Ontario Hansard — 13 November 1979 (31st Parliament, 3rd Session)

1979-11-13

Ontario — Debates (Hansard)

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

November 13, 1979

31st Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L106 - Tue 13 Nov 1979 / Mar 13 nov 1979

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ENERGY CONFERENCE

MISSISSAUGA TRAIN FIRE

TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS

MAPLEHURST CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX

ESL PROGRAMS

ORAL QUESTIONS

GAS AND OIL PRICES

MISSISSAUGA TRAIN FIRE

GAS AND OIL PRICES

CLEANUP OF SPILLS

MAPLEHURST CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX

J. D. CARRIER LAYOFFS

EXPLOSION SUPPRESSION

MARGARINE PRODUCTS

TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS

MISSISSAUGA TRAIN FIRE

WATER POLLUTION

MINISTER’S COMMENT

PETITION

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES REPORT

MOTION

COMMITTEE MEETING

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COUNTY OF NORTHUMBERLAND ACT

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

DINORWIC METIS CORPORATION ACT

CITY OF CORNWALL ACT

COUNTY OF SIMCOE ACT

HONING CORPORATION LIMITED ACT

CO-OPERATORS LIFE INSURANCE ASSOCIATION ACT

SMITH BROTHERS JEWELLERS, LIMITED ACT

ASSUMPTION CHURCH CEMETERY ACT

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

CROWN TIMBER AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

ROYAL ASSENT

CROWN TIMBER AMENDMENT ACT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ENERGY CONFERENCE

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I want to report on the meetings yesterday, and then I have another brief statement related to the situation in Mississauga.

With respect to the discussions in Ottawa, I am sure most members spent their day off glued to the television sets. I can’t really add too much to what was discussed in public, in that the discussions at the Prime Minister’s residence during and after lunch were really quite consistent with what was said during the public part of the meeting.

From the Ontario standpoint, the question of price, as is obvious from the press reports, is not settled; there is no agreement, with points of view varying from one end of the spectrum to the other. In terms of some of the areas where I think there was some consensus -- the general objective of energy self-sufficiency, the question of some form of consumer protection, the potential of the proposed energy bank, and the whole question of conservation -- on these matters I think it’s fair to state that in terms of principle there was fairly genuine agreement.

MISSISSAUGA TRAIN FIRE

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the situation in Mississauga, I had hoped the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) would be here to make a report but he is at present on the site. I was speaking to him just before entering the House, which is why I’m just a little out of breath.

I would like to tell the House as much as I can in general terms and at the same time suggest to the members opposite that if they have questions on some aspects they might be directed to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) and some to the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell). The Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Brunelle) has a statement to make with respect to the transportation aspect.

As of just a few moments ago, the decision was made to alter the areas where people have been evacuated, to come now roughly to the lines of Cawthra Road on the east, Burnhamthorpe Road on the north, and Erin Mills Parkway on the west, with Lake Ontario being the southern boundary. There is some expectation, but it has not been determined yet, that perhaps later on this afternoon it will be the area from the QEW on the south, probably with the same perimeters on the east and west, and certainly Burnhamthorpe Road on the north, but this may be -altered later on today.

I think the likelihood is very high that the people on the scene will be suggesting the area contained within those boundaries be maintained over this coming evening, with the expectation this can be altered tomorrow. The concerns that still exist relate to the amount of chlorine still in the one tanker. They are in the process now of sealing the tank itself.

I think the feeling by the experts there -- and I certainly support any decision they make -- which some might say is just a little more cautious than it needs to be although I think in situations of this nature that’s the intelligent thing to do, is that they are in the process of sealing this and they don’t want to alter the boundaries, other than the ones I’ve mentioned, until that is completed.

Apparently, on investigation this morning they discovered that a percentage -- and no one can accurately define what the percentage is -- of the contents of the chlorine tanker has gone. The best estimate is it went at the same time as the explosion itself. The advice of the scientists and others who were there is this would create no potential health hazards; it would be dissipated. They are left with a tanker with perhaps a third or 40 per cent, no one is exactly sure of the contents, and they won’t be able to judge this until the seal is on.

I would like to take this opportunity, because I was there last evening, to make one or two general observations about the people of Mississauga, their fire department, their police forces, the Red Cross, their municipal officials, together with the OPP. I think the people, all of them, were singularly successful in dealing with a potentially hazardous situation in a way that brings credit to all of those who were concerned.

I met some of the news media from south of the border, who are here in some numbers and we had some discussion. People were literally amazed that we could have an evacuation of a city of this size with the efficiency and the lack of confusion or difficulty that was experienced in that community on Sunday.

It speaks very well, as well, of the community generally. While it’s too early to make any guesses, it is unlike situations, without naming jurisdictions, where incidents of this kind have happened on occasion in some other parts of the world -- areas of flooding or evacuations from potential hurricane areas -- in that so far perhaps only one or two incidents of burglary or breaking and entering have occurred. While it’s still too early to tell, because people haven’t returned to their homes, I really think this is an extremely encouraging aspect of this particular incident.

This is the most up-to-date information I can share with the members of the Legislature. I would like to repeat that the decision has been made in the last hour that the evacuation area is to be shrunk, for the time being, to Cawthra Road, the Lakeshore, Erin Mills on the west and Burnhamthorpe on the north.

The Attorney General may be here later on. He has spent a great deal of his time at the site. He is at present there co-ordinating the Ontario government’s involvement in this particular situation. The Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Health and their officials have also been very deeply involved. It is a tremendous example of how things can work efficiently and with sensitivity when one gets these various groups working together with a stated objective. I say, once again, I wish to extend my appreciation to all of those citizens who have made this particular situation tolerable in terms of the general public.

Mr. S. Smith: I wonder if I might just add a few words of commendation to those of the Premier with regard to the Mississauga situation. I have been very impressed, as I’m sure all members have been, by the behaviour of the citizens of the area, the government of the area, the police, the hospital, and ambulance workers, the firefighters and the scientists. I want to pay tribute to everybody who cooperated in this singularly successful venture. Fortunately, it looks as though it will go without serious incidents in terms of human health. And that’s wonderful news.

I also feel I would like to pay some degree of tribute to the Solicitor General who, as far as I could make out, was on the scene helping to co-ordinate matters. Since it went well and since we would be likely to criticize him if it had not gone well, I think he deserves some commendation for the fact that it did go well.

I pay tribute to the people as well.

Mr. Cassidy: I was in Mississauga for some time yesterday and had the chance to observe at first hand the way with which the emergency was being handled by the police, the firefighters of Mississauga and of Peel county, as well as the OPP, the RCMP and almost every other governmental authority involved.

I too want to say that the foresight with which the Peel regional police had prepared for an unknown emergency like this one, the speed with which Chief Burroughs and the rest of the force were able to put that into force, the manner in which the various authorities, including the firefighters, maintained their calm and discipline over the course of a very difficult situation, and the sheer feat of evacuating 240,000 people in the course of 24 hours from Mississauga were quite extraordinary.

I think that tribute should be given both to the people who carried it out and also to all of the citizens of Mississauga who cheerfully endured the difficulties that were involved, who did what they had to do, who moved out quickly and in an orderly fashion and who put up with the hardships in the last couple of days. It says something about this province and the people of this province, both the forces of the authorities and also the citizens, that we could have succeeded in doing this. I hope this kind of emergency doesn’t have to be responded to again. I hope we can avoid it in the future.

[2:15]

Mr. Kennedy: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I might be permitted to endorse the comments we have heard from the Premier and the leaders of the opposition parties. Certainly, it would be remiss not to join in their accolades to the agencies involved: the police, the firemen and those who moved the patients and the elderly from their accommodation with such tenderness and care that it touched everyone. It was done in a manner unprecedented in a civilian evacuation. I do indeed wish to add my commendation and to pay tribute to the care and to the patience and cheerfulness which the people exhibited who were put through this great inconvenience.

There are times in which I wish question period could be developed into a discussion period or a policy period, but that is the way the rules are here. Perhaps I will have a question or two with respect to the current situation later in the question period. Again I add my commendation to those people in the area of Mississauga who were affected by this disaster and to the ministries involved who were there in force in a calm, orderly display of efficiency that was matched by those who responded locally.

We do look forward to these inquiries, both federally and provincially, which I hope will ensure that such an incident never occurs anywhere again in this Dominion of Canada.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I too would like to associate myself with the remarks of the Premier, and the leaders of the opposition parties and my colleague from Mississauga South.

As a person who was displaced during this crisis and had to move away from my home, I can appreciate the concern of the many people from Mississauga who find themselves in these circumstances. When one visits, as I did, some of the centres that were set aside for them -- for example, the International Centre, where some 1,500 people are acting in a very responsible fashion, recognizing that everything that was being done was done for their benefit -- one finds we have had little or no disturbance from the people while this was happening.

I would like to commend, as the Leader of the Opposition has done, those bodies associated with Mississauga and, in particular, Peel region, that have handled this crisis in a very responsible way. It makes me, as I am sure it does my brother member for Mississauga South, very proud to represent that area.

TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow), I would like to advise the House of the status of the federal legislation proposed for the regulation of the transportation of dangerous goods.

Since 1976, the transportation of dangerous goods secretariat of Transport Canada has had under development a federal act and code of regulations to govern the transportation of dangerous goods by rail, air, water and highway modes of transportation.

The secretariat’s efforts were undertaken at the request and with the continuing cooperation of both industry and the provincial ministries of transportation for the purpose of ensuring the uniform application of dangerous goods regulations to movements across the country, to movements between Canada and other countries and the interchange of freight between the modes of transportation.

The proposed federal system would regulate the packaging and container standards, labelling, storage and transportation of dangerous goods; prescribe documentation requirements for the movement of such goods; provide emergency information, procedures and authority regarding dangerous goods transportation incidents, and prescribe penalties and liabilities for the contravention of the proposed regulatory provisions.

As part of this comprehensive approach, the secretariat, as of July 3 of this year, put into operation an around-the-clock emergency information centre to provide technical advice and assistance and help co-ordinate the notification of emergency agencies and authorities in the event of emergency situations.

As members of this House may already be aware, the draft federal act was introduced in Parliament in May 1978 as Bill C-53 and reintroduced in November 1978 as Bill C-17. However, it died on the federal Order Paper at dissolution last spring.

In this connection, I have been advised by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications that the new federal Minister of Transport, the Honourable Don Mazankowski, speaking to the ministers responsible for transportation and highway safety in Regina on September 20 last, said Bill C-17 will be reintroduced in Parliament in the current session.

I further understand that Mr. Mazankowski, in response to questions raised in Parliament yesterday, said he would reintroduce the bill with amendments within the next week or 10 days. With this in mind, I might therefore advise the House of the status of three other elements critical to the full implementation of this proposed federal system of regulation.

First, I would note that the proposed federal act and code of regulations are being developed as separate and distinct instruments. The aim, among other things, is to provide the capability to implement the code under federal administrative procedures with provincial co-operation. In this regard, I believe it is most important to tell you the code of regulations is currently in a third draft state of revision, awaiting industry comment prior to finalization.

In Regina, the dangerous goods secretariat forecast the code would be finalized in the summer of 1980. Under the present circumstances, however, and in view of the advanced state of the code development, I would like to assure the House that this government will be looking into ways of advancing that schedule.

Second, it must be appreciated that by virtue of our constitution this is a most difficult area of overlapping jurisdictions. Recognizing this factor, the House amended the Highway Traffic Act in preparation for the implementation of the proposed federal code as it relates to those areas within provincial jurisdiction.

Third, and finally, I should emphasize that the federal, provincial and municipal governments will need, individually and jointly, to make a large number of arrangements concerning the administration, enforcement and funding of the system.

Although I cannot report to you any specific arrangements made at this date, I can tell you this government has such matters under consideration and that the present wording of the draft federal act specifically contemplates formal federal-provincial agreements regarding shared responsibilities and the apportionment of the costs of the implementation, administration, enforcement, training requirements and other matters necessary for implementation of the act and its code of regulations.

MAPLEHURST CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX

Hon. Mr. Walker: I am sorry I do not have copies of this statement for members of the House. It has just been drafted at this moment.

I have just returned from the Maplehurst Correctional Centre in Milton where I went early today to apprise myself of the damage to facilities and details of the incident which occurred there last night. I am now in a position to inform honourable members concerning this disturbance.

At approximately 7:45 p.m. last night, 107 inmates of the Maplehurst correctional complex were watching the monthly movie in the gymnasium when they suddenly began to throw chairs around. Within minutes, a full-scale rampage was launched in the gymnasium resulting in damage to facilities and equipment. This damage is estimated to have been in excess of $50,000. During this spree of wilful damage, washroom fixtures, windows, lights and chairs were smashed. The major damage involved the wilful destruction of a wide variety of recreational equipment, including musical instruments and sports equipment, such as pool tables and ping pong tables.

At the height of the confusion, 18 inmates battered their way through a door to a power and heating equipment room and then through another door to the roof of the building from which they leaped to the ground and escaped. I understand seven of these escapees have already been recaptured.

When the incident erupted, supervisory staff withdrew from the gymnasium and were joined by other staff who secured the exits from the gymnasium area. One staff mender, a recreation officer, who was acting as projectionist for the movie, was trapped in the projection room. Inmates hammered at the door and damaged it seriously in attempting to reach him. Fortunately, in the midst of the chaos, some inmates chose to act responsibly. They intervened on behalf of the recreation officer and escorted him from the projection room and eventually led him to safety.

Shortly after nine o’clock, or approximately one hour and 20 minutes after the incident had begun, staff had restored order. Subsequently, a total of 71 inmates were escorted from the medium security institution at Milton and dispersed to two maximum security institutions in Metropolitan Toronto.

We believe the incident was

an act of retaliation by inmates of the correctional centre against staff for taking disciplinary action against four inmates earlier in the day. Following a sports competition, four inmates attacked another inmate in a washroom, resulting in an injury which necessitated the amputation of part of a finger. Police were called in to investigate that incident and we anticipate the laying of criminal charges against four inmates in connection with that incident.

I am pleased to report that the staff at Maplehurst Correctional Centre did an outstanding job in bringing this potentially very dangerous situation last night under control with no injury to inmates or to staff.

I would also like to thank the Halton regional police and the Ontario Provincial Police, who responded quickly to remain on standby should they be needed. Maplehurst staff controlled the situation in the institution without the use of police, but we were most appreciative of the support that their presence provided outside the institution.

As honourable members will be aware, especially those who served on the committee that considered my ministry’s estimates this year and visited the Maplehurst complex, this is a modern facility that provided an outstanding program for inmate population. This new institution, which opened in 1975, has accommodated more than 4,000 inmates, many of whom have benefited from the excellent academic, vocational and work opportunity programs it has offered.

In the past, inmates have treated the facilities and equipment with respect. It is therefore most unfortunate that this irresponsible rampage will limit some of the future programming not only for inmates who were not involved in the incident but also for inmates who in the future will be sent to this institution to complete their sentences.

The recreational equipment that was destroyed will not be replaced in the immediate future. In this time of financial constraint there is no money to replace it in the ministry’s budget, and I do not intend to free up funds for it. Therefore, the replacement of equipment will be largely dependent on how soon money can be raised by inmates to replace it. I realize this will impose program limitations on inmates who were not responsible for the damage. However, perhaps some of those same inmates will finally come to appreciate what it is like to be a victim of a crime.

The inmates involved in this regrettable incident will be subject to disciplinary action, and one way or another they will pay for their irresponsible acts. When recaptured, the inmates who escaped will be taken before the courts where criminal charges will be laid. The other inmates will appear before the superintendent at a hearing to determine the degree of their involvement in the incident.

I have authorized the superintendent of Maplehurst Correctional Centre to order the forfeiture of the earned remission which is standing to the credit of any inmate who was involved. The loss of remission will be proportionate to the inmate’s degree of involvement. I have further instructed the superintendent that the inmates must pay for the destruction they have caused. Inmates who were involved will forfeit any weekly incentive allowance they have standing to their credit.

Inmates who are determined to have been ringleaders in the incident will be placed in segregation with a complete loss of privileges. This means they will have restricted visiting rights, the loss of television privileges, the loss of mattresses in their cells and they will be denied library and smoking privileges. Inmates at the centre will clean up and repair the damage themselves.

summary, the situation at the centre is calm at this time, and the programs within the adult training centre portion of the complex, which was not involved in the disturbance, are proceeding as usual.

[2:30]

As well as thanking the police for their standby assistance, I wish to express our sincere appreciation for the excellent work that has gone into the apprehension of some escapees and the search for others. I realize the police in this region were already hard pressed by the situation that resulted from the train derailment in Mississauga, and I regret the added strain on the police resources that this situation necessitated.

Mr. Speaker: I want to remind the Minister of Correctional Services that standing order 26(

b) definitely states a copy of any ministerial statement will be distributed to the opposition parties at or before the time the statement is made. I was conferring with the Clerk at the time you admitted you hadn’t circulated your statement. I just want to serve notice that in the future I think we should live up to that standing order.

ESL PROGRAMS

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, a point of privilege: On Friday last, while I briefly left the Legislature, the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) answered a question I had asked previously. In her response, she suggested the statements I had made were untrue. The minister’s allegations are groundless and I would like to correct the record.

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the honourable member’s point of privilege? If you are going to stand up here and make a prima facie case for a point of privilege, you must demonstrate at the earliest possible moment and as quickly as possible how your privileges, as a member of this assembly, have been abrogated. If you can do that, I will listen to you further.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I am correcting the record, sir.

Mr. Speaker: How?

Mr. Grande: By the minister --

Mr. Speaker: This is obviously a difference of opinion between what the member for Oakwood says and what the Minister of Education says. If this is alleged to have taken place last week, you should have raised it at the first opportunity. You said you were away from the House for a brief period of time and returned. I think you had a responsibility to correct the record last week, not now.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Would you like to challenge my ruling?

Mr. Grande: No.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, if I may, my colleague is rather polite. The point of privilege was he had been accused of lying to the chamber.

Mr. Speaker: I doubt that’s what he said, because if anybody accuses another member of telling a deliberate falsehood, I am sure any presiding officer of this House would have caught it.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GAS AND OIL PRICES

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Premier with regard to yesterday’s conference: If we are to judge from the Premier’s statement today and also from the televised conference and the media report, it would appear that Ontario was successful neither from the point of view of getting our price argument across, nor from the point of view of having a redistribution of the benefits of such price increases.

Under these circumstances, although the Premier referred to the private meetings as well, is he absolutely certain nothing happened in the private meetings that might in some way mitigate this general impression of failure? If not, what does the Premier feel now remains that he can possibly do in order to influence the outcome of what the final decision will be?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that nothing happened in those private meetings that was really in any way substantially different from the public discussions. There were two aspects. One, that of the distribution of proceeds, I think in terms of what the producing provinces feel is their share or whatever they determine by way of royalty, was supported by every other province there. Ontario was the only one that raised this publicly and also at the private meetings.

I think that is going to continue to be an area of debate over the next number of years. I think it is something that is not going to go away. I would be surprised if there isn’t a decision made to have a committee, perhaps the Ministers of Finance and Treasurers of the provinces, get together to take a look at the whole question of the foundation for the equalization program and whether or not resource funds are to be considered a part of it.

Of course we would like to see that sort of study done, except I would predict the results of that study would then impose fairly substantial burdens on the federal treasury. In terms of the overall financial position of the country I think these would be difficult to sort out. But I think it is the kind of study that will have to move ahead if the distribution is to remain as is at present constituted.

I am sorry to take so long but it is an important issue. One of the points made by the producing provinces, which has some validity in terms of their perspective, is that their present royalty of roughly 45 per cent applies to those depleting resources such as the conventional crude. When it comes to the synthetics or the crude from the tar sands, the royalty or tax, or whatever way one would wish to describe it, moves down to a figure that is probably closer to 15 per cent.

That hasn’t yet been defined, and I think it is a little early. But their argument -- just so the members will know -- is that their 45 per cent royalty on the conventional sources is depleting, it is diminishing over a period of years. They argue that their rate of return, or however we wish to describe it, on the synthetics would be substantially less.

I don’t think that answers what I think is a broader problem. This is not just in terms of what money might be going in one direction or another, but in terms really of one of the basic ingredients of Canada. The counter-arguments -- and you saw it, those of you who watched -- were the very strong statements from every other provincial jurisdiction with respect to the resource sector. There were some Premiers who had reservations on some aspects of price, but on the question of resource responsibility there was just no other Premier -- and I guess this hasn’t altered in the last 10 to 15 years -- who was prepared to accept anything less than total provincial control.

In terms of price, I think it is premature to debate that question. I think there will be an opportunity here when that decision is made. One has to assess the results of these things not just on the two particular items but on some of the broader implications. We were arguing very strenuously for a number of the “ifs” and “buts” to be in place prior to a price decision.

I think it is fair to state, and I am not in any way being critical, that a lot of other first ministers yesterday said, “We agree to moving towards world price. What are you going to do about this situation?” The maritime provinces, for instance, referred to electricity, because so much of their generating capacity is fuelled by imported oil. I am totally sympathetic with their situation. Their hydro rates I guess are more than double ours, and the impact there is very severe.

Our approach has been, let’s put the “buts” in place. Let’s have a committed policy for national energy security or self-sufficiency, some rationale in terms of conservation, some program in terms of protection of the consumer and some -- we didn’t propose a bank, we proposed a fund, and out of this emerged a proposal for a bank.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, I think it would appear from the Premier’s answer in terms both of price and the redistribution of the money that comes with the higher price, Ontario has not succeeded in persuading a single province to our point of view.

Keeping in mind that in Ontario we have had the largest increase of any province in unemployment during the month of October, a seasonally adjusted increase of 31,000 on our unemployment rolls -- and we’re just heading into the winter -- what is the Premier’s strategy to deal with this increasing unemployment this winter, especially now that high interest rates, high energy prices and a drain from our economy as well will one pile upon the other, creating grave difficulty for our citizens?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I pointed out some of the concerns. I’m not being facetious but I’m sure the Leader of the Opposition hasn’t had an opportunity to read the papers we brought there on Saturday or Sunday. I’ll get both of them to him. We expressed some of these concerns in these.

I should point out, though, in fairness, while I think there was a desire -- and I can’t say this is going to happen -- on the part of some to have the price on January 1 increased by $3 rather than the $1, I am relatively optimistic. I can’t say it definitely, because we’re not part of that final decision, but the price increase will probably be only $1 on January 1.

The impact of this is then postponed until March 1. So in terms of home heating oil, a good bulk of the coming season will not be at the new price. I think it’s fair to state -- I can’t calculate in litres -- that the four cents per gallon for gasoline would take effect on March 1, not on January 1. Our papers really presented the concerns that will probably manifest themselves to a greater extent next summer than will be the case this coming spring. In other words, and I want to qualify it, I hope it will be $1 in January so that we will have the winter and spring period with the impact of that amount of money and not something in excess of that.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since it’s clear that Ontario fought the good fight on behalf of Ontario’s consumers and industry at the first ministers’ conference, but lost, can the Premier now say specifically what steps Ontario intends to take within Ontario’s own jurisdiction in order to protect consumers and to maintain the strength of our industry in the face of these very substantial increases in oil prices taking place next year and in 1981?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can assure the member we made every effort to fight the fight yesterday. I think that was obvious to everyone. I would say to the leader of the New Democratic Party in terms of our own strategy -- and we’re not minimizing the potential of these impacts -- we have had in place a strategy related back really to 1974 and 1975 in terms of our own industrial economy. It’s not going to make it any easier. Anyone who suggested it is, I think, is making a fundamental miscalculation.

In spite of the problems we foresee, I think we can be sufficiently creative here. There is a sufficient strength in the economy of this province that we will continue to make progress. It’s going to be tougher, but the program that has been developed by the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) and the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) has happened during the course of an increase in energy costs generally throughout Canada, and I think we’ve been successful to date.

[2:45]

I do not have any specific point to make today with respect to the potential impact on some segments of the consumer groups. When I say that, I made it very clear in our presentation, and this was supported by a number of other Premiers, that for certain segments of our society -- people on fixed incomes, senior citizens, et cetera -- there should be built in to whatever may emerge by way of national energy policy a program allowing for a sufficient amount of the funds flowing from the oil and gas industries generally, to be used to offset the impact on some consuming groups. This was one of the main points we argued in August.

Mr. S. Smith: Final supplementary from me, Mr. Speaker: In view of what the Premier has said regarding equalization as a possible route for dealing with the redistribution of some of this revenue; is the Premier now prepared, in view of the fact there is no other apparent immediate solution to the redistribution problem, to remove Ontario’s agreement from the federal-provincial deal which led to the bill that is going to take away retroactively our right to equalization money that already exists?

In other words, if I may simplify a somewhat wordy question, is the Premier now prepared to insist Ontario receive the money that was coming to us for the past year or so, and not have that right removed retroactively with regard to equalization?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the provincial Treasurer has answered this. I know it is very hard to explain in a way everybody would understand or agree with. The bill, and the policy as at present there, never envisaged that Ontario would be a recipient of equalization payments. That has never been the feeling. The fact that because of the existing formula, which on a technical basis doesn’t relate to resource, Ontario could be the recipient today -- and I forget the figures; they have been debated here in the House -- this to me is really sort of a negation of what was intended.

We could start to become legalistic. I think really it does offend in general terms and in policy terms what this province’s commitment has been to Canada in the sense of our participating with the other provinces of Canada. While I am not happy with what is happening in terms of distribution of oil and in terms of whatever may occur in price -- I had better withhold that judgement until I see -- I don’t think that is the kind of thing that would prompt me to say, “Well, we didn’t get it this way; let’s go back and try to get it another way.”

I would say to the Leader of the Opposition I think it is a very legitimate question to ask; but it is not something, quite honestly, that I would recommend to the Treasurer that he move on at this time.

Mr. Peterson: I want to question the Premier’s

interpretation of the current fiscal arrangements act. In the judgement of a number of observers of the scene, they would argue that Ontario is entitled legally and morally, under the current arrangements because the object of that act was not concerned about per capita income, the concern was to equalize provincial revenues on a per capita basis, and increasingly by your own arguments we are morally entitled to that money.

Why wouldn’t the Premier use the most logical route ahead of him right now? He has gone in the posture of a pauper; why wouldn’t he go back now and say, “We are legally entitled to that. If other provinces are going to play that kind of game, we are going to play the game. We are legally entitled”?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for London Centre is very familiar with how the finances of this country work. I would only make this observation: Yes, legally, we are perhaps entitled --

Mr. Peterson: And morally as well.

I don’t quarrel with the question, but it’s not something that at this stage -- I emphasize “at this stage” -- I am prepared to recommend that our Treasurer pursue.

MISSISSAUGA TRAIN FIRE

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, again a question to the Premier, in the absence of the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry), with regard to the Mississauga disaster. Can the Premier tell the House, if he knows the facts, what the nature of the public inquiry is going to be into the event? Can he assure us that the inquiry will be public? Can he tell us what the terms of reference will be and what input the province will have into those terms of reference, if it happens that the federal jurisdiction holds the inquiry? Basically, can he bring us up to date on how eventually the public of Ontario is going to learn the facts of this very unfortunate matter?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can’t give the Leader of the Opposition any definition of the form this inquiry may take. I was asked yesterday whether it would be a royal commission. I don’t envisage it -- although I haven’t discussed this aspect with the Attorney General -- being a royal commission in that traditional sense of the word.

I think there’s no question that a part of it, at least, would be of a public nature. I don’t think there’s any question about that. I understand the potential is there for the Canadian Transport Commission to have a public inquiry into the actual physical cause of the accident, which may have been a truck -- I don’t mean by that, another vehicle -- on one of the cars or something of that nature. I think that is one consideration.

The broader consideration as I see it, at least, is to determine in what way we can prevent this sort of situation from occurring again. I think that has to be the main thrust of whatever inquiry is conducted; to find ways and means to transport goods, which we all know have potential hazards, but which we all know, none the less, have to be moved, from one point to another.

I can’t tell the Leader of the Opposition any more than that at the moment because, quite honestly, the Attorney General has been extremely busy just trying to help with the existing situation.

Mr. S. Smith: I have a supplementary question to the Premier, having to do with matters of liability as a consequence of the accident. Can the Premier tell us whether the province of Ontario will be negotiating with CP Rail or taking CP to court in an effort to recover the costs which Ontario has incurred in the entire evacuation operation, as well as in the fireflghting and cleanup operation? In particular, is the Premier in a position to comment on the so-called waiver, which allegedly has been demanded of citizens of Mississauga when they request that out-of-pocket expenses be reimbursed by CP?

Is this waiver something the Premier thinks should be signed by these citizens? Has he any information or any view on that matter?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have only the general information that CP has offered to those people affected it will pick up hotel bills. How extensive the offer is I quite honestly don’t know. I haven’t had a chance to discuss with the Attorney General whether or not the waiver on it constitutes something that would limit CP’s liability or in any way inhibit the individual’s potential expenses in case of further damage.

With respect to our own situation, there will be, obviously, additional costs, primarily I would think because of the extra Ontario Provincial Police officers, or those who are entitled to overtime, et cetera. There has been no discussion as to what our approach is going to be on that matter. I think it will probably be two or three days before we’re in a position to make that sort of determination.

There will also be -- and I’m sure the municipality is already looking at this -- the liability in terms of the recreation commission. For instance, their building was partially destroyed, as were some of their vehicles. There will be the question of liability in terms of the firefighters and the Peel regional police. All of these things will have to be taken into account. My guess is there will be some discussion between the province and the city of Mississauga as well to see what approach we might take co-operatively.

So far, although I have had no direct communication, there has been every indication that CP, in terms of the individuals who have been affected, is making an effort to see that instant out-of-pocket expenses are reimbursed. I wouldn’t want to venture an opinion on whether the waiver is proper or not until I’ve seen it or had some consultation with the law officers of the crown.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Will the Premier undertake, on behalf of the government, to inform CP that the demand for a waiver is unreasonable and is unacceptable when people who are just beginning to plan to return to their homes have no idea of whether there has been any damage to their homes, their gardens or things that they own because of the emissions from this particular crash; when they cannot possibly measure what the long-term consequences of this particular disaster could conceivably have been on them? Will the government tell CP that the offer of meeting the expenses is welcome but that it should under no circumstances impose the condition of the waiver at this time?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m obviously concerned about this aspect of it. I’m trying to look at it objectively, and I’m making no brief for CP, but if there is a desire to get money to people instantly, if that is the reaction of CP, it may be the member could be right about the waiver but perhaps we should leave the question of total liability, if there is total liability, until somewhere further down the road. That may be a wise course to take, but I know of a few situations where people are money out of pocket for Sunday and Monday night and would like to have that reimbursement. I think one has to weigh this.

This is being looked into and we will make sure, as a government, that no one is being disadvantaged; but at the same time we don’t want to inhibit, either, the transfer of some funds for those people who have a genuine need and can’t wait for two or three weeks, a month or however long it might take the favourite profession of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) to deal with it.

Mr. Kennedy: I have a supplementary. As one of the early evacuees, although we’re very interested in the details of the upcoming inquiry could we be informed of how long the removal of the chlorine from the one existing tank car -- and we’re not sure how much the contents are -- might take? Following that, when that is removed, will the people be able to return to their homes? Can the Premier give an estimate of how quickly this could take place and if this is the final thing that is keeping the people, the thousands who are still under the evacuation order, from returning?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have to be very careful. Can I phrase it this way to the member for Mississauga South: my best information is that at about 10 minutes to two, when I was talking to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), they were in the process of sealing the chlorine tanker. The guesstimate would be that will take approximately two or three hours, but I am no technician so I am not putting any time frame on it, that was the best guess.

Once the chlorine tanker is sealed the decision can be made as to whether it can be pumped out safely or whether it can be moved in some way. The best guess at this moment is that the people within the general boundaries I described, with perhaps the people south of the QEW, will be able to return later this afternoon and this evening should be the last night people within that other area are away from home. I emphasize to the member for Mississauga South that I would not want the public, or whomever, to say the Premier says everybody can go home tomorrow. I don’t think I’m in a position to make that statement yet, but that is the likelihood.

Mr. B. Newman: I have a supplementary. Will the Premier assure us that the inquiry will go beyond simply the transportation of dangerous cargo such as in this case, but will also include the overnight storage or parking of dangerous cargo, especially in built-up areas, as occurred in the Windsor situation when CPR in the first instance triple-tracked an area and then parked hazardous cargo within 100 feet of a school and within less than 50 feet of homes?

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. Davis: My guess, and I can only help the honourable member to this extent at this moment, is that in any inquiry that relates to the transportation of material such as propane, chlorine, et cetera, obviously the transportation study would include the question of storage. Storage, one could argue, is when that tanker is standing still on a siding in the city of Windsor, that is on the rail line but standing still so it is temporarily stored. My guess is anybody involved in such an inquiry would in fact include that sort of situation.

GAS AND OIL PRICES

Mr. Cassidy: A question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker, related to the first ministers’ conference yesterday. Since the Premier said, and I quote, “It would be unconscionable for the federal government not to return all discretionary new revenues back to the people,” can the Premier tell the House specifically what he proposes to ensure these new federal revenues generated in Ontario by the federal government’s proposed increase in the price of oil in 1980 and 1981 are in fact returned to the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think I was talking about consumers generally. I sensed from the discussions yesterday that the federal government will have a program for some cushioning in terms of some consumer groups. I can’t be any more definitive than that, but that was the general proposition that was stated.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Will we have an assurance the revenues generated for the federal government here in Ontario, and those revenues will amount to an estimated $180 million in 1980 and $760 million in 1981 through the currently proposed increases, will in fact be returned to the people of Ontario and not be given out as a new form of handout to multinational oil companies?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I quite obviously am not in a position to give that sort of guarantee because I won’t be writing whatever legislation emerges. I think the leader of the New Democratic Party has read our statement, he knows Ontario’s point of view; but for me to give a guarantee that will be the case I quite frankly can’t.

I think it is also fair to state there is another aspect of return to the consumer, we have to be quite fair about, and that is the question of the equalization of the oil price; there have to be some federal revenues to bring about this equalization.

It is not just a question of the people in Quebec or the Maritimes being the sole beneficiaries. There are one or two members -- well the two members opposite -- who are the beneficiaries of the oil equalization policy if they buy gasoline in Ottawa Centre. I mean if those two members were not buying gas there they would be paying an extra 25 cents or 30 cents a gallon right at this moment.

We have to be consistent in terms of a commitment to oil price equalization, because there are 600,000 people or more in the province of Ontario who are the beneficiaries of that particular policy because they happen to be east of that mythical line from the valley down to just east of Kingston, or wherever it is.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary to the Premier concerning the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday that one of the considerations in federal policy will be the possible transfer of the Canadian Home Insulation Program to the provinces: Can the Premier indicate whether or not he discussed this further with the Prime Minister? Can he indicate whether or not it is the Prime Minister’s firm intention that the program be transferred, at least administratively, to the provinces at an early opportunity, with increased funding? Is it proper to assume that this government is actively pursuing such a transfer in the interests of consumer protection and conservation in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: This was one of those items I mentioned to the Leader of the Opposition earlier, where there appeared to be some general consensus but which would take the officials of the various ministries a period of time to work out. One of them is CHIP and the possibility for its administrative transfer to the provinces, hopefully with perhaps some greater flexibility or some additional funding for the program itself.

I think I can state that if in fact we find it is administratively better for the provinces to do it, if we think we can do it more effectively, if this is to be funded out of the federal revenues, et cetera, then I think our inclination -- I say “our inclination” because we want to see the details -- would be to take on this responsibility; that is if we genuinely think we can do it more effectively.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the Premier tell us if he is aware of the fact that the new federal revenues which will be generated within Ontario by the proposed price increases would be enough to provide for a tax credit of $88 per family for people earning less than $22,000 in Ontario this coming year and $180 per family in 1981, and could still provide close to $400 million in terms of energy self-sufficiency projects in Ontario?

Will the Premier of Ontario, having lost the case on price, be pressing to have this kind of money come back into Ontario; or when he says the discretionary new revenues should go back to the people will Ontario once again be left the loser in negotiations with the federal government?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can only say to the leader of the New Democratic Party what I said about eight minutes ago: Our point of view has been expressed. There is, I think, a general consensus -- and certainly this was part of the Prime Minister’s statement as I recall it -- that policies would be developed to provide protection for consumers. I have to tell the leader of the New Democratic Party the federal policy has been defined for us no more than that at this precise moment. I can’t tell him any more until I know some more. When I know more I will share it with him.

CLEANUP OF SPILLS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Can the Minister of the Environment explain why it is that we are now beyond 11 months from the introduction of the current Bill 24, the spills bill; and will the minister assure the House that bill will be given quick acceleration by the government in order that it receive third reading before the House rises at the end of December?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think there is no doubt that bill will be finalized before the end of this session. There are many reasons why it hasn’t been here for third reading, partly because I think many members wanted a pretty extensive debate on the bill itself, partly because the committee was preoccupied with other matters, which is fair enough. Indeed, most of the clause-by-clause consideration of that bill is completed. I suspect with only one amendment yet to be considered it will then pass speedily through the remaining stages of committee and third reading.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Will the minister not agree that the New Democratic member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) has consistently pressed the government to accelerate consideration of this bill but has met continued resistance from the Conservative side within the committee? Would the minister not agree now it is essential that the principle there be a cleanup when there is an environmental spill be adopted in legislation in Ontario, particularly after the disaster we have just had in Mississauga?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I certainly would not agree with that at all. The truth of the matter is there has been a great deal of discussion on this bill. There is no question it is a bill of which I and my ministry are particularly proud. It is good legislation. That doesn’t mean we want to cut short the debate. As a matter of fact, I recall time and time again during estimates where it was not unusual for the one party to have an hour and a quarter, the other party to have an hour and a quarter, while the Tory members out of that two and a half hours were left with 15 minutes of debate.

On no occasion, I say to the honourable member, have our Tory members taken more of the time on that committee than the members opposite.

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary: I would like to ask the minister is it not true that the final amendments were tabled only two weeks ago, or maybe 10 days ago, and that when the committee had time for dealing with this bill, the Conservative members were not willing to sit when I moved that we sit on a certain part?

Mr. Martel: The chairman was on vacation.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: If memory serves me correctly, it was the member for Beaches-Woodbine who wanted another delegation to make a presentation to that committee. That is one of the major reasons that bill was held up.

MAPLEHURST CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX

Mr. J. Reed: My question is for the Minister of Correctional Services. I understand that the minister has been out to Maplehurst today and is launching an investigation into the disturbance that took place last night. There are three parts to this question. I wonder if the minister could either answer them today or take them under advisement and use them in the course of his investigation.

Mr. Wildman: Put them on the Order Paper.

Mr. J. Reed: First of all, could the minister tell us how this disturbance will affect the working-out program from Maplehurst which has proven to be quite successful? Has he any comment to make on that at this time or will he have in the very near future?

Second, did the minister, when he was directing that certain action be taken regarding compensation and so on, also direct that due consideration be given to those inmates who took it upon themselves to protect a staff member in that disturbance, the projectionist?

Further, will the minister investigate the design of this medium-security institution that is apparently designed in such a way that would allow such an escape to take place?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I think I could reply to the three questions at this moment. I would say to the member for Halton-Burlington with respect to the program of community service being afforded by Maplehurst centre, although it has ceased today we expect it will resume very shortly. I will say most of the programs -- in fact all of the adult training programs -- in the centre continued on today without interruption when calm had been fully restored. We do expect the programs to resume certainly by the first part of next week. They do provide a great deal of service to the area communities.

The second question related to the individuals who gathered around to surround the projectionist to protect him from the mob at that moment in time. I would say those people have been identified and will not in any way be affected by any reprisals that are taken at the institution by the administration.

The third question is that of design. It is a medium-security facility, and we are now going to reassess the whole question of the security at that facility. This is generally in line with a growing preponderance of heavier-term individuals which is causing some pressure within our system. We will certainly be looking at the security aspects of that facility.

Mr. J. Reed: Supplementary: Is the minister indicating by that reaction to the third part of that question that indeed the institution is being used for the serving of sentences beyond its original design and beyond its original concept?

Hon. Mr. Walker: No, not beyond its original concept. In the period of the last five years the people who now remain in our institutions tend to be more hard core. At one point they were diluted, so to speak, by easier-term inmates, who have a sedative effect on the operation of the institution. Certainly, there is no question of it at this time.

[3:15]

Mr. Renwick: By way of a supplementary question: I was very worried about the minister’s statement that four charges will be laid. Will he explain to the House what he means by that? Is he being presumptuous or do the crown attorneys or the justices of the peace still have something to do with whether or not charges are accepted against people?

Hon. Mr. Walker: We have been advised that charges will be laid against the inmates who were involved. The inmate who was attacked has had discussions with the police and the police are laying charges.

Mr. Renwick: The minister doesn’t understand the rudiments of law. I don’t know where he took his law.

J. D. CARRIER LAYOFFS

Mr. Mackenzie: A question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism: Can the minister explain to the House why, in view of a $2-million loan guaranteed by the ODC to J. D. Carrier Shoe Company Limited for 1978-79, which was on the basis of an expansion to provide 195 new jobs in one year and 470 jobs within five years, 1,400 footwear employees were permanently laid off last Friday? Can he tell us why there was not a statement? Can he tell the House whether or not he was informed in advance? Can he say what kind of discussions he was involved in that would protect the workers and the $2-million investment?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am not sure how many months ago ODC gave some assistance. Carrier had quite a fair degree of capital put up by the principals involved in the company. It is fairly well backed and its backing included some from the banks, which had also carefully reviewed the situation. A combination of circumstances, including a simple downturn in the market of more monumental proportions than they had anticipated, caused Carrier to get into some degree of difficulty.

At the present time there are trustees and receivers in the operation. We have contacted them, and of course they contacted us as a creditor. Our indication to them was that we would prefer to see arrangements made which would maintain the jobs. We preferred that one of two things happened: either the operation would be purchased by someone or adequate refinancing would be made available to keep it going.

ODC reports to me they still believe that in the long term J. D. Carrier Shoe Company Limited does have a fairly decent hope of success. In order to get over the short term I have encouraged ODC to be as lenient a creditor as possible. I’d like to ensure that either a new purchaser can come in or that the current operators get whatever leniency they require from ODC in order to permit them to continue to operate.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary: I fail to understand the minister. It doesn’t sound to me as if they had any discussions at all while this was going on, or in advance.

I am wondering if the minister can tell the House what is being done to protect the workers in this case? Can he inform the House whether or not he was aware of the long history of very unacceptable labour relations of this company when the loan was approved? Can he say whether any monitoring was done of this company when they disposed of the only two plants they had taken over where the workers had a contract within the last year? Just what is going on in the case of J. D. Carrier Shoe Company Limited and the loan we have given them?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: When Ontario Development Corporation reviews these loans -- and I remind the member it’s a decision made by the ODC board on the recommendation of staff -- it does it quite properly on a straight businesslike basis. They assess the market. They assess the financial viability of the firm. They also are interested to see whether banks and other financial institutions are prepared to stand behind the company and the degree to which the principals are prepared to stand behind the company.

Labour relations are traditionally not something I would expect ODC to look into, except to the extent it might indicate some basic instability or some basic problem which would affect long-term profitability.

Mr. Cassidy: Hear no evil, see no evil.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: ODC monitors its loans. Our field staff is out there monitoring the progress of its loans all the time. I think I will conclude by saying yes, we have monitored the situation from the time the loan was given right up until today, and we are continuing to do everything we can to make sure the employees are protected.

EXPLOSION SUPPRESSION

Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. In view of the near-catastrophic accident in Mississauga this last weekend, and in view of the fact we have a commercially-available Canadian product called Explosafe, an explosion suppressant system manufactured here in Rexdale by Vulcan Industrial Packaging Limited, which in all probability would have prevented the tank cars carrying the propane and butane from exploding; would the Premier undertake during the course of the provincial inquiry to investigate the potential use of Explosafe to equip tank cars carrying potentially explosive hazardous chemicals in order to prevent future disasters of this kind?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am --

Mr. Martel: A short answer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Why? I can assure the --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh so this is it; this material the member has sent across to me. There are some days I could send this across the House.

Mr. Martel: Don’t drink it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can assure the member for York West I will ensure this particular suggestion is brought before whatever inquiry is developed.

I notice the plant is located in the very favoured community of Rexdale. The only observation I would make is I hope there are a number of employees there who live in Brampton, but whether there are or not I certainly will bring this to the attention of whatever inquiry is conducted.

MARGARINE PRODUCTS

Mr. T. P. Reid: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, but perhaps the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) might be interested as well.

Has the Minister of Agriculture and Food contacted his counterpart in Ottawa concerning the study that was done by that ministry in Ottawa in regard to margarine, which indicated that over half of the margarine being produced contained between 25 and 40 per cent fatty substances which are of concern to people who are on high-risk heart attack types of diets? Has he contacted the minister and has he made that list of margarine available to you?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: We have been well aware of this for quite a number of years. No, I haven’t contacted the minister.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I am sorry, all I caught is that the minister is aware of it. Has he asked the federal minister to make this list available so the consumers of Ontario will know what products could be injurious to their health? Surely as minister here he is concerned that that information be made available.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: My answer to the honourable member firstly was we have been aware of the fat content. The medical people, everybody have all been aware of the percentage for a great number of years.

Mr. M. Davidson: The consumer isn’t. What are you doing about it?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: My final answer to the honourable member was no, I have not contacted the federal Minister of Agriculture.

Mr T. P. Reid: One further supplementary: In view of the importance of this matter, will the minister publish a list of those margarine products high in fatty substance so the people of the province will know; or as an alternative will he impress upon his kissing cousin in Ottawa that he should make that study available? Again, it was paid for with taxpayers’ money and they have a right to know.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: We will look at the proposal.

TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development concerning his statement earlier today on the movement of dangerous goods. Is he aware that the report of the Ontario select committee on the highway transportation of goods recognizes that once federal legislation on the transportation of dangerous substances is in place the province will have to react quickly?

Furthermore, is the minister aware that the Minister of Transportation and Communications of this province (Mr. Snow), in a letter to his federal counterpart in February 1977, recognizes that the province will have to enact complementary legislation to, in his words, “give uniform application to the federal regulations across Canada and with respect to all modes of transportation”?

If so, can the minister assure the House that the moment the federal legislation is in place there will be provincial legislation coming forth under the Ministry of Transportation and Communications to assure that the complementary legislation is in place in this province -- preferably before the House adjourns if this is possible -- so that Ontario citizens can be protected against dangerous goods being transported on Ontario highways?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, in my statement today I did indicate that in 1977 Bill 85,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, was passed to make sure this legislation would complement the federal legislation if and when it would pass.

I believe this province has a good record and has co-operated fully. It was mentioned again in the statement in Regina. This was brought to the attention of the federal minister. So I believe everything has been done as far as the province is concerned.

Mr. Philip: By way of supplementary, if everything has been done then the recent statements by the Minister of Transportation and Communications seemed to be in conflict with this. Is the minister aware of the reports coming from within the trucking industry that in spite of the passage of Bill 89 in June of this year there are still unregulated carriers carrying dangerous goods on Ontario highways without authorization?

Can this minister, as the co-ordinating minister for the resource ministries, inform the House of what action he has taken in his capacity as a co-ordinator to co-ordinate enforcement by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and the Ministry of the Environment in this regard?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I’m sure the minister, as well as the ministry, is well aware of what the honourable member has said, but I’ll be pleased to refer this to him.

MISSISSAUGA TRAIN FIRE

Mr. Kennedy: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Would he comment briefly on the monitoring that’s presently in place with respect to the impurities in the air in Mississauga; and could he give some indication if the freeing of the atmosphere from this toxic material, chlorine, will in fact be dependent on air currents and air movements to finally free the air of these impurities?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, there are several factors that I think must be addressed in responding to that question. Yes, we are monitoring, and have been of course since the very early hours of it. Second, we will only feel confident that our monitoring system is totally in place when we can be assured that the rail car has been sealed off. We’re confident that we’re monitoring now, but I think we must extend that to a very wide area and will do so. It’s important to get that car sealed off.

Having done that, then of course we will monitor, and particularly the pockets. As the member knows, it’s a heavy gas and we must measure the low-lying ground. We have had an awful lot of measurements there to this point in time and all of them -- and I underline that -- have been in a very low range.

If a good deal of chlorine did go up at the time of the initial explosion I’m advised that that would spread in a radius and then come back down. The radius of that would be 100 kilometres.

[3:30]

We have measured those areas of highest impingement upon the environment and we believe that they are in such low range that they’re one millionth of what might be a potential hazard. The degree of safety here is extremely high, and we are pleased to know that. It eventually comes back to ground level, and we are measuring it where we expect readings to be highest. Indeed, we have done that all through this piece, through measuring air currents, to try to put our equipment where the readings would be highest, so we could err on the side of safety. I can assure the member those readings have been extremely low on all occasions.

Members can be assured that we want to be unconditionally satisfied it is safe in that area before we agree to the return of residents.

Mr. McClellan: If I understood the Premier’s statement correctly, something in the order of 30 or 40 per cent of the chlorine gas had escaped. This represents something in the order of 30 tons of chlorine gas. My question to the minister is how quickly does the Ministry of the Environment, or some authority, intend to give us more specific details of what happened to that enormous quantity of chlorine gas?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: We will be glad to supply as much detail as the member wants. In very general terms, as I understand the situation, if the vast amount of that tonnage went up in the initial early period it would do so at the same time there was an excessive amount of heat. This would give cause to believe the gas would rise to approximately 4,000 feet into the atmosphere.

It would start to disperse and spread out in that radius of 100 kilometres of which I spoke. Then because it is heavy, it would descend to ground level.

I don’t know whether or not I have been able to make that clear to the member. It goes up and disperses over a very wide area. Then we measure where, scientifically, one would expect the greatest impingement on land. We have measured that and we find it is at the safety factor I mentioned. The readings were very low; on most occasions it was so low we were not able to get a reading.

I can give more specific details, but I am not sure that doesn’t answer the honourable member’s question.

WATER POLLUTION

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question raised by the leader of the New Democratic Party on November 5, I am tabling today a report submitted to me last Friday by Dr. M. G. Fisher, medical officer of health for the Hastings and Prince Edward counties health unit.

The report deals in some detail with the history and current status of the arsenic situation related to private well water supplies and municipal water supplies, as well as the Moira River system. It outlines surveillance activities by the health unit and Ministry of the Environment staff.

I am pleased to report that the medical officer of health is satisfied, and has so advised me, that the present situation does not constitute a health hazard to the people of the area. I would assure the House, though, that ongoing surveillance will be maintained to ensure that the health of the community continues to be protected.

I am advised by my colleague, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott), that he intends to make a statement on Thursday next on the environmental aspects of the question raised by the honourable member.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I am pleased to have the assurance of the ministry, but can the minister say whether that assurance is based on extensive examination of the health of the people in the area who may be affected by the water, which has as much as 50 times the acceptable levels of arsenic because of seepage from these tailings? Have there been specific medical examinations of individuals, or is this just an assurance coming from the medical officer of health, based on general knowledge of the area?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I would invite the member first to read the report. I am sending to the health critics copies which they may share with their leaders and any other interested members of their parties.

Members will see in the report that the medical officer of health is satisfied no one is drinking the water. Based on that and continued surveillance and education of the public that they shouldn’t draw their water from any of the Moira River system and other surveys done over recent years he gives me that assurance.

But I invite members to read the report. If they have any further questions at a later date I will be pleased to answer them, or if I don’t have the answers to get the answers.

MINISTER’S COMMENT

Mr. Speaker: In connection with the alleged point of privilege raised earlier by the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) and the intervention by the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) when he alleged an honourable minister had called someone a liar, or accused someone of lying, I have had an opportunity to check Hansard for last Friday, on page 4376, where the Minister of Education said, in part, “The matter has been investigated thoroughly, and the answer to the allegation is that it is entirely untrue.”

The standing order says that one member shall not accuse another member of uttering a deliberate falsehood. This always causes the chair some difficulty when an honourable member says, “that is an untruth,” which in effect can be interpreted as meaning that the honourable member lied.

I think it would clear up the whole situation if the Minister of Education would withdraw the word “untrue” and given her verbal and oratorical agility, I think she could find a better way of expressing herself than by saying that a statement made by a member of this House is “entirely untrue.” I will give the minister an opportunity.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: If the member will read my response, I think what I said was that the allegation was entirely untrue.

Mr. Speaker: That’s right. The minister can play with words all she likes, it still has the same meaning. I’m asking the honourable minister to withdraw the word “untrue.”

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is factually incorrect.

Mr. Speaker: You do withdraw the allegation that it was an untruth?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, if indeed a reasonable synonym for “untrue” is “factually incorrect,” I shall withdraw “untrue.”

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

PETITION

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES REPORT

Mr. Foulds: Pursuant to standing order 33(

b) of the Legislative Assembly, I have in my hand a petition signed by 20 members of the assembly, petitioning that the annual report of the Ministry of Natural Resources for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1979, tabled October 11, 1979, be referred to the standing committee on resources development for such consideration of the report as the committee may determine.

MOTION

COMMITTEE MEETING

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, November 15.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the answers to questions, 316, 327, 330, 331, 332, 334, 335, 338, 340 and 341 on the Notice Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY