the resolution that the member for Renfrew North puts.

I do want to say, though, that in response to the members for, certainly, Simcoe East and Lanark-Renfrew, some of the criticism they have put towards the government, being a fair-minded individual, may indeed be true, but I can say -- as I keep on hearing about where the Ministry of Natural Resources has cut its operating budget and the effects of that throughout the ministry and on the province of Ontario -- to those honourable members, you can't have it both ways.

We are in a recession. We are definitely in a situation in which we have to control government spending. That is going to affect programs, and you can't have members saying on the one hand, that government should not be cutting these programs, and in the next breath, condemn the government for its spending. You can't have it both ways, so I would say to those honourable members that the government is attempting to redress this. I hope the recommendations of the study are accepted and I want to give my support to the overall aims of the member for Renfrew North.

Mr Conway: I want to thank my colleagues on all sides for their contribution to this debate. I appreciate very much what they've had to say individually about the situations in their own communities. I guess a big part of the reason I'm here today with this resolution is that this is one of the most basic industries in much of this province and it is in a hell of a mess, and we're all to blame.

My friend from Haliburton rightly observes the pain and misery of that Harcourt thing. I lived through that. I saw my own name smeared in the public press over that. I won't get into the history of that, but I'll tell you, it was not a very happy time, and there's blame on all sides, blame on the part of past governments, blame on the part of industry.

The key question of what's in the bush today -- the member for Sault Ste Marie was talking, and rightly so -- we've high-graded, we've depleted the public and private lands of this province of much of the good material, and that is not entirely the government's fault. Industry has a responsibility for that and so do all of us living in communities, because there were a lot of very, very strong short-term local pressures that drove some decisions, and sometimes those decisions, with the best of intentions, went altogether in the wrong direction.

My friend the member for Lanark-Renfrew points out the problem he's got in Braeside. I want to just cite one statistic, a statistic from this Central Ontario Wood Study, and this looks at the area from Pembroke up through Parry Sound. I ask my friends to listen to this. This is the most recent data from the Ministry of Natural Resources.

According to these MNR data, we now know that we have only enough sawlog material from crown and private lands to meet the demand of eight of the 13 large sawmills in the Pembroke-Parry Sound area. So without doing anything else, we apparently now face a situation where 40% of the existing large mills in the area will have to shut down. That's hundreds of jobs. I hope it doesn't happen, but that's the latest data.

On top of that -- this is very painful for members on all sides -- in this study area, 40% of all of the material comes from Algonquin Park. Now if we move, for whatever good and virtuous reason, to eliminate logging in Algonquin Park or to substantially reduce the materials available to the Algonquin Forestry Authority, I hope we all understand what that means. That is sending hundreds of people to guaranteed unemployment. If we do that, we just better understand what we're doing.

When I go to places like Mattawa and Madawaska and Palmer Rapids and Cardiff and all of these other places, this is in many cases the only game in town. Before I send those people down the road to the unemployment and welfare lines, I'm going to think long and hard. I do not support an elimination of logging in Algonquin Park, although I understand the theoretical argument.

Mr Martin: Do you support management?

Mr Conway: Of course. We have no choice. I want to say to my friend the member for Sault Ste Marie who says we're talking about management, well, I hope so, and one of the criticisms I have is that the government -- and I don't mean this is a partisan observation because it was certainly true in our case -- the fiasco that our government presided over at Temagami was in large measure because the government was at war with itself. The Ministry of Natural Resources is becoming fundamentally conflicted. The timber branch is perpetually at war with parks and recreation. It cannot make any kind of a cohesive and coherent decision because it is a conflict of interest writ large.

Now you've got other departments of government: You've got Environment working at cross purposes with Natural Resources. As the member from Lanark pointed out, and as my friend from Manitoulin observed, the Hydro pressures on this industry are stupendous.

My friends in the government caucus will hear from the Ontario Forest Industries Association, I expect, very shortly, but I'm going to tell you, when you've got sawmills employing 50 and 60 people with hydroelectric bills of $500,000 going up on an annual rate of 10% and 12% at a time when the market is collapsing, you don't have to be Einstein to figure out what that's doing to viability. I know there maybe aren't any easy answers to that. My point is that we'd better understand that we don't have an endless amount of time to debate this question.

The OFIA told us last night that we've lost about 20,000 jobs in this sector in the last couple of years and we are undoubtedly going to lose more, and some of those losses we're not going to be able to do anything about. We'd better soon in this province develop a strategic plan in this vital resource sector that turns on a few principles.

One, it is an important industry in places like Sault Ste Marie and Pembroke and Haliburton and Cochrane and a lot of other places, and it's politically correct to say that, that forestry is not some kind of scourge, although forestry has some sins for which atonement is due. I agree with my friends opposite and my friends here when they say we can't continue the past practices. I can't believe there's anybody out there who honestly imagines that we can or should.

But we'd better soon come up with a plan in this province that brings government and business together in some kind of sensible, coherent way to address the problems of the environment, of energy, of wood supply, of a better inventory, of a fundamentally re-examined timber allocation system. In my area we've got community groups now developing that are not very happy with the traditional OIC, or order-in-council, licences.

On the other hand, we've got an industry that's going to require massive investments if it's going to modernize and update to develop some of the new opportunities. Nobody's going to invest any money in this industry if there is no certainty, if there's no predictability.

When we talk about some of these other issues like energy and the environment, I hope we all understand what some of these high-cost uncertainties in those key areas are doing to the investment climate. Nobody's going to go into Braeside, nobody's going to go into Lajambe in Sault Ste Marie and invest any kind of money if he thinks he's about to be run out of town with impossible environmental regulations. Nobody's going to do anything in my area if you think you're going to lose 40% of your feedstock, which has traditionally come from Algonquin Park. That is a reality.

This is an issue of economics, of jobs, of community survival in my part of eastern Ontario. The industry's on the critical list and now is the time to get on with some tough choices and some important decisions. I'm glad we're prepared to do that.

The Deputy Speaker: The time for the first ballot item has expired.

HEALTH PROTECTION AND PROMOTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION ET LA PROMOTION DE LA SANTÉ

Mr Tilson moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 89,

An Act to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection et la promotion de la santé.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): This subject was first drawn to my attention and, I assume, to the attention of other members of this House some time ago by the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association. I will read the explanatory note which all of you have in front of you, but it would be interesting for those who are watching these proceedings to know the purpose of this bill.

The bill addresses a situation where a person provides emergency care to a person who later goes or is taken to a hospital.

The person who provides the emergency care may then ask the medical officer of health if he or she was exposed to a reportable disease or to an agent of a communicable disease in the course of providing the care. The medical officer of health is required to respond in writing as soon as possible and to not disclose the patient's identity to the care giver.

In addition, a hospital is required to report to the medical officer of health the name of every person who provides emergency care to a person with a reportable disease or an agent of a communicable disease. If the medical officer of health determines that the person who provided the emergency care may have been exposed to the reportable disease or to the agent of the communicable disease, the medical officer of health shall advise the person as soon as possible of that fact.

In short, if a fireman, a policeman or what I call a good Samaritan, an individual who is driving along a road and observes a car accident, or if he or she is in his or her place of employment and observes that someone has been injured and has sustained substantial injuries and then either rescues that person, takes the person to the hospital where he or she is attended to or simply makes the person comfortable until the fireman, the police officer or other person of authority comes to take the person to the hospital, and if that person who has been rescued has a communicable disease and the hospital, in the course of examining that person, determines that the person has a communicable disease, the law currently is that the rescuer or the police officer or the person providing care simply cannot be informed that he or she has come into contact with such a person.

The purpose of this bill is to rectify that situation.

The rationale of the bill is that emergency response personnel are contracted to provide a service that we, as a society, consider to be essential: the provision of emergency medical care. People who are called upon to fill that role include ambulance personnel, police, firefighters and nurses.

As well, of course, it is widely recognized that all citizens have an obligation to provide what care they can for others who are seriously injured. Those who fulfil these obligations are recognized with citations, medals and awards, aside from the moral issue of simply providing assistance to people who are in need of care. Yet these health care providers and good Samaritans are, as it turns out, themselves put at risk of contracting potentially fatal diseases such as hepatitis, meningitis or HIV.

This bill, then, is designed to inform emergency care providers if they have faced significant chance of exposure to a communicable disease, so that they can take the medical steps to learn if they have indeed been infected, as well as altering their own behaviour to reduce the risks to their coworkers, friends and families.

I think that is the next issue, of course, if these persons have contact with a disease and they go back and, unbeknownst, infect their family. That currently is the law today, and I would hope all members of the House would support this bill and remedy that situation.

There are a number of factors which together combine to place emergency response personnel at significant risk of contracting a communicable disease from an injured person. First of all, there is the presence of body fluids. While many medical emergencies arise out of motor vehicle accidents, workplace accidents or crime scenes, the injuries can be severe burns, extensive wounds etc. This means that the ample presence of body fluids is one of the ways in which communicable diseases are transmitted.

Secondly, the speed of response must be very high. The victim must receive medical attention fast. Any delay may be fatal. We all know that and we all, as good Samaritans or firefighters or police officers or nurses, realize the necessity to deal with these injured people as soon as possible. Emergency response personnel therefore are faced with the dilemma of wasting valuable time donning protective gear or acting to save the victim. So they're put in a very difficult position, and it may be that they may not have time to don their protective gear, aside from the risks of the good Samaritan.

Thirdly, there is the physical proximity to the victim, and this increases the risk of transmission.

While some 60 diseases have been designated communicable and most of them life-threatening, four are significant. There is the disease tuberculosis, secondly meningitis, thirdly hepatitis and fourth, human immunodeficiency virus, the disease that of course leads to AIDS.

One of the ways that a communicable disease may be spread to health care workers is through accidental needle pricks, in which a care provider pricks himself with a needle that he has just administered to a patient.

Not only does contacting these diseases have serious health implications, as I've indicated; it also puts friends, coworkers and family of the infected people at risk. Early detection can sharply reduce the risk of transmission.

There is one case in the United States where a person has died from a communicable disease contracted through providing emergency health care. I don't believe it's known how many health care providers have contracted communicable diseases through the provision of medical care, so there's no question -- to date it hasn't occurred a great deal, but because it has happened at least once in the United States and because of the very fact that the possibility is there, I think we should act now before it does happen.

While the vast majority of medical emergencies do not put emergency care providers at risk, nevertheless I would submit that we need to protect our health care workers and the good Samaritans in the few situations where it does happen.

I'd like, in the brief introductory remarks that I have, to indicate how this bill would work.

First of all, hospital administrators would be expected to maintain records of who provided emergency care to any particular person.

Secondly, an emergency care provider, be that a professional or a good Samaritan, can make a written request to a medical officer of health to determine, in the words of the bill, "whether he or she may have been exposed to a reportable disease or to an agent of a communicable disease in the course of providing [the] emergency care." The request would include certain information such as the date, the time and the place the care was provided, as well as the type of care provided. The medical officer of health would respond in writing, confirming whether the person was so exposed, and, if so, to what disease.

Nothing in this bill would allow for the person carrying a communicable disease to be identified, so that that individual's rights are protected, and at the same time, the people providing the care, or the good Samaritans, would have their rights protected as well.

I would submit that this government might consider the establishment of counselling for emergency care providers that would be able to provide factual and clear information about the communicable disease that the person may have been exposed to, as well as the importance of privacy. It's a very difficult issue, I appreciate, the whole issue of privacy versus the rights of our care givers and our good Samaritans, and I would hope that the members of this House would support this bill.

There have been examples of this legislation elsewhere. As of 1990, at least 27 US states, as well as the United States Congress, have enacted legislation requiring the notification of emergency response personnel of the possible transmission of communicable diseases. There's a list of those states in the Journal of Legal Medicine, and those are all set out. There are copies of that bill, and much of these bills say pretty well what this bill is recommending that this House pass.

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): I fully appreciate that the member for Dufferin-Peel's bill to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act is sincerely motivated and his goals are important and desirable. The exposure of emergency care givers, or anyone else for that matter, to infection from dangerous diseases is a matter of great concern. Clearly, we must do everything we can to set up safeguards against it.

After serious examination of the bill's provisions, however, the Minister of Health has concluded that it would not offer additional protection to emergency workers, and I'd like to explain the reasons for that.

For some time the Ministry of Health has been aware of the concerns of occupational groups such as ambulance attendants, firefighters and police officers. About two years ago a working group, the public safety services liaison committee, was set up with a mandate to address these concerns. The group includes staff members of the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the fire marshal's office, as well as management and union representation of police and firefighters.

The working group stresses the need for ongoing education of emergency workers, strict adherence to the infection control protocols, and the importance of informing those who may actually have been exposed to communicable diseases.

The Ministry of Health, through the physician manager of the disease control service of the public health branch, has reminded all medical officers of health in the province about the importance of identifying and informing close contacts, especially ambulance attendants, police and firefighters, about any exposure to diseases for which person-to-person contact might create an increased risk.

This must be done immediately after patient diagnosis, and the requirement for physicians and hospital administrators to report such exposure to the medical officer of health is spelled out under regulation 559-91 of the Health Protection and Promotion Act. So there is already a serious and organized effort in place to safeguard the health of workers most likely to be exposed to health risks from communicable diseases.

Three infectious diseases are of particular concern: meningococcal disease, hepatitis B and, of course, HIV/AIDS. The situations surrounding each of the three are somewhat different. Meningococcal disease is an acute infection that is quickly diagnosed. Hospital administrators are already required to alert the medical officer of health about any diagnosis. The MOH, in turn, is required to trace contacts and ensure that they received immediate and appropriate treatment.

This procedure has been in place for some time now, and the mechanism proposed in Bill 89 is unlikely to speed up the process for informing contacts who have provided emergency care. Also, there is no issue of confidentiality with respect to meningococcal disease.

With hepatitis B, many individuals are carriers without having any symptoms and without being aware of their infection. Thus, the only way to safeguard those who provide emergency care from the risk of being infected with hepatitis B is to ensure that they are immunized against the disease. Ambulance attendants are already required by the Ministry of Health to have this immunization. I would suggest that it would be best to extend this requirement to other emergency workers, such as firefighters and police.

The risk of HIV/AIDS is of course a major concern with a more complicated framework than the diseases already mentioned. For one thing, many people who are carrying HIV have not been tested and are not aware they are infected. Furthermore, because of the confidentiality policies regarding anonymous testing and the right of individuals to keep their infection undisclosed, the medical officer of health may not have the information needed to advise emergency care givers that they have been exposed.

Even when the medical officer of health has this information, in most cases the emergency care giver would know the identity of the patient, so release of the information would identify the infected person and thus compromise his or her right to confidentiality.

At present, hospitals do not record the name of every person who provides emergency care, and it is not unusual to have a reportable disease become known only many months after an incident. By that time it is too late for effective intervention to protect the emergency worker.

Furthermore, Bill 89 would undoubtedly increase the workload of emergency workers, hospital administrators and the medical officers of health across the province. This would be well worth it if it were to result in an improvement of the safeguards. However, there is absolutely no indication that this would offer any additional protection.

The ministry takes the concerns of emergency care givers very seriously. We are well aware that it is a serious issue and are committed to continue to work towards acceptable and effective solutions. However, we don't think Bill 89 would move us any closer to that solution. Consequently, we cannot support passage of this bill.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I'm pleased to participate in the debate on Bill 89 and commend Mr Tilson for bringing it forward. I say that and will also say up front that I will not be supporting the particular bill, but I'm interested in the fact that in private members' hour, on at least three occasions that I can recall within the past couple of years, similar bills or proposals have come forward to this place and on each occasion I have not been able to support the particular resolutions or bills that have been placed here. None the less, the concerns that are being carried by the placement of these materials and the resolutions before the House I think should give us pause.

In all of the previous cases, my reasons for not supporting the particular proposals that were made related to the methods through which the proposals could be implemented, deficiencies in drafting or indeed some misunderstanding of what the existing protocols or requirements or regulations are in the field of protection from communicable diseases or other diseases among the emergency care workers. My response to Mr Tilson's particular bill will be along those lines and may well indeed reflect much of what the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health has just spoken to.

None the less, while the parliamentary assistant has indicated that there are teams looking at these issues, in my view the matter is a broader concern than is being addressed by the particular working group set up by the Ministry of Health. Clearly, we in this House do not think that those efforts are adequate or expansive enough, and because they really reflect the professional emergency worker and relate less to the volunteer or to the good Samaritan, a great deal more attention has to be paid to those areas.

The other question relates to whether in fact we're addressing issues of concern with respect to airborne transmission of disease or transmission of disease through blood and bodily fluids. I think the Ministry of Health would do well to note the discussions that have taken place here and that the view of people as individuals in this House, which is why we're here the morning, is that much more action must be taken.

With respect to Mr Tilson's bill specifically, I want to pass on to him that while I recognize the intent, the specifics are of concern. I think serious problems would be created with its implementation and I'd just like to raise some of those issues. One of them is the entire issue of cost of record-keeping and who would pay. We know that the Minister of Health has now reduced the operating transfers to hospitals, in fact to zero. They say it's 2% but that's not the case; it's zero.

The hospitals are taking other hits. They're taking hits from the Workers' Compensation Board, which is now demanding payment for coverage of co-op students, nursing in training and so on, and no more hits can be taken by hospitals in this province. The implications of Mr Tilson's proposal may well be, because the Ministry of Health clearly isn't picking up any other expenses, that the hospitals would have to take an additional hit in terms of cost.

I'm also very concerned that were Mr Tilson's proposals to be implemented, there would be an automatic presumption of disease. The person providing the emergency care may seek, through the medical officer of health, information as to whether he or she was exposed to a reportable disease. There aren't adequate criteria with respect to requesting information, and I was interested in looking back to the congressional action which was taken, which more reflects the requirement that we have in place now whereby medical officers of health are in fact required for certain diseases to trace all contacts. That is more reflected in the American statute to which Mr Tilson made reference.

I think Mr Tilson also hasn't adequately addressed the reportable diseases which are now on the list by regulation of the medical officer of health, required reporting provisions. If we look at that list, we have to look at issues that have not been raised here. The incubation period for chickenpox, by example, which is on the list, is 21 days. A person with an HIV infection may never have been tested and almost always doesn't have symptoms until the last stages. With other diseases which were included on the list such as malaria and measles, a different urgency would be expected in terms of the tracing of all contacts.

We know that MOHs must now trace all contacts for the three most virulent and serious diseases, and I think that is of some use. Were that to be extended, there would have to be a considerable examination of which diseases it would be extended to. Again, hepatitis B can be carried for many years with no symptoms at all, and symptoms generally only develop in about 50% of the cases in any case. So the presumption of disease is one that I think Mr Tilson should be looking at.

Another issue is the costs and the efforts associated with the tracking system. What if the patient doesn't know who provided the care? What if the hospital doesn't know who provided the care, which is clearly the case now? I don't believe hospitals record for the most part who the emergency worker was.

Additionally, because the definition

section of Mr Tilson's bill is so broad, a person providing emergency care could in fact be a professional emergency worker, a firefighter, an ambulance worker, a policeman, a paramedic. It could be somebody who was employed in a position of authority but who in fact is not a professional emergency worker -- I think of a teacher or a swimming coach -- or it could be somebody in a totally different capacity: a volunteer at a community centre, a neighbour who's assisting by transporting his or her own neighbour to hospital. I think the

section is far too broad, and that alone will provide difficulty.

Although I know Mr Tilson has made an attempt to introduce a liability

section to this bill, I question if it is broad enough. I think if we look at the very flawed legislation, Bill 74, which the government has put forward with respect to the liability clauses associated with recordkeeping, even they are a substantial improvement over Mr Tilson's proposals here.

In conclusion, while I recognize the intent of Mr Tilson's particular bill today and the other issues that have been raised by other members -- I believe Mr Morrow spoke a few months ago with respect to a similar piece of legislation related directly to AIDS -- I think more work needs to be done not in a legislated form but in terms of the protocols, in terms of the training not just for emergency workers but for all people who work in volunteer or other situations as part of our public health preventive programs.

I hope the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health will take what are clear concerns of this place back to the minister and ask for increased action and attention to these areas.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate?

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I'm pleased to be able to be able to speak today on my colleague David Tilson's private member's Bill 89,

An Act to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act.

This legislation will enable an emergency care giver to find out from the medical officer of health whether or not he or she was exposed to a reportable disease in the course of administrating aid.

I fully support this bill and I've also discussed it with my firefighters in Grey and Owen Sound. They urge me to tell this House how important this bill is to them and to every other profession which provides emergency care. They believe, as I do, that they have every right to know if a person they helped has a communicable disease and what the disease is.

In my area I have one full-time firefighting body in the city of Owen Sound, as well as 12 other volunteer firefighting groups throughout Grey county. These dedicated individuals give freely of their time and should be afforded the protection this bill offers. As I have said, in my riding we have 12 volunteer fire departments. Now, most of those fire departments are all volunteers. A couple of them do have people who are full-time, but the majority of the people who work there are just volunteers. As I stated, they give their time to go out and help people.

They have other jobs and they have families, and when they give this time they don't want things to happen to them, and this would be a bill that would help when they go out on the road and find somebody.

A lot of times my fire departments are there before the ambulances, and in car accidents they're called out now all the time in our area. When they get there, they're not going to stand around and do nothing for people who may have been hurt or who are lying there bleeding on the ground; they're going to work with them.

You know, no matter how much protection you use, it's not always going to be safe. There's nothing to say that the blood will not get into their system or whatever. Again, they're volunteers and I think that we have to look at something to protect these people. As I said, I've talked to them and they fully support this bill.

We also in my area have more than just firefighters. We have quite a core of ambulances in my area, along with the OPP and Mounties. We have a detachment of Mounties in our area. Most of my towns -- not all, but most -- have their own police force. A lot of the time the police are there ahead of things too. Even in Owen Sound we have an auxiliary police force who help out the local police. These people aren't even paid, but they're volunteers who could come on a scene before any of the paid people are there, and as they are volunteers I think we should be looking after them.

Also, we have a new group that has formed in my area called Community Watch Group, and these are dedicated people who have CBs. In some of the towns where the police force are stretched to the limit, they're out at night and they have their CBs on and they will call the local police. I have one gentlemen, Ron Cole, who has formed one in Meaford, and it's working quite well. They're most likely going to be at an accident scene before any of the professional medical people are there. They could also come in contact with someone who may have a communicable disease, and I think we have to try to help the people like them also.

Exposure to infectious diseases puts these professionals in a dangerous position. They routinely provide emergency medical treatment in unsanitary conditions on patients whom they know nothing about. Knowing what they have been subjected to will allow these people to modify their behaviour and to avoid further transmission to their families. I think this is one of the things why the groups in my area support this bill so much: their families are going to feel better; they're going to know when something's happened out there if this bill is passed.

Also, if there is something, it will allow them, if they have to, to get early treatment. It won't be something that they may be exposed to and not know about. So if this bill is passed, they have a chance to know this.

I also would like to read a couple of letters to the House that I received from professional firefighters. The first one I got was from the Owen Sound Professional Firefighters' Association and it's regarding Bill 89, an amendment to the Health Protection and Promotion Act:

"Our association, the Owen Sound Professional Firefighters' Association, would like your support on Bill 89, which has been introduced by David Tilson, MPP, Dufferin-Peel.

"This bill would protect our families, fellow workers and ourselves, and still protect the privacy of the person with a communicable disease.

"By letting the emergency worker know that they have come in contact with such a disease, he or she will be able to find out, in a reasonable time limit, the risk to his or her family or fellow workers. It would also help reduce health care costs because the spread of disease would be stopped as soon as possible and would not carry on undetected in innocent victims. Your support of this bill would help to save our lives."

This is from Randy Moore, secretary-treasurer of the Owen Sound Professional Firefighters' Association.

I also have one from our Inter Township Fire Department, which I was chairman of when I was reeve of the township of Sydenham. The Inter Township Fire Department is made up of four different municipalities that surround Owen Sound. They have a full-time fire chief and deputy chief, but the rest of the firefighters are all volunteers. This was sent to myself, and it says:

"I understand that on this Thursday, December 3, the Legislature will be debating second reading of Bill 89, which would amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act. Since the Ontario fire service is finding itself more involved in direct patient care, Bill 89 is very important to us.

"The changes proposed to this Bill 89 would protect our emergency responders in the event of being in contact with a communicable disease. As the fire chief of the Inter Township Fire Department, I would like to pass along my strong support for the continued progress in this matter in the second reading of Bill 89 on December 3, 1992."

That's signed by Ken Lawrence and he's the fire chief of the Inter Township Fire Department, which is made up of the four municipalities of Derby, Keppel, Sarawak and Sydenham township, which surround the city of Owen Sound.

Also, though, I mentioned before that we have the auxiliary police right in the city of Owen Sound and there are numerous people who work for them now and it seems to be a system that's working out quite fine. But, as I say again, they're volunteers with very little pay, if any, and every day they put their lives on the line to help people out, and they could come in contact with something like this and this would help them out.

I talked about the community watch, and I mentioned that we have 12 volunteer fire departments in my area of Grey. At the bottom of Grey is Dundalk and they don't have a hospital so they don't have an ambulance service right in Dundalk. The firefighters, when they go, are normally the first ones on the site of an accident on the highway and they have to give medical treatment. They do have now a new truck, by which they do this, and it's some time before they can receive the ambulance or people who can help them out, so they do come in contact sooner than some of the other ones.

As you know, or maybe you don't, Dundalk is one of the higher points in Ontario and we do get a lot of snow. With our conditions in the wintertime, it's probably one of the worst places in Ontario to be when it's snowing. The member Barbara Sullivan will tell you because she owns a farm up there and I'm sure she would want to be looked after if something like this happened. She'll be able to tell you that in the winter the storms are quite heavy in that area and there are a lot of accidents along the highway -- unfortunately, but they're there in that whole area of Hanover, and we have a volunteer fire department in Hanover and all through the county of Grey.

I want to congratulate the member for Dufferin-Peel for bringing this bill in and I do fully support him. But before I leave, I just want to say how saddened I am by the fact that the government of the day and the Ministry of Health would not support this bill. It would seem this would be something they would want to support when they continue to tell us they care about people, but unfortunately today they've indicated that they cannot support this bill, which is too bad.

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): I'm rising today in support of Mr Tilson's private member's bill. The bill is a fine piece of legislation which recognizes the extraordinary services provided and the extraordinary risks undertaken by providers of emergency care in crisis situations.

There are several compelling reasons to support this bill. Although firefighters and ambulance drivers and good Samaritans have actively supported the adoption and implementation of universal precautions to prevent communicable diseases, such as the wearing of latex gloves when coming into contact with patients' blood, it is possible that they will literally face life-or-death situations where reaching for those gloves could seriously jeopardize rescue efforts. But on occasion emergency care givers do take a risk in the public interest. It is the least we can do to ensure that they are as informed as possible about the possible adverse personal consequences of their actions.

The legislation before us stipulates two main things. First, hospitals should release relevant records to the medical officer of health whenever it is discovered that a patient is an agent of a communicable disease. This is not a change in the reporting of cases of communicable diseases; it is already the responsibility of hospitals to keep the medical officer of health informed.

Second, the real change in the legislation that this bill proposes is that emergency care providers will be able to write to the medical officer of health. Identifying themselves, they will be required to describe the incident in which they were involved and their potential exposure to disease. The medical officer of health, without revealing the identity of the person who received emergency care, would be able to write to the emergency care giver and inform him as to whether he has been exposed to disease. The information provided to the care giver is confidential.

Nor is it possible to use this legislation to compel testing or other invasive procedures that might violate the rights of the receiver of care.

The information is essential to care givers in the case of viral diseases where there is an incubation period of several months before it is possible to test for the presence of the virus. Based on this information, emergency care givers will be in a better position to get early treatment and to act quickly to take precautions against further transmission of disease.

We are all potentially dependent on emergency care givers, be they firemen, ambulance drivers, prison guards, lifeguards or even just bystanders with some Red Cross training. We want to believe that they would take action to save our lives should the need arise. Emergency care givers are people who are willing to take extraordinary risks to save lives and protect individuals. It hardly seems unreasonable that we should give them the information that will help protect themselves and their loved ones, especially when we can do so in a way that protects the privacy of the person needing care.

I have listened to the objections this morning from both sides of the House and basically what I hear is that the bill isn't perfect, the bill isn't foolproof. However, the fundamental question we must ask ourselves is, does this bill improve protection and safety for police officers, correctional officers, ambulance attendants and firefighters? The answer, very clearly, is yes.

I want to go on record. I want to support our professionals. There is certainly room for refinement of the bill, but the bill can go to committee and refinement can take place. I want this bill to move forward as a very clear signal. I noticed that the Liberal member who spoke laughs at this, but unfortunately our professionals, our firefighters, police officers, ambulance attendants and correctional officers are not laughing with the Liberal Party on this issue. We must let our professional care givers know that they are appreciated, respected and valued, and we can do this very clearly by supporting Mr Tilson's excellent bill.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): It's always a privilege to follow the member for Cambridge in what he has to say, but I must point out to him that the member for Halton Centre was not laughing at what he was saying. She was merely laughing at a suggestion I had made to her on something we had discussed a little bit earlier.

Today I rise in support of this resolution by the member for Dufferin-Peel. We can see it as being an indication, as the member for Cambridge has already indicated, of the protection of those professionals whom we most need in our communities.

I often think of the firefighters, whether they be paid firefighters, as in the community of Kenora, which I represent, or volunteer firefighters, as in all the rest of the communities I represent, the many volunteers who put in a countless number of hours into their professions, and the emergency care givers whom we have, again both our paid ambulance services and our volunteer ambulance services, and the protection that the second reading of Bill 89 will give them. I see the importance of this.

As well, the member for Cambridge mentioned about this bill going to committee. I think this is very important, because we know that should it reach committee -- and we know that it may have some flaws in certain areas -- that committee will be able to take a closer look at the bill and a closer look at possibly bringing forth some amendments that will make this bill just a little bit better and a bill that will service the needs of the care givers whom I have indicated earlier.

We can go back and take a look at some 300 amendments that were brought forward by the government alone when we took a look at the Advocacy Act, 300 amendments that turned that particular bill around, that particular act, into something that was possibly a little bit more saleable to the people of Ontario.

Again, I must indicate my sincere support of this second reading and I look forward to it going to committee.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome the opportunity to comment briefly on the member for Dufferin-Peel's private member's Bill 89,

An Act to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act, which received first reading on October 22, 1992.

I congratulate my colleague the member for Dufferin-Peel for bringing this private member's bill forward, because it addresses a very serious situation where a person, whether it's a professional involved in providing emergency services or a good Samaritan citizen, provides emergency care to a person who later goes on or is taken to a hospital for treatment.

If this piece of legislation is passed, the person who provides the emergency care may ask the medical officer of health if he or she was exposed to a reportable disease or to an agent of a communicable disease in the course of providing the care. The medical officer of health would be required to respond in writing as soon as possible, and not disclose the patient's identity to the person who provided the emergency care and treatment.

As well, a hospital would be required to report to the medical officer of health the name of every person who provided emergency care to a person with a reportable disease or an agent of a communicable disease. If the medical officer of health determines that the person who provided the emergency care may have been exposed to the reportable disease or to the agent of a communicable disease, the medical officer of health must advise the person as soon as possible.

Exposure to infectious disease is a major threat facing emergency personnel -- firefighters, police officers, ambulance attendants who routinely provide emergency medical treatment in unsanitary conditions on patients they know nothing about, and this also applies to individual members of the public, the good Samaritan who provides emergency care at the scene of an accident -- who could be exposed to a variety of dangerous, contagious diseases.

Private member's Bill 89 makes good sense. If people provide emergency care, whether they are paid for their services or not -- just out of common sense; duty makes you do this -- those people who have been exposed to the infectious diseases must be informed of this fact so that they can seek medical monitoring and modify their behaviour to avoid further transmission to the public and to their family and fellow citizens.

We, as a society, owe it to these care givers to notify them about the possible exposure to all infectious disease. They must be given the opportunity to obtain earlier treatment and reduce the possibility of further transmission. Currently, people are denied this right to know because of the Health Protection and Promotion Act.

Private member's Bill 89 would rectify this situation by amending the Health Protection and Promotion Act to give those people the right to know. Isn't that something like freedom of information? Don't you have the right to know, if you've been involved in helping some person in an emergency?

I urge my colleagues here to support this private member's bill, because we're always calling on the public to get involved in providing assistance in emergency situations. So let's give them the right to know if they have been exposed to an infectious disease that could have a serious impact on their future, and let's give the same right to the many professional men and women who provide emergency treatment as part of their job.

When we look at the Provincial Federation of Ontario Fire Fighters, they've been looking at something like this for years. They have prepared briefs. They're concerned about the exposure and infectious disease is a major reason. Firefighting is one of the world's most dangerous professions. Firefighters routinely provide emergency medical treatment, and they're looking to be able to know, when there's blood splattered all over the road and all over some people's bodies who have accidents that they have to touch, if they're going to be protected.

I think the right to know is what the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is all about. It's just the medical officer of health who is going to be dealing with those people.

I thank the member for Dufferin-Peel for bringing this important piece of legislation to the attention of the House. There have been another resolutions here similar to this. I'm surprised the ministry would not want these people to have the right to know when there is an accident.

I think Bill 89,

An Act to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act is timely. I think it's appropriate and I think it's important that every member here see fit to support it.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): In speaking on the proposed amendments put forward by the member for Dufferin-Peel to the Health Protection and Promotion Act in Bill 89, I wish to express several concerns but also lend my unqualified support.

It is recognized that the emergency care provider has an essential role in our society. Without people, such as the police, firefighters, ambulance attendants and the good Samaritans, our quality of life in this province would be very different. We are very grateful to these people and recognize that they have a very difficult job to do and that their jobs place them in positions where one must react first and then ask questions later. Preserving public safety and human life is their main role.

It is recognized that the principle behind this bill is good. It does not, however, provide the emergency care worker with any further protection. The paperwork and levels involved in this proposed amendment would take an excessive length of time prior to the notification being sent to the emergency care worker that he has been in contact with a person who is infected with a communicable disease. Therefore, it does not serve their purpose. As well, we must remember that in the case of hepatitis B, all emergency care workers are to be immunized against hepatitis B. To ensure this, greater enforcement of this immunization requirement is needed.

Another problem that exists with this proposed amendment is that the local medical officer may not have the information regarding those individuals who have tested positive. As well, in most situations the identify of the individual involved in the emergency will become known, through the media in their reports of accidents, fires etc. The emergency care giver would then know the identity of the individual, thereby compromising the individual's right to privacy.

A commitment exists to find an acceptable solution, one that will satisfy the needs and rights of all the parties involved. But clearly, the proposed amendments to this bill are not a total solution to problems or to assist the emergency care givers. Within the process, there are specific legislative mechanisms to use to see that a comprehensive and workable legislative mechanism can be put in place that will provide the emergency care giver with the knowledge he seeks.

The concerns and rights of the individuals are recognized, but the rights of all individuals must be considered. Further recommendations and study into procedures to follow in which all members of society are offered equal respect and given the right to privacy are needed. Provisions for the individual who is in the emergency, as well as those who provide care and those individuals who are associated with the care giver, that is, family members are important, but what is more important for them is to have a workable, efficient and practical method to seek and gain this information.

In the interim, adherence to the infection control protocol should be followed and ongoing education of emergency care givers should be provided.

In a presentation to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly in October 1991, Mr Kostiuk, the chairman of the Provincial Federation of Ontario Fire Fighters' safety committee, expressed concern about the very subject raised by the member for Dufferin-Peel. They sought changes in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the extent that a disclosure is necessary to determine if emergency health care workers have been exposed to a communicable disease for the purpose of testing, treatment and counselling, if needed.

The Provincial Federation of Ontario Fire Fighters supports the concept of universal precautions in regard to communicable disease and is promoted within its membership. However, there are times when universal precautions are rendered ineffective. An example is auto extrications where sharp metal may tear latex medical gloves.

The Provincial Federation of Ontario Fire Fighters simply want the right to know if they have been exposed. The right to know helps in timely treatment, prevents further transmission and would ease the members' concern for possible transmission of communicable disease to their families.

Again, let me state that the role of the emergency care giver is a necessary element in our society and these individuals are appreciated for the work that they do. It is because of this appreciation that we feel it is important for them to have something that will truly assist them. The amendments proposed to Bill 89 will not provide these individuals with what they are seeking, but would be an important link to providing a workable solution.

Therefore, as with my colleague the member for Cambridge, I am fully in support of this piece of legislation.

Mr Tilson: It's difficult to respond to all the excellent comments that were made for and against this bill, and I would like to respond very briefly to some of them.

I will say that the Ministry of Health has been informed of this subject for some time, even going back into the Liberal administration. Even in 1991, as a result of a number of letters that were written to the former Minister of Health, Ms Gigantes, an advisory committee was formed called the Public Safety Liaison Group and this group had representatives from the emergency health services, the office of the fire marshall, the Ontario policing services division, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Association of Ontario, the municipal fire instructors association and a number of other organizations.

On June 6, 1991, the committee unanimously supported essentially the gist of the proposed bill I'm putting forward. The Provincial Federation of Ontario Fire Fighters went so far as to communicate with the minister, informing that its membership had the right to know. That of course is what the member for Simcoe East has said, that people, care givers, the good Samaritans have the right to know. They have a right to know for their peace of mind, if they can confirm no exposure, or secure treatment and counselling if they have been exposed.

They at that time asked that the minister tighten the present reporting procedures to require the medical officers of health to seek out fire, police and ambulance workers who may have been exposed to communicable diseases.

With the one minute remaining, I'm just going to read into the record a letter that was written to me by the Shelburne detachment of the Ontario Provincial Police to explain the terrible problem that care givers are given in this province. It's a letter to myself and part of it says:

"It may interest you to know that a member of this detachment was confronted by this very issue in June. He was investigating an accident in which the victim had received a head injury. While assisting the ambulance crew in loading the victim into the ambulance, the member was bitten on the arm. Unfortunately, the accident victim died the following day as a result of unforeseen complications. While there was nothing to indicate the victim was carrying a communicable disease, we discovered that no legal means was available to determine if the member had any cause for concern."

That's the problem. The law today is that there is no legal means and that is what the intent of my bill says.

"Situations such as this are very rare. However, this situation illustrates the importance of being able to obtain health information in special circumstances. It is important for an emergency services worker to be able to obtain this type of information quickly, not only for their health and safety but also for their own peace of mind."

FOREST INDUSTRY

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Conway has moved resolution number 34. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

HEALTH PROTECTION AND PROMOTION AMENDMENT ACT

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Tilson has moved second reading of Bill 89. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1200 to 1205.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Ayes

Akande, Arnott, Bisson, Brown, Carr, Carter, Cooper, Cunningham, Dadamo, Duignan, Eves, Farnan, Frankford, Grandmaître, Haeck, Hansen, Harris, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Jordan, Klopp, Lessard, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Mancini, Marchese, Martin, Mathyssen, McLean, Miclash, Mills, Murdoch (Grey), Murdock (Sudbury), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Rizzo, Sola, Sterling, Stockwell, Swarbrick, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Ward (Brantford), Waters, White, Wood.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Nays

O'Connor, O'Neil (Quinte), Sullivan, Wessenger, Winninger.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): The ayes are 51, the nays 5.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 51, the nays are 5. I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96(k), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Mr Speaker, I ask that this be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice.

The Deputy Speaker: If that agrees with the --

Interjections: Agreed.

Interjections: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until you're counted.

Thank you very much. Take your seats.

There is clearly a majority. Therefore, this bill will be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice.

All matters relating to private members' business having been completed, I do now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed at 1210.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Last evening in a meeting with the Ontario Forest Industries Association, it was made clear to my colleagues and I that the forest industry in this province is facing some difficulties. It is time for the Minister of Natural Resources to stand up and take note. All he has to do is to take a look at a number of plants that are going down, the jobs lost in this industry and the devastating effect that this has on such places as Hearst, with an unemployment rate of some 40%.

Earlier today my colleagues the member for Renfrew North and the member for Algoma-Manitoulin pointed out some of the inadequacies in this government's policy to protect this industry. They pointed to some 2,000 fewer employees in the industry over two years ago when this NDP government took power.

Let's review some of the statistics regarding this most important industry: 41 communities in this province, including four in my own riding, are dependent on the forestry industry; 63,000 people are employed directly, with another 127,200 employed indirectly in this industry. With the value of production being $10 billion and the contribution to export trade being $2 billion -- that's $2 billion coming into this province through this industry -- we can see the importance of the forest industry to Ontario.

Let me tell you how this government has made it more difficult for the industry to survive in this province. Higher energy costs are one of the highest costs faced in the industry, and now we're telling them that energy costs will continue to rise, giving the industry a substantial competitive disadvantage. Increased workers' compensation and higher transportation costs are two other areas that must be addressed by this government.

I call upon the NDP government to review its policies to ensure that the forestry-dependent communities throughout the province can look forward to continuing their contribution to this great province of ours.

PURCHASE OF LAND

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I would like to advise the House, the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Culture and Communications how amazed I was to learn that this government is buying land in Nottawasaga township through the escarpment trust fund for the Nottawasaga Conservation Authority.

While I am pleased with this purchase, I am also confused. Five years ago the county of Grey wanted to sell the forested Kolapore Uplands to the Ministry of Natural Resources. MNR refused because the area in question was not a part of the Niagara Escarpment plan and the ministry had no power to buy land that was not designated as such.

Grey decided to request that the forest be included in the plan so the trust fund would be able to purchase it. The necessary resolution which would amend the regulation came before this House on December 12, 1990, and two long years later the Niagara Escarpment Commission finally endorsed the amendment which would add the uplands to the plan. But things have changed.

Now the Ministry of Natural Resources says the fund has no money to buy the land. It knew full well that Grey was going through the lengthy procedure to get the forest into the plan for one reason only: so that the MNR could buy the land. Now, suddenly, the Niagara Escarpment trust fund has discovered $300,000 to buy land in Nottawasaga township, where by coincidence the Minister of the Environment has a summer home. Is this what motivates the government to purchase land? I think all three ministers owe an explanation to the people of Grey.

GALT LITTLE THEATRE

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): I would like to rise today to congratulate the Galt Little Theatre as it celebrates two important anniversaries this year.

First, the Galt Little Theatre celebrates its 60th anniversary of performances. When they started out 60 years ago as the Galt Collegiate Staff Players, the founding members probably didn't know that theirs would be the oldest company in the Western Ontario Drama League. Those original members probably didn't imagine the hundreds of productions that would follow: musical reviews, Shakespearian dramas and full-scale musicals like Oliver and the Wizard of Oz.

Second, this year is the 10th anniversary of the Cambridge Arts Theatre, permanent home to the Galt Little Theatre Company. After the company's nomadic existence in places like Tassie Hall and the Cambridge library, the players have really earned this proper setting for their work. It is a measure of the determination of this amateur theatre company that they have won for themselves a permanent home.

On behalf of many other Cambridge playgoers, I'd like to thank the Galt Little Theatre for all of their hard work for the community's enjoyment and wish them many anniversaries of equal significance in the years ahead.

LANDFILL

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): You will know that all across the greater Toronto area, residents are up in arms and in fact there's a fury and a sense of anger that is unknown before, I think, in this province with respect to the way the minister, through her Interim Waste Authority, is handling the site selection process.

We are now down to short lists of potential sites that include parkland, wetlands, flood plains as defined by conservation authorities, environmentally sensitive areas and productive agricultural land.

This is obviously a problem in the greater Toronto area, and people are very upset and concerned about it. But it's not only found in the greater Toronto area. I'm asking pages to send over some pictures and a map to some of my colleagues. This is a picture that was sent to me by the Speed River preservation group, and this may very well end up being the Guelph dump. Yes, what you see is correct: This is class 1 agricultural land. Mr Buchanan, I hope you're noticing that. Mr Fletcher, I hope you're aware of what's taking place. Over here we have wetlands, I say to the Minister of Natural Resources, Mr Wildman -- wetlands and a river flowing into a lake.

This is obviously a problem. It's not going on just in and around the greater Toronto area but all across the province. I say to my colleagues opposite that if the Minister of the Environment won't protect the environment, perhaps the Minister of Natural Resources or the Minister of Agriculture and Food will.

ST GREGORY SEPARATE SCHOOL

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I rise again on behalf of St Gregory Separate School in my riding. Since 1982, St Gregory has been petitioning the Metropolitan Separate School Board for much-needed renovations and expansion. Finally, after eight years, they were in the number two position on the priority list for funds in 1992. However, under the government's new guidelines, the lists for new schools and renovation projects were combined and they were bumped from second to sixth. Now, after the Ministry of Education's delay in announcing the capital expenditure list -- a six-month delay, I might add -- they find they are not on the funding list at all.

On April 30, 1992, I formally requested a meeting with the minister, the president of the school building committee and myself. I received absolutely no reply. On July 5, 1992, the building committee president requested a meeting with you, both by letter to the minister and by phone, and received no reply. Yet another request for a meeting was made on September 28, 1992, and again there was not even the courtesy of a response.

I have made numerous statements in this Legislature and I have presented petitions, all of which have gone unacknowledged. You may not care about the concerns of my constituents, but the minister should know that I do.

Let me tell you that I've had hundreds of letters come to my office about St Gregory school. Better still, I'll let him answer the questions; I'll send these over to the minister by page. All they want is to meet with the minister and discuss the procedures to follow in order for their facility to receive the necessary funding for these much-needed renovations. I don't think that is asking too much -- simply a meeting.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I rise today to recognize the work of my colleague Evelyn Gigantes, whose Human Rights Code amendment that was passed six years ago today prohibited discrimination in employment, housing and services on the basis of sexual orientation. Since that historic event, gays and lesbians in Ontario have made significant strides, and in doing so, I believe the human rights of all Ontarians have been advanced.

Our government has been asked to take steps to remove the remaining barriers to equality which face the gay and lesbian community. Some of those steps have been taken. On January 1, 1991, this government extended benefits including health and dental insurance coverage to the same-sex partners of government employees. In September of this year, the historic Leshner decision was handed down by the Ontario Human Rights Commission. This decision has been accepted by our government.

Today, the government was presented with postcards from 6,000 Ontarians asking that additional steps be taken to eliminate the barriers to equality of same-sex spouses. I am confident that our government will respond to this matter in a serious way.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It is with a good deal of regret that I share with members of the assembly news they may already be aware of, and that is that St Catharines has once again been hit with another major plant closing, one that is devastating to the people who work at General Motors and those who reside in our community. The announcement was made today that 800 jobs will be lost at the rear axle plant in St Catharines as a result of a decision that was made by General Motors. This will be in addition to the 2,300 jobs that have already been announced as lost as a result of the closing of the foundry and part of the engine plant.

Members of the assembly may wonder from time to time why I have risen in this House in question period, in statements and on every occasion to raise the issue of the future of the automotive industry in Ontario, and specifically and parochially in the Niagara Peninsula and St Catharines. It's because of my concern that we're extremely vulnerable to these kinds of shutdowns and my concern that the provincial government should do everything possible to fight on behalf of St Catharines and Ontario to ensure that our facilities stay open.

The spinoff effect in our community is probably over $140 million in terms of the loss of salaries. I am encouraged by the resolution that was accepted unanimously, the resolution I introduced to this House, to save the foundry. I now call upon members to join me in trying to save the axle plant in my city of St Catharines.

OUTDOORS CARD

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources. It's related to the continuing saga of the blatant tax grab of the Outdoors Card.

In his 1992 annual report, the Provincial Auditor indicated that he had reviewed remittances for hunting and fishing licences totalling approximately $700,000 from 47 issuers in five districts. He discovered that approximately $500,000 was remitted more than two months late. Your deputy minister responded by saying you are taking action by implementing a new Outdoors Card in 1993, which will lead to the establishment of a new point-of-sale system for 1994-95. This could very well rectify the cash flow problem, but I want to know who you are trying to fool by charging $6 for your Outdoors Card.

You could easily have provided the magic strip card free of charge to anglers and hunters, and it would have created a straight flow of hundreds of thousands of dollars into the government coffers and stopped late payments entirely. I tried to be a good Samaritan by going directly to the MNR offices in the Macdonald Block to purchase my Outdoors Card, but MNR will not accept a cash payment. Instead, I had to fill out all of the paperwork, write out a cheque and mail everything to a post office box here in Toronto.

Minister, why are you making it so difficult for people to buy an Outdoors Card and, on top of everything, charging them $6 for their troubles? And while I'm on the subject, who manufacturers these Outdoors Cards? Was the job put out for tender, and if so, who submitted the winning bid and how much does the company charge for them? Answer those questions.

GORD AND IRENE RISK SENIORS CLUB

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I'm going to turn this statement into a tribute. I'd like to honour Antonio Perricone and the Gord and Irene Risk Seniors Club on Plunkett Road in my riding of Yorkview. There are a hundred members in that club. These seniors have got some guts. These seniors have got the ability it takes to change a community into a family. They do fund-raising for the community. They organize. They organize trips; they organize card tournaments; they organize political events. They are the core of our family in Yorkview.

I want to thank all of those seniors from Gord and Irene Risk, and Antonio Perricone, who is the leader of that organization, for everything they've done. I also want to apologize to that organization because I haven't been able to spend the time that I want. Mr Speaker, you keep me too busy in this place. Eighteen hours a day in this place, lately, has been driving me up a wall, and for that reason I haven't been able to spend the time to play briscola or tresette or even scopa; so for that I apologize.

I'll see you in Yorkview.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources): I would like to inform members today that I have released a report that will have a significant impact on how we manage this province's $10-billion forest industry and on the many communities that depend on the industry for their existence. The report is titled A Report on the Status of Forest Regeneration and is the work of an independent committee. The committee's work represents the first audit of this kind in Canada.

It will be a valuable aid as we develop forest management practices based on an ecosystem approach to the forest, and may I say that if this had been done in 1985, as we asked for it, we'd be a lot farther ahead than we are today.

I want to assure the House that this government is committed to acting on the implications of the audit report. It shows that in the period studied by the committee, harvested areas of the boreal forest are regenerating successfully and are not being deforested. However, it also shows that the composition of the boreal forest is changing after logging and harvesting, and this must be addressed.

The audit is the first initiative to be completed under the government's sustainable forestry strategy. It is a review of regeneration of cutover areas in the boreal forests across northern Ontario.

The audit was conducted by the Ontario independent forest audit committee, which is made up of the chair, Kenneth Hearnden, professor emeritus in forestry at Lakehead University, and the vice-chairs, Susan Millson, co-owner of Millson Forestry Service in Timmins, and Chief Willie Wilson of the Rainy River band. They are here with us in the gallery today. I'd like to welcome them and thank them for their work. I am pleased that they are here to help release their report, and I want to commend them for their important work.

I am pleased to learn from their audit that regeneration in harvested areas of the boreal forest is satisfactory. The report tells us that the widely held impression that the boreal forest is being destroyed is wrong. The report indicates as well that there is a change in the boreal forest ecosystem after logging and regeneration and that there is concern about maintaining black spruce as a major species. Black spruce remains vital to the pulp and paper industry. I am committed to addressing the concern about black spruce regeneration.

We will be reviewing the report with the forest industry, environmental groups and other groups interested in our forests as we develop an action plan that responds to the audit's findings.

The audit indicates that when all tree species are considered, there has been satisfactory regeneration at least to minimum stocking standards on 96% of the harvested area studied by the committee. The report notes that if only conifer species are considered, 84% of the areas have been successfully regenerated but only 40% would meet minimum height requirements for free-to-grow status. The report says the committee found no cutover sites that were barren and where no regeneration has occurred.

In addition, however, the audit indicates that in the original forest, 57% of the sampled areas were pure conifer species and 6% pure hardwood. In the new forest, only 40% of the areas are developing as pure conifer and 19% as hardwood at present.

The committee was established after I announced in April 1991 that we would conduct an audit to determine the success or failure of natural and artificial regeneration on previously harvested areas in the boreal forest.

The terms of reference of the committee indicate it could look at areas harvested between 1970 and 1991. However, it decided to investigate the period between 1970 and 1985 because success or failure would not be apparent for at least five years after harvest or regeneration.

The committee found that the composition of the original forest is shifting after harvest and regeneration from domination by spruce and jack pine to one in which hardwoods such as poplar make up a larger component of the forest at present. This trend is more evident on productive forest sites, ones with fertile soils and well-drained conditions.

This information is important not only for ecological reasons but for what it means for the forest products industry, which is dependent on spruce and jack pine harvesting. A limiting factor in maintaining the conifer component of regenerated areas, particularly spruce, is control of competing vegetation.

While the audit shows that the areas planted and seeded are regenerating more successfully than areas of natural regeneration, the report does not suggest that all cutover areas need to be planted or seeded. However, the committee also says that if the goal of regeneration is to maintain the boreal ecosystem as it was before logging, then natural regeneration must be planned and vegetation must be controlled.

My ministry is already studying ways of improving methods of tending the forest to prevent competing vegetation from interfering with growth of desired tree species as part of sustainable forestry. We will certainly act on the committee's observations about tending regeneration in the boreal forest as we continue to work on our vegetation management program.

The audit is an essential component of the sustainable forestry strategy and provides a crucial starting point and guide for future investment in Ontario's forests. The report makes seven recommendations. I expect to respond to them fully in the near future. In simple terms, the audit shows that we are growing trees successfully on harvested areas of the boreal forest.

Again, I want to express my sincere congratulations to the audit panel.

POLITICAL ACTIVITY BY CROWN EMPLOYEES

Hon David S. Cooke (Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet): I am pleased to announce that I will be introducing legislation later today that will expand political activity rights of crown employees. With this announcement, our government is meeting its commitment to recognize its employees' rights to participate in political activities. The legislation will strike a sound balance between protecting the integrity of public services and allowing employees to exercise their individual democratic rights.

We believe the current rules are too restrictive and too encompassing. The existing system restricts thousands of crown employees, including most senior managers and many middle managers, from participating in political activities. Those rights that do exist in the way of political activity are minimal. We believe the restrictions are too broad and may be in conflict with the Ch