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

April 17, 1980

31st Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L023 - Thu 17 Apr 1980 / Jeu 17 avr 1980

MEMBER’S PRIVILEGES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

OLEOMARGARINE-BUTTER BLEND COMMITTEE REPORT

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT BOARD

PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS COMMITTEE REPORT

CIVIL SERVICE STAFFING

MEMBERS’ ANNIVERSARIES

ORAL QUESTIONS

INTEREST RATES

AUTO INDUSTRY LAYOFFS

OUTBOARD MARINE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL NATIONALISM

ESSEX EXPLOSION

CHILDREN WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES

ASBESTOS AT HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN

LAKE SIMCOE-COUCHICHING REPORT

PROCESSED MEATS

MUNICIPAL ASSESSMENT

HAMILTON-WENTWORTH REGIONAL GOVERNMENT

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ALLOCATION OF SEATS IN MEMBERS’ GALLERY

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

PETITION

SUDBURY TEACHERS’ STRIKE

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AMENDMENT ACT

INCO LIMITED ACQUISITION ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

USE OF WOOD AS HEAT SOURCE

EXPENDITURES DISCLOSURE ACT

USE OF WOOD AS HEAT SOURCE

TAX EXPENDITURES DISCLOSURE ACT

SPEAKER’S RULING RE MEMBER’S PRIVILEGE

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBER’S PRIVILEGES

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege under

section 45 of the Legislative Assembly Act.

In an

article in the Hamilton Spectator of last night, a copy of which I have sent you, an official of the Ministry of Natural Resources makes comments, which I believe would be interpreted by any reasonable person to indicate that I have knowingly been in possession of illegally removed property. I suggest the making of that accusation by that official is a breach of my privileges under the Legislative Assembly Act, and I would ask for your ruling.

Mr. Speaker: Obviously, I haven’t had an opportunity to look at it and I am not going to take the time of the House now. I will look at it and see whether there is any basis for any question of your privileges having been abrogated.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I would like to outline to the members of the House certain arrangements to ensure the availability of all testimony needed to enable the Environmental Assessment Board to reach well-informed conclusions on matters before it. To achieve this, we are putting into place --

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the honourable minister has the report somewhere but I regret it hasn’t reached my desk. I would like to follow his statement, if I could.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I thought it had been distributed.

OLEOMARGARINE-BUTTER BLEND COMMITTEE REPORT

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, today it is my pleasure to table the report of the Oleomargarine-Butter Blend Committee. It is my understanding this has been sent to the opposition parties and the report will be delivered to you, sir.

Mr. Peterson: The honourable minister doesn’t have to send his; it doesn’t matter.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Wait until the honourable member hears it. The committee also investigated colour differentials in margarines and the situation with regard to cheese analogs.

The members of the committee represented the Ontario Creamerymen’s Association, the Ontario Cream Producers’ Marketing Board, the Ontario Dairy Council, the Milk Commission of Ontario, the Ontario Milk Marketing Board and the farm products quality branch of my ministry. The committee received 21 briefs or reports from concerned organizations and individuals.

This report points out that there would be serious consequences for our dairy industry if the present regulations affecting these matters were to be changed. In general, I am in agreement with the findings of the committee.

Experience in other jurisdictions shows that once butter blends are introduced, the butter part of the blend is constantly reduced until it gets as low as five per cent. This could mean a reduction of as much as 15 per cent in the country’s total market share quota.

In the case of cheese there are two serious drawbacks. Not only would dairy farmers lose part of their market but our import situation would be affected as well. We would have to import the analogs at first since none are made here. Later we would have to go on importing vegetable oil and components as not enough are available here. In my opinion cheese analogs represent a threat to one of our finest agricultural products -- Ontario cheese.

As far as the colouring of margarine is concerned, I believe consumers have a right to know, just by looking at it, whether they are getting butter or margarine. There is no reason that I can see why margarine should be allowed to masquerade as butter.

Therefore, I will not be proposing any changes to the regulations governing these three matters.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT BOARD

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I would like to outline to the honourable members of the House certain arrangements to ensure the availability of all testimony needed to enable the Environmental Assessment Board to reach well-informed conclusions on matters before it.

To achieve this, we are putting into place funding arrangements which will enable panels of the board to bring before hearings such expert testimony as is seen to be appropriate at their discretion. This will apply to all hearings in progress and future hearings under the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act.

Although the Environmental Assessment Board is an independent body and not subject to my direction, I have advised them through my deputy minister that the ministry is willing to accept the costs incurred by these arrangements.

In making such determinations with respect to the calling of expert testimony before it, we expect the board will invite representations from the parties involved in the hearings.

PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS COMMITTEE REPORT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling the report of the Professional Organizations Committee which I received this morning. The committee, chaired by H. Allan Leal QC, and consisting of Dr. Alex Corry and Dr. Stefan Dupre, was established by me three years ago to look into the four professions of law, accounting, engineering and architecture.

I don’t want to attempt to make a comprehensive statement covering all the recommendations, for the simple reason that having only just received a copy of the report I have not had a chance to study it in detail. I did want to share it with members at the earliest possible opportunity.

Having looked through the

summary of recommendations, a number of important items deserve to be summarized.

The committee’s comprehensive report concludes that, by end large, the professions it studied are healthy, dynamic and responsive to public and self-criticism. The report sets out 81 separate recommendations suggesting changes to ensure that professions more effectively protect the interests of the public and of their members.

The recommendations are aimed at protecting vulnerable interests, ensuring fairness of regulation and enhancing the public accountability of the regulatory bodies.

The committee has been careful to take account of considerations of practicality and feasibility of implementation when framing its proposals. Throughout its work it has engaged in an extensive process of dialogue and consultation with interested groups and individuals. Every possible opportunity has been given to the professions to express their views at length on a broad range of issues.

The report’s recommendations respect the autonomy of the professions; they suggest that the role of government should be largely confined to legislation establishing the powers and general structure of professional bodies.

To ensure that due attention is given to the general public interest, lay representation is recommended on the governing bodies of professions. To guarantee that there be an independent, formal and nonprofessional review of the disposition of complaints by professional bodies, a lay observer procedure should be established in Ontario.

The committee worked with the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario and the Ontario Association of Architects, as these two professional groups negotiated their joint agreement on the scope of engineering and architectural practice, a matter of long-standing dispute.

2:10 p.m.

Turning to the accounting profession, the committee recommends that the Public Accountants Council should be abolished and the Certified General Accountants Association of Ontario, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario and the Society of Management Accountants of Ontario should all acquire the right to issue licences in public accounting to those of their members who satisfy common licensing examination requirements. This licence will encompass both audits and nonaudit reviews.

In response to a number of submissions from groups such as architectural technologists, engineering technologists, law clerks and legal secretaries as well as other groups in different occupational sectors, the committee recommends an omnibus statute to permit the registration of reserved titles. The newly certified groups would have to develop and enforce qualification requirements, a code of ethics, a complaints procedure and a disciplinary mechanism.

The committee expresses concern about the proliferation of new licensed professions, suggesting that a special committee should be struck to look into each new claim for professional privileges.

On the question of professional fees, the report suggests that professional rules should require practitioners to disclose to potential clients the basis on which any fees will be determined. There should also be mechanisms for the mediation of disputes concerning fees. The committee rejects suggestions that contingent fees for lawyers be introduced in Ontario. The report recommends that restrictions on lawyers’ advertising in Ontario be further relaxed.

Finally, the committee suggests that the disciplinary processes in each profession should be as much concerned with professional incompetence as with misconduct as such.

I am looking forward to reading the report in its entirety, to discussing it with my colleagues and to receiving the comments of interested organizations, groups and individuals. Once members have had a chance to read the report, I am sure they will agree with me that the committee has produced an invaluable and comprehensive report. The government intends, however, to review the recommendations contained in it and to consider carefully all submissions made before introducing any legislative or policy proposals based on the report.

CIVIL SERVICE STAFFING

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all members of the House have seen the press reports this morning relating to the report of the Auditor General. In particular, Mr. Macdonell’s apparent observation that the civil service could be reduced by 24 per cent has aroused a great deal of interest. While his report applies only to the federal government, I am sure that this House and the public at large are also interested in the staffing situation in the Ontario government.

To begin with, it must be noted that the size of the Ontario government work force has declined considerably in the last few years. On March 1, 1975, our total staff amounted to 87,109 people. As of December 31, 1979, the work force was down to 82,929. This is a reduction of 4,180 or 4.8 per cent.

During this same time, the Ontario population has grown by 4.2 per cent and population growth is a good measure of the overall work to be performed by the civil service. Thus, considering these two factors, total population to be served and the staffing levels, it would appear that we are improving the productivity of our work force by about 1.8 per cent per year.

The improvement would appear even more substantial if we were considering the new initiatives that have been launched, such as the Ministry of Northern Affairs, children’s services, occupational health and safety -- programs where significant staffing increases have occurred.

In achieving these reductions, we did not take the easy route and concentrate our cuts on that segment of the work force outside the management group. Rather, our five per cent overall staff cut includes a 15 per cent cut in permanent senior management positions. That is, beginning in January 1976 we have reduced our permanent executive superstructure from 689 to 590.

In the 1975 to 1979 time period, while Ontario was reducing its staff by 4.8 per cent, the federal government expanded its work force by 7.3 per cent, adding more than 22,000 staff to the payroll. Perhaps this explains the reason for the report of the Auditor General and why the overall conclusions do not appear to apply to the Ontario scene.

In concert with our emphasis on controlling the size of the civil service, we have been stressing prudent and efficient management of all the programs and services provided by the Ontario government. In this regard we use a systematic approach to program management called managing by results, or MBR for short. The MBR approach stresses the results aspect of the program or service. By identifying and measuring results and by relating them to the resources assigned, we can determine the productivity improvement that is being achieved.

We can illustrate the concept by using a simplified example from one of our typical MBR programs. In 1978-79, the retail sales tax branch in the Ministry of Revenue processed 1.6 million tax returns with a staff of 552 for the year. This same staffing level will be maintained in 1980-81 but the results will increase to 1.9 million returns being processed. This represents a 19 per cent productivity improvement over two years, considering only the processing of tax returns.

MBR cannot guarantee that the optimum level of efficiency has been reached, but it does provide continued emphasis to ministries and program managers to improve productivity.

Considering the overall staffing levels, the MBR approach to program management and our general record of expenditure restraint, I’m satisfied that at this time the Ontario government work force is at the appropriate level. There may be isolated pockets where some latitude still exists. However, we are looking hard to identify and correct these situations which, in total, are not significant.

We have a very good record, attributable to both the priority that this government has assigned to good management and to the excellence of the public service in Ontario. However, we are not resting on our laurels. I look forward to discussing some of the new initiatives that we are undertaking to further enhance the management process, initiatives such as improved management education, management standards, productivity improvement, et cetera.

The distressing fact about this report is that it may apply only to the federal government but it adds to the public perception that government cannot operate efficiently. The management and staff in the Ontario public service has shown this is not the case.

MEMBERS’ ANNIVERSARIES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, to mark the fact that today is the first anniversary of the election of the honourable members for Wentworth (Mr. Isaacs) and Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) to the Ontario Legislature, I would say they have done a very fine job.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, we never even noticed they were here. It didn’t even take them a year before they started supporting the government; it’s amazing.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INTEREST RATES

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question on the subject of interest-rate relief to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson).

Would the honourable minister be willing to tell the House whether he is prepared to introduce a program along the lines of the one we have suggested this morning, or along whatever lines he prefers, but something that would offer relief from the high interest rates for the farmers of Ontario, particularly those who are finding themselves in a very severe economic pinch at this time? Would the honourable minister be willing to take action whether the federal government enters or does not?

I’m sure he agrees with me that although the federal government should be of some support in this case, other provinces have helped their farmers without this federal support. We certainly would be willing to help our farmers and take Ontario’s responsibility. Is the honourable minister prepared to do the same?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, in responding to the honourable member’s question, I would like to make a comment or two about his statement. I note he has set out 75 per cent for a certain wage level, 50 per cent for another, and so on down. I have had meetings with farm people who are in difficulty. They are in the position of having filed a completely negative income. In fact, most of them are filing an income at a great loss of $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000.

Their Minister of Agriculture and Food for Ontario is certainly looking for some method of help. I don’t have it all worked out, but I have been working on it all week. I am in no position to give a commitment other than that my staff and I are working on some type of help. At this moment we are not ready to convey it, but I want the House to know that we are fully interested. This statement, the honourable member’s recommendations, will be considered.

Mr. S. Smith: I would certainly thank the minister for that and I am pleased his staff is working on a solution. We will look forward to hearing what that is.

May I, by way of supplementary, question the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) as to whether he too is working on something that might be of assistance to the small businesses of Ontario and to the home owners who have mortgages to renew this year. Keeping in mind particularly the promise made by the Premier (Mr. Davis) in 1975 that, even though he wanted the federal government to act at that time, he was prepared, if forced, to act by himself to underwrite some of the high interest costs for Ontario home owners, would the Treasurer show us that he too is prepared to help small businesses and home owners whether or not the federal government comes in as part of the arrangement?

Mr. Nixon: Of Course, 1975 was an election year.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But in 1976 the government did something.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The answer is that of course we are working on something and, unlike the party of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith), I am talking to my colleagues about what we are doing. They don’t find it out in a press release; we are working together. I think the honourable member tends to talk to some of his colleagues on the back benches --

Mr. Nixon: What kind of a comment is that? Mr. Speaker, I would certainly ask you to call the Treasurer to order so that he does not misrepresent the facts in the instance to which he is referring. We worked very carefully on the program and support it. The honourable minister doesn’t have a damned thing to offer.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Treasurer have a further response?

Hon. F. S. Miller: It’s so seldom that I pique the anger of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon). I try not to because I recognize the tenuous state of his health.

I think one can look at the relief we do give and at the attempts we have made. I will be bringing down a budget next Tuesday. We had hoped to see some results in the federal throne speech. There are some hints; we are not sure what they are. We would point out that we do give a good deal of help to farmers in this province that doesn’t get counted. I don’t know what the total figure is; I think it’s something like $128 million or $148 million in property taxes.

Mr. Riddell: You are not using that property tax rebate? Surely you are not.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The honourable member doesn’t want it? Would he like to go back and tell the people in his riding he doesn’t want that 50 per cent in tax given back? That’s one of the best things we do and the member knows it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. A supplementary.

Mr. S. Smith: Specifically, the farm question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food asked what small business --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Obviously the Treasurer wasn't addressing himself to the supplementary or the original question. Does the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) have a supplementary?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will direct this to the Treasurer and just ask him whether he is aware that in the Owen Sound area there now are five forced sales a month because of interest-rate costs, where last year there was only one a month. Is he aware that auctioneers in the Cambridge area tell us there now are 15 to 20 forced sales a month, where before there was only a handful, and that the picture is the same in other parts of the province, in particular among young farmers who acquired their farms in the last five or six years? Is it the government’s intention to bring in relief so that these farmers can stay in business and not be forced out?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, of course it is our intention to fry to help that area. We have been trying to get federal help. I hope my colleague would agree it would be much more useful on a co-operative basis.

It is a sad fact that this province, through good financial management, has made some room for discretionary decisions, while it appears that our colleagues in Ottawa, through relatively poor financial management, do not have that room to move. It’s difficult for us, with perhaps one third of the fiscal base to their 40 per cent, to be faced with the suggestion that all the costs should fall back on us. We are going to do our best.

I think the one happy note I saw yesterday was the indication that perhaps the peak had been reached in the interest-rate cycle. In New York City a very respected economist said he believed the top of the cycle had been reached. Today in Canada the president of the Royal Bank re-emphasized that statement. We saw bonds go on the market from Ontario Hydro yesterday, and following that news in New York City they went to a premium. That is the first good news we have had in that kind of market.

We have some reason to believe the peak has passed. That does not in any way stop us from examining those routes that are within our fiscal competence to follow.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question about small business. In view of the fact that in southwestern Ontario alone there has been a 40 per cent increase in bankruptcies, not only personal but corporate, and principally involving small business, would the Treasurer consider going jogging around Queen’s Park and rattling his head again to come up with a program in the next few days, as he did with the car rebate program, to bring in some immediate relief?

It is clear to everyone, including his colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food, that time is very much of the essence. Would he commit himself to move immediately on these very pressing social and economic problems?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, we are working quite quickly on it.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. When he is twisting the arms of his cabinet colleagues, would he point out to them that the agricultural sector has provided the greatest annual increases in production of any sector of our economy. Farmers are not the cause of inflation: they are one of the means of holding down inflation. The record is very clear in this matter. I am sure the minister has that information.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, let the record be put straight. My cabinet colleagues do not need their arms twisted; they are well aware of the situation.

Let me inform the honourable members across the way that it is not simply a question of high interest rates. The price of farm products is not high enough. You can put the interest rate at zero and the farm people still have a problem. Let’s not kid ourselves; it’s more serious than we think.

AUTO INDUSTRY LAYOFFS

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Premier (Mr. Davis). In view of the massive layoffs and terminations in the auto industry, which account for one out of every six jobs in Ontario, directly or indirectly, would the Premier agree to establish a select committee of this House to examine the immediate impact of the layoffs and the future prospects for the industry in Ontario, by hearing the views of senior officials of the auto companies, the parts manufacturers, the workers, the mayors of the communities affected and others?

In making his reply, the Premier might recall the select committee on Inco layoffs, established under similar circumstances in November 1977.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not think a select committee is needed to obtain the bulk of the information which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) is suggesting would be relevant. I have never been reluctant to make available any kind of information that would be helpful to members of this House. I shall certainly take a look at that information the Leader of the Opposition has suggested would be worthwhile having. I would have to assess the practicability or the wisdom of having a select committee involved in this. Some of the information is readily available, and I will endeavour to get that for the honourable member.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. S. Smith: If the Premier would give consideration to a select committee, I would appreciate it. I think there is some merit in all of us being part of the solution instead of being perceived, as we sometimes are, as part of the problem.

I would ask the Premier, in the absence of the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie), whether he has given or would give some thought to encouraging McDonnell Douglas of Canada Limited, which will be hiring for the expanded work that they have to do on the F-18A, to hire laid-off automobile workers who in many instances have the same skills, or skills which could with only a little work be upgraded, freshened or adjusted to the requirements of the airplane industry?

Given that the aircraft industry is expanding at the time the auto industry is in trouble, would it not make sense for many of the auto workers to go to McDonnell Douglas? Could the government try to be of assistance in this regard in working with McDonnell Douglas to help in the retraining as required so this kind of cross-hiring could occur?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not quarrelling with the idea, but I have to tell the member it is not really new. I know the researcher from the Liberal office was in touch with McDonnell Douglas earlier today with two or three inquiries. I would only say to the Leader of the Opposition that there are a number of people formerly employed in the automotive industry who have already been in touch with McDonnell Douglas.

From my knowledge of that particular organization, which is geographically situate not too far from my own constituency -- there are a number of people from Brampton employed in McDonnell Douglas, and I have some modest knowledge of the company’s activities -- I think I can assure the members of this House that their requirements will increase, not just because of the F-18, but also because of new work that has been given to McDonnell Douglas with respect to the DC-9. The McDonnell Douglas plant in Malton, which is part of Mississauga, is devoted to the commercial aircraft part of the company’s activities, and has expanded its work force in the past two years very substantially.

I personally will undertake to chat again with the people of McDonnell Douglas with respect to assisting in any way they can those people who have been laid off in the automotive industry. I say to the honourable member that I appreciate the suggestion, but it is not really new.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier how it is that on February 26 the Ford Motor Company was able to issue a press release in Cleveland stating that, if there were plant closures in that city, it would be for the purpose of retooling to meet the new market demands, yet in the Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited announcement of the layoffs in Oakville and Windsor there is absolutely no commitment to retool those plants to meet the market forces that we know now exist? Why do American workers get treated that way by an American corporation and Canadian workers get the poor end of the deal?

Mr. Warner: Because they got our money.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What is the member’s trouble?

Mr. Cooke: Just answer the question for a change.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I didn’t hear that constructive suggestion.

Mr. Cooke: I’d like to hear a constructive answer for a change.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Pardon?

Mr. Cooke: Let’s hear an answer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I was being interrupted by one of the member’s friends on his right.

Mr. Foulds: We have no friends on our right.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’ll tell the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) that he is slowly losing his friends on the left, too.

Mr. Foulds: I may be, but my party isn’t.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I wasn’t talking about the member for Port Arthur’s party; I was talking about him. I would only say to the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If his own members would stop interrupting me, I might be able to answer his question. Would he please do me a little favour and discipline his own colleagues?

Mr. MacDonald: The Premier should discipline himself and answer the question. He is filling in time. Doesn’t he have an answer?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for Port Arthur was interrupting me.

I’m not familiar with the press release from Cleveland, Ohio.

Mr. Laughren: We can tell by the Premier’s answer. By his stalling, we can tell.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All right; the member is familiar with it. Some researcher gave him a press release from Cleveland, Ohio. I don’t have it. All I can suggest to the member for Windsor-Riverside is that he won’t get me making any brief for Ford, GM, or Chrysler, but he might for American Motors. He won’t get me making a brief for other reasons.

I would only say, as we see the figures that were announced yesterday -- and I say I haven’t got the final figures -- it would appear that the number of layoffs in the American part of the automotive industry, on a percentage basis, probably are as high as or higher than they are here --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All right; so the honourable member disagrees. I think the figures may show that. I think it is also important, to keep this issue in some degree of perspective, that the figures of layoff --

Mr. Cooke: The Premier thinks so? Has he bothered checking?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The honourable member was kind of rude to me just a few minutes ago. I am trying to give him as much information as I can, and he continues to interrupt. The honourable member can’t have it both ways. Does he want to listen or does he want to interrupt?

Can I just give the honourable member one or two other statistics? I have them at the moment only from the American side of the border, but in 1975 the total layoffs were in the neighbourhood of 212,000. I am not going to be held to these statistics, because I think we have to keep this in perspective and recognize that the automotive industry has gone through cyclical difficulties before. The best estimate at the moment is 176,000. Those are US figures; we are going to get the Canadian figures.

In 1975, in terms of layoffs or downturn in the market the automotive industry was experiencing as significant a problem as it is facing now. This may alter within the next month; I can’t predict the market, but I think as we assess this whole question we do have to keep it in perspective. The automotive industry was in trouble in 1975; the figures are here. The automotive industry recovered and went through two or three very good years in terms of total production and total employment.

The best information we have from the industry generally is that the automotive industry will regain that over a period of time. It is not going to happen in the next 30 days or two months unless automotive purchases increase, unless consumer attitudes alter. But the reality at this moment is that people are not buying automobiles.

I think it is important from our perspective that Canadian auto workers are not receiving the short end of the stick, which I believe was the phrase used by the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Warner: They sure are.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member doesn’t even know what the figures are, I would say to the Magna Carta from Scarborough-Ellesmere; he hasn't the foggiest idea.

Mr. Warner: I know they got $28 million of our money -- and no jobs.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t mind interjections if the member knows what he is talking about, but he doesn’t.

Mr. S. Smith: Coming back to the subject of McDonnell Douglas, has the Premier heard some of the rumours which have been circulating that McDonnell Douglas is giving consideration to seeking the importation of certain skilled workers because of the additional work it has received?

Would the Premier assure this House that he will take the measures required to make certain that no workers are imported by McDonnell Douglas until the auto workers who are laid off or terminated are offered first chance at all the jobs that exist? Furthermore, would he assure us that his government will be prepared to help with the retraining that might be necessary for the auto workers, so that those whose skills are in some way allied to the ones in the aircraft industry would be able to get those jobs and we will not be importing the skilled workers?

Hon. Mr. Davis: We have to be very careful in this House not to build up an expectation --

Mr. Wildman: Why not put a levy on Ford and have them help with it?

Mr. Speaker: Just ignore the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is so hard to ignore those constructive interjections, Mr. Speaker.

We should be very careful not to build up a lot of expectations. McDonnell Douglas has increased employment related primarily to the DC-9 and whatever other components it is building in Malton.

I think the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that, because of this recent contract, new work will start almost immediately in -- my guess is it will not be Malton; I do not know where some of the work will take place. My own guess is that by the time McDonnell Douglas requires large numbers of people, the automotive situation may have substantially improved.

What I am trying to say is that McDonnell Douglas isn’t contemplating, as I understand it, employing several thousand people within the next two or three weeks or a month. It is not in a position to do that yet. What I can say, because I am relatively aware of the situation, is that as opportunities are available at McDonnell Douglas, it has been the company’s policy, and it will continue to be its policy, to make its very best efforts to fill them -- and it has been very successful in this -- using local people or people in this province. I do not think there is any problem in that regard.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that Canada has been getting the short end of the stick as far as automobile trade with the United States is concerned, to the tune of a $3-billion deficit in our auto trade last year, does the Premier not agree that the layoffs in the industry should have been designed to ensure that at the very least we get back to a balance, rather than continuing to run a deficit this year at the same annual rate of $3 billion? What steps is his government prepared to take to ensure that we are spared the kinds of layoffs we are getting right now and that we get back to a fair share of the automobile trade and production?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is raising a very complex issue. As he is well aware, part of the problem on the deficit side relates to the parts component of the industry. I think that is a relatively fair statement. That is not easy to resolve in the present situation.

Mr. Wildman: Especially when you send their leader to Paris.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) is interrupting again. I want to point out -- I do not want to be provocative because the member has been highly critical -- that one way we have endeavoured to protect the Canadian part of the automotive industry is our modest commitment to Ford Canada.

Mr. Cooke: That was a great decision.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, it was. It was a very good decision. The more we see what is happening, the wiser that decision becomes.

I want to tell the honourable member something else. I have a few of his former supporters in my riding -- people who have been on the line in the automotive industry. The member should go and ask them about assistance to the automotive industry. They are very much in support of it. They happen to have a little greater insight into some of the problems than the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke). Even some of his former friends in Windsor will tell him they are very thankful the government of this province made that commitment.

Otherwise that plant, which will be a major asset both in terms of the economy and in terms of employment, would now be nearing completion in another jurisdiction. I wish he had the integrity to stand up and acknowledge that to be true.

Mr. Cassidy: Every auto worker I know says there should be job guarantees.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have spent 23 minutes on the first two questions. A new question.

OUTBOARD MARINE

Mr. Cassidy: I have a new question for the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Today the parent company of Outboard Marine Corporation of Canada Limited in the United States announced that it is eliminating the global product mandate of its Peterborough plant to export outboard motors to Africa and South America. It is going to take that export trade back to the United States, thereby eliminating 40 per cent of the output at the Peterborough plant in Ontario. In view of the fact that plant has been profitable and has been selling every outboard motor it could produce, what action does the government intend to take to maintain that production and the hundreds of jobs connected with it in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I may be wrong in this, but I think the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) is in Peterborough right now.

Mr. Cassidy: Since the Minister of Industry and Tourism is having a seminar in Peterborough that has nothing to do with this particular closure, as far as we were able to establish, is the Premier aware that the shutdowns at Outboard Marine since 1964 have taken away snowblower production, snowmobile production, chainsaw production and, in February, 276 jobs involved in parts production? Will the Premier say what steps the government is prepared to take to stop American companies shutting profitable operations here in Canada and taking the jobs back to the United States?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will deal with only one part of the question. I am only going by memory, and I could be totally wrong. When it comes to the question of the snow machines, or whatever the trade name was, production was not taken to the United States; I do not believe it was. My recollection is that Outboard Marine decided to get out of that particular market, as have a number of others, because there were too many people in the marketplace with respect to snowmobiles. I may be wrong about that, and if I am I will make that point tomorrow.

I would make this point to the honourable member: In regard to the chainsaw business, this government was somewhat beneficial and helpful in that particular community, to the extent that there now are many people employed. It was this government’s initiative that caused that to happen. We have always been prepared to assist where we can in the maintenance of any employment in that community or any other, and we have had some measure of success in doing so.

Mr. Cassidy: Will the Premier say what the government intends to do with its policy of global product mandating when that policy is costing us the jobs connected with 40 per cent of the outboard motor production at the Peterborough plant of Outboard Marine and when there is consistently more evidence, as at Firestone Canada Limited in Whitby, that global product mandating is a means of taking jobs away from Ontario, rather than bringing jobs to the province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not sure there is any factual basis for those observations. One can argue global product mandating any way one wishes --

Mr. Wildman: Which is just what the Premier is doing.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have to say that the member for wherever is at his noisiest and nonconstructive best today. Is he enjoying his gum? I could observe very kindly that he is certainly beating them with great regularity this afternoon.

Mr. Martel: My, you’re funny.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, he provokes me.

I have to say this to the honourable member: With respect to, say, outboard marine engines, it is not just a question of global mandating. I think he will find, if he gets his researchers to work, the reality is that the market at this time has diminished somewhat. Outboard Marine produces a range of outboards. They are under the trade names of Johnson and Evinrude. I don’t want to betray any trade secrets, but in many respects they are the same engine. It is not just a case of global mandating.

Firestone was not a case of global mandating being wrong. Firestone was in some difficulty. It had overproduction. Unfortunately, we lost a plant in Whitby, but there were several plants in the United States that closed at the same time, one in Salinas, the only industry in that community. They grow artichokes in the surrounding community, and I think 1,800 to 2,000 -- maybe 2,200 -- were laid off in Salinas.

All I am saying to the honourable member is that I think it is a bit unwise to say it is only this province or this country that is being affected by the existing economic situation. It is, believe it or not, happening in the United States. I would not argue, but I would suggest, as I did to the member for Windsor-Riverside, that on the automotive side of the impact in the United States has been as great in percentage terms as it has been here.

Mr. Speaker: I want to remind all honourable members that the question period started at 2 p.m. We have heard three questions. A survey of the use to which the question period was put was done by our Legislative Library research staff. They reminded me that in a 10-day period, an hour and 42 minutes of the time of question period was pre-empted by interjections such as we have had today by the member for Algoma. So it is your question period --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: A new question.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL NATIONALISM

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, does the Premier not think it is time to reconstitute the select committee on economic and cultural nationalism, which sat in this House in the early 1970s? In the past month, we have had major layoffs in the automobile industry, the major shutdown of Firestone in Whitby, major layoffs now occurring at Outboard Marine in Peterborough and the shutdown of the Beach Appliances International Limited foundry in my riding of Ottawa Centre.

Would the Premier give an undertaking to this House that the committee will be reconstituted and that it will be given a specific mandate to look at the way foreign-owned corporations are shutting down plants here in Ontario?

Mr. Riddell: And buying up our good farm land.

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the member for wherever in the Liberal Party --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Premier knows the problem we are having. He should ignore the interjections. If he has a response directly to the question, I wish he would please give it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order --

Mr. Speaker: It’s not a point of order; it’s a point of view of the chair.

Hon. Ms. Davis: Mr. Speaker, in commenting on your point of view -- no, I won’t do that. The answer to the question is, I am not so inclined at the moment.

Mr. Cassidy: In view of the fact that the Ford casting plant in Windsor made a profit of $11 million last year, and made a profit of $2.5 million in the first quarter of 1980, which is the evidence that the plant was not a victim of the slump in the industry but of corporate manipulation which this government does not seem to want to control, would the Premier be willing to bring into assistance the advice of all members of this Legislature, given the success of the select committee last time, to show a path by which we could establish an economy that is run by and for Canadians rather than at the whim of foreign corporations?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, in order to meet your view, my answer is still the same.

ESSEX EXPLOSION

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells). Could the minister tell me what alternatives he has for assisting the town of Essex with regard to the February 14 natural gas explosion where about $5 million worth of buildings were destroyed? Since the government is not designating the area, what alternatives do the merchants have to try to get any assistance from the Ontario Development Corporation?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, in response to a meeting with the mayor of Essex, who asked that we consider the problem there, we reviewed it very carefully. It was obvious that the normal designation of a disaster area under our disaster relief fund was not an appropriate thing to do in the case of Essex since the losses involved were not those for which funds were going to be raised in the community and matching provincial dollars would be needed. We looked at the other components of this disaster. There is a lot of insurance coverage involved. Obviously, there are going to be liability insurance claims and liability battles.

The solution we came up with was that the Ontario Development Corporation people, from the Ministry of Industry and Tourism, will discuss things they might do to help in the area. Beyond that, I see no further provincial involvement necessary.

Mr. Ruston: The minister said there were no funds to be raised locally. I want him to be aware that a committee has been set up to raise funds locally, and between $4,000 and $5,000 already has been raised. I would ask the minister, if it takes a designation for the town of Essex to be eligible for funds at a lower interest rate from the Ontario Development Corporation, why could he not designate it with a limited amount for the dollar-for-dollar assistance and still allow the development corporation to lend the money?

Hon. Mr. Wells: There is no legislation or legal provision for designation to bring into effect a plan that provides Ontario Development Corporation loans at low interest. There is no such program. The Ontario Development Corporation has certain ground rules and certain things it can do. My suggestion was that their people talk to each of those local businessmen who have a problem down there and see if one of the regular ODC programs, or something they have in place in other places in the province, might be of help. They are going to have to do that and consider each case individually and on its own merit.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I have a supplementary to the minister which is not in regard to Essex, but it is with regard to the disaster relief fund.

Mr. Speaker: Sorry, the original question was quite specific.

CHILDREN WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton). He may recall last Tuesday when the question of funding to learning disabled children under vocational rehabilitation was asked, the minister replied with respect to a recent court decision, “I have asked for a copy of the reasons for the decision.” He went on to say that the effect of the decision seemed to be to make the use of the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act illegal for funding children with learning disabilities.

I want to ask the minister whether he has discovered yet that the reason for the decision was the fact that his director of vocational rehabilitation services sued in the Ontario divisional court against the decision of the Social Assistance Review Board to try to overturn a decision in favour of a young man called Mekler. Can he explain why his ministry sued against the decision of that board and why, in particular, his ministry argued in court that funding under the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act for learning disabilities was illegal? He has caused this mess himself.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, since responding to the honourable member’s question a week ago, I have had an opportunity to review the decision which I had not had at that time. I think the import of that decision is open to more than the

interpretation that has been placed upon it.

Mr. McClellan: Answer my question.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am, if the honourable member will just listen for a moment. It may be difficult to explain to him the point I am trying to make, because it is to some extent a legal nicety.

The case in question was dealing not with a child but with an adult. The question before the court dealt with the issue of whether, under the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act, a vocational objective or goal was necessary as part of the plan to qualify for funding. The court found in that case that was so.

It has also come to my attention that the Social Assistance Review Board, in hearing some appeals since that time, apparently had applied that decision as binding absolutely. I sought some additional legal advice, rather than try to advise myself, and I was pleased there was some body of legal opinion that supported my perception of that decision.

I have since met with my senior staff and I have directed them, as a matter of a policy decision on my part, that they will not treat that decision as binding upon the applications for assistance to learning-disabled children. I said that in my opinion, and as a matter of policy on my part, that wasn’t an issue; that wasn’t what was before the court. The decision of the court went beyond -- the member shakes his head. If he has a legal opinion to the contrary, I would be glad to hear it.

I would like to point out to the member that as a matter of policy I have directed my staff that we will treat the educative goal of the program with respect to learning-disabled children as pre-vocational and therefore we will continue to receive those applications and to process them. I have also communicated my policy decision to the chairman of the board so that the board may take that into consideration in making its determination on any appeals that might come before it.

Mr. McClellan: Is the minister aware that the Social Assistance Review Board has been using the Mekler decision as an excuse to turn down appeals involving kids with learning disabilities? I have one such case here which uses the precise language of the Mekler decision.

Does the minister not think it would make sense for him to amend the regulations of the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act so that it is absolutely clear that the act entitles children with learning disabilities to financial assistance? Would not his ministry just stop all this game-playing it has indulged in over the last five years?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I do not wish to inflame the passions of the honourable member opposite whose passions often tend to distort his perception of the facts. In this matter, I think I and the staff of my ministry have acted very responsibly, and I don’t believe any change in regulation is necessary. I believe that the policy decision I have directed my staff to apply to those cases is sufficient. I am aware that in two or three cases the board applied that decision, and presumably it is one of those decisions that the honourable member has before him.

3 p.m.

I do not have the authority to direct the board, but I have advised them that I would like to see them reopen those cases or invite counsel to come back before them. I am not sure what the best procedure is, but I have requested them -- I can not direct them -- to reconsider those three cases in the light of my policy directive to my staff.

ASBESTOS AT HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN

Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Health: In view of the press reports in which the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Ziemba) alleged that the Hospital for Sick Children has 100 asbestos fire dampers and that the workers are at risk from this cancer-causing agent, can the minister tell the House if this is so? Has the minister had an opportunity to investigate this situation, and what can he report?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that question. I wish the member for High Park-Swansea had been here and had asked it, because I have had a chance to review this matter this morning with my staff and with the officials of the Hospital for Sick Children.

If the Speaker will allow, I would like to read into the record a very brief report I received from the Hospital for Sick Children this morning. It is a very serious matter, and I beg your indulgence.

The letter is from Mr. C. C. Hunt, the administrator of the Hospital for Sick Children. It is addressed to me, and it says:

“At the request of the deputy minister, I enclose for your information a report on asbestos insulation at the Hospital for Sick Children.”

I will be glad to table it, Mr. Speaker, provided any member is interested. The report reads as follows:

“Following Mr. Ed Ziemba’s visit to the hospital on April 15, 1980, hospital authorities have examined the use of asbestos insulation and can report on his statement that asbestos used in recent construction could be getting into the main hospital air supply.

“1.A. Asbestos in air supply (fire dampers): There are no asbestos fire stop flaps installed in the air ducts of the hospital. The ceiling/floor fire rating of the building code does not require them for this structure. Consequently, there can be no contamination from this source.

“1.B. Asbestos in air supply (other sources): For reasons of disease control, the air supply of the hospital is not recirculated. All incoming air passes through a sophisticated system of filters to ensure pure air to both patient areas and research laboratories.”

I questioned the official of the hospital this morning as to whether or not those filters were asbestos filters and he said they were not.

“2. Fume hoods: All laboratory fume hoods are lined with an extremely hard asbestos/cement compound (Transite)” -- I take it that is a product name -- “that is not subject to flaking. All fume hoods vent directly to the outside atmosphere and are not connected to the main hospital air supply.”

Again, under questioning from myself this morning, the official of the hospital confirmed that all those hoods are constantly under negative air pressure and always exhausting.

“3. Steel frame insulation: Only the steel structural beams of one wing (Elm Street) are covered with a blown insulation material. The composition of this insulation is not known but is currently being analysed. The beams concerned are in what is termed ‘dead space’ (i.e., no air circulation) and isolated from the ventilation system.

“4. Medical opinion: In the opinion of the chief of the chest division, Dr. J. A. P. Turner, FRCP(C), and the associate director of the Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute. Dr. J. A. Lowden, MD, PhD, there is no danger to patients and staff.”

I regret that the member is not here. I shall withhold some further remarks I have on his tactics until he is.

LAKE SIMCOE-COUCHICHING REPORT

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott). The minister indicated in the Legislature on December 18, 1979, that the Lake Simcoe-Couchiching report would be submitted to the cabinet and a decision made in January. What has been the result of the submission to cabinet, and what decisions have been made to deal with this vexatious problem?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, the date might have been a little optimistic, but it has been to cabinet and the decision has been made rather recently. I would like to consult with the municipalities that are going to have to administer the plan, and perhaps to the steering committee as well. I have not had an opportunity to do that as yet, but I hope to do that in the very near future. I will be more than pleased to give the member those details immediately after we have met with both the municipalities and steering committee, if they feel it is necessary.

Mr. Gaunt: Could the minister indicate when the report was submitted to the cabinet? Was it yesterday or was it last week? Further, with the construction of the York-Durham sewage scheme, will the water quality of the rivers and streams east and north of Metro be improved and will the whole scheme affect the phosphorus content and the loadings and, if so, to what extent?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: If I remember correctly, the report went to our policy field in January or early February at the latest. There were some more questions that properly had to be addressed before I proceeded to cabinet with it. I am pleased to say it now has the support of --

Mr. Gaunt: When did it proceed to cabinet? Yesterday?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I won’t respond as to the exact date, but the member will be pleased to know it has gone through cabinet.

Let me answer the question about what it will do to the streams north and east of Toronto. I am pleased to tell the member it will have a significant effect by redirecting to the Duffin Creek plant. I would not infer that there will be large decreases in the phosphorus loadings to the total area of southern Ontario by the redirection of those plants.

The streams north and east definitely will be improved markedly, not only for phosphorus, but obviously for other substances as well. When the Lake Simcoe reductions are in place -- and we think there are many ways this can be accomplished in addition to mere phosphorus removal at streams and plants -- then there will be a pretty significant reduction to the total basin of the phosphorus loadings.

PROCESSED MEATS

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) concerning the dropping of charges by the federal government against 57 food stores, including, incidentally, food stores belonging to all the chains, for selling ground beef containing pork.

Has the minister noted that these charges were dropped because the Supreme Court of Canada ruled, specifically pertaining to beer but with a much broader application, that the federal government has no authority to prescribe “standards of composition, strength, potency, purity, quality or other property of any

article of food, drug, cosmetic or device”? The

article pertaining to this went on to say the court said, “Such powers fall within provincial jurisdiction.”

As this matter of quality, purity and composition of all kinds of food is essential to consumers, as the minister well recognizes, is he going to bring in legislation quickly establishing statutory recipes for processed meats and other food products so as to fill this vacuum which now exists?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I know it is with the best of intentions -- and I presume the member is reading from a newspaper

article -- but that is kind of an oversimplification of two decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada. The first is known colloquially as the apples case, which was discussed in this Legislature last session. The second is the beer case.

I am very aware of what the Supreme Court of Canada did in the beer standards matter. I am aware of what it did in the apple matter, and I am somewhat aware of what led to the federal government’s decision to withdraw those charges. I had asked the chief law officer of the crown, the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), even before last Thursday’s withdrawal by the federal government, to take a complete look at product labelling, product ingredients and product standards in the light of the apples case decision by the Supreme Court and the Labatt’s case decision by the Supreme Court.

3:10 p.m.

There are some oversimplified

interpretations that the federal government has lost its entire jurisdiction. There are some oversimplified reactions that nothing has been lost because they might be able to proceed under an alternative provincial statute, with the exception of the beer matter.

I consider this to be a matter of some urgency. I can assure the honourable member that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in Ottawa considers this a matter of some urgency. As soon as the full analyses of those two decisions, plus the withdrawal by the federal government in the beef and pork case, are available I intend to share them with the House.

There are two alternatives. One is the assumption by this province that if that is in the cards for standards, that has implications for the rest of Canada. The other is a method by which there can be an interprovincial approach, with enforcement by the federal government, that would meet the standards and the criteria outlined in those court cases.

I do not want to belabour the issue too long, but the difficulty in the court cases is that the court was not very definitive about the solution. In both those cases they went almost to the line, but they never said exactly what some people are interpreting to them to have said.

Mr. Swart: May I ask the minister if he is aware that Mr. Allan Rosenzveig, who handled the case for the federal government, is not sure there is any method of recouping the authority which they fear they have lost, or may never have had, but he is sure that the provincial government does have full authority over what is produced and sold within this province.

The minister will know, I am sure, that the charges which were laid, even though an investigation was made all across Canada, were laid only against Ontario food stores, and probably because of the inadequate consumer protection in this province. Will the minister go ahead on his own now and bring in that necessary legislation, even though the federal government may have the power in the field?

Hon. Mr. Drea: When I hear that kind of remark, I am not surprised at the debate going on in a province to the east of us which basically involves standards.

If the honourable member had read the apples case -- and he has not, because he looks at me with utter abandonment and bewilderment -- he would know the Supreme Court was moving in a direction.

The beer case involving the generic title for light beer did not originate in this province. It began in the Supreme Court of British Columbia and proceeded to the Supreme Court of Canada.

In the beef and pork cases -- and I do not care if the disgruntled prosecutor feels a bit uptight that he bungled -- they had the opportunity in the food cases to lay charges under the provincial statute, as we discussed last session, or under the federal statute. They chose to lay them under the federal statute.

It is not a question of who can provide the best consumer protection. It is a very fundamental question. If it turns out that the determination by the Supreme Court of Canada is that this area is one that should be, must be and has to be totally occupied by each one of the 10 provinces, without any regard to national standards or inter-provincial trade, this Legislature and this government will be the first to do it.

Until there is a definitive decision and a consultation between the other provinces and the federal government as to what the implications of those court decisions are, I would think it rather foolhardy to say we are going to proceed on a course. The information will be tabled in the House as soon as the constitutional law authorities of the Ministry of the Attorney General have analysed those cases.

MUNICIPAL ASSESSMENT

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells). It is a question I have asked before, but I would like a response to a letter from the Haldimand Federation of Agriculture, which stated: “Ministry gives a tax break at the expense of farmers in the city of Nanticoke.” The federation has asked the minister immediately to evaluate the financial affairs of the city of Nanticoke. Has that been achieved?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, my friend asked me about that before. I will find out where that situation stands and let him know.

HAMILTON-WENTWORTH REGIONAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Has he met with the mayor of Hamilton and the regional chairman for Hamilton-Wentworth since the unfortunate walkout from council last Tuesday? Can he offer the House any constructive suggestions he has given? Is the minister prepared to consider implementing single-tier government as the only practical solution in Hamilton-Wentworth?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, my answer to the first question is yes. The Premier (Mr. Davis) and I met with the mayor this morning. It was a meeting the mayor had arranged with the Premier to talk about sports facilities in the great city of Hamilton. We talked also about some of the regional government problems. I have some discussions coming up with the regional chairman.

I met with the mayor of Stoney Creek last week. As the member knows, there is no unanimity of opinion in that

section of the world. I am surprised to hear from the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) and the member for Wentworth (Mr. Isaacs) that they now support a unitary system for that area. If that is the policy of the member, we will consider that as we look at all the solutions for the area.

Mr. Laughren: What is the minister’s policy?

Hon. Mr. Wells: What is our policy? In simple terms, our policy for that area is to make the two-tier regional government, which we brought in, work. I believe that if all the people in that area put their minds to it it could work. If they gave up some of the intermunicipal warfare and some of the other things that are going on, it could work. We have assured the mayor of Hamilton, and we will assure the regional chairman and others, that we will look at the problem and see if we can come up with something to help bring some stability to that area.

Mr. Mackenzie: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member has 30 seconds.

Mr. Mackenzie: Can I ask the minister if he is considering single-tier government as one of the methods of resolving the issue?

Hon. Mr. Wells: At this time, no.

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

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing order 28(a), I would like to give oral notice of my dissatisfaction with the answer to a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton) and of my intention to debate it on adjournment this evening.

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 28(a), the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) has given proper notice. I would like to advise the House that this matter will be debated at 10:30 this evening.

ALLOCATION OF SEATS IN MEMBERS’ GALLERY

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The members have received a communication from our estimable Sergeant at Arms indicating that, on Mr. Speaker’s behalf, he was reserving all the seats in the gallery for budget night. We know the custom in the past has been that it is not Mr. Speaker’s friends who want to occupy the gallery, but the friends of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller). Is it not possible that some of the private members might still have access at least to part of the gallery on budget night?

Mr. Speaker: That is news to me. It is my understanding that on the opening, when Her Honour comes in to read the speech from the throne, and during the budget night, it is the responsibility of the Speaker’s office, not necessarily of the Speaker, to allocate those seats according to a formula that has worked well over the years. In the case of budget night, it has been traditional that the Treasurer, since it is his night, be given more seats than normally would be allocated. It will not be the Sergeant at Arms who allocates, but somebody in the Speaker’s office, my administrative assistant, according to a formula that has worked well in the past.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, may I inform you further, and perhaps you will be able to help me. The communication reads as follows “On the evening of the budget address the members’ gallery will be reserved by the Speaker’s office as has been the past procedure. Your members’ gallery ticket will not be valid on this night.”

As I recall the procedure, there is a very large wingding at the Albany Club, and all those overstuffed Tories come into the galleries to watch the Treasurer in action. I would simply suggest to you, sir, that you should at least leave some access, perhaps the back galleries, or some of the back rows or something like that, for the visitors who apply to the members of the opposition and I who may not be so much in accord with the pearls the Treasurer is casting on that occasion.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, a point of order: I want to make it abundantly clear that probably 50 per cent of the Treasurer’s guests, that the honourable member refers to as being overstuffed, vote Liberal federally.

Mr. Speaker: I think I can give assurance to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) that we will adhere to a time-honoured tradition that has worked well in the past. Friends of anybody will not get exclusive rights in those seats.

[Later:]

Mr. Speaker: I have just been handed a memo which states verbatim, “Liberals have at least 101 seats for budget.” Does that answer the honourable member’s question?

Mr. Nixon: Why did you see fit to communicate to us, Mr. Speaker, that we would not have access to the gallery?

Mr. Speaker: I was not aware that I had.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr. Speaker: While the honourable members are here, I want to remind them that the group of pages we have will be serving their last day with us tomorrow. As is the custom, I would like to read their names into the record for posterity.

They are as follows: Anil Anthony, Scarborough East; Brenda Ashcroft, Grey-Bruce; Heather Bromley, Humber; Perry Clarke, Ottawa West; Julian Daboll, Brantford; Carol Dashner, Haldimand-Norfolk; Amanda de Chastelain, Kingston and the Islands; Cindy Fisher, Carleton-Grenville; Wendy Hatch, Muskoka; Stephen Kriter, Kent-Elgin; Laura Leduc, Downsview; Tom Leiper, Wellington-Dufferin-Peel; Brien Lewis, St.

George; Douglas Lounsbury, Huron-Middlesex; Michael MacKinnon, Cambridge; Melissa Marentette, Essex North; Marion McDougall, London Centre; Geoffrey Newman, Parry Sound; Paul Prescott, Prescott and Russell; Michael Stirling, Algoma-Manitoulin; Susan Topp, Sault Ste. Marie; and Kerra Wylie, Oshawa.

I am sure all honourable members would like to join me in thanking them for their service.

PETITION

SUDBURY TEACHERS’ STRIKE

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor in Council from parents and students of the city of Sudbury. This petition has more than 1,000 signatures and the first two paragraphs read as follows: “We, the undersigned concerned parents and students of Sudbury, most strongly urge the government of Ontario to take immediate action to settle the Sudbury secondary school teachers’ strike. We believe that the educational future of Sudbury high school students is indeed in jeopardy, and the failure to get them back to school within the next few days will do them irreparable harm.”

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Gaunt from the standing committee on social development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Culture and Recreation be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981.

Ministry administration program, $9,124,000; heritage conservation program, $20,002,000; arts support program, $50,114,000; citizenship and multicultural support program, $10,989,000; libraries and community information program, $29,307,000; sports and fitness program, $19,328,000; ministry capital support program, $51,816,000.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that, notwithstanding the standing orders of the House, Mr. Belanger be permitted to carry Mr. Yakabuski’s ballot item this afternoon.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 42,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Motion agreed to.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 43,

An Act to amend the Executive Council Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, these two bills give effect to the recommendations presented to you in the third report of the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses with respect to the review of members’ compensation. They comply with and fulfil that report completely.

INCO LIMITED ACQUISITION ACT

Mr. Martel moved first reading of Bill 44,

An Act to acquire the Assets of Inco Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Nixon: Have you checked this with your Tory friends?

Mr. Martel: No, but I think a deal was made with the honourable member’s party today that we would support its no-confidence motion if it supported our amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to vest the title and control of the assets situate in Ontario of Inco Limited in a crown corporation, the Ontario Nickel Corporation. If compensation cannot be agreed upon, provisions are made for arbitration. The objectives of the Ontario Nickel Corporation include the task of operating and maintaining the assets of Inco Limited so as to provide employment and other economic benefits to the province of Ontario. The head office, of course, would be located in Sudbury.

3:30 p.m.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the answers to question 15, 16, 25, 28, 31, 79, 89, 91, 92, 93 and 94, and interim answers to questions 81 to 88 and 90 standing on the Notice Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

USE OF WOOD AS HEAT SOURCE

Mr. Belanger, on behalf of Mr. Yakabuski, moved resolution 9:

That this House recommends to the Minister of Energy the establishment of a subsidiary of the Ontario Energy Corporation dedicated to the study and full exploitation of wood as an alternative heat source in Ontario.

Mr. Belanger: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity today of placing this private member’s resolution before the House.

I don’t believe there is a question of greater interest or concern in this country today than how we ensure an adequate energy supply. Meeting our increased energy demands is a complex and intricate problem, one which cannot be solved by implementing one simple solution.

It is my firm conviction that the answer to securing an adequate supply of energy for this province lies in a number of directions. The largest portion of the answer lies in increased conservation.

This past fall, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) set a target for energy growth in this province. We hope that by the year 1985 the energy growth rate will be kept at two per cent. Currently our energy growth is somewhere around 2.5 per cent per annum. This may not seem to be much of a goal but even a fluctuation of half of one per cent in energy growth can mean a difference of thousands of barrels of oil or a couple of nuclear reactors.

I was very pleased to see the Minister of Energy initiate assistance for Ontario municipalities in an effort to have them set up their own conservation programs. This is a program that has proved to be very successful in California and that should have comparable results in Ontario. Activities such as better subdivision design, recycling programs, rezoning of land use, and changes in the building code can prove to be very successful energy savers.

Conservation also has another advantage over producing new energy sources. The capital outlay for conservation measures is usually much lower than that of building a new power plant. By simply increasing the insulation, by correct placing of heaters in large warehouses, and by using proper ventilation, many dollars can be saved by both private home owners and by industry.

The best energy source available to us today is that barrel of imported oil that we manage to save. As I mentioned before, conservation is the largest component of achieving energy self-sufficiency in this province, but it is not the complete answer. There are other pieces of the puzzle which will contribute to completing the overall picture.

I have heard many solutions to our energy problems. Many are often touted as being of great importance. I believe they all have a role to play in finishing this energy puzzle, but we must put their contributions in the proper perspective. We in government cannot always give the public a simple answer. In this particular ease, the public by and large is looking for an energy panacea -- one answer to all our problems. This government must continue to stress that no such answer yet exists, nor does the near future hold much promise of finding one.

What we can accomplish is to make sure we have the ability to use all the possible pieces. The Ministry of Energy must have the capacity to co-ordinate and develop existing and future energy sources. Just because ethanol may prove to be a viable answer to some of the transportation problems in the midwest United States does not mean it will be applicable here. Agricultural capabilities in the Ottawa Valley are radically different as are the climate and transportation needs. The job of the Ministry of Energy should he to identify and analyse these differences and then help promote these individual solutions.

I believe we have taken some of the initial steps needed to increase our indigenous energy sources. Last summer the Ontario Energy Corporation was restructured and given a mandate to become more involved in the commercial development of a wide range of new energy projects. As an economic Conservative, I was also pleased to note that this activity was to take place without displacing private investment or private initiative. Funding was increased and a number of directors from the private sector were added to its board of directors.

The corporation has continued its involvement in the Polar Gas project, producing energy from municipal wastes, feasibility studies on ethanol and methanol production, and the Bruce and Pickering agri-park projects. But I feel further expansion is needed to explore other solutions.

Subsequent to a promise in this year’s throne speech, the Minister of Energy announced that OEC will establish subsidiaries in four areas of activity, namely, conventional energy resources, alternative energy sources, power sharing and energy transportation. It is a step in the right direction but I would like to see further diversification.

Instead of lumping in hydrogen production with methanol production, why not create a separate organization dedicated to that and that alone? It would still fall within the stated objectives of OEC and perhaps intensify the corporation’s effort in more specific areas. It would also remain as a stimulation to the private sector and initiate investments in a variety of energy projects that normally might not be considered.

I believe it is important that OEC underline the importance of individual energy sources. I am convinced the private sector will be more impressed with a subsidiary corporation devoted to a single energy source than one that has many sources that fall within its purview. If this is the case, then it would naturally follow that areas of the private sector that are not involved in energy investment might make the investment that is crucial to energy source expansion. One such energy alternative development that would benefit from such a structure would be the use of wood heat in Ontario.

Using wood heat as an alternative fuel source is perhaps not as jazzy as solar energy or hydrogen but it has played a significant role as a heat source in the past and has the potential of playing just as important a role in the future. Because of this image problem, a separate subsidiary of the Ontario Energy Corporation may well provide the focus needed to launch this alternative energy source into playing an important

part in meeting our energy needs.

Although there are no statistics for early Ontario, it is fairly certain that wood provided close to 100 per cent of the fuel needs of our early settlers. I don’t think it would be unreasonable to assume that the needs of the Canadian Indian were met by that same category. Wood continued to be the primary fuel for Ontarians until the latter part of the 19th century. It was used for heating homes, cooking, to produce the hot water needed in farms, and for cottage industries. It provided charcoal for iron-making and steam for the early steam engines, railroads and steam-powered sawmills.

But things started to change at that time. As industry grew, its needs changed. In the second half of the 19th century, coal became increasingly important as an industrial fuel. It was not until the late 1800s that coal began to surpass the solar fuels, wood, water, and wind, as the primary industrial fuel.

Yet, despite the displacement of wood as a chief source of industrial fuel, the same changes did not take place until much later for residential heating. Until well into the 20th century, wood remained the major home heating fuel in Ontario, finally declining only in the face of the abundance of cheap and convenient oil, gas and electricity.

3:40 p.m.

In the mid-1950s about 10 per cent of all Ontario dwellings were heated by wood. That figure fell to about three per cent in the mid-1960s. Wood heat, at its lowest point in Ontario in the mid-1970s, constituted less than one per cent of all residential heat for dwellings in this province. At the present time this figure has risen just slightly. It has been estimated that more than one per cent of residential heating needs are being met by wood heat.

It is not what one would exactly call a staggering resurgence. This figure of one per cent can be vastly improved upon. As a source of residential heating, wood should play a greater role in meeting our energy demands. Northern New England, for example, was using an amount of wood for home heating in 1973 comparable to Ontario -- less than one per cent. But right now more then 20 per cent of homes in northern New England are heated primarily with wood and more than 50 per cent of all homes are partially heated with wood. I can see no reason why a similar growth cannot occur here in Ontario, especially in areas of northeastern Ontario.

The reason for such a resurgence is not just purely an economically motivated one. Although using wood as a residential heating source can provide a substantial saving for those who are unemployed or are from low-income families and who can cut their own wood, the saving compared with oil, gas or electricity may amount to hundreds of dollars a year. But for those with little time to spare, cutting their own wood may provide only a marginal return. For those who cannot or choose not to cut and split their own wood, the saving will not prove to be as great at the present time.

It seems, however, that many New Englanders are hedging against higher energy costs. They obviously feel the price of wood stoves will not rise as quickly and as far as oil or gas prices. Another reason that cannot be discounted for the rise in popularity is a purely emotional one. Many people using wood heat are doing so for political reasons. They know that wood is a source that is American, as are all the components needed to make a stove. On top of that, it is a renewable energy source and is aesthetically pleasing. Let’s face it, I think we would all get a lot more pleasure from throwing a log in a roaring fire than by listening to the furnace automatically turn on.

Where will this wood come from? Will we be able to meet expanded future demands? I believe Ontario will be able to create a new market -- a market for the large quantities of rough and otherwise unusable trees that are ignored by the commercial logging industry.

An in-depth study by the Ontario Energy Corporation would be able to determine the size of this potential woodlot and it would give us a better indication of what percentage of residential dwellings could be comfortably supported by our present stock of trees. This is an endeavour that would be best carried out by separate subsidiaries of the OEC devoted entirely to pursuing wood as a source of heat.

As the market increases, for wood, other benefits to the logging industry should appear. Timber stands should improve with selective thinning. It would provide economic incentive to remove the poor-quality material that at present retards good timber growth. Other benefits would be realized by loggers using whole-tree harvesting machines that increase productivity and reduce the job hazards associated with traditional logging methods. Another benefit derived from using a complete logging approach is that the slash left over from present quality timber can be utilized.

At the present time there is no market for this waste. Such a market would provide two distinct benefits. First, this slash is objectionable to both foresters and recreational users of the forest. Removing this waste improves the quality of the forest and its regeneration capabilities. Second, it provides another form of economic return on an otherwise wasted commodity; the percentage of waste from present logging operations should be almost eliminated.

This slash would probably best be transformed into wood chips. At the present time, wood chips would have greater capabilities in an industrial setting, but I do not think that is the only way they can be used. I believe real potential exists for using wood chips as a source of home heating. Two engineers at the University of New Brunswick attest to this fact and point to a broad potential market in the province for wood-chip heating. The New Brunswick Energy Secretariat has provided $7,000 to mount a couple of residential demonstration wood-chip furnaces. A stoker-burner unit was purchased from Sweden and an oil-fired hot-water furnace was adapted to the Swedish unit.

The combination was put into service last summer. Operation of this unit has proved much cheaper than that of an oil furnace over the summer months. The furnace burned about one cubic foot of chips a day in heating domestic water. The chips, which were provided at cost from a forest rangers' school, cost about 30 cents per cubic foot. This compares very favourably to the estimated $1.20 cost of the oil they replaced. It is estimated that about 2,000 cubic feet of chips per year will be needed to heat the house. The difference in money is quite staggering; the $600 worth of chips replaces more than $2,000 worth of imported oil.

The system is in the growing stages and is not without its problems. The stoker itself costs about $2,500, which is considerably more than the oil tank and pump it replaced, but there is a positive feeling that this cost could drop with large-scale Canadian production. One estimate has been given of a production unit cost of about $1,500.

Despite the increased cost of the stoked-burner unit, it would still remain attractive to an individual home owner if the difference between wood chips and oil remained the same. However, I am sure most honourable members will agree that the chances of oil prices remaining stable are about the same as the chances of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries holding a two-for-one sale.

The only two remaining problems to overcome in such a system are the constant supply of wood chips and the convenience of the home heating unit. The present unit fails to match oil, gas and electric heat because chips must be added manually in a daily ritual, but a 512-cubic-foot storage-bin stoker would have the capacity for about a month’s supply and would somewhat alleviate the problem. However, I am sure that continued large-scale savings would provide ample compensation for the average home owner. I know I would be receptive to suffering such a minor inconvenience myself. The only other concern is that such a unit is dependent on a consistent and reliable supply of wood chips.

Similar feasibility studies to that conducted for the Ontario government on wood-waste production would be needed. The Hearst wood-waste energy study provides a good model for other municipalities to examine. This area might prove ideal for such residential wood-chip furnaces. The magnitude of the wood-waste disposal in Hearst is quite substantial. It is estimated that somewhere in the order of 129,000 oven-dried tons of waste wood are produced annually.

Only about two thirds of the whole log entering a lumber mill can be converted into commercial lumber and wood chips. The remainder is waste in the form of bark, sawdust and solid wood. At present, this refuse is trucked to landfill sites or incinerated. Even the incineration provides a problem because burners can be a source of air pollution and they require combustion support with significant amounts of natural gas and fuel oil. The annual energy potential in this waste alone is estimated as being equivalent to about 371,000 barrels of heavy fuel oil.

Hearst biomass that can be used as an energy source comes from a number of district sources. Mill residues and logging residues are two sources that have already been mentioned. The salvage of dead and dying timber and intentionally produced biomass for energy purposes such as the hybrid poplar and the European larch, are other sources that may prove significant.

3:50 p.m.

One problem that could have a negative effect on intentionally produced biomass is the possibility that competition would result for land that might otherwise be used for food production. This could result in lower food production and higher food costs, but at present I think this may be an imagined problem. This would exist if that wood were also being used as a human foodstuff, such as corn is, but the land that the hybrid poplar can grow on is usually unsuitable for other, more traditional types of agriculture. As long as farmers grow these trees in currently unused portions of land, it will be an acceptable energy source.

I doubt very much if all mill waste wood is acceptable for such a residential wood-chip furnace, but I am sure at least some of it would be suitable without much reprocessing.

These questions could best be answered by the OEC study, in conjunction with the Ministry of Industry and Tourism.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Belanger: Mr. Speaker, I had a few more comments to make, but thank you very much.

Mr. J. Reed: Mr. Speaker, first off, I would like to commend the government members’ service bureau for writing that speech for the honourable member. At least, I assume that’s where it originated. I would like to commend the member for Prescott and Russell (Mr. Belanger) for his eyesight in being able to read it while standing erect.

I have seldom seen such a great example of attempting to catch the caboose when the train is leaving the station as I have seen this afternoon, with a resolution of that nature. I assume the creator of that resolution, or the speech writer, whoever he might have been, spent some time reading the Hansards of the last four years on energy estimates and speeches in this House, dwelling especially on speeches by the Liberal energy critic regarding the utilization of renewable energy and the benefits of conservation to the people of this province.

It has long been known, at least by members of this opposition, that conservation and renewable energy are the two keys, the cornerstones, of a secure energy future for Ontario. It is quite interesting to see the government, by way of a resolution, suddenly on the road to Damascus, awakening to the great light and turning around and saying: “Maybe these people have something. We’d better get on the bandwagon just in case.” I get a real kick out of that.

I would, however, advise the member for Prescott and Russell, before he embarrasses himself further, to check with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and certain divisions within that ministry and decide what their attitude is to the burning of wood in Ontario. He should see whether they have shut down a wood-burning boiler in the town of Acton, which prompted a very important and intense meeting between members of the opposition and the government to try to resolve it. The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations was not accepting the quality of the smoke that was issuing forth during the first few minutes when the boiler was stoked.

I would like to ask the member, before he embarrasses himself further, to check with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations on its view on add-on wood-burning equipment and the amount of time this opposition spent with the minister and that ministry in trying to get them to adapt their views, to modernize and bring themselves into the 20th century on the burning of wood. It really gives me a thrill.

The member advocates in the resolution the creation of a separate division of the Ontario Energy Corporation to look after this particular area. I am sure the honourable member heard the speech from the throne. In that speech the government, on whose side the member is, has indicated the OEC would be subdivided so that a multitude of energy uses would not be put under one operating framework, but the kind of thing that this thrust suggests would be allowed to happen.

I should also point out to the member, before he embarrasses himself, that he should understand what the OEC is. It is an equity corporation designed to make a profit. If there is an area where we could find support for this resolution, it is that it is not only a recommendation to study the exploitation of wood, but also appears to indicate that the OEC should participate in the full exploitation of wood. If that is the intent of the resolution, I think we can support that thrust.

The honourable member brings to our attention the wood slash that is left when the forest industry, as now constructed, passes through. We brought the importance of wood slash to the attention of this government on occasion after occasion during the last four years. The honourable member will know that the Ontario Liberal Party last fall commissioned and completed a study on methanol using wood slash. We introduced it this past winter to show how important the removal of wood slash would be to the proper reforestation of the province. I wonder just what the member is saying that is new and original.

I cannot disagree with the member’s speech on the importance of utilizing wood and I cannot disagree with the comments he makes on uses outside of direct combustion, because we have been saying these things to the government time and time again, year after year. I can only say to the member that when he supports a resolution of this kind he should remember where the original information and thrust came from. He should remember that had it not been for this opposition party and members of the third party, the government would not be as attached as it appears to be today to the importance of biomass renewable energy and conservation.

There is no question that Ontario has a great wood resource. There is no question that since the turn of the century the utilization of wood has been confined to very specific species, very specific types, and that there exists in Ontario today a plethora -- if that’s the correct word -- of wood.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: That’s a pretty big word the member is using.

Mr. J. Reed: It really is too big a word for me. We have an abundance of species of wood, of acreages of wood that have grown up, matured and now are diseased and dying because they were not in demand by some branch of the industry. Those species certainly can be used, and when they are utilized they can contribute to a much more comprehensive reforestation program than we have ever had in the past.

4 p.m.

That brings me to one other area I want to dwell on, and that is the record of this government in managing these forests. We know the harvesting that is taking place does not involve replacement on any kind of comprehensive basis. We are concerned that any increased effort to utilize wood resources in Ontario, a move which our party supports wholeheartedly, will be accompanied by an equally increased effort in comprehensive reforestation that will allow species to grow and mature and provide for our children and our children’s children a perpetual abundance of this great resource which can add so much to the energy security of Ontario.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution because it is impossible to be against the resolution. It is like being in favour of motherhood. Far be it for me these days not to speak in favour of motherhood.

It is a shame that the member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski) is not here to join in this discussion, if we can dignify it with the word. I understand he is ill, and I very much regret he has not been able to join us. The member for Renfrew South is one in this House who we know is capable of riding hobby horses with a skill and flair that few other legislators in Ontario can rival.

It appears that his latest hobby horse is made of wood. Perhaps I could make the suggestion that when he is better we could recommend that he have a sabbatical (that used to be one of his favourite hobby horses; he was not in favour of sabbaticals) to take the time to study the outline of government policy that we have in 1980 that touches upon many areas of conservation and renewable sources that were mentioned by the member for Prescott and Russell. At this point, however, they amount to lists of areas in which the government intends action.

The member for Prescott and Russell gave us a little lecture, which is a new tone from the government these days. He gave us a little lecture on how important conservation was and how we could produce energy by saving energy for Ontario.

All this is true, but I have to remind the honourable member that lists of projects do not save energy. We must have the projects.

We have seen an awful lot of wood wasted in the production of glossy documents. They do not even fill the pages when they print these lists of things they are going to look at in the future. These are the kinds of lists we have been getting for the last two or three years.

Their way of accounting progress in the area of conservation and renewables is to create lists, to recycle lists and to recycle press releases. As the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. J. Reed) pointed out, the latest list that we got in terms of what the Ontario Energy Corporation is supposed to be doing indicated that this resolution is not necessary.

If I can read some statements from the minister to this Legislature on March 13, he said, in part: “The corporation is currently involved in a number of projects which can be segregated into the areas of activity I have just mentioned which are as follows” -- and he notes in the second point: “In the field of alternative energy the OEC is participating in two projects involving energy from municipal solid waste and in feasibility studies for synthetic liquid fuels, methanol and ethanol.”

When I sought further information on the much-advertised Edwardsburgh methanol study, the information sent to my office indicated the government has proceeded to the point where it is calling tenders for the feasibility study.

There are a lot of questions that need to be asked about the government’s proposals. The only significant and concrete suggestion we have had is that the government will involve itself at least in a study of the possibility of getting into methanol production. The Edwardsburgh site itself is one that is fascinating as a choice. As you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, it is proposed for land that was assembled by the former Minister of Industry and Tourism, the well-known member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett), who thought it would make a good site for an industrial park.

It turned out to be kind of swampy and out of the way for an industrial park, but now that there seems to be the hope that if we cover it with trees -- hybrid poplars -- it might be a good place to check out the possibility of using wood plantations for the production of methanol.

We are going to have to look at this proposal very closely. The size of the plantation that the government seems to have in mind is so small that one doubts whether the economic attractiveness of wood plantations for methanol purposes is going to be proved or disproved by this project. It was interesting to me to hear the member for Prescott and Russell point out that probably the best source of wood for the production of methanol will be forest waste -- waste that is now left in the forest and, as the member for Halton-Burlington pointed out, impedes good reforestation.

There is probably no accident to the fact that the member for Renfrew South proposed this project in the resolution before us today at this precise time. A group called Energy Pathways, which is located in his neck of the woods, recently got funding from the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources to do a regional energy study of Renfrew county. The conclusions of that study, though preliminary in nature, certainly indicate that a significant proportion of the energy used by residents and industries in Renfrew county now comes from wood and, furthermore, that it would be feasible to develop an even greater reliance on wood as a source of fuel in Renfrew county.

I think it is important to point out that while that may be true in Renfrew county, and while it may be very important in Renfrew county, it is not the kind of reliance we can look to in the urban centres of Ontario. I think it is important for the member for Prescott and Russell to acknowledge that, once urban development took hold in Ontario, the idea of fuelling our furnaces or our heating appliances with wood simply became out of the question because of the pollution it would create.

He has listed for us the many ways in which wood can be useful and some of the things the government has looked at. I suggest time would be better spent by the member for Prescott and Russell and the member for Renfrew South if they went after the government to make sure the projects it is listing for us these days will be undertaken and that the projects are designed actually to demonstrate that wood in its place and taken from the proper source can be a benefit, particularly in the provision of liquid fuels for the future of the Ontario economy.

4:10 p.m.

Mr. Cureatz: Mr. Speaker, might I say how pleased I am to be allowed the opportunity to say a few words in regard to this resolution. Indeed, I will follow the previous speaker in commenting that I am sorry the member for Renfrew South is not here and that we should give tribute to the member for Prescott and Russell in following through with the resolution. I know the whole House appreciates that very much.

I was greatly impressed when the member for Halton-Burlington opened up by saying this is a government resolution. Isn’t that cute? All the times I have been here during private members’ hour, I have heard time and time again the opposition over there screaming, “This is private members’ hour; this is for the private member.” The first thing the member for Halton-Burlington does is stand up and say, “This is a government resolution.” I say to him, for shame.

Mr. Kerrio: That’s what it is. It’s a government resolution.

Mr. Cureatz: Listen to the member for Niagara Fails (Mr. Kerrio) with all that hot air. Is that going to be the replacement? The member for Halton-Burlington was wondering if I was in support of this resolution. Indeed I am. I am a firm supporter of Ontario’s nuclear electric program as the member well knows, and we trust we will see him down the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs in about 20 minutes.

Each one, however small its contribution, has a role to play in the energy mix. I am convinced that wood in itself has a fairly important potential. It is one of Ontario’s most abundant resources. Surely it deserves close study to ensure we are exploiting it to the fullest possible degree.

I know there are a significant number of people living in this province for whom wood stoves remain a principal source of heat in the home.

It is interesting to note as well that even here in the centre of this large city, one of the most desirable features a house or apartment can have is a wood-burning fireplace or stove. In other words, we possess an abundant natural resource, and it is a renewable resource. To some Ontarians it is necessary, to others a pleasant addition to the home setting. To many, it is even regarded as a luxury.

There are some questions we must ask in this regard. How much do our energy planners know about wood? How much are we using and how much could we be using? Can wood be in any way a substitute for imported oil? Could we be using it more efficiently? These and a number of other questions come to mind.

Mr. J. Reed: How does the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Rollins) feel about it?

Mr. Cureatz: Indeed, the member for Hastings-Peterborough has brought this to my attention.

It is my belief that, even if wood accounts for as little as one per cent of our total energy supply, it is worth plenty of attention.

Motivated by the increase in the price of fossil fuels and by the aesthetic appeal of simpler lifestyles, there has been significant improvement in combustion technology in recent years. Work has been done to apply the most sophisticated of today’s technologies to all type of installations. These range from stoves and fireplaces for home heating to highly sophisticated, large-scale fluidized reactors for gasifying wood so that it can be used to fuel electric generating stations or to make methanol, which can be used as a gasoline substitute or supplement.

Far from creating a threat to the raw materials supply of our existing forest industries, the prospect of increased demand for wood for its energy value, wherever this may be feasible in Ontario, offers potential opportunities for generating new economic wealth and for promoting upgraded long-term forest management and utilization.

One of the first tasks of a subsidiary of the Ontario Energy Corporation dedicated to the full exploitation of wood as a fuel source would be to establish several pilot plants or prototype furnace installations to demonstrate the commercial viability and to monitor the economic benefits that might accrue from the large-scale program.

Obviously, too, we would want to encourage the full participation of the private sector. We would want this participation to be on a large enough scale to ensure the full advantages of economies of scale regarding all aspects and all phases of the fuel cycle, harvesting, transportation and distribution.

The established forest industry, primarily in the northern and eastern parts of the province, already uses mill residues to fuel lumber drying kilns and to provide space heating. Mill residue is being used increasingly to replace oil and gas as fuel to heat particle-board presses and veneer dryers. In fact, the pulp and paper industry, one of the province’s largest, is considered to be a prime candidate for total energy self-sufficiency. Communities such as Chapleau, Hearst, Kirkland Lake and White River would be excellent locations for compressed wood fuel such as that provided by the Woodex system.

Experts believe, however, that while there is a great potential for increased energy production by the forest industry, there is not an adequate demand to consume the energy locally. Apparently, too, it is not feasible from an economic point of view to transport wood long distances for energy purposes. These are but a few of the many facets of the wood fuel cycle that this province ought to devote its full attention to.

While wood suitable for energy purposes is plentiful throughout northern Ontario, 93.5 per cent of Ontario’s population live south of the French and Mattawa rivers. Our energy needs are greatest in southern Ontario. Fortunately, there is an abundance of low-grade wood throughout the Algonquin and eastern regions and parts of central and southwestern regions of this province. Wood- combustion technology for large-scale applications is well developed and considered cost-competitive with oil and gas.

There are undoubtedly a large number of facilities where the economic feasibility of various types of wood could be verified. In some cases, the addition of a wood energy system would not require a complete new boiler system. In other cases, the existing heating plant would be used as a standby backup system.

There is a need to compile a more complete list of facilities that are advantageously located with regard to available wood supplies and to detail accurately the type of heating system in place, its present condition the type and amount of fuel currently used, and the cost and practicality of adding a new wood-burning system or retrofitting the existing system. Cogeneration at these locations to provide for electrical needs, for example, to accommodate air-conditioning in the summer, should also be investigated, and there is more to come.

Mr. Mancini: The speech writers must have been busy over this last week.

Mr. Cureatz: Listen to the way the member opposite treats me after I supported him on one of the first private members’ bills in this session. There he is, sitting across on the back bench heckling.

While purchased firewood is far from being competitive with oil, rural Ontario, comprising an estimated 700,000 households, is experiencing an absolute boom in wood-heating systems. Airtight stoves and fireplace conversion units are being manufactured by the tens of thousands. New combustion (oil and wood or electricity and wood) furnaces or insulated chimney systems are being developed by a dozen or more manufacturers. Old wood cookstoves are being resurrected in great numbers, and there are more wood piles to be seen in rural Ontario than at any time since the Second World War.

Most people have probably been motivated by a concern for energy security. Quite a number are convinced that firewood, in spite of its inconvenience, is a competitive fuel today. This is especially so if they have access to their own wood supply and cut it themselves. However, wood-heating systems create much higher flue temperatures than oil or gas furnaces, and there is the additional problem of creosote to contend with. Creosote is created by the hot wood tar in water vapour combining to form a highly flammable crystalline deposit in the chimney.

Unless adequate care is taken to clean chimneys, a great many chimney fires can result because of the creosote.

Wood will not likely become a competitive fuel for urban dwellings because of transportation and handling costs. Even so, a considerable number of fireplace conversion units, and even wood stoves, are being installed to provide a measure of security against a possible future critical oil shortage.

The greatest attraction of wood is its plentiful supply. The socio-economic benefits resulting from more intensive research in wood as a form of fuel would include the creation of many thousands of new jobs in parts of rural Ontario. Decreased dependency on foreign-controlled energy supplies and conservation of foreign exchange used for oil purchases are two substantial additional benefits. To ignore such sources as wood, no matter how small their contribution, is to ignore a major natural resource in this province. As the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr.

Rollins) has indicated to me, in the rural areas wood for fuel usage is in such demand that at present he has 60 single cords in his backyard.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and participate in this debate. As we know, the resolution is calling for the full exploitation of wood as an alternative heat source in Ontario.

Before I address my comments to the actual resolution, it seems almost a coincidence that this past week I received on my desk an orange-coloured expensive brochure from the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) with a very lovely picture on page two. The Minister of Energy looks younger every day. I don’t know whether he has a person touching up these photographs, but they sure are doing a good job.

The booklet is titled Energy from Waste. Lo and behold, on Thursday of this week we are debating that very same issue: energy from waste. I want to bring that to the attention of the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling), who is a member of the procedural affairs committee along with myself and the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston). Time and again, the member for Carleton-Grenville has told the procedural affairs committee that the opposition uses private members’ hour to state party policy.

It is rather a coincidence that after having received this nice-looking orange document -- and that’s all it is -- we are today debating how we can possibly exploit wood as an alternative heat source in Ontario. I want to file that away for everyone’s attention, especially that of the procedural affairs committee.

I took a lot of delight in reading this brochure today. This is the foreword from the Minister of Energy -- and the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz) will note that I did not have any highly paid civil servant write my speech for me. On page two, the Minister of Energy says: “The production of synthetic liquid fuels may become practical in the longer run.”

What type of hoax is this? We have a member standing up today telling us that we can exploit wood immediately as an alternative source of heat and fuel in Ontario, and in the government’s document the Minister of Energy says “may”: We may be able to use synthetic liquid fuels; it may become practical in the long run.

This is another example of the Ontario government spending money to produce nice- looking booklets but having no intention of doing anything about the real problem. We in the Ontario Liberal Party have proposed a document of how this government could take the lead in Ontario and how we could use methanol and other liquid fuels to displace the oil we are importing, because it is evident to everyone, even to the government.

Their own booklet says, on page five: “Energy from outside Ontario constitutes 77.4 per cent of all the energy that we use.” They go on to state in their brochure that this outside energy is mainly oil. So the conclusion is that we don’t have an energy problem; we have an oil problem. We have to displace the use of oil. We don’t need orange booklets and brochures, printed at great expense. We need action from a government that has had 37 years to take action. That’s what we need: action from the government.

It is interesting that the member for Hastings-Peterborough recently issued a press release condemning the study of methanol. That particular member stated some extraordinary figures of how much methanol would cost to create. Then we have the member for Carleton-Grenville, another eastern Ontario Conservative member, trying to take credit for this whole thing about synthetic fuels.

Mr. Gaunt: He’s the methanol champion.

Mr. Mancini: He’s the methanol champion in eastern Ontario. I think the member for Hastings-Peterborough and the member for Carleton-Grenville should get together before they issue their own press releases.

This is another example of how lackadaisical the government is about this serious energy problem. We import most of our energy source, which is oil. There is terrible disruption in the world today in the Persian Gulf where most of the oil comes from. Yet this government of the largest province in our country, the province with the most people, with the largest tax base and with all types of financial and people resources, instead of taking the lead, presents us with another brochure. Every time there is a problem in this province we receive a brochure on our desks.

On page 20, there is some important information that must be read into the record. It deals with the Ontario Energy Corporation. I am going to quote what the government says on page 20 of its brochure. “In order for the OEC to consider investing in energy fuel wastes” -- and they have come up with snappy initials, EFW. That is one thing the government is good at. Any time there is something that has to be given a name, they are good at that. Today we received a statement from the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet. He has something he calls MBR, that is, management by results, whatever that means.

Anyway, this is typical of a tired old government. All they can do is come up with brochures and snappy titles.

Let me continue. “In order for the OEC to consider investing in an EFW project, the following general conditions should be satisfied” -- this is what the Ontario Conservative government says -- “a reasonable rate of return for the OEC is expected ... ”

We are in the middle of a crisis. We import 77 per cent of our energy resources, and we have a government that is worried about whether the Ontario Energy Corporation can make a profit or not. We must be concerned about supplies; that’s what we must be concerned about.

Going on reading from the government brochure, “The OEC will normally only offer to take a minority position in the project.” We can see just how serious the Ontario Conservative government is.

Let me continue. “A sound ownership and management structure must be available and an experienced operator involved.” How can we expect experienced operators to be involved when we are talking about new things that are going on, new things we want to develop? Where is the leadership over there? They are supposed to provide the experienced operator. They are supposed to be assisting, not taking a minority position. They are supposed to be creating a secure source of energy, not worrying about whether the OEC makes a profit.

I have more to quote if you will allow me, Mr. Speaker. On page two, under the photograph of the Minister of Energy, it says, “Waste not, want not.” Those words never meant more than they do today.

4:30 p.m.

Mr. S