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

November 27, 1975

30th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L025 - Thu 27 Nov 1975 / Jeu 27 nov 1975

ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

POSITION OF MARKETING BOARDS IN ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

HOME BUYER GRANT

ROLE OF PARLIAMENTARY ASSISTANTS

ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

HOME BUYER GRANT

PAPERWORKERS’ STRIKE

MISSISSAUGA INQUIRY

EDUCATION RELATIONS COMMISSION

AID TO THIRD WORLD

ARNPRIOR HYDRO PROJECT

PORT ARTHUR CLINIC STRIKE

METRIC ROAD SIGNS

SALARY INCREASES BY EDUCATION BOARDS

COW-CALF PROGRAMME

GREENING DONALD STRIKE

PAVING OF SPADINA EXTENSION

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT

CREDIT RULES FOR WOMEN

PROVISION OF SOCIAL SERVICES

AID FOR EGG PRODUCERS

SALARY INCREASES BY EDUCATION BOABDS

POSITION OF MARKETING BOARDS IN ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

MOTORIZED SNOW VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATE CONTROL BOARD ACT

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: We are always pleased to welcome distinguished guests to our Legislature. This afternoon in the Speaker’s gallery we’re pleased to have with us Mrs. Ila Roy, an MP from West Bengal in India. We welcome her here.

Mr. Jones: In the west gallery are students from a school that hears a name of tradition in this House. I would ask the members to join me in welcoming 35 grade 12 students, accompanied by Mr. Sands, from Thomas L. Kennedy Secondary School in the new riding of Mississauga North.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I would like to introduce to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House 98 students from the Port Dover Composite School under the direction of Mr. Black and I would like you to welcome them here today. They’re in the east gallery.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I thought I might just make some informal comments on yesterday’s meetings of the Ministers of Finance. There were also present Ministers of Labour, some Ministers of Consumer and Commercial Affairs, Ministers of Housing and ministers responsible for the public service. There were six agenda items. I might just mention each one of them and make a brief comment, and I think it may open the way for some questions at the appropriate time. The chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board was present.

There was no discussion on the legislation, which is now, I guess, about to go to the third reading stage in the House of Commons. We urged on the chairman, recognizing his problems, the need to get started, to make benchmark decisions which I think would be of help to a great number of other disputes, or potential disputes, on the salary and wage side.

He also indicated to us that they were commencing to monitor prices. There was some discussion on that score as well, with some provinces holding the view that with significant price changes not only should notice be given, but perhaps they should be sent to the board before they were implemented. The government and the board, as I saw it, undertook to take that point under consideration.

There was considerable discussion about the need for flexibility as opposed to getting on with it, and I am not just sure what the approach is. In fairness to the board, and I do make that point, I gather that the board to some extent is unable to proceed as quickly as it might like, because it is waiting for the regulations, which in turn are waiting for the passage of the bill. So if there is, in the media this morning, criticism on my part of the board, it should be tempered by the fact that I understood the position that they were in, although it wasn’t entirely clear to us, to be quite frank, as to how far the board can go without the regulations.

The third agenda item was pricing in the government sector. I can only report that there was a very, what I would call, bureaucratic discussion. It was agreed that the officials would take a less bureaucratic look at that whole subject and report back to another meeting, to see if they couldn’t find a more reasonable approach which would result in agreement by all 11 governments -- which is something which obviously is important, but which has a great number of variations in its approach.

Mr. Nixon: What’s a bureaucratic discussion? Nothing can be done?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No; I think not at all. I think the bureaucrats and perhaps to some extent the politicians became bogged down in the details’ rather than the general thinking. We are talking about fiscal powers of government, which in many instances -- in all instances, supposedly -- are outside of guidelines. But as to where that breakpoint is, I think they attempted to define it too closely, which raised a whole set of questions which perhaps aren’t all that important.

Discussion on rent controls was simply that there had been a meeting of the Ministers of Housing the previous day, and that all provinces have some sort of rent controls. Mr. Basford expressed the view that it was too bad there wasn’t a greater uniformity of approach but, so be it, they were either in place or going into place.

There was a discussion over the model agreement and the model agreement was only available under

section 4(3) and not under

section 4(4). The discussion wasn’t as conclusive as it might have been and the position of the provinces wasn’t as conclusive as it might have been because the 4(4) agreement wasn’t available and because the regulations were not available.

I think the view of most provinces, and the view which I expressed after the discussion yesterday, was that we would prefer to opt in under 4(3) but that although the life of the programme totally -- assuming the legislation is passed by the Parliament of Canada -- will be three years, we would prefer to have the right after 18 months to opt from 4(3) to 4(4).

Mr. Lewis: That is called the shifting of ground carefully.

Mr. Renwick: In a very informal way.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, I don’t think there was any shifting of ground whatsoever.

Mr. Lewis: If there hadn’t been, you would have had a written statement.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister is making a statement.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Macdonald undertook to take that view of the provinces under consideration and to discuss it with his colleagues.

There was some discussion about provincial nominations to the board from the public sector and that was laid over.

No doubt there will be questions on those various points but I thought perhaps it was best by way of statement to give a general outline of what had gone on yesterday.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Housing.

Mr. Nixon: Now, let’s hear it. The Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen) comes after you, so be careful.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Housing has a statement.

Mr. Roy: We are with you. Give it to them. I am with you.

Mr. Nixon: Will the real John Rhodes please stand up?

Mr. MacDonald: That is the first acknowledgement of a non-statement we have ever seen.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Can we get on please? The Minister of Agriculture and Food.

POSITION OF MARKETING BOARDS IN ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

Hon. W. Newman: In relation to the Treasurer’s statement yesterday regarding the meeting that was held in Ottawa, which I attended, as hon. members are aware the Province of Ontario presented its views on several matters relating to the federal anti-inflation programme to a special federal-provincial meeting of finance ministers held in Ottawa yesterday.

The question of whether marketing boards should be placed under the purview of the Anti-Inflation Board came in for discussion and I would like at this time to inform the House of the precise position the government of Ontario presented and which was subsequently endorsed by the federal Minister of Finance, Mr. Macdonald.

We agreed yesterday with the federal government that in general principle the spirit of the guidelines should apply to marketing boards. In the case of national marketing plans, the federal Farm Products Marketing Council will be responsible for ensuring that national marketing agencies -- at present for eggs and turkeys -- follow the spirit of tin guidelines.

In the case of provincial marketing plans, the Farm Products Marketing Board and the Ontario Milk Commission will be responsible for ensuring that provincial marketing boards follow the spirit of the guidelines. Price appeals heard by both the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Board and the Milk Commission of Ontario will take into account the spirit of the anti-inflation guidelines. Written reasons on all pricing appeal decisions rendered by these two provincial bodies will be sent to the Anti-Inflation Board.

Initially, the federal guidelines provided only for cost pass-through in allowing for increases in prices. What this means is that the price of a commodity could not increase except to the extent of an increase in input costs. I pointed out to Mr. Macdonald that, while this principle was acceptable in general terms, it could not be applied inflexibly. The reason for this is that it may be necessary in certain circumstances to increase prices by more than increased input costs in order to assure continuity of food supplies to our people. Mr. Macdonald accepted my position on this matter.

Mr. Nixon: He didn’t know what it was because you came down on both sides.

Mr. Renwick: He didn’t understand it.

Mr. Foulds: Even the minister himself didn’t understand it.

Hon. W. Newman: Oh, I understood what I was saying all right. Additionally, I will be inviting the Anti-Inflation Board to Ontario to meet with me, the Farm Products Marketing Board and the Ontario Milk Commission, to clarify our views, to discuss the various pricing formulas and cost inputs used by the marketing boards, and to discuss any other administrative details.

[2:15]

Mr. Lewis: You’ve certainly changed your position since the Ontario Federation of Agriculture speech.

Hon. W. Newman: No, I haven’t a bit. If you would just listen.

Mr. Nixon: Yes, you did.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: You’ve backed right off.

Hon. W. Newman: We in Ontario have nothing to hide regarding our marketing boards, and I want the Anti-Inflation Board to know this.

Mr. Renwick: This is change-of-policy day.

Hon. W. Newman: We want our marketing boards to operate within the spirit of the guidelines, without adversely affecting the long-term supply situation of any much-needed agricultural commodity.

Mr. Lewis: Boy, have you shifted ground. It’s like a revolving door. First the shifting sands of the Treasury --

HOME BUYER GRANT

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Nixon: The Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen) should go first this time.

Mr. Lewis: This will be enough of these silly statements.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- I want to rise on a point of personal privilege regarding --

Mr. MacDonald: Misquoted?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- a headline in the Toronto Star of Nov. 26.

Mr. Lewis: What about the Globe and the Sun?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I feel that the headline grossly distorted the remarks I made in Ottawa and the story that was under the headline.

Mr. Deans: So what? That happens every day.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I want to make it very clear to the members of this House and others that I have always, and do presently, support wholeheartedly the purpose of the programme as it relates to the first-time home buyer grant.

Mr. Nixon: Even though it’s “a gross error” and “utterly silly”?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: In the course of the interview that I was conducting, in being talked to by reporters in Ottawa, my comments were that I felt that if the programme was to be continued, indeed there should be a ceiling on the price of the homes to which the grant would apply.

Mr. MacDonald: We suggested that 10 months ago.

Mr. Nixon: That doesn’t sound like the minister.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: My comment was that I felt the figures we had showed there were homes at a very high price that were eligible for this grant, and that if it was to continue I would prefer to see a ceiling on the prices.

Mr. Roy: Did you use the word “silly”?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, to say that the programme has been a failure, of course, would be totally untrue.

Mr. Nixon: It is much too successful.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The total number of grants has been 31,679. Of those units, 26,176 were in the price range of up to $50,000, 82.6 per cent of the total number of grants. In the $50,000 to $75,000 area -- 5,144 units; 16.3 per cent. From $75,000 to $100,000 -- 279 units; 0.9 per cent. In $100,000 and over -- 0.2 per cent. Regional distribution of the 80 high-priced units shows Metro with 16, Mississauga 52 and other parts of the province 12.

My remarks -- and I do wish to emphasize this -- were not at all to be critical of the programme, which has been a success and an excellent programme, but were simply to state -- as I did at that time and was correctly reported in the paper as saying -- that I felt it was silly to be giving grants to people building $100,000 homes.

Mr. Roy: There you go arguing.

Mr. Nixon: Does the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen) feel better now?

ROLE OF PARLIAMENTARY ASSISTANTS

Mr. Speaker: Just before we call the next order, I would like to say that on Monday, Nov. 4, I informed the House that I had requested the chairman of the committee on the fourth and fifth reports of the Ontario Commission on the Legislature to consider the question of parliamentary assistants’ participation in the question period. I am informed by the chairman of the committee that its initial consideration is that for the time being the present practice be continued.

Mr. Renwick: That’s very daring.

Mr. Speaker: The committee intends to make fuller recommendations on the question period, including this matter of participation by the parliamentary assistants, in the near future.

Oral questions.

ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

Mr. Lewis: A question first to the provincial Treasurer, if I may.

Mr. Roy: The member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski) won again.

Mr. Lewis: Is the provincial Treasurer saying that if some of the regulations are not palatable to Ontario under the memorandum of agreement when it emerges, or under the guidelines when they are passed; and if the benchmark decisions are not what he would consider acceptable, and if Mr. Macdonald doesn’t accept the Treasurer’s 18- month formula, is he then prepared to consider opting in under -- forgive the shorthand -- 4(4) rather than 4(3)?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I didn’t keep track of all those ifs --

Mr. Shore: There were only three.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- all of which added up to a very hypothetical question.

Mr. Lewis: You framed them.

Mr. Shore: Give a hypothetical answer.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think we have always said that we obviously weren’t into the 4(3) approach until we’d signed it; and we’ve always kept that option open.

Quebec is going a different route entirely for its own purposes. I think it’s fair to say at this moment that only one province as of yesterday, and whether they stick to this remains to be seen, will be going under 4(4). There may be others, but Mr. Macdonald -- and I can understand this -- was obviously very disappointed that even one province other than Quebec, was going to go the 4(4) route. He felt very keenly, as we feel very keenly, that if the programme is to work in both the public and the private sector there has to be a uniform approach across Canada.

Mr. Lewis: If I may, a supplementary: Since uniformity is now clearly broken and there are many provinces with strong reservations, the Treasurer sounds as though he’s hedging rather dramatically from the very strong position he took at the outset and that Ontario may, in fact, join in another way?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: If the Leader of the Opposition thinks that words of mine today indicate that I’m hedging dramatically --

Mr. Lewis: Yes, compared to what he has said,

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- he is wrong.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Since the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) has just informed the House that the application of the anti-inflation position in Ottawa toward marketing boards is going to be applied by provincial boards, would the minister not now at least give further consideration to the involvement of Ontario through the

section 4, subsection (4) alternative, particularly in view of the fact that the continuing teachers’ strike, as well as other problems in this province, would certainly be assisted by a provincial implementation procedure?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I don’t accept the premise of that. I don’t think for one minute that they would. If there was a provincial board now in place, I don’t know how, in any kind of conscience, the provincial board could render a decision on a dispute from Ontario which was placed before it without lengthy consultation with other provinces operating their own systems and the AIB itself.

Mr. Nixon: How about the Milk Marketing Board or --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I do not think that it would assist.

Mr. Nixon: -- the Egg Marketing Board? They’re going to be provincial.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Obviously, where there is a provincial regulatory agency in place, of which we, as I understand it, really have two, the Milk Commission, the Farm Products Marketing Board --

Mr. Nixon: You have the Education Relations Commission.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, that’s not the same at all.

Mr. Nixon: It has all the power.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It doesn’t. It’s not a regulatory body.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Where there is a provincial agency in place, a regulatory agency -- for that matter that’s also true of the OEB -- then the federal government feels, and I would agree it makes some sense to use that regulatory approach. There is no regulatory approach in place in terms of teachers’ salaries.

Mr. Shore: Supplementary: Could I ask the Treasurer how he reconciles the fact that two weeks ago he said they were going to opt in, and now he’s stating he’s keeping his options open?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Obviously we have not opted in until we have signed the agreement.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, come now.

Mr. Nixon: You said you were, at the top of your lungs in this House -- at the top of your lungs.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Does the hon. minister have a further reply?

Mr. Nixon: That is what you did -- you want only federal control.

Mr. Lewis: Only you would have the audacity to say that -- only you.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Obviously, until the Province of Ontario puts its signature on the dotted line we haven’t opted in.

Mr. Roy: When you are in trouble you start challenging us. You give it away.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: There is still the option of not doing so.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

HOME BUYER GRANT

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Premier, now that the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) has expressed publicly his repentance for statements misinterpreted by the media -- as they always are -- can the Premier indicate if he intends to extend the home buyer grant beyond Dec. 31, or has he now categorically decided against it? Does he intend to modify its terms between now and the end of the application of the grant?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m sure, as the Leader of the Opposition has observed, there is nothing on the order paper which indicates the government would be introducing legislation to extend it. I think it would be fair to assume that we will not. The programme itself, as the Minister of Housing has pointed out, has been singularly successful in terms of the housing industry.

Mr. Nixon: It’s an embarrassing success.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would only say to the leader of the third party that he may consider it embarrassingly successful.

Mr. Nixon: You have given away $75 million.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If that is the case, I am delighted. The fact is the programme has worked and it has worked very well. The housing industry has been delighted with it, as have the recipients. I’m surprised he isn’t urging us to extend it, as that would be rather consistent with his inconsistent approach to these things.

Mr. Roy: Don’t be silly.

Mr. Nixon: I think it was fraught with gross errors and utterly silly in all its aspects. That’s what the Minister of Housing said.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As for altering the programme for the next roughly four weeks because there was concern expressed by the minister, and we knew there would be, about some situations perhaps where people didn’t actually need the $1,500 or $2,500 -- there has been 0.2 per cent over the $100,000 figure. The problem the government faced was to determine, shall we say, ceiling amounts in various parts of the province. The Leader of the Opposition would know that a ceiling amount on a house in Scarborough could be quite different from the ceiling amount on a house in Chatham or even in Brampton.

Mr. Lewis: Why choose Chatham? That’s not the best comparison.

Mr. Reid: Not for the Leader of the Opposition.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Then I will use Scarborough or what have you.

When it comes to administering the programme itself, in order to expedite it, etc. we did run the risk that 0.2 per cent of the total of people probably had no need of the grant, or no incentive in their case was necessary from the funding of the programme. But when one takes 0.2 per cent out of the 100, I have to say I think it has been without question very successful, but it is highly unlikely the programme will be extended beyond the end of this year.

PAPERWORKERS’ STRIKE

Mr. Lewis: A question, if I may, for the Minister of Labour: Can the minister clear up the apparent confusion which exists about what commitments, if any, or what undertakings, if any, she made to the various municipal officials who met over the prolonged strike in the woods industry? How did some of them emerge with a clear public impression that a commitment to compulsory arbitration had been provided by the minister?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I reported on Tuesday of our meeting with the mayors of the 11 municipalities in which there are paper plants presently on strike. I reported exactly the commitment which we have made to the mayors. We received their petition and advised them that this was one of the alternatives which might be considered and that it would in fact be seriously considered as one of the alternatives. But I did not promise them that it was one of the things that we were going to do within the next week.

Yesterday afternoon in Ottawa I received a telephone call from a newspaper in Toronto wanting to know when I had telephoned Mayor Foucault in Espanola to tell him the cabinet was considering enacting legislation within the next week, which was the report that came across the Canadian Press wire and through the radio system apparently in northern Ontario. I informed that reporter that I had not talked to Mayor Foucault except on Tuesday morning in the presence of all the other mayors, and that is a fact.

This morning Mayor Foucault telephoned me and informed me that he hadn’t made the statement either. He has now laid the blame upon a newspaper reporter in Sudbury who probably must have been in his cups when he made the statement, because Mayor Foucault swears that he was very careful to announce to the press in northern Ontario precisely his understanding of what I had said, which was the understanding of the Leader of the Opposition of what I had said.

Mr. Lewis: Why do you always attack northern Ontario? What’s wrong with you?

I have a supplementary, if I may. Has the minister appointed at any time the equivalent of a fact-finder under the amendments which we provided for the Ontario Labour Relations Act in this Legislature to deal with a situation exactly of this kind? If that initiative has at no point been taken by the ministry, why would she consider compulsory arbitration rather than ordering the companies back to the bargaining table to make a good-faith offer?

Hon. B. Stephenson: As I suggested, this was one route which might be considered along with several other alternatives. We made no commitment to the resolution which was presented by the mayors. We simply said this was one route which could be considered. There were others which we were considering and one which we were pursuing.

Mr. Deans: What were the others?

Mr. Lewis: Can the minister answer the question?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, the alternative we are pursuing at the moment is getting them back to the bargaining table.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Supplementary: The minister indicated in her first answer that there had been a commitment made -- but she didn’t say what it was. I would like to ask what the commitment is to the mayors? I would also like to add that most of the press up there are sober, as are most of the mayors.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, if I might say, it was not my personal suggestion that the reporter had been in his cups. As a matter of fact, the elected member for northern Ontario suggested that that must have been his fate when he made the statement.

Mr. Lewis: Who? Mr. Foucault?

Mr. Nixon: Which hon. member from northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Stephenson: The hon. member for northern Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Could we get to the answer of the first question?

Mr. Lewis: Who does the minister mean -- Mayor Foucault?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Foucault suggested it.

Mr. Lewis: He is a Liberal -- what does the minister expect?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I’m sorry I did not inquire of him his polities. I apologize for that omission. The next time I shall be sure to, thank you.

If I might respond to the question posed by my hon. colleague, the commitment that we made to the 11 mayors was that we would seriously look at their resolution and their position and that it would be considered in the light of the other alternatives which we were considering at the moment.

Mr. Wildman: Is the fact-finder appointed?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The fact-finder -- that question I should answer. May I please answer it now? The fact-finder has, in fact, in one case been appointed -- and has reported verbally only.

Mr. R. S. Smith: What are the other alternatives the minister is looking at? That’s part of my supplementary question.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I think the best alternative would be to get both parties back to the bargaining table to try to resolve the impasse at which they seem to be right at the moment.

Mr. R. S. Smith: We don’t have a strike any longer; we have a walkout.

Mr. Swart: As one of the techniques of getting the companies back to the bargaining table, will the minister inform them that their cutting rights may be in jeopardy if they do not come back to the bargaining table and make a reasonable offer?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, since I have no authority over their cutting rights, I am not likely, personally, to use that mechanism. That is one which might be considered, I suppose; but I have not considered it at all.

MISSISSAUGA INQUIRY

Mr. Nixon: I would like to put a question to the Attorney General. Now that the divisional court has ruled that Judge Stortini was not in contempt when he wrote to the Corporation of the town of Mississauga recommending that further investigation would be warranted, will the Attorney General give further consideration himself to an investigation under the Public Inquiries Act into these matters in the Mississauga area and the former municipalities?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would assist my friend if I were to read to him and the House a letter that I wrote to the corporation of the city of Mississauga in reply to a letter that was delivered to me on Tuesday of this week in which the corporation made the same request.

Mr. Speaker: If it’s a very brief letter it will be permitted; if it’s long, perhaps the hon. minister might summarize it.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: My friend and his colleagues have been asking.

Mr. Nixon: Perhaps we can revert to statements.

Mr. Speaker: Unless we revert to statements.

Mr. Lewis: Let us revert to statements.

Mr. Speaker: Is it a lengthy answer which would be of importance?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: It’s an answer of 1 1/2 pages.

An hon. member: That’s not long.

Mr. Speaker: We will revert to statements momentarily. We’ll keep track of the time. The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The letter is of today’s date, to the corporation of the city of Mississauga.

“Dear Sirs:

“Following the passage of council’s resolution 218, lengthy investigation was conducted by the Ontario Provincial Police into the allegations on which council’s resolution was predicated solely to determine whether any breach of the Criminal Code has been committed. The Crown attorney concluded, after reviewing comprehensive police reports, that no charge was warranted in relation to any allegation made.

“On July 4, 1975, copies of the police reports were delivered to Mr. Noel Bates, inquiry counsel, at which time Mr. Bates was informed that this ministry had serious reservations concerning the legality of council’s resolution.

“Notwithstanding this ministry’s views of the legality of council’s resolution, the inquiry counsel pressed from the outset for extraordinary powers under

Part 3 of the Public Inquiries Act.

“However, he failed to provide any evidence to indicate such extended authority would be warranted or beneficial to the inquiry in any way, although he was advised on numerous occasions that his application would require such support.

“I have no desire to, or intention of interfering with the powers and prerogatives of municipal council where such rights are exercised according to law. It would appear abundantly clear from a reading of

section 240, and the divisional court decision in this matter, that any contemplated resolution should particularize each allegation to be investigated in the manner set out in the judgement.

“This observation would apply, of course, to the allegations contained in Judge Stortini’s letter to you of Nov. 6, 1975. I would assure you that in the event an inquiry is validly called by the municipality and an application for

Part 3 powers, based on firm and specific grounds, is requested, it will be dealt with on the merits, if such powers are available in a judicial inquiry instituted under

section 240 of the Municipal Act. Yours truly.”

I might say there are some serious doubts as to whether such powers are available and my view at the moment is that they are not. But in completing my reply to my friend’s answer I would indicate that if there are brought to our attention any allegations and the particulars of any allegations which would warrant any investigation by this ministry, we would be pleased to receive such information.

To date, we simply have not received any such information which would warrant our investigating the matter further or calling for a public inquiry.

Mr. Speaker: We will add three minutes to the question period.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Since the burden of the letter read to us by the Attorney General leaves it with the council of Mississauga to proceed under the provisions in the sections of the Municipal Act, wouldn’t the Attorney General agree that he bears an overall responsibility, under the Public Inquiries Act, to dispel the uncertainties that have grown up around the allegations and counter-allegations, the courts suits and counter-suits, all of it underlined by the letter from Judge Stortini indicating that he believes there should be a public inquiry? Would the minister not agree that the only way to settle this is to appoint a judge to inquire on the basis of the Public Inquiries Act?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, in my letter, all the allegations referred to were investigated completely by the law enforcement agencies of this department of this province. There simply, at this point, is no evidence to warrant such an investigation.

The letter from Judge Stortini to the Mississauga council, according to an affidavit of Judge Stortini’s own counsel, was written at the request of the mayor of Mississauga and I repeat, Mr. Speaker, if any specific allegations that have not been investigated are brought to our attention, we will certainly entertain any such request. But it’s my considered view that it’s not my responsibility as the Attorney General of this province to use public funds to go on a fishing expedition for the mayor of Mississauga.

Mr. Roy: Taking it, as the Attorney General says, that your investigation and review of the evidence did not disclose any breaches of the Criminal Code, what about breaches under the Municipal Act and what about conflicts of interest which may well have existed? Is this type of evidence not supportive of an investigation, as is suggested by Judge Stortini?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I know of no such evidence of breaches of any provincial statutes.

Mr. Lewis: I have a supplementary -- probably a slightly peripheral question: What was the implication of your observation that the letter from Judge Stortini had been written at the request of the mayor? Was the implication that Judge Stortini would not otherwise have requested a further inquiry; that somehow he was influenced by the mayor’s request?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The implication would be that it was the view of the mayor of Mississauga, and not the view of Judge Stortini, that a further investigation was warranted.

Mr. Nixon: But surely, if you will permit Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary, I think arising directly from the answer made by the Attorney General: Wouldn’t the Attorney General agree that the letter from Judge Stortini was in response to a request from the mayor that, having had what they considered to be a legal, public inquiry under the Municipal Act and having spent many thousands of dollars on it, the least they should have from the judge is a report of his findings that any suggestion that the mayor had dictated to the judge what his findings should be is thoroughly incorrect and irresponsible.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I’m sure my friend has available to him a copy of this letter. It is clear on the face of it that it is not a

summary of any such findings. We would be very interested in any such findings that were allegedly made by His Honour Judge Stortini.

Mr. Nixon: Why doesn’t the Attorney General call the judge and ask him?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: But there was no such report whatsoever. Again we are left completely in the dark as to what, if any, allegations should be investigated.

Mr. Nixon: To say that it is the mayor’s opinion is wrong.

EDUCATION RELATIONS COMMISSION

Mr. Nixon: A question of the Minister of Education: Has he taken steps to bring the Education Relations Commission up to its full strength of five, since evidently he agrees with their contention they should be holding public hearings as to whether the strike is endangering the education process of the students?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have under consideration some names for appointment to that commission.

Mr. Nixon: Since the strike seems to be becoming a bit of a fiasco, would he not think it is something he should take under more than just consideration and bring that commission up to full strength; if he agrees with them that they should be holding public hearings as to whether they ought to recommend to the government that the strike be brought to an end?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to my friend that the Education Relations Commission can operate fully with three people. They constitute a quorum and they can carry out all the powers the Act gives to them.

Mr. Nixon: They are part-time commissioners.

AID TO THIRD WORLD

Mr. Nixon: I would also like to ask the Premier if he is going to present a report to us from the former Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food, Dick Hilliard, who has been travelling the world to ascertain whether the government ought to make matching grants to certain church organizations, which have requested this approach from this province and other provinces in order to assist in relief to the third world?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think that question might be properly directed to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman).

Mr. Nixon: Might I just put a supplementary to the Premier, based on his answer, that I believe it is a matter of government policy, that it is not a matter of agricultural policy.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Did the member have a question?

Mr. Nixon: In fact would he not agree that since the report was commissioned by the government, not the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, that we could at least get the information from the Premier?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite delighted, then, to reply to the leader of the Liberal Party of this province that I shall, sometime later today, speak to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, get from him the most recent information from Mr. Hilliard and then reply to the question from the leader of the Liberal Party tomorrow afternoon.

Mr. Nixon: That’s better. All right.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All I was trying to do was to expedite the information for the hon. member. If he doesn’t want it this afternoon, then I will get it for him tomorrow afternoon.

Mr. Nixon: I would put a question to the Minister of Agriculture --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will get it for him tomorrow

Mr. Nixon: -- that since this matter was sloughed off by the Premier when it was --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is a debating type question. If the hon. member wishes to ask a question of information, fine.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will get it for him.

Mr. Nixon: All right. What has the Minister of Agriculture and Food to report on this matter of high policy?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I wasn’t listening to the total question.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Boy: Is he sloughing it off or not?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This sort of questioning and cross-questioning is wasting time. Does the hon. member have a question now?

Mr. Nixon: Not only this form of questioning but this form of answering. I have no more questions at this time.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Your point of order?

Mr. Lewis: I wanted to follow that question, can I ask --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: If you wish to ask a question directly, all right.

Mr. Lewis: I would like to know how much money the government has wasted on all of that travel.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

ARNPRIOR HYDRO PROJECT

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski) asked a question earlier this week regarding union hiring practices at the Ontario Hydro project in Arnprior.

I can now inform him and the House that before starting the Arnprior Hydro project a pre-job discussion was held with representatives of various international unions whose members will be employed on the project. As a result of this meeting, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers designated Local 586 Ottawa as the appropriate influencing union local for the site. In a normal course of action Local 586 of the IBEW at Ottawa would refer men from the Pembroke area. However, if not one was available then workers from Ottawa would be sent.

Apparently this is what has happened. As of Oct. 31, only four electricians were on the job. The major electrical contract in Arnprior will commence in 1976. With regard to the employment of electrical workers, any contractor coming on site will be required to live by the terms of its own collective agreement, if one has been signed in the area, or to apply those conditions established by Ontario Hydro, which represents the local influencing rate in the area.

[2:45]

PORT ARTHUR CLINIC STRIKE

Mr. Foulds: A question of the Minister of Labour: Has the minister received a telegram from Local 368 of the Service Employees’ Union and can she inform me what her ministry or government is going to do in the next few days, in a concrete way, to settle the dispute at the Port Arthur clinic?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I received a copy of that telegram just before I came to the House today. I have read it and I have not decided what I am going to do about it yet.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Does the minister feel that the appointment of a fact-finder or a disputes advisory committee, under the amendments that we passed in July, would be advisable in this case in achieving a settlement and in circumventing the obstructionism of one of the negotiators for the Port Arthur clinic?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly one of the routes available, yes.

Mr. Foulds: A final supplementary if I may.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, all right, a final supplementary.

Mr. Good: If you haven’t got the answers how can you ask a supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: Make it very quick. If we have very short questions and very short answers it expedites the matter. We will let the member ask another supplementary.

Mr. Foulds: Does the minister feel that either of those steps would be a fruitful route to take in the next few days?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I would have to say, perhaps either one of them might be a fruitful route.

METRIC ROAD SIGNS

Mr. Worton: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: When the highway signs are being changed to accommodate the reduced speed limits, will the minister give consideration to adopting signs in kilometres as well as the present system of miles per hour?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I had given consideration to this possibility and decided against making the overall change to kilometres at this time, because officially it is at least two years or more before Canada goes metric on the highways. We have made the decision to change the signs as inexpensively as possible by attaching a type of decal to the existing signs, which can be done without removing the signs, and then when the metric change-over becomes official we will change the signs at that time.

Mr. Worton: Supplementary: Would the minister not think it would be an opportune time to start educating the people on this route that we will be taking in two years’ time?

Mr. Roy: And save some money in the process.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, I have also thought about this. We now have a few signs on the highways showing distances to the next town or city in kilometres as an educational programme. I believe some of the auto companies are now coming out with, shall we say, bilingual speedometers that show the speed in both kilometres and miles per hour.

Mr. MacDonald: Bilingual?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I couldn’t think of a better word at the moment.

Mr. Reid: What’s that -- French and German?

Hon. Mr. Snow: There’s another slight problem. When we do go to the metric system on the freeways, I anticipate that the speed will probably be 100 kilometres per hour and that does not coincide exactly with 60 miles per hour. So, if we started putting signs up at 100 kilometres per hour when the regulation says 60 miles per hour, there could be a legal difficulty there, because I believe 100 kilometres works out to something like 61 miles.

Mr. Lewis: That’s a deterrent.

SALARY INCREASES BY EDUCATION BOARDS

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition asked me the other day about the salaries for supervisory personnel in the Northumberland-Newcastle Board of Education. I checked on this matter. The increases that were granted were done after the teacher salary contract had been settled on Oct. 9, and were calculated on a predetermined formula which the board has always had and which it uses automatically. The increases for these supervisory categories were worked out and were enacted by the board by resolution on Oct. 23.

They worked out a $7,500 increase for the director, $6,500 for the superintendent, $6,000 for area superintendents and $5,810 for the superintendent of business. These revised salaries, however, after the resolution passed by the board, have been sent to the Anti-Inflation Board in Ottawa for review by that board and the board is presently waiting the ruling of the Anti-Inflation Board.

COW-CALF PROGRAMME

Mr. MacDonald: A question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food with regard to the government’s cow-calf income insurance programme: Now that the market price indicates a prospective shortfall of nearly 20 cents as compared with the forecasted 10 cents from your guarantee of 51 cents, will the minister indicate whether this shortfall is likely to result in an increase in premiums next year? Secondly, would the minister give assurances now that any increase in premiums or any other change in the programme will be the result of meaningful consultation and/or negotiation with the appropriate farm organization rather than unilateral action by the government?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have met with the OBIA -- the Ontario Beef Improvement Association -- and we have already discussed this very matter. As a matter of fact, I met with them last week. We anticipated when the markets first came on we could have the average price as low as 30 cents. I said it was somewhere around 33; I think it is going to be closer to 32. We set the premium at $5 a share and I can assure the member we have to look at the cost factors and the input cost factors before any decisions can be made next year. I am quite prepared to discuss it with the OBIA or any other group that wants to discuss it with me.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary: What the minister is in effect saying is that there may well be a premium increase next year and therefore I repeat my second question. Is the minister suggesting then that the appropriate organization to discuss this with is the OBIA?

Hon. W. Newman: I didn’t say that. Now, let’s get it straight! The Ontario Beef Improvement Association is a representative of the beef industry.

Mr. MacDonald: Did the minister negotiate with them in the first instance?

Hon. W. Newman: Just a minute, let me finish. There are other organizations too in this province and I recognize them all and they all do a very fine lob. There are a lot of members in the Ontario Federation of Agriculture who are beef producers. There are a lot of members of the Christian Farmers Federation who are beef producers. I am aware that there are a lot of people involved and I can assure the member that before that price was reached last year there was a lot of discussion. We are talking now about an overall average price of somewhere between 32 and 33 cents.

Coming back to the member’s next question on what the premium will be next year, I would hope -- but not until I have consultation with other groups -- that we could keep the premium within reasonable bounds. The member is asking me to take a unilateral decision now on next year without consultation.

Mr. MacDonald: No! I have specifically asked for assurance that there will be consultation with the appropriate farm organizations.

Hon. W. Newman: I am quite prepared to have consultation with the various farm groups involved.

Interjections.

Mr. McKessock: A supplementary on the cow-calf stabilization programme in Ontario: Could the minister explain to the House how the 50-cent ceiling in Ontario is equal to the BC 77 cents --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I didn’t hear that question asked. The hon. member for Rainy River I think had a supplementary.

Interjections.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, the same question --

Mr. MacDonald: Answer the question, but we may have to revert to statements.

Hon. W. Newman: I am prepared to answer that question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Actually, neither the original question or the answer had anything to do with the supplementary. If you want to ask that question later, okay. The member for Grey wishes to ask a new question.

Mr. McKessock: Would the minister explain to the House how the cow-calf stabilization programme in Ontario with its 50-cent ceiling is equal to 77 cents in BC, a statement which he made at the OFA convention on Tuesday night?

Mr. Lewis: He also said that marketing boards wouldn’t come under guidelines.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. W. Newman: I did not! I said --

Mr. Lewis: Nobody understood that speech.

Hon. W. Newman: Nobody understood it?

Mr. Nixon: Tell us the story about the eagle.

Hon. W. Newman: I will tell the member something. The farmers of this province understood that statement --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. W. Newman: -- and that’s what’s important.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. MacDonald: They understood that speech and you will hear about it before you are finished.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are wasting the time of the question period. Does the hon. minister have an answer to that question?

Mr. Good: Maybe the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton) should have got this portfolio.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to answer that question but to be quite honest with you, it’s at least five pages long and if you --

Mr. Reid: You’re not trying to be funny?

Hon. W. Newman: I am not being funny and don’t make fun about it because let me tell you --

Mr. Nixon: Fifty cents is equal to 77 cents?

Mr. Reid: If he keeps that up he’ll be Treasurer.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: It was a great explanation.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, it was a very complicated formula to work out. I will be glad to send the hon. member a copy of it because I know that the opposition is already researching it out. Quite obviously if they’ve researched it out they know it’s correct.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

GREENING DONALD STRIKE

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Does the Minister of Labour have any information available with regard to involvement by the ministry in the Greening Donald strike situation in Hamilton? They’ve been on strike for seven months and it would be helpful to find out if the ministry knows anything about it or is prepared to take any action to try and bring about an end to the situation. And does the minister feel --

Mr. Speaker: I think the question has been asked. Does the hon. minister have an answer?

Mr. Deans: And does the minister feel there might be some indication of interference from outside of the country, from Germany in particular, in the negotiations that are currently taking place?

Hon. B. Stephenson: In answer to the last question, Mr. Speaker, I have no such information. In answer to the first question, the ministry has been involved from time to time, although the time of our last active involvement in mediation was at the beginning of October. There has been no request from either side for a further continuation of mediation since that time, to my knowledge.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary question: In the report given to the minister, is there any indication of whether there is any feeling on the part of the person reporting to the ministry about the attitude of the company vis-à-vis good-faith bargaining?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I have no such report.

Mr. Deans: One final supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think we’ll get on, we’re short of time. The member for Armourdale.

PAVING OF SPADINA EXTENSION

Mr. Givens: To the Minister of Transportation and Communications: When will the minister approve the application of Metro to pave the Spadina ditch from Lawrence to Eglinton, now that they have submitted all the relevant data to him?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Very soon, Mr. Speaker.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT

Mrs. Gigantes: A question to the Minister of the Environment: When does the government intend to proclaim the Environmental Assessment Act? And will the minister consider, as a matter of priority, asking for a review of the McCaul-Orde St. switching station by Ontario Hydro?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: We hope to proclaim the Environmental Assessment Act by the end of this year, Mr. Speaker, just as soon as the regulations are ready. The regulations are being compiled at the present time, and as the hon. member will appreciate, this involves other ministries as well as other agencies; but hopefully it will be proclaimed, certainly by the new year.

On the second point, I was under the impression -- and I’m just going by newspaper reports, possibly this should be directed to the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell) -- but I was under the impression that Hydro had pretty well indicated they would abandon that site.

Mr. Good: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Arising out of the minister’s reply that the regulations will be ready by Christmas, has he acceded to the request of the PMLC that they be consulted in the drafting of the regulations? And if so, has he also acceded to the request of the environmental groups to have input into the regulations of the Environmental Assessment Act?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: As far as PMLC is concerned, I hope to appear before them a week from tomorrow, at which time there will be a review of the regulations that are available to date. I wasn’t aware that certain environmental groups were anxious to have some say in the proclaiming of the regulations.

Mrs. Gigantes: is the minister not aware of a request by the city of Toronto council that the government provide funding for an outside investigation of this switching station? This was dated Oct. 8. Is the minister not aware that the government has not yet seen fit to reply to that request?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: That request, I would assume, would either go to Hydro or to the Minister of Energy. I’m not aware of it.

[3:00]

CREDIT RULES FOR WOMEN

Mr. Mancini: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations who has now become the champion of women’s rights. I would like to ask the minister what measures he proposes to take in order to ensure that the companies abide by his new guidelines to provide equality in credit arrangements for women?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, in my statement to the House at the time I introduced the guidelines a few days ago I made it quite clear that these were entered into voluntarily by the companies and organizations named and that we would be monitoring to ascertain whether or not there were any violations of them. We also added that if there were consistent violations, we would not hesitate to use the legislative option.

Mr. Mancini: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I would like to know why the minister is now so confident that the companies --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is there a question?

Mr. Roy: Sure.

Mr. Nixon: He would like to know why.

Mr. Mancini: This is a question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: This is not a debating period. If it’s a question of further information, fine.

Mr. Mancini: Yes. I would like to know why the minister is now so confident that the companies will enforce equality for women --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That is not a proper question, as the hon. member well knows. It’s a debating type of question.

Mrs. Campbell: It is?

Interjections.

Mr. Mancini: I would like to know --

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member have a genuine supplementary for information, not for debate?

Mr. Roy: Yes.

Mr. Givens: Very sincere.

Mr. Mancini: Would the minister tell me why he believes the companies will now be compliant in enforcing equality for women in credit ratings when they have not been before?

Mr. Roy: Right.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, there was nothing to comply with before. There are now guidelines to comply with.

Interjections.

Mrs. Sandeman: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: This will be the final supplementary.

Mr. Mancini: The champion of women’s rights.

Mrs. Sandeman: Is the minister prepared to put a deadline on the time during which he will watch the companies to see if they are going to comply?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I am sure the hon. member would not want me to put a deadline on in case there weren’t any complaints in that time. We will monitor it on a permanent basis and if the time comes that we feel there’s necessity for legislation, we will not hesitate to bring it in.

PROVISION OF SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr. McClellan: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. My understanding is that the next federal-provincial welfare ministers conference will be held in January to review the proposed federal Social Services Act. I want to ask the minister whether Ontario has developed its position statement for this conference respecting federal-provincial arrangements for the provision of social services and whether the minister will undertake to table the position statement either now or as soon as it becomes available?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I think the member should realize that these are negotiations which are going on and that they cover the whole field of income security, as well as the delivery system of social services, the social programme. As far as the provincial posture is concerned we have been meeting, as members know, over a period of years with the federal government in regard to the renegotiation of the Canada Assistance Plan.

We are currently developing, hopefully, a more formal posture in terms of our relationship vis-à-vis the federal government in regard to the whole field. That position, hopefully including the philosophy of the Conservative Party, will be implicit in the posture we adopt. I don’t expect there will be any formal paper for tabling.

AID FOR EGG PRODUCERS

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food: What action is the minister proposing to take to assist the egg producers in the province in view of the CDA report showing increased pullet placements in Quebec while our producers are operating at 62 per cent of quota and have been attempting to hold the line in this regard?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, as far as the producers of the Province of Ontario are concerned -- there’s been a lot of comment in the news media lately about it -- I have asked for an extension of our present agreement with Ottawa for six months. I’ve asked for a special committee to be set up to look at the allocations to the egg producers of the Province of Ontario, which is now set at 38.1 per cent. I’ve asked them to have another look at this overall programme to see what can be done to help the egg producers of the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary: If the placement figures as reported are correct, would this not constitute a violation of the CEMA agreement?

Hon. W. Newman: There is a possibility there are violations of the agreement under CEMA. The power of seizure is granted to the provincial agencies in Ontario.

Mr. Gaunt: That is here in Ontario?

Hon. W. Newman: Here in Ontario. But they have to have approval of the Farm Products Marketing Board before they can do it. I have asked the Farm Products Marketing Board to make a thorough investigation of the allegations that were made last week in the Toronto news media against certain board members who were over quota on hens.

There were a lot of factors involved in this situation. For instance, hens up to 24 weeks of age and under are not included in the overall count. When they get to 24 weeks of age and are at their potential laying age, the actual count takes place. As a result of the controversy, the Farm Products Marketing Board is looking into the whole matter now and I expect a report back in the very near future.

SALARY INCREASES BY EDUCATION BOABDS

Hon. Mr. Wells: I answered a question a few minutes ago about the Northumberland-Newcastle Board of Education and I forgot one very important part to the answer. Pending the review by the Anti-Inflation Board of these increased salaries, the officials are staying at the 1974-1975 salaries until they get the results of the AIB review of the new salary schedule.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

POSITION OF MARKETING BOARDS IN ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, if I may: Earlier in the question period the Minister of Agriculture and Food indicated his statement today that the marketing boards would be under the guidelines did not conflict with what he had said to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture on Tuesday last. Again later in the question period he denied he had indicated the contrary to them.

On page 18 of the minister’s speech to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture there is the following paragraph:

“And as for the mutterings from the Anti-Inflation Board about bringing marketing boards under the overall federal wages and price guidelines, I say no, most emphatically no.”

Hon. W. Newman: The hon. member rose on a point of order or a point of privilege or whatever he rose on --

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order.

Hon. W. Newman: I think it’s only fair that I have a chance to answer. He should have listened to my statement today. I said initially the federal guidelines provided only -- and maybe he doesn’t understand this so I’ll go over it very slowly -- provided only for cost pass-through in allowing for increases in prices. What this means is that the price of a commodity could not increase except to the extent of an increase in input cost. I pointed out to Mr. Macdonald that, while this principle was acceptable in general terms, it could not be applied inflexibly.

The reason for this is that it may be necessary in certain circumstances to increase prices by more than the increased input cost in order to assure the continuity of food supplies. Mr. Macdonald accepted my position, and that was one of the major points I made yesterday.

Mr. Shore: Did he understand it?

Hon. Mr. Newman: There are extenuating circumstances, sometimes, in which the farmer needs some protection.

Mr. Nixon: The minister sounds like Mackenzie King.

Mr. Breithaupt: Changes if necessary, but not necessarily changes.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Parrott presented the annual report of the University of Waterloo for the year ending April 30, 1975.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

MOTORIZED SNOW VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, the Motorized Vehicles Act at the present time prohibits the operation of a motorized snow vehicle in certain circumstances on a serviced roadway, which is defined so as to include the shoulder as well as that portion of the highway normally used by motor vehicle traffic.

Since there are a number of locations throughout the province where the shoulder is so wide that it is not ploughed for its full width this bill amends the definition so as to include only the ploughed portion of the shoulder, as well as that portion of the highway used for motor vehicles. There are one or two minor housekeeping sections to the bill.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATE CONTROL BOARD ACT

Mr. Swart moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to establish the Automobile Insurance Rate Control Board.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to freeze automobile insurance rates effective Nov. 15, 1975. The bill also establishes an automobile insurance rate control board which would have the power to approve and fix rates and to conduct public hearings dealing with rate changes. It is very much a companion bill to compulsory seatbelt use and lower speed limits.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Haggerty moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, the concern of the community over the inconvenience of an impasse in a collective bargaining process is at a level which requires serious attention by this Legislature.

The purpose of the bill is to provide a mechanism whereby the minister can order parties to a strike or lockout to end the strike or lockout for a period of 60 days during which time the parties try to reach a settlement.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table answers to questions 5, 6, 7 and 8 standing on the order paper.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The seventh order, House in committee of supply.

[3:15]

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister have an opening statement?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, I have an opening statement and I have to admit to you and to the members of the House that it is a rather lengthy one. I felt that with a number of new members in the Legislature it would be an excellent opportunity to review in detail many of the programmes and the goals and responsibilities of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

At the outset, I must compliment you, sir, on your elevation to chairman of the committee of the whole. I think it is becoming to your experience in this particular House. I hope you would not be totally muzzled by your position as chairman, because I have to admit that in the past we’ve benefited from your active debate, your active participation, in the debates on my particular ministry.

Your knowledge, certainly of the problems as they relate to northern Ontario, is well received --

Mr. Laughren: Careful, Jack.

Mr. Lewis: Of whom are you speaking? Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, get him back to the estimates.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, it’s not a point of order. He hasn’t got a point of order. I wish you would bestow on your illustrious leader some of the information you have.

Mr. Lewis: That’s what I was afraid of. Get him back --

Mr. Nixon: He’s only being provocative. He’s not bestowing --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You forced me into it; you did it to me. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, my congratulations on your elevation.

This year my ministry will be asking for a total budget of $211,270,000.

Mr. Nixon: Ten per cent down next year.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: As I said in my brief opening remarks, I would like to review the goals and the responsibilities of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

I think I should point out the official statement of the ministry’s goal is as follows: To provide opportunities for outdoor recreation and resource development for the continuous social and economic benefit of the people of Ontario and to administer, protect and conserve public lands and waters.

Mr. Chairman: Can we have some order in the chamber, please, for a very important ministry.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That is the goal of Ministry of Natural Resources.

This means that my ministry is concerned primarily with the management of 90 per cent of this province which is composed of non-urban, non-agricultural lands and waters. Much of this area is in the north but quite a bit of it is in the south too.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. There is far too much noise in the chamber; will you keep your voices down?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Also, our programmes induce many private landowners to manage their properties in ways which contribute to our goal. The ministry performs a principle role of co-ordination between all the agencies involved in the management of public lands. The ministry’s programmes are concerned with the best use of Ontario’s physical resources of land, water, trees, fish, animals and minerals for recreational and resource product purposes.

As a result, we have a major responsibility for sustaining a supply of renewable resources, and for using and managing the land, water and mineral resources so as to minimize negative environmental effects.

Before getting into the main portion of this statement, I would like to share with my colleagues in the Legislature the sense of loss we feel in the Ministry of Natural Resources after the recent passing of two men who made major contributions to what is now the Ministry of Natural Resources:

I refer to Harold Rickaby who was Deputy Minister of Mines when he retired in 1960, a post he held very capably for some 22 years. A geologist originally, he was a pioneer in the mapping of the mineral development areas in the province and later promoted geophysical exploration. He did much to build a healthy mining programme in this province.

Frank MacDougal, who was known to many of the members of this Legislature, was Deputy Minister of the Department of Lands and Forests when he retired in 1966, after serving in that position for 25 full years. Among the many ways he left his mark was as an enthusiast of flying; not only as a pilot himself but also as a key supporter of the provincial air service with its high reputation in forest fire control as well as resource surveys. He made the lands and forests side of my ministry the able professional group that it is, and the image of the outdoorsman who was called the “Flying Deputy Minister” of course will remain with us for a long time.

In this statement, I plan to lay particular emphasis on two important areas -- the forest regeneration programme and the mining safety programme, the latter recommended in the ministry submission earlier this year to the royal commission on the health and safety of miners.

I will deal with the forest regeneration programme first. I think copies of my remarks were made available to the various members.

Mr. Riddell: Are you going to read them all?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, I am going to put them all on the record.

Mr. Ferrier: Can’t we take them as read?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think it is important, I really do. This is the first opportunity I have had in this new Parliament, as I said earlier, to outline to the members just what we do in the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Mr. Nixon: Oh yes, well that’s all right. You only have 10 hours to go.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It’s a good record. It’s a positive one. It’s one we are proud of, and one we will continue to expand upon.

The objective of my ministry’s forest management programme is to protect and manage forest resources to produce economic and social benefits for all the people of the province. Efficient allocation and use of forest resources will provide employment and public income from corporate taxes and other Crown charges. Provincial expenditures will ensure adequate forest resources for meeting future industry and recreation needs, and also provide jobs directly in our ministry’s forestry and recreation programmes.

The forest management process is a complex one. It requires not only long-term planning, but also large capital investments with long-term payoffs. It is important to recognize that forests are renewable resources only when the trees harvested are replaced. This is the central thrust of our forest management programme.

Currently, industry in Ontario is using about 510,000,000 cu ft of roundwood a year from Crown land by agreement with the ministry; plus an additional 180,000,000 cu ft from private land. New mills and mill expansions completed or proposed over the next two to three years will increase this total of roundwood consumption to 850,000,000 cu ft per year by 1978. These new developments will mean an additional annual capacity of 1,000,000,000 bd ft of lumber, 1,000,000 tons of pulp, and over 400,000,000 sq ft of particle board.

They represent an estimated capital investment of more than $700 million and will directly provide 7,000 new jobs. When added to the existing 75,000 forest industry jobs, this represents a significant contribution to the Ontario economy, particularly in the north, as I said earlier.

With present utilization standards, the total roundwood demand in Ontario will require 100 per cent of the softwood and about 70 per cent of the hardwood annual allowable cut. Consequently, our forest management efforts must be greatly intensified.

An up-to-date forest resource inventory is prerequisite to forest management planning. In the 1974-1975 forest resources inventory programme, the ministry flew 26,378 sq mis. of aerial photography, mostly covering an area west of Lake Nipigon and north of Lake Superior, the hon. chairman’s area. This photography is being used to facilitate field work and to prepare forest-stand maps. We intend to accelerate the inventory programme in 1975-1976 to almost double last year’s programme.

Because of the long-term nature of forestry, it is important to have sound forest management plans to control operations, ensure continuity, and build up background knowledge of biological processes, even on small areas.

Last year the government decided to review Crown timber resources revenues. A task force was set up under the joint direction of the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs and my ministry. We asked for a revenue system to be developed which would be more responsive to changes in forest company profits so that government revenues would rise with increasing profits and decline, of course, with decreasing profits of the companies. The task force report has recently been submitted to the provincial Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) and myself. We will be considering the recommendations immediately.

New logging techniques and transportation methods have had a marked effect on the forest products industry, and hence on scaling practices -- or wood measurement, as some call it. Efforts were made in the ministry to upgrade and maintain standards, to increase efficiency and to reduce unit scaling costs. Since 1968-1969, the introduction of new scaling methods has permitted the ministry to reduce the number of staff employed in timber measurement.

While it is difficult to pinpoint actual dollar savings to individual changes in technique, the net scaling costs per 100 cu ft have been reduced from 20 cents in 1968-1969 to 17 cents in 1973-1974. This is a substantial reduction in relation to wood costs and inflation.

Silviculture can be compared to agriculture. It is simply the planting, growing, tending and harvesting of forest crops. Silviculture includes: Seed collection and processing; the growth of nursery and container stock; genetic improvements; planting, seeding, and modified harvest cutting to ensure regeneration and the treatment of established stands to ensure survival and growth. Silviculture involves the assessment of areas regenerated, naturally and artificially, to determine survival, stocking and growth of desired species. Because of the unique problems encountered, it has also involved the ministry in the development of specialized equipment.

Before 1953, northern Ontario had a large, under-utilized, mature forest. Artificial regeneration was thought to be unnecessary in that region. However, in 1953 studies showed that natural regeneration was inadequate and a start was made with artificial regeneration on 11,000 acres. Between 1953 and 1974, some 1,900,000 acres have been artificially regenerated.

I would now like to talk in more detail about the ministry’s silviculture programme, as developed under the --

Mr. R. S. Smith: Considering the need, that is a very poor record.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It is an excellent record and we will go into detail on that in a few minutes.

Mr. Haggerty: That’s simple.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Don’t go into detail or we will be here until Christmas.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I would now like to talk in more detail about the ministry’s silviculture programme, as developed under the “Forest Production Policy Options for Ontario, April, 1972.” This planning document, prepared by the division of forests, presented a series of options designed to meet environmental needs and sustain the forest industry at various alternative production levels for the year 2020 and beyond. Because silviculture practices carried out this year will produce the wood supplies for the year 2020, the question was: What would Ontario need then?

We decided to provide for an annual harvest, after 2020, of 910,000,000 cu ft -- 50 per cent more than the volume required by industry in 1972. I think that’s a tremendous goal when you look at that -- 50 per cent more in the year 2020 than we have --

Mr. R. S. Smith: That is 50 years away.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I know, but this is the complexity and the difficulty in the task of dealing with the silviculture programme --

Mr. R. S. Smith: What have you been doing for the last 50 years?

Mr. Haggerty: Going backwards?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We put dollars in the ground today and really won’t reap the benefits for 50 years. But that is the kind of long-term planning we do in this particular programme and I want to make a very strong point on that.

Mr. R. S. Smith: You’re talking about your future programme, but what about the past, because it was a mess?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It is straightened out now and we are on the right track.

Ministry staff then prepared a 10-year implementation

schedule to double the 1972 silviculture effort. This time period is required because of the increased programme and the sequential nature of the silviculture operations.

To support this doubling of the regeneration and tending work during the 10-year period, other improvements must be made. The seed plant capacity at Angus has been increased from about 40,000 bushels of cones to 80,000 bushels -- or in metric terms about 15,000 to 30,000 hectolitres.

To improve survival and growth of some of our important conifers on the more difficult sites, the percentage of transplant stock being grown has increased from 22 per cent in 1973-1974 to 39 per cent in 1975-1976. This improved stock is just now becoming available from the nurseries.

Silviculture is largely labour-intensive, but where possible we are attempting to mechanize. A machine developed by the ministry and now known as the Ontario free planter is being field-tested and several units should be ready for the first operational trials by next year. This rugged machine is designed to operate in the rougher terrain of the north.

A multi-row nursery stock-lifter, to mechanize lifting in the nursery, was field-tested this summer and should be in use next spring. We are co-operating with the Imperial Tobacco Co. to convert a cigarette machine to produce paper containers for growing tubelings. As can be seen, development and improvements of existing equipment is a continuing process.

To promote this policy of increased regeneration, additional money was allocated to the silviculture budget: $2.2 million in 1973-1974; $1.5 million in 1974-1975; and a proposed $3.4 million in 1975-1976, for a total of $7.1 million extra in the first three years, not including inflation allowances.

This money covers salaries, capital expenditures, transportation, services, supplies and support. Increases in permanent staff are necessary to plan and implement the increasing field programme. A total of 98 new staff have been added in the first three years: 50 in 1973-1974, 32 in 1974-1975, and 16 have been taken on this year.

This silviculture policy has been in effect for only two full years and initial assessment indicates we are meeting our overall targets closely. In fact, because of increased direct seeding of jackpine, after the fires last year in the Dryden area, we exceeded our planned regeneration target in 1974-1975.

One additional point: Because of accelerated industrial expansion and increased wood requirements of industry, the forest production policy is being re-examined and the staff of the division of forests plans to complete this revision by March, 1976. There is little doubt that increased efforts in regeneration and the other components of our forest management programme will be required.

Because of the interest shown in forest regeneration by several members, I wish to re-emphasize that the present policy is to increase the area regenerated artificially from 154,000 acres in 1973-1974 to 296,000 acres in 1982-1983. This, together with areas that regenerate naturally, and available mature forest supplies, will sustain an industry, from the year 2020, that uses 910 million cubic feet of roundwood a year.

The 10-year programme was initiated in 1973-1974, and the first two years were close to schedule. In the first year, 1973-1974, the goal was to regenerate 153,689 acres. We completed 145,278 acres. The deficit was about 8,500 acres. Then, in the following year, 1974-1975, the goal was 150,408 acres and 150,604 acres were regenerated -- right on target. In addition, about 25,000 more acres were aerially seeded with jackpine, following the fires last summer in the Dryden area. Therefore, the overall total for 1974- 1975 was 175,604 acres regenerated, which easily made up the small deficit of the previous year.

This year, 1975-1976, the target is to regenerate about 183,000 acres, and I am confident that figure will be met.

It is true there is a gap between the amount of area requiring regeneration and the amount that is being regenerated. In 1974, this difference was about 170,000 acres. I repeat, however, that our 10-year programme is designed to reduce this gap.

Funds spent on the silvicultural aspects of our work programme alone represent about 60 per cent of the division of forests’ budget -- $11.9 million in 1973-1974, $13.6 million in 1974-1975, and, we estimate, about $20.5 million in 1975-1976.

In December, 1974, my ministry published the report, “Survival and Growth of Tree Plantations on Crown Lands in Ontario.” This shows the survival and growth, by species and regions, of nursery stock and tubed seedlings five years after planting. For the major species used in the boreal forest -- black spruce, white spruce, and jackpine -- the survival rate is between 61 per cent and 74 per cent, which will provide adequately stocked stands. For container stock, though, which represents about 10 per cent of planted stock, the survival rate for spruce is about 33 per cent, and for jackpine 55 per cent.

The reasons for this have been investigated and both growing and planting techniques have been modified. The area planted with container stock will not be expanded until better survival is obtained. We are not satisfied that the 33 per cent is high enough to be in our container stock programme.

One of the primary objectives in the 10-year forest regeneration programme is to expand the use of techniques other than the planting of nursery stock. This is essential because of accelerating costs, as well as the need to regenerate sites where planting is not successful.

The major expansions are planned in seeding and modified cutting. One of the methods available to secure regeneration on certain sites is by modifying the cutting techniques. This includes strip cutting, shelterwood systems, and leaving groups of trees.

Strip cutting was being done on a small experimental basis of about 1,000 acres a year in black spruce stands in the north during the 1960s. The technique is being further developed and expanded as quickly as possible. It requires an accelerated road programme and, of course, better planning of logging operations. Modified cutting techniques are now being used more extensively in the white pine, hard maple, and yellow birch stands farther south. Plans are to increase modified cutting from 22,000 acres in 1973-1974 to 65,000 acres in 1982-1983. By that date, our annual regeneration target will reach 296,000 acres.

A sound silviculture programme requires forest tending as well as regeneration. Tending involves release of trees from competition, weeding, thinning, pruning, and sometimes fertilization and cultivation. Tending promotes better survival, growth, and the quality of the forest trees. It is proposed to increase forest tending from about 69,000 acres in 1973-1974 to 179,000 acres in 1982-1983.

Mr. Haggerty: It sounds like paperwork.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It is. We have a great future in the forest industry in this province and we intend to make sure it continues. This is why the efforts are being expanded today.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Doesn’t look so good right now.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Well, we’ll have it on the rails pretty soon. I can assure you.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Is that a commitment?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That’s a personal commitment, yes.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Oh, over the head of the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson).

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Well, I’ll be co-operating with her very closely.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Now we know where the power is over there.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The significant expansion of the forest industry in Ontario has many advantages, but increased costs also come with it. All the forest management programmes of inventory, access roads, forest management planning, wood measurement, and especially silviculture, must be increased.

In

summary then, we have a vigorous forest management programme. We are further strengthening our activities in the forest resource inventory, forest management planning, and silvicultural operations -- especially regeneration -- and we will ensure that a fair return is made to Ontario for these valuable renewable resources. My ministry will continue to review and revise our activities and efforts to keep pace with the rapidly changing demands for all uses of our forested lands.

Still on the subject of forest management, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs have jointly developed a programme of tax reductions on privately owned forest land. The purpose of this managed forest tax reduction programme is to encourage proper management of such land and to ensure its fullest productivity. Qualifying forest owners will receive grants equal to 50 per cent of the 1973, 1974 and 1975 municipal and school taxes levied on their forest property. Notice of this programme has been widely advertised in the province and applications are being processed at the present time.

I would like now, Mr. Chairman, to turn to our mining programme. As I said in my opening remarks, I will deal with aspects of mine safety.

As part of the Division of Mines programme, my ministry holds the responsibility for the regulation and inspection of mining operations and processes in the province.

As an outgrowth of the discussions during last year’s estimates, the government of Ontario on Sept. 10, 1974, set up the royal commission on the health and safety of miners.

Mr. Chairman, I feel it can be reasonably said that we did not fully recognize or assess a number of important changes in the field of health and safety of mine workers over the past few years. One of the changes has been labour’s growing awareness of health and safety measures.

Mr. Martel: They have known all along. You have just not allowed them in.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They are in now.

Mr. Martel: Don’t give me that nonsense. Don’t try to paint labour into a corner.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Wait a minute. I’ll repeat what I said.

Mr. Martel: I listened to what you said. None of the changes have been labour’s.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It’s a fact, and you know it’s a fact, it’s only in the last few years that labour’s become keenly aware and interested.

Mr. Martel: They wanted in a long time ago. It was you through the mining act who wouldn’t allow them in.

Mr. Chairman: Would the member for Sudbury East come to order? He’ll have an opportunity to speak later on.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I’ll repeat that, Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of the member. One of the changes has been labour’s growing awareness for health and safety measures.

Mr. Martel: It’s a bare-faced lie.

Mr. Chairman: The member will have to withdraw that remark.

Mr. Martel: No, Mr. Chairman, you will have to --

Mr. Chairman: That isn’t permitted in this chamber. No member can accuse another member of telling a bare-faced lie.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, with the greatest of respect, the statement is a deliberate deception. If I am allowed to explain the position I will.

Mr. Chairman: It is not debatable; you will have to withdraw that.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, the minister states one of the changes has been linked to growing awareness --

Mr. Chairman: I am sorry; will the member come to order? It is not debatable; you cannot accuse another member of lying in this chamber.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the statement but I will explain my position later on this afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Another has been the result of the advance of medical knowledge and awareness coupled with vastly improved techniques for measuring health and safety levels. I am sure the member will agree with me on that.

Health and safety are not negotiable issues. Therefore, in my ministry’s brief to the royal commission, which received wide acclaim right across this province in the mining communities of this province --

Mr. Laughren: Stop it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- we recommended that approaches be examined so that miners and managers would work together, with our engineers assisting them, to ensure a greater common responsiveness to health and safety problems. I am happy to report excellent progress in this particular area.

Another change that should be mentioned is that the miners themselves and their families across Ontario have become much more concerned than in the past about health and safety problems in their working environment. We have earnestly tried to do a good job of protecting our mine workers.

Mr. Laughren: Stop it. This is getting sick.

Mr. Martel: That is why I made the remark.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: But far too often the miners are not consulted and we have now changed that situation. Any non-privileged information that the government has is now made available to miners and will be published and actively disseminated.

Mr. Laughren: What is privileged?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: My engineers will require that any information in the hands of mining companies will be promptly communicated and explained to the individual miners involved.

Mr. Martel: What about information in your ministry?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It is available to the public and I have made this very clear.

Mr. Laughren: You decide what is privileged, though.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Any information we have in regard to the health and safety of miners is available to them; that’s a point of fact.

All of these points were fully documented in the extensive brief presented by the Ministry of Natural Resources on June 4, 1975, to the royal commission. On that occasion, I believe we dealt frankly with our programmes -- our record, our failures; and we admit we have failures --

Mr. Ferrier: A lot of them.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- and our successes. From 1957 through to 1973, the total accident frequency rate per million man-hours worked in Ontario mining was 38.4. In trucking and carting, it was 57.6; in construction, it was 59.4; in foundries, 79.2; and logging, 93.4.

Mr. Laughren: Does that include industrial diseases? No, it doesn’t.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Of course, there are always factors which introduce insidious long-term effects on health in the mining industry. We have taken steps to improve our --

Mr. Laughren: But not action, have you?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- capability to recognize and respond to these hazards quickly. We are seeking out new and more effective equipment and methods to control such hazards.

One of the steps we have taken is to upgrade and to strengthen the mines engineering branch. This is the branch in my ministry which carries out the inspection of working conditions and gets all sides to observe safety and health standards.

Realizing the vital importance of this role, the Management Board approved nine more positions in this branch. The first move, in a staff reorganization, was to appoint three chief engineers and to base them in Sudbury. These are the provincial experts in mining, electrical and mechanical equipment and ventilation respectively. Instead of working from our main office in Toronto, they are operating in the heart of our mining country. These chief engineers develop procedures for enforcement of standards and guidelines. They also audit the field engineers’ performance in ensuring that the standards and guidelines are met.

To further firm up the mines engineering branch, recruiting is going on to fill some of the key positions. We are going after the best qualified people available so that our impact will be more effective at all levels of the industry.

[3:45]

In still another change, the branch is putting greater emphasis on engineering the hazards out of the industrial processes before they are actually used in mining operations. That is, before a new operation goes into production, the plans are brought to the ministry and are very carefully examined before any cement is poured or any construction starts. So we have firsthand knowledge of what they are trying to do and we can give them the best advice possible.

However, I would like to emphasize the point that substantial improvement will only be possible through greater co-operation among all those involved in the mining industry. I state categorically that a greater co-ordinated effort by both management and labour is vital if the record of safety and health in Ontario mines is to improve. It has to be a two-way street.

Mr. Laughren: Labour has tried.

Mr. Ferrier: Labour has tried.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It has to be a two-way street.

Mr. Laughren: It is not labour’s fault that it has not been a two-way street.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Well, the mining industry has done a job too, and don’t discount that.

Mr. Martel: On the miners.

Mr. Laughren: They sure have.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes they have. Just don’t wipe it off. They have been around a long time and you just can’t wipe out the thousands and the thousands of dollars and man-hours that the industry itself have put into it.

Mr. Warner: And the deaths.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Just the Mine Accident Prevention Association alone, you know; the effort they put in there long before labour was involved, as concerned as they are today. I appreciate labour’s involvement --

Mr. Ferrier: It was done only because they have been forced to.

Mr. Laughren: Despite the Mining Act.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think labour’s involvement is great and it’s got to be that way. And we will encourage it and we will assist them to be part of it.

Among the reforms we recommended to the royal commission were, first, a new mining code for Ontario to promote greater worker response and involvement related to health and safety in mines. And, secondly, the establishment of a special committee to prepare amendments to the Mining Act.

We have set up this committee. Its membership was announced on Sept. 15 and includes persons from the ranks of labour and management. We want miners themselves to have a say in whatever changes come about in the Mining Act. I think that particular committee has sat now on three or four occasions, They are moving ahead. They have had some confrontations, which is expected when you get both sides at the table --

Mr. Ferrier: Is Wadge a member of that committee?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- but I am hopeful that under the chairmanship of C. M. Barrett, who is very knowledgeable, that we will be able to come to this Legislature with

an Act that is properly prepared, that is properly gone over by both sides -- by government, by the industry and by labour. I can remember a few years ago when I came to this Legislature when they were revising the Mining Act.

Mr. Martel: I remember well. I remember well and you beggars wouldn’t move.

Mr. Ferrier: As soon as a proposal was made the minister looked down at Wadge to see if he would give his permission.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The agonizing hours that were spent and the debates that lasted for long hours into the evening.

Mr. Martel: Right.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: But we are going to do away with that kind of confrontation. We are at the table and we are doing it in an entirely different method.

Mr. Martel: You could have done it then, but this government wouldn’t.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Well, that was the minister of the day, and he is not with us any more. But the new, enlightened ministers you have here now are taking this new approach.

Interjections.

Mr. Bernier: Is it time for commercials?

Mr. Laughren: The Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) calls it the new accord.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: New accord.

Mr. Laughren: Would you call it that as well?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes.

Mr. Laughren: Would you?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Oh yes, we do.

Mr. Gaunt: You have got a lot of stuff there. Is it a filibuster?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Further, and this is important, Mr. Chairman, we intend this committee that we have established now, or some other similar body, to become a permanent participant in our administration of mine health and safety in this particular province. We want an ongoing committee established that will give us the benefit of their advice.

Mr. Martel: You might adopt my bill.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Oh well, certainly. If we get some good advice, we will always accept it. We are not that proud. We have a job to do. We want to be responsible, and we think we are being responsible.

I say again that our emphasis cannot be on negative regulation by external agencies. We have been committed to self-regulation by those in the industry.

Mr. Laughren: That is an irresponsible statement. What do you mean by negative?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Well, there has been a negative approach by some groups on many occasions.

Mr. Laughren: What groups? What outside groups?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Maybe industry and maybe labour -- I’m not singling out one; but both aides.

Mr. Laughren: You call that an outside agent?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: This is the only effective way to improve the record.

I would like to turn to other activities in the field of mining. During the past summer, the geological branch staff did 33 geological surveys, one geophysical survey and two geochemical surveys. In addition, aggregate resource studies were done in 24 townships and mineral deposit studies were undertaken throughout the province. In all, 10,000 square miles were covered by geoscience surveys led by 31 permanent staff, assisted during the field season by 114 casual staff.

Earlier this year, eastern Ontario was added to the designated areas included under the mineral exploration assistance programme -- better known as the MEAP programme. This programme to support the search for productive mineral deposits and to boost the provincial economy has already had results in the earlier designated areas. Our reports indicate that 51 per cent of the wages paid to date under the MEAP agreements in other parts of the province went to local residents, and 64 per cent of the supplies for programmes under the agreement were purchased locally.

To date, 241 technical reports have been submitted for completed exploration work. At two properties, ore located under MEAP was mined, and at three others, mineralization of near economic size and grade was found.

Another programme for mineral discovery is our participation with the federal government in an aerial reconnaissance survey of the province for potential uranium resource areas, and 1975-1976 will be the first of a five-year joint programme.

An inventory of Ontario’s zinc industry is currently being carried out by the division of mines in a joint federal-provincial project. Although the zinc mining industry in the province produces about 10 per cent of the free world zinc -- about as much as that produced by the United States -- only 22 per cent of that zinc is refined to the metal stage in Ontario. Before it can be decided what can be done by government to encourage further zinc processing in the province, a thorough understanding of the industry, including its resource base, must be reached. In a similar case, a uranium survey of Ontario was carried out at the end of 1974 and is now being updated.

My ministry has recently provided a $300,000 grant to the Royal Ontario Museum to establish a geochronological laboratory. This will be the most sophisticated age-dating equipment for rocks available, and it’s the first facility of its kind in our country. I can tell you, gentlemen, any of you who are involved in the mining industry or may have heard of this particular announcement, we’re most pleased, because it’s something that no other jurisdiction has in Canada and it’s being very well received to assist us in our exploration programme.

As my colleagues are aware, Mr. Chairman, last spring we announced the adoption of the amethyst as Ontario’s official mineral emblem. I am particularly pleased that the Chairman, of course, supported us wholeheartedly in that endeavour.

Mr. Laughren: It was his idea. What do you mean, supported it?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We question that.

Mr. Laughren: I know you question that, but it was his idea. Give him credit for it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Everybody gets in the act when it’s a good thing.

Mr. Laughren: After he did.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Another area I’d like to turn to now is forest fire control. During 1974, the province experienced the most severe forest fire season in 50 years. Extended drought conditions in late June and July in northwestern Ontario resulted in 1,622 fires burning 1.3 million acres. Although the fire control system was severely tested by these outbreaks, it functioned well. We were able to learn from this experience and had moved to further improve our fire control system when this past season arrived.

The 1975 forest fire season in Ontario can best be described as both abnormal and unique. A total of 3,138 fires occurred, the all-time record for the greatest number of fire starts in any one year. To provide some comparisons, the total was nearly 1,500 fires more than the previous summer, and the average per year for the previous decade had only been about 1,409 fires.

Now, gentlemen, here is the good news: Despite the abnormally high number of fires, the total area burned last summer was held at the relatively low level of 40,000 acres. Compare that to the year before, to 1.3 million acres, and you can see the tremendous job the staff of the ministry did. This is an average of less than 13 acres per fire -- a most commendable achievement indeed. I take my hat off to all those, both on the regular staff and of course our thousands of casual staff, principally the native people of this province whom we are so pleased to have on our fire-fighting work force.

Mr. Laughren: If you could take mining out of your ministry it would be a good ministry.

Mr. Martel: These are good people. That is a good department.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: To make other interesting comparisons, the 1975 total of 40,000 acres compares with the previous 10-year average of 159,000 acres. Compared to the burn during the 1974 season, this year’s total was 30 times less. So we had a great year when it comes to forest fires -- not by number, but by acreage.

The major reasons for this favourable situation are worth reporting. First, the weather helped a great deal. Days on which conditions favoured fires were interspersed with days having high relative humidities and low winds. Second, the intense experience of 1974 brought internal reviews and recommendations for improvements in the fire suppression system. Our people were ready. Third, we made more effective use of aircraft this year by combining the traditional float-equipped ministry aircraft, our tracker fire attack fleet and the helitack system employing leased helicopters.

And finally, although there were other contributing factors I haven’t the time to mention, one major reason was the high level of training and skills our field fire staff brought to the task, I am extremely proud to say that the ministry staff showed their ability to perform efficiently under stress, and much of the credit for limiting the acreage burned is due to their ability, their experience and their effort.

Mr. Martel: Hope you remember that when they ask for a pay raise.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We view forest fire control as a priority matter. My ministry’s recent commitment in the northern areas to allow the forest industry to expand -- and that’s, sir, north of Armstrong and north of Red Lake -- meant that we had to intensify our fire-control measures on an additional 20,000 square miles.

Mr. Ferrier: Did you get any flak from Darcy in that?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, we did, I will have to admit.

Twelve additional specialists and $1.8 million were made available to provide for this increased protection -- this is because of the tremendous development occurring in the Kimberly-Clark operations, and the plans of the Reed Paper company to develop a new mill in the Ear Falls-Red Lake area -- we felt we had to move in and protect those resources. Up till now we were not concentrating any large effort on it, but we now have special helicopters and aircraft based at Pickle Lake and Red Lake.

Turning to other field service programmes, 35 water control and engineering projects are scheduled this year at a total cost of $1.3 million; 20 are recreational projects; eight are for flood and erosion control; and seven provide ministry facilities such as docks and dams and so on. These projects are scattered across the province with three each located in the southwestern and north central regions, four each in the northwestern, northern, northeastern and eastern regions, six in the Algonquin region, and seven in the central region.

In the area of resource access, slightly more than $3 million will be spent in maintaining 5,000 miles of forest access roads, logging access roads, agreement roads and other roads in the province this year. And, an additional 210 miles of forest and logging access roads will be constructed this year to help the harvesting and managing of our forests on Crown lands.

Approximately $5 million will be spent by the Northern Ontario Resources Transportation Committee this year to build new roads and upgrade others for use as transportation routes for the exploration and extraction of the province’s resources. Of this amount, almost $4 million will be spent on projects wholly financed by the committee, while $1.3 million will be used to assist the mining and the forest industries in building roads on a cost-sharing basis.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt) is not here because I just want to comment briefly on conservation authorities. I believe he will have some comment to make when we get into that particular vote.

In the conservation authorities programme the emphasis has been on water management. Potential hazards such as the May, 1974, flood of the Grand River have always been recognised. I am pleased to assure the members that the recommendations of the royal commission report on the Grand River flood are being acted upon. For example, additional funds were approved for both flood-plain land acquisition in Cambridge-Galt and for the Guelph dam in the current year.

The provincial flood-plain mapping programme to pinpoint vulnerable areas is being accelerated with grants in excess of $1 million earmarked for that purpose. Approximately $2 million annually is spent for the acquisition of flood-plain lands to ensure that they are retained as open space where floods would cause minimal damage.

Because of a reduction in the federal government’s support of the water survey programme, new funding is being allocated to ensure the continued collection of information by stream-gauging stations. About one-third of our grants help in the capital construction of conservation area facilities. Local municipalities cover operating costs.

[4:00]

About 30 years ago this government brought in a farsighted and far-reaching piece of legislation called the Conservation Authorities Act. Through the combined efforts of local people, municipalities and the province, an outstanding programme of watershed management and conservation has been developed.

Conservation authorities, made up primarily of municipally appointed local people, provide Ontario with a much safer and more enjoyable environment. This government is fully committed to this work, and I am pleased to point out that since the conservation authorities programme became associated with my ministry in 1972, we have seen a significant increase in funding.

In 1971 the budget for the conservation authorities was $12.8 million. This year the budget is $32.3 million, or 2 1/2 times the level of 1971.

Mr. Ferrier: Darcy will be coming down hard on that one.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Great budget; very encouraging estimates.

I know that my cabinet colleagues, as well as many other members, share my enthusiasm for this very important programme. The conservation authorities have a foremost part to play, in conjunction with the Ministry of Natural Resources, in water management in this province. We intend to see this excellent contribution to our quality of life vigorously continued and strengthened.

The cottage lot programme: I would like to turn now to a new initiative in the provision of summer cottage lots on public lands. Perhaps no other programme operated by my ministry so exemplifies the life styles of Ontarians.

“The cottage,” or as they say in the great riding of Kenora, “the camp,” is a tradition which has benefited the people of Ontario for generations. This form of recreation, at its best, combines physical well-being with a respect for nature.

In the past few years, a number of factors have been combined to bring home the need for a fresh, hard look at our cottage lot programme. These are such factors as our growing population, the increased prosperity and the leisure time of a broader segment of our people, demands on our lake resources by people from less fortunate provinces and states neighbouring Ontario, changes in the public perception of the cottaging experience, and the growing knowledge among scientists of the complex nature of lakes and their limits in sustaining heavy and varied use.

In response, my ministry has initiated a number of changes in the cottage lot programme. Lots will be leased for an initial period of 30 years, with the right of renewal by the lessee for two further periods of 10 years each. In the case of new lots, only residents of Ontario will be eligible to apply in the first year. Other Canadians become eligible in the second year, and if any one of those lots is not taken up, then residents of other countries may apply in the third year.

Mr. Martel: Why don’t you follow the select committee report?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: This is an excellent one.

Mr. Martel: No. The select committee recommended no sale plan or lease other than to landed immigrants or Canadians.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We’ve had very few non-Canadians able to pick up summer cottage lots, because --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Non-Canadians? No. This is Crown land I’m speaking of.

Those following other recreational pursuits such as fishing, canoeing, camping, and so on also deserve a fair share of enjoyment on our lakes, so we have provided a lake planning method which will consider these other requirements, and also allow for a total package of uses within the capacity of a lake to sustain them.

We hope to provide some 400 lots this year and up to 800 lots in each of the next two years. During this three-year period, a thorough evaluation of the programme will be made. Of course it will be realized that most of the lots mentioned will be provided in northern Ontario. In the south -- of course, we all realize this -- with much less Crown land, only a limited number of lots may be made available. The requirements for the remaining public lakeshore for other ministry programmes will restrict the number of lots that we can afford to offer to the public.

In 1972, the ministry initiated a programme to rehabilitate pits and quarries on Crown lands. The programme has steadily progressed resulting in a number of completed projects this year. As I’m sure the members are aware, when we take aggregate from Crown lands we get a royalty. I think it’s 17 cents a yard. That is taken into consideration so that we have this particular budget to rehabilitate those exhausted pits on Crown lands. In 1972, 28 pits were rehabilitated, in 1973 41 were dealt with and last year, 51 pits were rehabilitated.

Mr. Ferrier: How many in the north?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They are practically all in the north.

Mr. Moffatt: All or practically all?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I would say 95 per cent or maybe 98 per cent of them. That’s north of the French River.

At no increase in funding, a total of 70 pits are scheduled for makeovers this particular year. In the programme to date we have concentrated on pits located on Crown land along the travelled highways of the province. Gradually these eyesores of the past are being eliminated.

In 1974, my ministry embarked on a test project in the northwest region to control the indiscriminate use and abuse of highway rights of way, gravel pits, public boat launching areas and backroads by overnight campers. This was done by restricting camping within a half mile of travelled roads, providing basic facilities at designated camp sites and educating the public through highway signs and advertising in the press and radio.

Because of demands made by the severe fire situation in northern Ontario in 1974, the Crown land camping project was only partially implemented. In the past summer, however, the project was continued with improved information to the public.

Mr. Nixon: A lot of tourists service their holding tanks in those projects or whatever you call it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, we are well aware of that. Right now, we are assessing the results of this approach to solving a serious environmental problem. Last year we followed with public meetings throughout the entire test area. The test area consists of that area from Ignace to the Manitoba border and from west of Atikokan to Fort Frances, where we have literally hundreds of designated areas. The signing designates the sites of provincial parks, private camp grounds and designated areas established by the Crown. We have just completed a complete round of public hearings on this particular, again to get the reaction of the local residents.

Mr. Nixon: Do they like it?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I would have to say to you that there is some concern about the number of non-residents using these particular areas at no cost. In fact many have said to me they leave their home on a Friday night and, by the time they get to a designated site some way off in the wilderness areas or northwestern Ontario, they find it loaded with people from Manitoba or the United States. Here again they are using Crown lands at no cost. What is coming out of the meetings is a desire to have licence fee charged to those out-of-province campers, with no charge to residents themselves.

Mr. Nixon: These designated areas would then have to be patrolled and serviced.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They are now. On the provincial parks programme: the major effort of our park planning activity over the past years was a development of comprehensive recreation policy proposals. These policies will be open to public review during the regional public participation meetings being conducted as part of the ministry’s strategic land-use planning programme. The master planning programme which a few years ago consisted of only four or five parks now covers almost 40 provincial parks whose master plans are in various stages of completion. One of these plans is for our largest park, Polar Bear Primitive Park.

Last year a provincial parks council, consisting of 20 members who represent a broad geographic and interest spectrum, was appointed. The council advises the government through the Ministry of Natural Resources on matters of policy planning and development of Ontario’s provincial parks in relation to the changing needs of the public. The council will be focusing its attention on three particular areas this year: Hunting and fishing in provincial parks; near-urban parks; and the parks classification system. Public meetings have been held where people from all walks of life presented their views about provincial parks and Crown land recreation.

Also the council will be looking closely at the Algonquin Park master plan and its implementation. The work of the council during the coming years will focus largely on revisions to the 1967 parks classification system. The council will also evaluate the historic, wilderness and recreational qualities of our rivers systems and in southern Ontario it will review potential nature reserves.

Another advisory group, the Ontario Trails Council, was set up this past September. It will make recommendations for the future planning and development of the province’s recreational trails programme. The 17 members of the council represent various recreational organizations, farmers and conservation concerns which come from various parts of this province.

The trails council held its first formal meeting in Toronto early this month. Among the things the group will review is the snowmobile trails programme implemented last year for the first time, with nearly 6,500 miles of trails being groomed and managed by private clubs and the Ministry of Natural Resources. Because the new season is now upon us, that programme is to continue this winter on an interim basis but the trails council’s recommendations are expected to have an impact on plans for the 1976-1977 season.

Now to CORTS, the Canada-Ontario Rideau-Trent-Severn agreement. This agreement, as I’m sure many members are aware, calls for the co-ordinated planning and development of a 425-mile-long land and water recreational corridor between Ottawa and Georgian Bay. It was signed on Feb. 20, 1975, by the federal and Ontario governments.

Under the agreement an advisory committee -- and I think we’re dining with them this evening -- and an agreement board have been established. The advisory committee is to advise the ministers on work programmes proposed for the corridor, public opinion, and how best to attain the objectives set out in the agreement. The advisory board will recommend to the ministers a plan for the acquisition, development and control of lands and facilities within the corridor.

Commercial fish and fur: Ontario stands first among all provinces and territories in the production of wild fur and in total value of its fur crop to trappers. Ontario’s 12,000 trappers share $8 million annually from this resource, which could be increased by approximately 100 per cent and still be perpetuated year after year. A major portion of this fur is exported, increasing the national value of this product tremendously.

In addition to managing the fur-bearing animals, my staff is striving to increase the number working in the fur industry. At the same time, the staff is actively participating in provincial, national and international efforts to find and institute more humane trapping methods. We are also conducting an extensive education programme for trappers to help them become better informed on technological developments, to upgrade the value of their furs and to carry on trapping in the most humane way.

Commercial fishing provided full or part-time employment for about 2,200 people in Ontario last year. An equal number were engaged in commercial baitfish harvesting. The landed value of food fish was about $9.5 million.

To strengthen this important industry my ministry, in co-operation with the federal Department of the Environment, conducts a variety of projects. In the past year and with the assistance of Ontario Hydro, a prototype eel-ladder was installed at the Robert Saunders dam at Cornwall to facilitate the passage of eels over this impediment to their upstream migration. These edible fish, of course, are not to be confused with the predacious sea lamprey.

The programme of freight equalization assistance to fishermen in northwestern Ontario continued to pro