Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

TREASURY BILLS

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that the two opposition leaders have received their copies of my statement since mine just came to me. It is here and being distributed.

The province of Ontario is discontinuing its weekly sale of 91-day treasury bills in line with its reduced net cash requirements and improved cash flow outlook for the fiscal year 1979-80. The treasury bill program was started in 1971 to provide a flexible medium in the province’s overall financing strategies. It has enabled Ontario to borrow for shorter periods at competitive rates of interest, to meet temporary financing requirements without resorting to the creation of long-term debt in the public market.

The program was suspended temporarily in 1974 and reactivated in July 1975. By March 31, 1976, Ontario’s treasury bills had risen to $325 million outstanding, but by October 1976 this had been reduced to $130 million as the weekly tender had been lowered to $10 million. To provide the temporary financing for the six-month reduction of the retail sales tax in 1978, the weekly treasury bill program was increased to $25 million, and it again reached maximum outstandings of $325 million by July 19, 1978.

Thus, as noted, reduced net cash requirements and improved cash flow have enabled the province to reduce this part of Ontario’s public debt. On April 24, 1979, the weekly tender of $25 million was reduced to $10 million. Effective June 13, 1979, the program is discontinued. All outstanding treasury bills will have matured by September 12, 1979.

Mr. Roy: You are trying to gain from correcting your own mistakes.

Mr. Peterson: The Treasurer fouled everything up six months ago.

ORAL QUESTIONS

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Mr. S. Smith: I will ask a question of the Minister of Energy. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, when we were discussing Babcock and Wilcox boilers and my question as to why they were not bonded, the minister in his statement on May 25 said:

“Mr. Speaker, with respect to whether a performance bond should have been required, I am advised it is not the normal practice in the industry to require a performance bond from companies which build this type of sophisticated equipment, unlike the normal practice in the construction industry where a performance bond is required from the contractor.”

How sophisticated a piece of equipment is a chimney at Wesleyville, which was not bonded and which has left Ontario with a bill of about $1.5 million or even $2 million or more because of the fact the company building it went bankrupt?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I really don’t know, Mr. Speaker. A chimney doesn’t sound like a terribly sophisticated bit of machinery to me, although some industrial chimneys have a lot of rather sophisticated equipment as part of them with scrubbers and things like that. However, the real question is what Hydro’s financial position will be as a result of the bankruptcy of the company, as I understand it. I expect to have detailed information on that.

I am aware that Hydro had undertaken to have the job completed by another company. They have not settled with the bankrupt company and I assume they would not pay for any work that has not been done. I will have more detail on that and, as soon as I have, I will convey it to the House.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, while the minister is checking on this, perhaps he will reflect on the statement made by Mr. Gordon of a bonding company which bonded other projects by Taylor Engineering, including one in Metropolitan Toronto, a $1.9 million contract. It says: “Poor Ontario Hydro. The job wasn’t bonded and they are going to end up paying quite a bit.”

Could the minister let us know what is going on at Ontario Hydro that they seem unable to perform even the most normal and routine business practices in a way that will protect the public interest? Could he report on precisely what the loss will be to the users of energy in Ontario as a consequence of this blunder?

Mr. Hennessy: Without the newspaper the Leader of the Opposition would be last.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I indicated that I would do that. I would point out to the Leader of the Opposition that in many cases some large companies which have a lot of construction, in effect, decide to self-insure themselves. I know that it is the case in the construction industry where, if a bond is required, everybody’s bid is a little higher because they have to pay the bonding company.

I can understand the representative of one of the bonding companies saying it was unfortunate they weren’t bonded because, obviously, the bonding company didn’t get the premium on the bond. However, that is not to say that merely calling for bonds is an unnecessarily expensive practice.

Mr. S. Smith: What is it to say then? Hydro is bonding its own contractors. Is that what you are saying?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I just point out that not everybody has bonds, even though in retrospect sometimes they may have wished they had.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister undertake to have Hydro’s policy with regard to performance bonds tabled in the Legislature and made available to the public? Would he also undertake to publish details of all Hydro contracts that are not currently completed and that are worth more than a quarter of a million dollars, where no performance bond has in fact been required, with an explanation of why?

Hon. Mr. Auld: That question might properly go on the Order Paper. That would take some time to get.

Mr. Cassidy: We want an undertaking now.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary: As the minister responsible for energy to the public of this province, will the minister inquire from Hydro why they are being so cavalier with the taxpayers’ money and why they don’t require standards from their contractors that any other contractor in this province involved in construction work requires, namely, a bond? Is he going to inquire for us why they do not protect the taxpayers’ interests?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I said I would get the information I think the honourable member is asking for.

ACID RAIN

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of the Environment: Is the minister aware of a study in New York state regarding acid rain in the Adirondack region which indicates there can be harm to the drinking water as a consequence of leaching, not only from natural bedrock but also from metal piping in the distribution system?

In particular, is he aware of an article by LaBastille which suggests that even in copper distribution systems there can be a problem, not only from taste, but also from toxic metals that might be released from the soldering in the joints?

If he is aware of that, why did he write to the Toronto Star in April saying that as long as the system itself is made of copper there is no danger from acid water within the system itself?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of that particular study. There is some degree of uncertainty as to the effect of the joints as described. Perhaps on further reflection it could be safely assumed that statement is not a total reflection of the fact. It has a very minuscule effect; nevertheless, perhaps what the honourable member states is correct.

Mr. S. Smith: May I ask whether the minister intends to offer any advice to the areas particularly hit hard by acid rain? I think, for instance, of the cottage areas in Ontario where this is quite a problem. Will he be offering advice that these people flush their systems prior to using the drinking water? Will he be testing any of the drinking water for lead in particular and for copper to some extent? Will he be checking the municipal water supplies in cottage areas where people are on a municipal supply rather than on a well to be sure that the matter of acid in the water is being properly buffered and regulated so as to avoid a problem of this kind as has appeared in the Adirondacks?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I would suspect that most people in the normal use of their system would likely flush it out in the spring for obvious reasons. The taste of water, if it were left there, would be fairly poor. Most of the time, of course, it is drained in the fall and very little water stays there because frost conditions would burst the pipes. It is obvious that for various reasons the system either is not in use in the wintertime or is flushed in the spring.

It would be an almost impossible job to notify all those cottagers. I think the fact that the issue is raised might be sufficient notice. I do not think I could say to the Leader of the Opposition that I could envision writing every cottage owner; it would be perhaps impossible. But the logic of his argument is fair, and I think people should use that caution, yes.

Ms. Bryden: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: I would like to ask the minister if he received the telegram from the resources development committee notifying him that in drafting our report we had decided that acid rain is a national emergency and asking him to pass this on to the other environment ministers he was meeting with on the west coast. Did he receive that, has he passed this on and are they prepared to take any federal-provincial action?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think that strays quite a way from the original question, Mr. Speaker; however, I am more than pleased to respond to the question. The Thursday of the conference was devoted to matters of environmental concerns, and the first paper was rescheduled at the request of Ontario so that acid rain would have the greatest prominence on the schedule. Canada presented the paper, and I had the pleasure to respond to that paper, I hope effectively, certainly at some length, because I feel Ontario does have the prime role to play in bringing the problem of acid rain to not only the citizens of Ontario but indeed all of Canada and more particularly all of the western hemisphere. It’s that large a problem, as we all know.

[2:15]

The question, however, Mr. Speaker, was whether or not I brought the item of acid rain to the attention of the conference because of receiving the telegram. I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the honourable member, the telegram arrived very early Friday morning. I was pleased to be awakened about 6:30 a.m. to receive the telegram asking me to do what I had done at great length the day before.

Mr. Peterson: I would have liked to have been there to tell you in person.

Mr. B. Newman: Continuing on the problem of acid rain, can the minister assure us Ontario Hydro will not be contributing to the present problem of acid rain by insisting they do have scrubbers at the renovated or refurbished J. Clark Keith generating station in the city of Windsor, which will be burning coal?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I can’t answer that question directly, Mr. Speaker. It’s hard to keep my answer short on this occasion because of the profound effect various coal generating stations will have on the acid rain problem. I am sure the member is as aware of the American policy on generating stations and the use of coal as I am. Although we contribute very little from that source here in Ontario relative to the American system, obviously we too must be concerned about our own stations.

I don’t have the information on the Windsor station. I suspect it’s a very small contributing factor. I have a little more information for instance, on Atikokan. I am sure when that station does become a fact of life and is generating power, considering the close-down of the mine that will accompany that event the total generation of sulphur dioxide to the atmosphere in that area will be much less than it is today.

I want to assure the member that wherever it’s at all possible, we will make every effort to reduce the amount of SO₂ generated. However, I think it’s always important to put it in context of the global scene. We have a huge problem on our hands and it will require the full support of the American government to control that particular problem.

I come back to the leader of his party’s question and the importance to the Adirondacks. If perhaps the people of the Adirondacks area would negotiate very effectively with the people of the midwest, I think it’s at that level we will get the most action because it will be people of the US speaking to people of the US. If they do, then I think we will perhaps have some effect on their attitude towards producing sulphur dioxide on a global basis. I really hope the people of upper New York state become very aggressive on this problem and support us, because I don’t think there’s any doubt that we are more than prepared to take full action on this very important subject.

Mr. S. Smith: Don’t you know the people in the Adirondacks blame us for it?

USE OF HERBICIDES AND PESTICIDES

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question also for the Minister of the Environment. Is the minister aware that on the weekend, the parents of children at the Hastings public school had to demonstrate to keep 2,4-D from being sprayed at the school? Is the minister aware that parents in the Northumberland-Newcastle school area protesting the spraying of 2,4-D have now collected 20 cases of children who have suffered sickness following the spray applications? Does the minister think he’s doing an acceptable job when parents have to take to the streets to keep their children from being poisoned?

Mr. Havrot: What a stupid question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think I will really have to ask the leader of the third party to document that a little more. I find that just a little difficult to believe and accept.

I was aware of the question the member asked of the Premier (Mr. Davis) when I was away and I am more than happy if I may, Mr. Speaker, to respond to that question at this time, as well as perhaps filling out some more details of the question asked today.

First of all, I will be pleased to send to the leader of the third party the information that we have from our pesticides advisory committee, I think if he will look at that information rather carefully he will see that in their very best judgement 2,4-D is not a carcinogen. I think that is an important point that must be made.

We have looked at the spraying on that particular site and, although the winds were rather high that day -- and there are guidelines to indicate how spraying should be done -- unless there is damage, they can’t be prosecuted for not adhering to the guidelines. They can be prosecuted if there is evidence of damage because of inappropriate application of 2,4-D. This did not occur. We have had staff visit the site and there is good evidence that the dandelions in the yard are dying, but no evidence at all that any vegetation outside the yard is dying, so there are no grounds on which to base a court action.

Mr. McClellan: Your solicitude for the dandelions is touching.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: We have subsequently been at the school when spraying did take place, but now we come more particularly to the question as raised today, and the leader says there are 20 sick children because we failed to accept the responsibility. That is a gross misstatement, if I have ever heard one.

I raised this issue in one of the other papers at the recent conference at Kelowna and, without exception, every single province believes that 2,4-D is a product that should be on our markets. No question about it. There wasn’t a single province which disagreed. The rules are that it should be applied properly and then it is a safe chemical for our society.

I think it is grossly unfair when the member will stand in this House and try to inflame people on chemicals where there is absolutely no foundation in fact. He has to take a bigger responsibility in informing people in this province of ours on the dangers and the benefits of chemicals and the statement he made today is a disgrace to him.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Is the minister, or the minister’s advisory committee on pesticides, aware of the fact that both the BC Medical Association and the cancer assessment group of the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States have both concluded that 2,4-D is, in fact, carcinogenic -- that is, that it causes cancer?

Is the minister also aware of the article that appeared in the respected journal Mutation Research on the toxicology of phenoxy acids other than 2,4,5-T which concludes, on the basis of evidence from 133 studies, that 2,4-D may very well cause both cancer and genetic damage?

Is the minister saying he is rejecting that particular evidence? What medical evaluation has the minister carried out on those school children who have, in fact, suffered health problems because of the spraying of schoolyards in Northumberland county? I will send this over to the minister.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I know this, that if I have to choose between the unscientific advice from my friend, the leader of the third party, and the scientific advice from the pesticides advisory committee, on which particular committee are some of the better scientists of Ontario, let me say, there is not much doubt in my mind whose advice I am going to take. It is going to be that of pesticides advisory committee.

I will be more than pleased to send to the member the full report on 2,4-D, and I could read for the record one small phrase: “Comment: 2,4-D has not been shown to be a carcinogen.” The member should take that and try to put some perspective, some logic into his statement. I will let him read the whole thing.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary: Would the minister be prepared to issue a statement of some type requesting that such spraying not be done while the children are on the school grounds?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I have been asked this question many times. It would be the easiest thing in the world to say, “Yes, I think that is a great idea.”

Mr. Peterson: Why don’t you do it?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: But it has one very negative impact. It is very clear that all jurisdictions in Canada believe that 2,4-D, when properly applied, is a useful chemical for our society. There is no doubt about that; it is unanimous. The important phrase is “when properly applied.” We have guidelines to indicate how 2,4-D and other chemicals should be applied -- specifically 2,4-D. If I issue a statement today that it should not be used in schoolyards --

Mr. Sweeney: When the kids are there.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: -- when the kids are there, whenever -- I take the responsibility away from the local board and the local people and set myself up as taking on that responsibility when it is clearly theirs.

Ms. Gigantes: The public health matters.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: That in itself would not be so bad. But if one does not allow people to take responsible positions and make responsible decisions, one very soon finds they are not making any responsible decisions at all. I think it is absolutely important that those people who are sunning the school districts take on that responsibility.

An hon. member: Pontius Pilate.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: As I said to the member for Beaches-Woodbine not too long ago, it is a great learning experience in our school system.

Mr. Warner: Hide behind the school board.

Host Mr. Parrott: The member for Kitchener-Wilmot is asking me to do something that is clearly within their jurisdiction. It is much more important that people learn to accept the responsibility they are given and act accordingly. That is the issue.

Mr. Wildman: Since the minister is so concerned about local autonomy, can he comment on his responsibility in relation to the use of 2,4-D by the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications? Especially since the members of the pesticides advisory committee testifying before the procedural affairs committee last fall, admitted that the studies in the United states and by the National Research Council did raise serious questions about 2,4-D. What about Tordon 101 that is used by the minister’s own government?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I keep repeating one basic fact. I raised the issue in Kelowna to make sure there was no doubt about all other provinces in Canada accepting the material. They do. If it is improperly applied, then this ministry is more than prepared to prosecute those who harm vegetation other than their own. That is our responsibility. That is the position of leadership we will take.

Of course, we will take that responsibility; we are paid to. But that is quite a separate issue. If it is improperly applied, there is no doubt we should look after and prosecute those who have hurt someone else. We are out there to protect the innocent bystander. But we are not out there to interfere with the decision-making process that should occur at the local level.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Those same people are using it by the tens of gallons on their farms. One person said, “We protest it being used in our schoolyards, but please don’t use my name because we use so much of it at home.” What hypocrisy. I say, stand up and be counted. That is what is important on this issue. If one is going to use it on one’s farm, if one is going to use it on one’s lawn at home, then so be it and go from there.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McGuigan: Final supplementary: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of the Environment if he is aware of the great value of this chemical to agriculture. Farmers use it in a very different way from hen it is being used in schoolyards in that when they spray it on corn to kill the broadleaf weeds it makes the corn brittle, and therefore they do not cultivate it for a day or two.

[2:30]

Does the minister not realize that When farmers use it they don’t go into the fields for several days afterwards, but when it is being used in schoolyards, the children may be playing there within a matter of hours? Therefore, does the minister not think it would be prudent to ban the use of this material for schoolyards because it doesn’t play such a great economic role when used there? We really won’t suffer much if we have dandelions in our schoolyards.

Mr. McClellan: You have to understand their solicitude for dandelions.

Mr. McGuigan: Doesn’t the minister see the difference between the agricultural use and the use in schoolyards?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Certainly, I see the difference between farm use of 2,4-D and what we would use on our lawns and gardens at home, or what we would use on the schoolyards. There is a great difference; there is no question about that. Surely to goodness the people of that particular school board or any other school board are as aware of that information as is the member and I.

Mr. Warner: They are not.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: They are using it on their farms and that is the very point I am making. They are very aware. They use far more of it, likely, than 98 per cent of the members of this House do. They are knowledgeable on it, and it is their decision.

Mr. Foulds: But their kids aren’t, and the kids go to school.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I happen to choose not to use it on my lawn at home; that’s my personal choice.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Fine. I think in this particular instance it’s their personal choice whether they use it on their lawns at home or whether they use it on the schoolyards.

Mr. Wildman: Why use it on a Ministry of Transportation and Communications right of way then?

Mr. McClellan: Are you afraid to use it, Harry?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Obviously, a concerned board would make sure it is applied late Friday or early Saturday so there would be an opportunity for that material to sink into the vegetation, do its job and have no harmful effects on the students when they return to school on Monday morning. That is so obvious that I think it hardly needs to be said by anyone who has that much knowledge of 2,4-D.

Mr. S. Smith: If the board is stupid, the kids suffer.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am sure that kind of logic is more than likely applied by the school boards. If it is not, I think it is awfully important that we realize it is their children they are subjecting to this material; not somebody else’s, but their own children.

An hon. member: What an abdication of responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Surely members can accept the point of how important it is for people to understand the seriousness of the decisions they make on their own lives and for their own children. People can’t always turn to government and say, “Excuse us from taking a responsible position.”

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF HYDRO PROJECTS

Mr. Cassidy: I have another question for the Minister of the Environment, Mr. Speaker. The government has assured us on many occasions that all future Hydro projects will be subjected to the full environmental assessment process under the new act. Can the minister comment on Ontario Hydro’s brief to the Porter commission this April that the Environmental Protection Act should be amended to restrict the terms of environ- mental assessments on future Ontario Hydro projects? Which is government policy?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I would like to take that as notice, Mr. Speaker, and consider it. It is a question I would like not to respond to today, but I will take it as notice.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: If the minister takes it as notice, what assurance can we have from him that the government policy of full environmental assessment on Hydro projects in the future will be maintained when this minister is not aware of the fact Hydro is trying to backtrack from that policy, and when the government itself has ignored the advice of the chairman of the environmental assessment steering committee who said there should, in fact, be a full assessment on the Darlington nuclear project?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I don’t think that is necessarily correct, but because of the full implications I would like to consider it, Mr. Speaker, and take it as notice.

Mr. J. Reid: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No. The minister has taken it as notice. There will be ample opportunity for supplementaries when we get a response.

TRILLIUM SCHOOL

Mr. Sweeney: I have a question of the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister confirm that the Trillium School at Milton for the learning disabled, if it opens in September -- the minister might remember it was supposed to open in January -- will only have sufficient staff to be able to handle 12 students, even though the need is for 100 or more? Can she also confirm that large numbers of students who are being approved by the local screening committees are being rejected by the provincial screening committee?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is incorrect. The Trillium School is designed for 40 students, and it will have 40 students in September. 1 am not aware that large numbers are being rejected by the provincial screening committee. That is not the information I had.

Mr. Sweeney: Can the minister tell us how many applicants are coming through the local screening committees and how many are being passed by the provincial screening committee?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The last figure I heard was that 193 students were proposed as potential candidates for the Trillium School by local school boards. I cannot give the member today an accurate figure of the number that have been assessed by the committee, but I will find that out.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister explain to the House today why the school will not be fully operational until September, as she now admits, when she said so categorically last December that the school would open and be fully operational on January 1? Could she explain the delay?

Mr. McClellan: Do you remember how adamant you were then? Do you remember how persistent you were? How outraged?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am interested to hear the adjectives and adverbs used by the members opposite. I have never seen such examples of outrage as their hypocritical facial expressions of outrage on many occasions, related to a number of issues, including education.

However, I did promise the school would be open. I was unable to keep the promise that it would be open on January 1. We have tried diligently to ensure that the school would be operational as rapidly as possible. It is important that the program begin, and that is exactly our objective. It is our intention and our aim, and it will happen, that there will be 40 students within the Trillium program -- which will be the maximum for that program -- in September of this year.

BURNING OF PCBS

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I did plan to ask this question of the Minister of the Environment but, since he is not here, 1 will ask it of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development.

Since the current public inquiry into the burning of PCRs at the St. Lawrence Cement plant in Mississauga was explicitly established at the request of local residents to determine if this method of disposing of these highly toxic substances was both safe and effective in highly populated areas particularly, how can the government justify plans for a test bum of PCB materials at the plant prior to the completion of the inquiry, as is reported in the proceedings of the inquiry for April 26?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to bring it to the attention of the Minister of the Environment.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the monthly unemployment figures from Statistics Canada were released today, and I would inquire as to the current status of Ontario for the month of May. I would direct this question to the Treasurer.

Mr. Martel: That is too obvious. Did he give you that?

Mr. Cooke: Here’s a setup.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, totally surprised as I am by the question and totally unprepared as I am --

An hon. member: What a waste of the question period.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the figures had gone the other way, you people would have asked the question.

Hon. F. S. Miller: II would only point out that the members opposite never ask good- news questions. The fact that month after month --

Mr. Speaker: Would you like to answer it? Hon. F. S. Miller: I’m trying to, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Foulds: The Treasurer is having as much trouble with the easy ones as he has with the hard ones.

Hon. F. S. Miller: My friend cannot tell the difference; so I am okay.

Mr. Foulds: No, neither can the Treasurer.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The fact is that the unemployment rate in Ontario dropped to 6.4 per cent in the month of May. That is down from 7.3 per cent a year ago.

Mr. Foulds: Were they all occupied with the federal election?

Hon. F. S. Miller: We have 172,000 more employed people in Ontario today than we had a year ago.

(Applause.)

Mr. Bradley: The Tories are applauding high unemployment.

Hon. F. S. Miller: There are actually 28,000 fewer unemployed people in Ontario now than there were a year ago, and 30,000 fewer than a month ago in Ontario. Quarter after quarter in the last year we’ve seen a decline in the unemployment figures in Ontario, especially for females and for youths. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that credit for that is due to this government.

Mr. Ramsay: Supplementary: How do the unemployment rates in Ontario stand in comparison to other provinces across the country?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The Ontario average was 6.4 per cent and the Canadian average was 7.5 per cent.

Mr. Mancini: Supplementary: How does the Ontario Treasurer intend to create the

60,000 jabs that Charles Joseph Clark intends to eliminate?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Is the honourable gentleman assuming that governments should spend more than they need to? I’ve heard a great deal from that party over there about efficiency in government, and now that we have a party in Ottawa that is going to show some efficiency, let them not start becoming hypocritical.

Mr. Laughren: I have a supplementary of the Treasurer. It’s a two- or three-part supplementary, if I might.

In view of the fact that unemployment among young people is still running at a very unacceptable level, as high as 13 or 14 per cent in Ontario, and particularly in view of the high unemployment rate in northern Ontario, will the minister assure us that he will not abandon any kind of program to stimulate jobs in northern Ontario and, in particular, will he promise not to do as Ms predecessor did -- revise upward the definition of acceptable unemployment in Ontario

Hon. Miss Stephenson: His predecessor didn’t do that.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, he did. Darcy McKeough did.

Mr. Martel: McKeough sure did.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I lost the last part of the question to some degree. We’ve taken actions. As the member knows, there is some $70 million in this year’s budget specifically aimed at youth employment programs -- the Ontario Youth Employment Program and the Ontario Career Action Program and so on. These are having, I believe, phenomenal success and we’re going to do all we can to maintain that success.

RAPE CRISIS CENTRES

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Provincial Secretary for Justice. In view of the fact that the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres submitted a brief and met with Mm on April 26 and on May 10, 1979, informing him of its need for long-term funding to assist rape victims, why is it that he and Ms cabinet colleagues have refused this request for long-term funding?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I’m delighted the honourable member has raised this question. It provides me with an opportunity to pay tribute to the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres and to many who work with it on the consultation that finally resulted in the publication of the booklets, copies of which have been sent to all members. I’m in the process, as the member has mentioned, of having meetings with the Ontario coalition and, indeed, some of the groups from throughout the province. In fact, yesterday I met with a very important group from the Niagara area which is doing a remarkable job of responding to these needs.

[2:45]

The secretariat has made it quite clear that it is anxious to be helpful by way of followup. We are certainly making it quite clear that although their requests are for ongoing support we would prefer to deal with them on the basis of some short-term assistance that would help them to establish themselves within their respective communities and really seek community support as far as ongoing and long-term obligations are concerned. I’m looking forward to some further meetings with the Ontario coalition in an attempt to be helpful and provide them with some short-term -- as I mention once again -- approach that would indeed help them to get established within the particular communities in which they operate.

I point out to the honourable member, as I point out to other members of the House, this particular crisis and a number of crises are the concerns of very highly motivated people, and indeed I have suggested they may want to consider at the community level some co-ordination with respect to the use of telephone numbers. Indeed, some of the volunteers are available throughout the province in various communities for this particular approach. I’m of the opinion negotiations are still going on with the Ontario coalition.

Mr. Mancini: Supplementary: In view of the fact the Ontario coalition states in a letter, and I quote, that it has decided “your offer to fund short-term work projects would not only waste the time of the coalition and not meet the needs that are in our communities,” why is it the minister spends taxpayers’ dollars to print these books in double colours, et cetera, and then does not have enough money to assist the victims themselves? Does he expect the coalition centres just to give out handbooks to the victims when they go. to these centres? Why is it he encourages the victims themselves to use the coalition centres and also encourages hospitals and police departments to use their services when he’s not prepared to fund it? There is a big contradiction there.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s right. Give the money to Gordon Walker for so-called victims of crime, but these are the real victims.

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I hope I’m being fair. The honourable member is not trying to suggest the booklet isn’t helpful and isn’t positive.

Mr. S. Smith: It’s a great tribute to the printer, but give some money to the crisis centre.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Don’t be such a hypocrite, Stuart. It wasn’t long ago when you were shouting about social spending.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The booklet is the result of the efforts of a lot of people including the coalition. Indeed, in many communities throughout the province the work of the centres is being conducted by volunteers and the community itself is supporting a particular effort. Indeed, there are many of these people who, perhaps if they had their choice, would rather have full-time staff and pay the salaries of full-time staff. We think there may be some advantage in emphasizing the role of the volunteer. I would rather carry on my discussions with the coalition in the hope We might reach some reasonable understanding and agreement.

Mr. S. Smith: They are the victims of terrible crime and you give them books.

Hon. Mr. Norton: How do we do that and follow your advice not to increase social spending a cent?

Mr. S. Smith: I never made that statement.

USE OF MATACIL

Mr. Foulds: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources with regard to the spraying of Matacil. Can the minister confirm whether or not at 4 a.m. today they started spraying with Matacil in the Geraldton district? Can he outline for the House the justification for that spraying program in view of the question I asked his colleague, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott), last week? Can he tell us whether or not any fishermen, campers or outdoorsmen in the area were warned the spraying was about to begin?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I had notice of the question the honourable member asked the Minister of the Environment last week and I have information on that today. I think the honourable member was equating the type of Matacil spraying done by the Ministry of Natural Resources with the methods used in New Brunswick. I just wanted to tell him the methods are quite different.

We use small aircraft which are used for agricultural spraying. We stay very close to the top of the forest and we have had great success -- we figure about 80 per cent -- in dealing with the spruce budworm. Of course, we’re using this in much smaller acreages. I think we estimate something on the order of 40,000 acres in Ontario compared with about four million acres in New Brunswick. Those small planes are far easier to control. They fly more slowly and they do have much better control of spray deposit and drift.

As far as the environmental and public health risks are concerned, both solvents, which in our ease are nonylphenol and a carrier which is called diluent 585, were investigated by Environment Canada, the Department of National Health and Welfare and the federal Department of Agriculture in 1978-79. In addition, environmental monitoring of Matacil spray programs for several years has demonstrated that the effects of Matacil on other organisms are minimal. We do not use diesel oil as a diluent.

The statement that Matacil was withdrawn in the United States by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 is misleading. Actually, f understand it was withdrawn at the manufacturers’ request since it was being marketed for use in the spraying of cotton, 1 believe, and it was found that people just were not buying it because there were other products that worked better on cotton. However, I understand it is again being developed in the United States. It was used last year under an experimental permit from the EPA and will be used that way again this year.

The spray programs being conducted in Geraldton and Kirkland Lake have been reviewed and approved by the Ministry of the Environment. We are using Matacil over most of the area but not within 600 feet of any permanent water body. There we are using a bacterial insecticide, Thuricide, which is totally safe for other organisms. It is I being used along all the major water courses in an area of approximately 10,000 acres. I may say it is not used exclusively because it is not as effective and it is about four times as expensive, hut it is considered to be better near the water courses where fish might be affected in some way.

Finally, the environmental impact of the spraying is being monitored by an independent consultant so that we will have someone else looking over our shoulder in this operation.

Mr. Speaker: In keeping with our understanding that lengthy answers like that should be made by way of ministerial statements, we will add three more minutes to the question period.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: If it is so safe, why is it not being sprayed all over the place? Obviously the minister does have some reservations about it. Further, is the minister not aware that it is nonylphenol, which he admits we are using, that is the cause for concern in connection with Reyes syndrome and has caused such controversy in New Brunswick and Quebec? Even though it is being sprayed over a smaller area, has the ministry warned any of the trappers, hunters and fishermen who may be in the area that it is spraying? Will the minister table the federal and provincial evaluations which he says have taken place?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure it wouldn’t be difficult to obtain the evaluations, and I will get them. The Ministry of the Environment may well have them. My understanding is that we have indicated where the spraying is taking place in the area and when.

SUNDAY TRUCKING

Mr. G. E. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Is the minister aware of the increased Sunday truck traffic carrying what I would consider nonperishable produce on highways 401 and 400? If so, what can be done to curtail this type of operation, which is contrary to the Lord’s Day (Ontario) Act and which almost disappeared after the tragic Sunday accident south of Barrie a few years ago?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) has just advised me that some of these vehicles may have a federal government exemption. In any event, in view of the question that has been raised by the member for Simcoe East, I shall be happy to discuss it with the senior officials in the Ontario Provincial Police.

Mr. G. E. Smith: In view of the fact the minister did indicate that he hoped to add to his complement of OPP officers to enforce the Highway Traffic Act -- and one would hope this would alleviate some of the abuse -- could the minister indicate the ratio of the increased number of miles driven on provincial highways with the increased number ever the past 10 years of OPP complement, or has a study of this nature been made?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I don’t have all of the details, but I can advise the honourable member and members of the Legislature that during the past three years, or I should say more properly, from 1975 to 1978, according to information received from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications the motor vehicle miles travelled on the provincial highways increased by some three billion miles.

From the information I have to date it would appear, at least as far as the OPP miles travelled on the highways are concerned, that there was no increase whatsoever, but actually a decrease of some 10 million miles. This causes me some concern and it is certainly a matter we are reviewing very carefully because, as I have said in the past, and I repeat, the visibility of police officers on our highways is, in the view of our senior police advisers, a deterrent in relation to avoidance or disregard of the rules of the road and does have an impact on the number of accidents.

Mr. Nixon: Does the Attorney General recall the statement made by a colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Communication, when he announced the regrettable statistics that brought on this flurry of additional action -- a statement that indicated it was not attributable to speed or lack of policing of the speed limit, that in fact the additional money the Attorney General is expecting to spend on more police officers boils down simply to a revenue-producing operation that some of us know to our regret?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have no recollection of any such statement having been made by the Minister of Transportation and Communications. He indicated to me a moment ago that he has no recollection of making any such statement.

Mr. S. Smith: He’s not denying it.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Within the last several days I have met with a number of senior police officers experienced in traffic matters and they are very strongly of the view that the visibility is important. As I indicated, and again I realize the Leader of the Opposition has difficulty taking this matter seriously --

Mr. S. Smith: I have difficulty taking you seriously.

Mr. Breithaupt: You don’t even drive a car.

An hon. member: Same old arrogant AG.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- some of the figures we had obtained in relation to the increase in motor vehicle use on the highway and actually a decrease in the miles travelled by police vehicles, in the view of senior police officials, directly relate to the increase in accidents.

Mr. S. Smith: How come Jim Snow doesn’t know that?

Mr. Speaker: Just ignore the interjections. Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, I will, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So this is a matter we are looking at. Obviously it is a case which will have to be established, I am sure, to the satisfaction of my colleagues before there will be any substantial increase in police resources.

There is no question but that with a very significant increase in the mileage travelled on the provincial highways, we are going to continue to have dramatic increases, I fear, if there is not increased police visibility. Whether the members opposite want to recognize it or not, it certainly is the view of police officials about this province that the matter of police visibility is a very important factor with respect to deterring disobedience of the rules of the road.

I would have thought that would have been reasonably clear to the members opposite, but if they really are interested in this issue, and I must admit I have some doubt in my own mind as to whether they are interested, I will be happy to provide them with additional information as it becomes available.

[3:00]

RAPE CASE

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: On May 28, the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) asked me about a rape case in Hamilton wherein certain members of a motorcycle gang are charged with numerous offences, including that of rape. This matter has been reviewed with the crown attorney in Hamilton and by senior officials of my ministry. I also have had an opportunity of reviewing the allegations and circumstances surrounding the case and an alleged bombing attempt. The Hamilton-Wentworth regional police are well aware of the situation and the crown witnesses who are to testify in this case have been given special police protection.

As I indicated earlier, it is obviously not in the interests of this protection to deal specifically with the steps that have been taken to protect the witnesses in question. I can say, however, that I have reviewed the police efforts and am satisfied that every reasonable effort has been made by the police in this regard.

As I indicated, the status of the case has been reviewed with the crown attorney and members of his staff in Hamilton. I can advise that the crown attorney’s office will do its utmost to ensure the preliminary hearing at the end of this month proceeds and is concluded on schedule so that a trial date very early in the fall is possible. I will personally be monitoring this case to ensure there is no delay in this regard.

With respect to the member for Hamilton East’s general question about instructions to police forces with respect to motorcycle gangs, I can advise that although it is quite apparent certain members of certain motorcycle gangs do act in concert in pursuing unlawful ends, every effort has been made by law enforcement personnel to control such groups.

During 1978, a total of 440 criminal charges were laid against 370 members of certain motorcycle gangs in Ontario. That number of charges has already been laid this year, indicating even stronger efforts are being made by the law enforcement authorities across this province.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary: As the minister may recall, in placing the question I asked him about the spread of the use of bombing as a means of intimidation. It appeared to start on a large scale in New York state some 10 years ago and local police authorities tell me it has moved into Ontario. I asked the minister if he had looked into that aspect as well and if he had looked into the aspect of the transportation of drugs by some of the motorcycle gangs?

I-Ion. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, these activities are being very carefully monitored by police forces across the province. In so far as the use of dynamite as an intimidating tactic is concerned, unfortunately this type of vicious criminal behaviour has been resorted to from time to time by the criminal elements in Ontario. But from the information I have obtained there has been no significant interest in the use of dynamite in this respect.

In so far as drugs are concerned, yes, the police officials are well aware that certain motorcycle gangs have for some rinse been involved in international drug traffic. Again this is something that is being carefully scrutinized and is a matter of continuing concern to the law enforcement agencies in this province.

LOTTERY LICENCES

Mr. Cunningham: I have a question of the Attorney General. I’d like to ask if the Attorney General was aware when his mmi try expressed a negative opinion regarding this purpose for which a Burlington community group had held a lottery that this group was currently involved in a hearing before the OMB, and therefore any damaging remarks by his ministry could very likely be used against this group by their opponents later in the hearing? I’d like to ask was the minister aware there was a hearing before the OMB when they decided in favour of a developer’s lawyer, who was also their opponent in the case?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I’m sorry, I’m not aware of this matter at all.

Mr. Cunningham: By way of supplementary: Recognizing that 20 per cent of all the lottery licences granted in the province are given for the purpose of benefiting a community, would the minister not realize that in openly expressing an opinion one way or the other he could be closing the door to further attempts by all community groups in Ontario to raise funds in support of various endeavours that may have to be financed, especially when going before the OMB or the Environmental Assessment Board?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: If the member opposite would like to provide me with specific details of this particular service club or local charitable organization I will be happy to look into it, but if it’s something that I was aware of earlier, I must admit I don’t have any recollection of it at the present time.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Inasmuch as a group of concerned citizens opposing the advent of a McDonald’s franchise in a residential area in Burlington was given a municipal licence by the city of Burlington to conduct a lottery to raise funds to conduct this defence and this intervention in front of the OMB, and to the extent that the lawyer for McDonald’s told the lotteries branch about it, and to the extent that his ministry then advised that this was not a charitable purpose, would the minister please review that decision and recognize what a terrible precedent that might be for other citizens’ groups across Ontario?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I will review the matter, Mr. Speaker.

LANDFILL SITES

Mr. R. F. Johnston: A question of the Minister of the Environment: Would the minister confirm that his staff is preparing a list of landfill sites in Ontario which are currently accepting industrial waste; will he confirm that that list includes a number of sites which the ministry has not previously told us about; and when does he plan to present this list to us?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are preparing that list. Quite frankly, I had really hoped it would be here by now. Whether or not it will provide information that members haven’t previously had, that is very difficult to say right now. We are more than prepared, however, to give the full list of all of the sites that we are aware of.

We are hopeful that if members, or any members of their communities, are aware of other sites that were maybe open 20, 30, 40 years ago and long closed, which we would have no record of and no reason to have a record of, they will tell us that as they compare our list with what they know. That’s an open invitation to not only the members but all of the municipalities of Ontario.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Supplementary: Could the minister table with the Legislature statistics on where all the industrial waste covered by the waybill system has been disposed of since that system came into operation at the beginning of this year?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Would the member repeat the operative phrase, please?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The statistics on where the industrial waste covered by the waybill system has gone since the system was introduced at the beginning of this year; would the minister table that with us?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: We brought in the waybill system, and I still -- I am sorry, Mr. Speaker -- haven’t heard whether the question is whether we will table the information that those waybills are provided us with. Yes? That will take a great deal of time. There are literally hundreds of thousands of transactions and up to 50 million gallons per year that that system will accommodate and account for, so the member can appreciate that isn’t something we can gather quickly.

It is not a fully automated system as yet. We are going to a fully automated system and when we have it fully automated that kind of information will be much more readily available. We don’t have it automated yet. We will supply as much information as we possibly can.

REPORTS

SELECT COMMITTEE ON COMPANY LAW

Mr. Breithaupt presented a report from the select committee on company law.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, this is the third report on the general insurance industry in Ontario. During our hearings, 139 persons gave evidence and information to the committee and there were 121 exhibits. The committee makes 145 recommendations in its review of the role and responsibilities of property and casualty insurance companies in

Ontario. The report reviews the role and responsibilities of companies and all agents, adjusters, brokers and consultants. The operation of the superintendent of insurance’s office is also reviewed and observations were made on the capacity to underwrite risks and on the availability of coverage and cost of personal lines of insurance.

In the interests of the consumer, the committee reported on plain language policy, on changes in the standard policy and in the application forms, and on a consumer information service. A particular area of interest was that of the qualifications and competence of company employees, agents, brokers and adjustors.

Finally, suggestions for loss prevention were made, as well as comments and recommendations on arbitration procedures, liability insurance and surety bonds. Copies of this report have been placed in the mail boxes of the members, and additionally have been sent to the press gallery and other interested persons.

STANDING PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Mr. Breaugh presented a report from the standing procedural affairs committee.

Mr. Breaugh: This report is the first of a series of reports in our considerations about the committee system here at Queen’s Park. It is presented for the information and consideration of committees, and we will subsequently be reporting in a more formal way.

MOTIONS

CITY OF OTTAWA BILL

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that Bill Pr9, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa, be withdrawn from the standing administration of justice committee and be referred to the standing general government committee for consideration following the completion of Bill 163.

Mr. Roy: I would just like to thank the House leader for this motion. I think it is of some importance because one of the items in Bill Pr9 is the bylaw requiring the filling of pits and quarries in the Ottawa area. Since we have already had one accident in that area, we are anxious to get on with this bill to give the city of Ottawa authorization to fill, or to obligate the owner to fill, the quarry. I would appreciate it if we can expedite this bill and have it heard before the end of this spring session.

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the standing resources development committee be authorized to sit the afternoon of Wednesday, June 13, in addition to the regular sittings.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the standing social development committee be authorized to travel to Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Ottawa and Windsor on Wednesday, June 13, for the purpose of holding hearings on the active-treatment hospital bed closings, and that provisions of section 66 of the Legislative Assembly Act be not applicable.

Mr. Speaker: That means you don’t get paid.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Germa moved first reading of Bill 125, An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act.

Motion agreed to.

[3:15]

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to prohibit mining activities in bodies of water that serve or are likely to serve as sources of community drinking water. The bill provides for the issuance of permits to authorize any mining activity that is in the public interest Mining activity undertaken without the authority of a licence is constituted as an offence.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Charlton moved first reading of Bill 126, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to extend to persons who are employed as domestic servants the minimum standards of employment established by parts IV, V, VI, VII and VIII of the Employment Standards Act, 1974. This will give domestic servants the minimum coverage for hours of work, overtime, minimum wage, public holidays and vacations.

In addition, the bill amends section 40 of the act so that no employer shall terminate the employment of an employee who has been employed for three months or more with less than two weeks’ notice.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill Pr8, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Motion agreed to.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day, I want to advise honourable members that pursuant to standing order 28 the member for Downsview (Mr. di Santo) has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer given by the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) to his question concerning the auto pact, and this matter will be debated at 10:30 tonight.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answers to questions 200, 201, 207, 208, 209, 210 and 211 standing on the Notice Paper. (See appendix, page 2833.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY MINING TAX AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 52, An Act to amend the Mining Tax Act, 1972.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, when last we were debating this bill it was May 1. Let me just remind the minister and the House of the position of this party as it relates to Bill 52, the Mining Tax Amendment Act. This party is unequivocally opposed to the reduction in the marginal rates of 35 per cent and 40 per cent as they relate to the application of this mining tax. It is a basic principle, adopted right across the country, that the province has a right to participate in the wealth produced by the exploitation of our natural resources. We are motivated by that principle.

There are several other reasons why we are opposed to this amendment to the Mining Tax Act, and I want to get into them, but let me first make another complaint about the whole application of the Mining Tax Act which has been raised in this House time after time; that is, the minister who is responsible for the collection of this tax. This is an out-and-out tax bill which rightly should belong with the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Maeck). Here, in fact, we have a conflict of interest in that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld) is the tax collector and he controls the mine assessors, who have a great impact on calculating what figures will be subject to tax.

The government has never been able to explain why this one tax bill, instead of being with the Ministry of Revenue like all the other tax bills, is with the Ministry of Natural Resources. No answer is forthcoming, so I make that complaint again.

We have arrived at the conclusion that we are opposed to this bill without the aid of an economic impact analysis being made or provided to the House. It is stated government policy that every piece of legislation will be accompanied by a statement of the economic impact it will have on the province, on our revenues and on taxation. The bill has come into the House without any information being provided by the minister. Consequently, we are at a loss to understand properly the entire impact of the legislation. Even in applying the tax, I know the government has difficulty in arriving at conclusions and figures. There is a lot of jiggery-pokery, a lot of estimates, to come to a figure for applying the tax rate even as it is.

The government has not got a fair reason, or else it has not presented evidence of its reasons, for the reduction of the mining tax. I would suggest they don’t have a strong case to make; consequently they make no case at all. I have to accuse the minister of not taking into consideration the people of Ontario when he arbitrarily says 35 per cent tax rate is gone or 40 per cent tax rate is gone for the big corporations, and doesn’t tell us what the impact is on the people of Ontario.

It is a very serious matter when the government is denying revenue to Ontario as a result of the exploitation of wealth, especially at this time when in every ministry -- for medical services, education, social services -- the government is strapped for money and is curtailing programs. Teachers are being laid off and there is a lot of havoc in the province; yet here is a source of revenue readily available and identifiable and the government is choosing not to collect it, the government is choosing to make the people of Ontario do without.

Another good and solid reason I have for arriving at my position is that I have a barometer that I use very steadily and which has served me very well over the years. If the Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce takes a certain position, I know if I take the opposite position I am on the right track. It has never failed me in my 20 years.

Mr. Nixon: And if the Steelworkers take a position, that’s your position too.

Mr. Germa: No; my position is that when the chamber of commerce in Sudbury takes a position --

Mr. Nixon: They’re the perfect union.

When Cliff Pilkey coughs, you get pneumonia.

Mr. Germa: When they take a position and there is no countervailing evidence -- as I stated the government didn’t present any countervailing evidence -- I know pretty well, and it has served me well for over 20 years, that if my position is opposite to theirs I am on good, solid ground. That is the second reason this party and I are opposed to the resolution.

The evidence the chamber of commerce presented me with is contained in the following quotation from their newsletter of recent date, titled Update: “A letter from the Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce was sent recently to the Treasurer of Ontario, the Hon. Frank Miller, in response to the recent budget statement. The chamber applauded the minister’s move to reduce the top marginal tax rate from 40 per cent to 30 per cent.” So they are on record.

By the way, members should know that one of the biggest mining corporations in the world is resident in the city of Sudbury and it pays most of the bills for the chamber of commerce, because the assessment to belong to the chamber is based on the number of employees, the amount of revenue, consequently the chamber of commerce turns out to be just the mouth, the walkie-talkie for the international Nickel Company; which by the way is going to be one of the greatest benefactors if this bill was to pass in the Legislature.

Mr. Wildman: The chamber of Inco. Mr. Germa: The chamber of Inco; yes. So there’s a second good reason I know

I’m on solid ground opposing this bill. The third reason is when I make a comparative analysis of what is going on in other jurisdictions. Ontario is not the only province, the only state collecting mining taxes or mining royalties. It’s a fundamental principle right across the country and around the world that provinces have this right. This province is neglecting its right to gain revenue for the people of Ontario from the natural resources which are exploited.

Let’s take a look at one province in comparison to the province of Ontario and see what the results were in the last fiscal year. In the 1977-78 period, Saskatchewan’s production of mineral wealth --

Hon. Mr. Auld: Gas and oil?

Mr. Germa: Excluding gas and oil was $511 million, which was less than 20 per cent of Ontario’s $2.7 billion. Here is one province with $511 million, and Ontario with $2.7 billion.

The province of Saskatchewan collected, in taxes and royalties for the people of Saskatchewan, $113,600,000, whereas the province of Ontario collected $39 million. The rate of return to the people of Saskatchewan from their natural resource exploitation was 15 times greater than the rate of return to the people of Ontario. That is justifiable reason for me to stand here and object to the government of Ontario giving further benefits, further gifts to the large mining companies.

This government says that kind of taxation is going to drive the mining industry out of the province of Saskatchewan and it will consequently be to our benefit.

Mr. Makarchuk: They will take the ore on their backs and walk out.

Mr. Germa: That’s a reasonable proposal to make if there was any validity to the proposal; but let’s make a comparative analysis of what has happened as far as investment is concerned between Saskatchewan and Ontario.

The estimated amount of development in Saskatchewan for the next fiscal year is $80 million, whereas Ontario’s estimate of development in mining is only $25 million. Despite a rate of return 15 times greater than that of Ontario, Saskatchewan is getting three times more development dollars than we are in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Swart: They have good government.

Mr. Germa: I have to conclude that a tax rate does not necessarily drive development out of the province, providing the tax rate is levied equitably; and that is one of the weaknesses in the method of taxation in the province of Ontario.

I think it would be good if we were to know how Saskatchewan has been so successful in extracting large revenues from the mining companies at the same time as encouraging them to invest, and reinvest, and develop the province.

[3:30]

A statement by the Saskatchewan Minister of Mineral Resources on May 8, 1978, in Regina, cited the principles involved in applying their tax system, which is considerably different than the system used in Ontario. In Saskatchewan they use a system known as a rate of return, whereas the Ontario system, I think, could be identified as a fiat-rated system. In other words, it is not as progressive and does not take into consideration the ability to pay to the same finite degree the system in Saskatchewan will do. I think all anybody demands of taxation is that it be applied equitably and that ability to pay be taken into consideration, be it an individual or be it a corporation. What I’m saying is you have to be fair when you’re taxing people.

I will enunciate, from the minister’s statement of May 8, 1978, in Regina the five guiding principles which go into the makeup of the structure of the Saskatchewan system.

The minister said the first principle is:

“We feel the province should obtain at least a minimum return for the exploitation of its natural resources.” There is no one in this House who will deny that is a good starting point; the people in the province wherein the resource is located have a right to demand a fair share of the return.

The second principle is: “The producer should retain sufficient revenues to cover his operating expenses and to provide a fair return on his capital investment relative to the risks involved, but it is our view that the major portion of the remaining net income should accrue to the owners of the resources.” The owners of the resources are the people of Ontario. Once a fair rate of return has been provided to the mining company the rest, regardless of how large it is, belongs to the owner, the people of Ontario. That is the second guiding principle. I’m sure no one here will deny that principle. It’s unanimous, Mr. Speaker.

The third principle the government of Saskatchewan applied is: “The government recognizes the structure of this system should reflect the particular economic characteristics of each mineral industry.” The graduated form of the taxation is such that it takes that proviso into consideration.

The fourth major consideration is: “The royalty and tax system should be cons I stent with the province’s policies for developing that particular resource.” The tax system also gives an incentive to the mining companies to follow the route the government, in its wisdom or lack of, chooses to go.

The fifth principle is: “The endeavour to discuss any new tax or royalty structure with industry before reaching a decision.” This government is very weak in that department in that they don’t forewarn or give notice of their intent to change any tax system, or anything in fact. It’s the old arrogance of this government which has been too long in office. The minister did not even see fit to supply this House with an economic impact analysis. If they’re treating everybody outside the House the way they’re treating us in this House, no wonder those people get into trouble so often.

Those are the guiding principles Saskatchewan uses. I’d like to just put on the record a few of the details of how the Saskatchewan rate of return system works.

The system is not unique to Saskatchewan. There are other corners of the world that also use it. South Africa has a related, though dissimilar, system. New Guinea has a rate-of- return system, Manitoba has a rate-of-return system. We have to recognize there are various differences between all of these systems, but the basic principle underlying the tax system in those four jurisdictions is consistent with the principles which I took from the speech of the Minister of Mineral Resources for Saskatchewan.

The system in that province tells me that royalties are levied on the mine in two forms; a basic loyalty which represent three per cent of the gross value of sales each year, and the second portion of the tax system is the graduated royalty on operating profits available each year and determined by the following method:

If the rate of return on the profit invested is less than 15 per cent there is no tax applicable, so the first 15 per cent of profit on invested capital is free. Between 15 and 25 per cent, 15 per cent is charged on the profit. If the rate of return is between 25 and 45 per cent, there is a 30 per cent tax assessment. If the rate of return is 45 per cent and above, then a 50 per cent tax applies at that rate. I would suggest to the minister that that is where the revenue is derived.

A person who is making 45 per cent or more on his invested capital has no right to keep that kind of profit. The profits are exorbitant and the tax system will trigger in to ensure that the people of the province concerned will share from that largesse.

This form of taxation also has a secondary beneficial effect. It has a good economic effect, hut 1 think it would address itself to what the problem in the province of Ontario is now, and that is flight of capital. Capital generated in the province of Ontario is not being reinvested by the mining companies. They’re galloping off with it. The minister knows where the International Nickel Company has taken money from the Sudbury basin and dumped $250 million down into New Caledonia. They’ve taken another $100 million and dumped it down into Guatemala.

Under a tax system as I recited, a rate-of- return system, there is incentive for the mining companies to reinvest, because the reinvestment would have the effect of reducing their tax load. But the more the mining companies can let their plant run down under the present system the higher is the rate of return, and that is their incentive. I suggest that we have to deal, one way or the other, with mining companies generating great pools of wealth in the province of Ontario and removing that wealth to some other jurisdiction to the loss of all of us in the province of Ontario.

Some people say that would be too much of an incentive and that the mining companies would over-capitalize. I don’t see any real entrepreneur trying to invest money in a plant that he doesn’t need. I would say that their argument is fallacious.

That’s my position on this bill. (I hope the minister is listening. I hope he does respond and maybe deal with some Of the suggestions I’ve made, and tell me why I’m wrong and why we 4on’t demand our fair share of the wealth produced from the mining industry in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Nixon: We don’t have many mines in my constituency, but I do have an opinion on the matter before us today. I’ve been listening to the member for Sudbury with a great deal of attention and I would think it would concern him, as it does me, that we have not had a major mining enterprise open up in this province for many years. It is probably an oversimplification to say so, but frankly I believe this is largely because the former Treasurer, John White, in changing the Mining Tax Act about seven years ago made a substantial bollix of those changes. He somehow got the confidence Of the Premier (Mr. Davis) and went forward with a number of programs, many of which we are still trying to repair. I don’t want to refer to them in detail, but the purchase of large-scale land holdings for new cities is just the beginning of it.

I well recall his changes in the Mining Tax Act at that time; which really must have paralleled to a great degree the thinking of the honourable member for Sudbury who has just spoken: “Let’s soak it nut of them; they are our resources, let’s get the money.” Somehow or other, in the mining industry this doesn’t work. The mines are not developed by the membership of the Steelworkers or the mine workers or GUPE or anybody else. They may do the work, but unless there is some entrepreneur and investor to actually invest the money and take the risk it doesn’t happen and there are no jobs for those people; there are no revenues for the government of the province for us to suggest how they spend or not spend.

I would suggest if Saskatchewan finds itself in such an advantageous position at this time it is because of that great Premier, Ross Thatcher, one of the greatest Liberals of them all, who in his approach to a situation such as this didn’t listen to this kind of soft- headed socialist argument.

Mr. Swart: He got defeated.

Mr. Nixon: All right, he got defeated; and the socialists out there now are reaping the benefits of his foresight. If they continue to tax as they are, I will tell the member opposite, those benefits will soon disappear.

We had a socialist Treasurer here, John White, who is no longer a member. He is teaching economics or something like that; and I am sure he is contributing to the community in his own way, not the least by paying income tax. That is fine. If he were here I know he could defend himself in no uncertain terms. As a matter of fact it is a hit of a pleasure to argue against him when he is not here, but I thought at the time, and certainly I believe now, his changes in the Mining Tax Act were disastrous. They, as much as anything else, simply drew a line to further mining development here.

I have listened to what the honourable member for Sudbury has said. As I look on page 18 of the budget paper, table C-2, it says mining tax revenues are going to $0 from $41 million this year to an estimated $50 million next year. Maybe they would go to $150 million, but they are going up. I don’t see that as a dramatic giveaway, although maybe there will be.

I have always felt, and I am not in a position to speak for the party but I am certainly speaking as a Liberal in this connection, that this is one area where giving incentives to the entrepreneur means almost everything.

The NDP would like the government to take over the resources. They would like the government to take over the responsibility for prospecting and finding the resources; they would like the government to take over the financial responsibility for developing them; and of course it goes with it, to reap all the profits associated. But wherever that has been tried it has been largely an uneconomic fiasco. We are a free enterprise province and I am very glad of that. I would dread the day when the NDP nationalizing our provincializing policies would become the policy of the government, and I will do everything I can to stop it.

I really believe that in this area you have got to encourage the entrepreneurs. If the NDP thinks it is an undue encouragement to raise their taxes, as I have indicated from $41 million to $50 million, I find that unreasonable. We are going to support the tax; and my colleague has already indicated that in the first half of thi5 debate which took place some weeks ago.

[3:45]

There is one other matter in connection with the principle of the bill that I want to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker. On page 2410 of Hansard dated May 31, 1979, the following information is included in the answer to a question. This has to do with public opinion polls, and it says the Ministry of Natural Resources commissioned a public opinion poll of the Canadian Gallup Poll Limited, costing $19,525, on the following:

“Public Awareness Study of the Mining Industry in Ontario.

“To determine the awareness of, and attitudes towards, the development of Ontario’s mineral resources and towards the direction and nature of government programs which affect that development.”

I would suggest that this is another instance where the results of a poll would he extremely valuable and useful if made available to all members of the House.

The Premier’s reasons for not making the results of these polls available simply do not hold water when we come to specific areas. The view from the socialists has already been expressed as to how these resources should be taxed and managed. I have expressed a personal view which is not too far away from the view expressed previously by our official critic, who is now on his honeymoon in the Emerald Isle.

It would be extremely valuable if we were to know what that $20,000 poll told the minister and the people sitting under the gallery who have assisted him in establishing policy and drawing this legislation. Do the people think we should he taxing these resources more? Do the people think, as investors themselves, that they would like a chance to keep a few more bucks? Do they think, as free enterprisers might, that as entrepreneurs or prospective entrepreneurs they would like to do something to profit by this themselves as well as have an opportunity in new mines to have a good-paying job in the north?

I say to the minister, on the principle of this bill, that this is the sort of information which should have accompanied the introduction of the bill with the compendium of information required under our rules. I say that most sincerely. I would expect the minister, being a senior cabinet minister and a person well known for his independence, to indicate that this information would be made available to us. In that way, it may well be that the information from other opinion polls that have been conducted at public expense would also be laid on the table so that all honourable members -- not just the members of the government -- would see the view of the taxpaying community in Ontario and we would have the advantage of that in reflecting policy matters that come before us. It is time the government policy was changed so that we could have the advantage of that information.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to peak on the bill, having our party’s position ably put forward by the member for Nickel Belt and the member for Sudbury. But the fallacious statements of the previous speaker have caused me to rise to my feet.

I would like to point out to him that under the benighted leadership of the former Premier of Saskatchewan, Ross Thatcher, the people of that province only had five per cent of their provincial budget coming in from taxation on the resource industry -- a piddling five per cent. It was more than we get in Ontario, but it was still minimal. When the Blakeney government came to power in Saskatchewan, they set a target which they have achieved, of getting 20 to 25 per cent of the provincial budget for the people of Saskatchewan from their natural resources, from their rights.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker: The honourable member has said my statements were fallacious. If he will examine h”m carefully, he will see that I indicated the policy of the previous Liberal government in Saskatchewan was to stimulate mining investment and development --

Mr. Foulds: Nothing of the sort.

Mr. Nixon: Well, it did, because the revenue --

Mr. Foulds: That’s not a point of order. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member said they were fallacious. I am simply indicating that they were not fallacious; they were correct. The policy was simulative, and that is what we want to do in this province.

Mr. Foulds: I think that is what the Speaker would call a matter of opinion as opposed to a point of order. I repeat and stand by my original statement. I want to point out that since the present Blakeney NDP government has been in power in Saskatchewan there have been more mining ventures and explorations going on there than in practically any other province at the present time, with a much smaller resource base. There are, in fact, 186 active explorations and mining ventures going on in Saskatchewan. That is in spite of the allegations by the Liberal/Conservative Party of Ontario that the tax structure --

Mr. Makarchuk: The Socred Party of

Ontario.

Mr. Foulds: -- an NDP government would implement would discourage exploration and development. In fact, we have got a fair return in Saskatchewan on behalf of the people, and we have encouraged exploration and development in a way that hasn’t happened in Ontario. So how does One explain that? It can’t be explained by the tax structure.

My colleague from Sudbury has pointed out they have devised a very enlightened kind of ratio taxation in the resource sector in Saskatchewan, so that as the profitability increases the rate of taxation increases. When international conditions are such that the profitability genuinely declines, or there is reinvestment, then the rate of taxation declines. But the mining companies know, and they know for a 20-year period if they have decent forecasters, what the rate of taxation is going to be. And it’s built into a formula that is fair, as my colleague pointed out, and one they all know they have to live by.

When a piece of legislation like this comes before this House, I have to ask three fundamental questions. One is: who does it benefit? And who does this tax benefit? It doesn’t benefit the small entrepreneur; it doesn’t benefit the guy who wants to go out and explore; it doesn’t benefit the old-fashioned prospector; it doesn’t benefit a small new consortium of entrepreneurs; it benefits five major corporations in this province, and that’s all. It benefits Inco; it benefits Falconbridge; it benefits Texasgulf; it benefits Denison, and it benefits Rio Algom. It does not, let me repeat, it does not encourage new mining ventures.

We know what Inco does with its investment. It doesn’t invest in this province; it has a deliberate policy of not investing in Ontario. It deliberately uses the profits it generates in this province, and has done for 60-odd years, to invest in foreign sources to exploit the labour force over there. It deliberately does not use the revenues it generates in Ontario for Ontario people to develop Canadian industry. That is scandalous, and the changes this minister is bringing in will simply accelerate that. That’s one of the reasons why I have to oppose it so strongly.

Second, when a measure like this comes in I have to ask: who has to pay to pick up the slack? The people who have to pay to pick up the slack are the people who pay OIIIP premiums and people who pay ordinary sales tax. The government has to get the tax from somewhere, and because we get so little --

Mr. Nixon: The change means $9 million more, not $9 million less.

Mr. Foulds: -- from the resource sector, we are over-burdened as a population with taxation in other areas. It is a deliberate policy of this government and of their Liberal coalition friends to aid and abet that.

This government and its Liberal coalition friends keep crying about how we have to have restraint. We have to have restraints in hospital beds, we have to have restraints in school classes, we have to have restraints in social services. We even have to have restraints in this minister’s own ministry, so we don’t have adequate conservation officers and we don’t have an adequate regeneration program because this government refuses to get the revenue it should be rightfully entitled to.

And what do we do? We lessen this ministry’s own taxation revenues.

Mr. Makarchuk: They are a bunch of sellout artists, that’s what they are.

Mr. Swart: In bed with their corporate friends.

Mr. Foulds: I say to you that that is scandalous and shameful because, if anything, the Ministry of Natural Resources should be at least a self-sufficient ministry, if not a profitable one.

Mr. Nixon: Revenue is going up by $9 million.

Mr. Foulds: It is, in my view, the second most powerful and important ministry in the government because aside from Treasury it is the only ministry that has taxation powers, and it does not use those taxation powers to the benefit of the people of Ontario.

So, for three basic reasons I have to oppose this tax: It does not do what the minister and the Treasurer say it will do, or that the apologist for the Liberal Party says it will do. It does not encourage new exploration. The people of Ontario, through their OHIP premiums, through the sales tax and other revenues of taxation levied on them, have to pick up the slack. In other words, the ordinary people of this province have to carry the major mining corporations on their backs. Third, those major mining corporations that I enunciated, Inco, Falconbridge, Texasguif, Denison and Rio Algom, get enough breaks right now, and we in this party cannot support this tax.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if our system of taxation in the resource industry, such as outlined by my friend from Sudbury, was similar to that implemented in Saskatchewan, we would have every hit as much exploration as Saskatchewan has if there was a proper incentive program and a proper participation program by the government in that exploration. We would not frighten away investment. Do you want to know why? Because Ontario is a heck of a lot better place to invest, has a heck of a lot better climate and better work force and is a heck of a lot more stable than Guatemala or Indonesia or the Latin American countries. Yet, most of those major corporations are investing in those other areas where conditions aren’t nearly as favourable as they are here in Canada.

So I am not pessimistic, as are the Conservatives and the Liberals, about the future of mining in Ontario I am optimistic because there are a lot of natural resources in this province that have not yet been tapped, hut neither the Conservative government nor their Liberal coalition partners have come up with exciting new ways of encouraging exploration. They can only fall batik on this tired remedy of giving to the five major mining companies even more than they have now.

Mr. Bolan: I would like to make one or two comments on the subject Of this piece of legislation. I agree heartily with the remarks made by my colleague, particularly when he addresses the minister on the question of the Canada Gallup Poll Limited and the little report they came out with. I would presume that this report was some kind of a foundation upon which policies have been based. I also suspect it is for other reasons.

Aside from that, I have another question for the minister. I presume that when he stands up to make a statement later on, when we have finished discussing and presenting our views on this bill, he will kindly tell us whether or not his ministry -- I am not only dealing with mines but with other areas of his ministry -- is conducting other polls right now to find out what is going on in various parts of the province as they relate to natural resources. What other areas of natural resources are being considered in terms of taxation? Of course, this legislation relates to mining and that is the principle of the bill, so specifically dealing with mining, I presume that the minister will be able to tell us later on this afternoon whether or not there are other polls being conducted. If there are, why is it that he would not make those available for all of us to see, so we may be able to have the benefit of the collective wisdom of those who have responded to them?

[4:00]

As far as the mining industry in this province is concerned, I think it is right to say there has not been a major discovery in this province since Texasgulf. That was the last major discovery and there is a reason for that: we have scared off every investor in the province. There is no question about that. There are other places they can go with their funds to invest in the mining industry.

One of the reasons why they have not been able to do anything in this province is because they have been overtaxed. I have no qualms of conscience whatever in saying that the mining industries in this province has been overtaxed. That is one of the reasons there are no major investors in this province today in the mining industry.

My friend from Port Arthur mentioned they are running off to Guatemala and they are running off here and they are running off there. Of course they are, for good reason: because the economic climate is better there than it is here and they are being scared off here by the high taxes.

Mr. Makarchuk: Cheap labour: four cents an hour.

Mr. Philip: They also have a fascist government there. Ross Thatcher understood that.

Mr. Bolan: So I say to the minister that we will support the bill, but I do hope when he replies to this House this afternoon he addresses himself to the question posed by my colleague with respect to his secret polls.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I am delighted to deal with the last matter about polls. I hate to disappoint my friends opposite, but the results of that poll have been available in the mining library since we got them. I think that was about the middle of April. They were circulated among the mining association members who wanted them. We had a number of people write in and we sent copies.

Mr. Nixon: The Premier said they could not be made public.

Mr. Eaton: The member’s research office is not doing a very good job.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I guess we should have sent a copy to every member. I am not sure how many copies we have left but I will see that both the honourable members have copies, and if there are any others who would like a copy, I would be glad to send them.

Mr. Nixon: That is a great breakthrough. I hope some of the minister’s colleagues will follow that example.

Hon. Mr. Auld: We are speaking about the mining tax and the mining poll today and I can only speak for myself.

Mr. Nixon: But you are a senior member; they all look to you for guidance.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I was very interested in some of the things the member for Sudbury said, both previously and today -- I am sorry he is out of the House at the moment, but no doubt he and the member for Port Arthur will be back shortly -- particularly the question about revenue.

I was interested in the member for Nickel Belt’s previous comment in comparison to Saskatchewan: “In 1977, with the existing tax structure on the mining industry, out of $2.7 billion worth of production, Ontario received $39 million. That includes the corporation income tax on the mining industry and that is a return of a little less than 1.5 per cent of the value of production. In Saskatchewan, with only half a billion dollars

-- actually $511 million -- worth of production, they received $113 million worth of revenue on metallic and non-metallic minerals. That is a 22.3 per cent return on the value of production. So there is a big difference between what we realize from our resources and what our sister province of Saskatchewan receives.”

I just want to point out -- and I checked this again -- that does include oil and gas revenues and he is really comparing oranges with apples and not making a valid comparison.

Mr. Germa: Why? It is a natural resource.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Let me speak of the great things about public ownership and public management in Saskatchewan. I just happen to have the figures for the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, which I understand cost the taxpayers about $510 million. The income for the year ended June 30, 1978, was $10.4 million, or a 2.03 per cent return on investment. I must say only a government would operate on that kind of basis.

Let me point out one other thing again in connection with this bill, which was indicated earlier and I think indicated by the Treasurer in his remarks on budget night. That is that while the mining tax top brackets will disappear -- the two highest brackets -- at the same time we will be reducing the processing allowances. The processing allowance for refining will be reduced from 30 to 25 per cent, and the processing allowance for semi-fabricating from 35 to 30 per cent to reduce any benefits in the event of another boom year like 1974-75.

I might say the effect of this will be primarily on the larger corporations with the higher profits, rather than on the smaller ones. The smaller ones, of course, will be receiving that increase of $150,000, as was indicated in the previous statement.

I would like to be brief, but I have made a couple of other notes. In connection with an economic impact statement; it has never been policy for the budget measures announced by the Treasurer on budget night having to do with the changes to be accompanied by or preceded by an economic impact statement. I think a number of the matters referred to by the member for Sudbury were covered in the budget statement made by the Treasurer on budget night.

As I have said, there are many differences in the way the provinces deal with resources. The member for Bract-Oxford-Norfolk indicated in perhaps an accurate way that certainly the tax policies we have had in place in recent years have not encouraged exploitation and development, because there hasn’t been that much of it. There are a number of factors that will encourage or discourage exploitation and development. People will not explore unless there is a likelihood of development, and people will not develop unless they can get an adequate return on their investment. There is no argument about that.

There is a very significant difference between Ontario and Saskatchewan, for instance, in dealing with land tenure. We have mining tax, while they have royalties, but in effect the result is the same. The government is getting a return for the people of the province on the exploitation of public resources.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to know the Liberal Party will be supporting this measure and I would hope we might have second reading and go on to third reading perhaps today.

The House divided on Mr. Auld’s motion for second reading of Bill 52, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Ashe, Auld, Belanger, Bernier, Blundy,

Bolan, Bradley, Breithaupt, Campbell, Con- way, Cunningham, Cureatz, Davis, Drea, Eakins, Eaton, Epp, Gaunt, Gregory, Haggerty, Handleman, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J.,

Jones, Kennedy, Lane, Leluk, Mancini,

McCaffrey, MeCague, McGuigan, McKessock,

Miller, G. I., Newman, B., Newman, W.,

Nixon, Norton, O’Neil, Peterson, Ramsay,

Reed, J., Riddell, Rollins, Rotenberg, Rowe, Roy, Ruston, Sargent, Scrivener, Smith, S.,

Smith, G. E., Snow, Stephenson, Sterling,

Sweeney, Taylor, G., Taylor, J. A., Turner,

Van Horne, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson,

Welch, Williams, Wiseman, Worton.

Nays

Bounsall, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton,

Cooke, Davidson, M., Davison, M. N., di

Santo, Dukszta, Foulds, Germa, Gigantes,

Grande, Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Lawlor,

Lupusella, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Makarchuk, Martel, McClellan, Philip, Renwick,

Samis, Swart, Warner, Wildman, Young,

Ziemba.

Ayes 69; nays 80.

The House divided on Mr. Auld’s motion for third reading of Bill 52, which was agreed to on the same vote.

House in committee of the whole.

TREES AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 8, An Act to amend the Trees Act.

On section 1:

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I just wish to say that we will be supporting this amendment. It is my understanding that this relates to section 8 of the bill which, under the bill that was originally submitted, gave the minister power to make regulations. We had already submitted an amendment to withdraw that power from him; as this is related to that, therefore we will support this amendment.

Mr. Bolan: Mr. Chairman, I had before you an amendment that would have done, in effect, the same thing as the amendment that the minister has put forward. The reasoning for the deletion of that particular clause is that, since municipalities which have passed bylaws restricting the cutting of trees may under section 7(b)(1), which I believe is on page four of the bill, authorize minor exceptions to the application of such bylaws, there really is no need to create an exception to a bylaw in any other case provided for in the regulations and, therefore, there is no need to define regulations on page one of the bill. As such, we will be supporting the deletion.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Auld moves that clause (d) of section 1 of the act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be struck out.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment on section 2.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Before we get there, I believe the member for Nipissing has a motion to make.

Mr. Bolan: There is a motion to add a new section, section 1(a) to the bill. This is done in conjunction with the proposed amendment to the minister’s amendment, and basically what this does is to change the penalty section, which in the original bill submitted was for $25. What we propose to do is to change it to be not less than $500 and not more than $1,000. I understand there is an amendment to section 3 before the House, an amendment put forward by the minister, which would change the penalty section from $25 to $50. My amendment would be applicable to that as well, so that basically it would be an amendment to change the fine of not more than $50 in the minister’s new section 3 to a fine of not less than $500 and not more than $1,000.

The reasoning behind this change is that until I saw the minister’s amendment to section 3 today, which changes it to $50, the fine of $25 has been unchanged since 1883, and basically it provides to increase the maximum fine for anyone injuring or destroying a tree growing for the purposes of shade or ornament on a boundary line.

I realize that the provision for a minimum fine is, according to my amendment, for not less than $500. It is true that under the new Provincial Offences Act, section 60(2), a court may, where exceptional circumstances exist so that to impose the minimum fine would be unduly oppressive or otherwise not in the interests of justice, impose a fine less than the minimum. The inclusion of a minimum fine should guide the court as to the seriousness in which a breach of the section should be regarded.

There is still power within the court to take into consideration all of the circumstances which surround presumably the commission of the offence, presumably the person committing the offence, and the court does have jurisdiction. The court does have the power to use its discretion to make it less than the minimum fine of $500. That is the amendment which I propose to make to that.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Bolan moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section: “1(a). Section 3 of the said act is amended by striking out the words not more than $25’ in the seventh line and inserting in lieu thereof not less than $500 and not more than $1,000.”

Mr. Swath I rise a little surprised because the minister didn’t rise first to move his amendment that applied to exactly the same section. However, in view of the fact that the member for Nipissing now has the motion before us, I am going to speak in support of the motion of the member for Nipissing.

I think the argument put forward by him that the $25 penalty, which was in the original act and had been there, I guess, for close to 70 to 80 years, would certainly be represented today by a minimum fine of $500, or something of that nature. The facts are that a $50 fine, as proposed in the amendment by the minister, is inadequate as a penalty for a person who cuts down a tree which is on a boundary line between him and his neighbour. Today, if one wants to get a tree of good size planted in one’s yard it is going to cost at least $250. If one buys a lot with a good-sized tree on it, it is going to cost $1,000 extra for that lot.

It seems to me the penalty here should be adequate to meet the circumstances; therefore, we will be supporting the amendment put forward by the member for Nipissing.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, the reason I had not moved my amendment was that I thought the honourable member had an amendment that would have preceded this section. But to comment on the amendment put forward by the member for Nipissing, first of all, I am informed that there has been only one prosecution under this section of that act of which we are aware. The reason I was going to propose it be raised to $50 is that $25 did not seem like very much. I have some hesitation, though, in endorsing $1,000 and $500, because the kind of offence involved here -- tying one’s horse to a neighbour’s tree, for instance -- is not included in section 3 of the act.

In case everybody does not have a copy of the act in front of them, section 3 currently reads: “Every person who ties or fastens any animal to or injures or destroys any tree growing for the purposes of shade or ornament upon a boundary line between lands or who suffers or permits any animal in his charge to injure or destroy or who trims, cuts down or removes any such tree without the consent of the owners thereof is guilty of an offence and on summary conviction is liable to a fine of not more than

$25.”

It would seem to me, with the kind of penalty suggested by the honourable member, both minimum and maximum, that there would be quite an encouragement for frivolous or acrimonious charges to be laid if somebody’s horse or cow stuck its neck over the fence and chewed some branches or leaves off a nearby tree.

Mr. Riddell: You’d have to sell the horse to pay the fine.

Hon. Mr. Auld: It would have to be a pretty good horse, by the time one paid the lawyer as well.

Mr. Martel: Or you should train your horse.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Perhaps $50 is not enough, but I would think $100 as a maximum would be a pretty substantial penalty. When we get to the other penalties which have to do with what I think are more serious offences, I am in agreement with an increase. But, I would hope we would not go to that extreme for this particular offence, because I can see the possibility of frivolous suits.

Mr. Bolan: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to make three points on what the minister has mentioned.

First of all, dealing with the minimum of $500, one of the reasons there have not been many prosecutions is the cost of the prosecution itself. Many of these townships or towns which would pass bylaws or have jurisdiction over, shall we say, the policing of the act, would have to go out and hire a local lawyer to go ahead with the prosecution. Many of them do not have their own solicitor. Or if they do have a town solicitor or a township solicitor, he is not on a permanent basis but rather a pay-as-you-work service. With the prices lawyers charge today, it is very difficult to see a fee for a prosecution of under $250. That certainly is my own opinion and, I might add, my own experience as a lawyer who has prosecuted these matters.

Again, probably one of the reasons we have not had very many prosecutions is -- and, I hate to use the expression -- that there was no incentive because of the cost involved. The cost would be greater than the fine that was collected.

[4:45]

The escape hatch on that, as I mentioned earlier, is under the provisions of the new Provincial Offences Act. Presumably, in arriving at a sentence the judge would look at all the circumstances and facts, and he would consider the seriousness and extent of the damage. If it is something which is nominal, it would appear to me he would consider this in invoking section 60(2) of the act.

Presumably this is a very important act, otherwise we wouldn’t be spending so much lime on it. I am not from an area which is going to be greatly affected by this act; however, I have spoken to some of my colleagues from southern Ontario and they are very much concerned about it. I am sure the minister is aware of the voluminous correspondence received from people who are trying to have some input in the legislation, making suggestions, et cetera, all of which is very important in the decision-making process of legislators. This indicates they are very much concerned with what has happened in the past.

If it were just a question of looking at that range -- minimum $500, maximum $1,000

-- I think I would have to go along with the concerns which have been expressed by the minister. However, when one does have that option and discretion which the court can exercise, having regard to all of the circumstances, I feel this particular amount is justified when one looks at the cost of the prosecutions. As far as the $1,000 end of it is concerned, that obviously is there for the repeater, for the person committing a second, third or fourth offence. Nowhere in the act does it deal with a second offence, so that leaves discretion for the court to deal with those cases that are very serious in nature, probably bordering on wilful damage.

Incidentally, if something is very serious, I presume the wilful damage provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada could be applied and bring upon the person found guilty a greater penalty. I feel the high rung of that ladder is there to deal with the extreme case of the breach, as well as with the repeater.

Mr. Swart: I rise again after hearing the comments of both the minister and the member for Nipissing. I wonder if perhaps there isn’t a compromise to be made on this.

We had before us the two amendments, the one from the minister which sets a maximum of $50, which seems to me is wholly inadequate to compensate in the case of two neighbours who have a dispute and one cuts down a shade tree that is perhaps 40 or 50 years old. On the other hand, the minimum fine of $500 bothered us and still does, because if there wasn’t even any age to the tree and the person was convicted, the minimum fine would be $500. The damage might be very slight.

So if you don’t rule me out of order because I have already spoken on this, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move an amendment to the amendment to delete, in the amendment made by the member for Nipissing, the five last words, “but not less than $500.” There could be a maximum fine of $1,000 but the minimum would not be set. I am moving this with a view of seeking a compromise here. If I have to support one amendment or the other, I will support the amendment of the member for Nipissing. But I think there is a compromise that would make the penalty more realistic in the circumstances which could exist. It does deal with the question of an animal that would do damage to a tree. I suppose you could tie an animal to a tree and he could eat the bark or some of the limbs off a small tree; if the person was convicted, the minimum fine would be $500, which wouldn’t make much sense in that case.

On the other hand, as I pointed out when I spoke before, there are many limes when the loss of a tree is worth at least $1,000. So I’m moving -- if you will accept it --

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I don’t see any reason why I shouldn’t accept it. You can speak more than once in committee, and you can make one amendment to the amendment. I think you’re quite in order.

Mr. Swart: I would move -- I believe I’ve already put it on record; if you want it in writing --

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I’m not clear what you have proposed.

Mr. Swart: I would move -- I’ll put it in writing to you -- an amendment to the amendment by Mr. Gaunt, that the last five words, namely, “but not less than $500” be deleted from his amendment.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Will you read the way you think it should now read?

Mr. Swart: I’ll have to write it out.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: While he’s writing that out, does the minister know what the member is proposing and is the minister prepared to speak before he sees it?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think I do, Mr. Chairman. Just one further thing: On the point raised by the member for Nipissing, it is true that in a prosecution of this kind it is the aggrieved who must launch the prosecution; it is not the municipality. On the other hand, that same aggrieved person, if he feels he has been aggrieved for a great expense, has an opportunity to take a civil action, which might well not cost him any more than launching a prosecution for which he would receive no recompense.

I think going from $25 to $1,000 is excessive -- on the other hand, I feel a lot better when the minimum has been removed; that act may not be proclaimed for some time, and, if such a case were to go into a court, for a judge to see a minimum fine of that amount for a minor infraction wouldn’t sit well with the court.

I don’t know how much negotiating we can do. I was going to say I’ll have an amendment to the amendment suggesting $500 as a maximum, which strikes me as being a pretty significant penalty for injury to a tree.

Mr. Martel: But there’s no necessity for the $1,000. The $1,000 would be at the discretion of the judge.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I realize that. But it strikes me as being a large amount. However, if it appears to be the agreement of the opposition that $1,000 maximum, without a minimum, is the decision, I’ll accept it.

Mr. Riddell: A good walnut tree would be worth $1,000.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Conceivably; but if that were the case I’d rather sue for $2,000 and get costs as well.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Any further discussion? Do I hear anybody saying $750? If not, I’ll put this. But before we put the amendment to the amendment, maybe the minister could get the nod from his legal people that this will make sense, where it fits into the other act.

The proposal is that it would now read:

“1(a): Section 3 of the said act is amended by striking out the words not more than $25’ in the seventh line and inserting in lieu thereof and not more than $1,000.’”

Hon. Mr. Auld: If we leave out the “and” and insert in lieu thereof “not more than $1,000,” I think we have it.

Mr. Haggerty: Watch those “ands” and “ors,” particularly when you’re dealing with lawyers.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Swart, I’m adding an “and” to your amendment, with your consent.

Mr. Swart: Would you please read it again?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: All right. I’ll read this, not to put the question but just so you’ll all be dear.

Mr. Swart moved an amendment to Mr. Gaunt’s amendment to section 3 of the act that the words “but not less than $500 and” on line three of the amendment be deleted.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I don’t understand the word “and.” The amendment which

I have before us is moved by Mr. Bolan rather than Mr. Gaunt. It reads: “1(a). Section 3 of the said act is amended by striking out “$25” in the seventh line and inserting in lieu thereof $1,000 but not less than $500.’”

I want to strike out “but not less than $500.” I don’t know where the “and” comes in.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: The “and” is immediately after the “$500.”

Mr. Martel: Let’s get our act together.

Hon. Mr. Auld: In Mr. Bolan’s amendment it says “not less than” so much and “not more than.” If you take out “not less than” you have left “and not more than,” which would mean that the act would read, “to a fine of not more than and $1,000.”

Mr. Bolan: Mr. Chairman, the best way to explain it is to look at the second amendment which the minister is bringing forward. He is substituting section 3 of the act. He. is putting in a new section 2 to the bill which substitutes section 3 of the act. Is that right Mr. Minister? In that new section 3 of the act he goes on to say, “every person who ties or fastens any animal to, or injures or destroys any frees,” et cetera, “is guilty of an offence and on summary conviction is liable of not more than $50.” The idea would he to change that $50 to $1,000.

Mr. Swart: My understanding is that we have an amendment before us from the member for Nipissing. It’s not the amendment from the minister. It is that amendment which I am amending. It has nothing to do with that of the minister, and I would think that my wording is correct when I’m amending the amendment by the member for Nipissing. Even if we go back to the act which we’re amending it ends up in a fine of not more than $25. I still don’t see the necessity for the “and.”

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think, Mr. Chairman, what we’re trying to achieve is in the last line of the present act, which now reads, “offence and on summary conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $25.” We want it to come out, “offence and on summary conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $1,000.”

Mr. Swart: That’s right.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Therefore I think we’re correct. I gather from the legal advisers that the “and” is not necessary, Mr. Swart, but the assistant clerk also informs me that the legislative editors can tidy up any mistakes of that nature we may make.

So, if we’re ready for the question, Mr. Swart has moved an amendment to Mr. Bolan’s amendment which reads as follows:

“Section 3 of the said act is amended by striking out the words, not more than $25’ in the seventh line and inserting in lieu thereof not less than $500 and’ “ -- I’m sorry

-- and not more than $1,000’” No, I’m sorry, I’ve got that wrong. I’ve combined both amendments. Let me go back again and read the amendment which Mr. Swart has moved.

[5:00]

His amendment is to the amendment that Mr. Bolan has made, and he proposes that the words “but not less than $500 and” on line three of the amendment be deleted.

All those in favour of Mr. Swart’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Now we will look at Mr. Bolan’s motion. I guess we don’t need to read your amendment again, Mr. Bolan. Shall the amendment, as amended, be carried?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I now find a bit of a problem, because there is one other difference between my proposed amendment and Mr. Bolan’s. I was going to move that the subsection be added as section 2, which would then mean that we would renumber section 3. Consequently, the rest of my amendments are going to create a bit of a numbering problem.

We now have, as I understand it, section 1 in the bill, we have a new section 1(a), and we move to section 2, which now comes up. I would like to move --

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I have an amendment here from you, Mr. Auld, for section 301 the bill. Is that what you’re looking at?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Yes.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: All right. I think Mr. Swart has an amendment for section 2, before we get that far.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I think this is where Mr. Swart wishes to make his amendment to section 2 of the bill which comes ahead of mine. He has it numbered section 3 but that was when he was putting in a new section 2. That new section 2 is not there, and I suggest to the minister that he might want to reword his amendment to read “section 2” where it says “section 3” and where he says, “I move that section 4(2) of the act, as set out in section 2 of the bill

We need to change that twice and to take out the words “as renumbered be struck out and the following substituted therefor.”

I offer this assistance, Mr. Chairman, because I’m supportive of his amendment. I have a subsequent amendment to section 2, but it’s to a later part of section 2.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I don’t know whether you’re being of assistance or not. I think you’re being very confusing, Mr. Swart. I’m just speaking for the chair; not for the committee.

Mr. Swart: Should I repeat that? I’m endeavouring to assist.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: If you can repeat it in the same way, you’ll be wonderful.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Auld’s second amendment, which I have from him, is stated as section 3. But the previous amendment which he had would have renumbered the bill. This amendment is drafted as though it were an amendment to the bill as renumbered. But now his amendment really is to section 2 of the bill, because it has not been renumbered. If he changes that to section 2 and takes out the words “as renumbered” it would seem to me it would he properly before the House before my amendment.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Right, I see.

Hon. Mr. Auld moves that section 4(2) of the act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(2) An officer appointed under a bylaw passed under subsection 1, or any predecessor thereof, and any person acting under his instructions may at all reasonable times enter upon the land of any person for the purpose of,

“(a) enforcing such bylaw,

“(b) determining compliance with an order made under section 7(2) or,

“(c) examining trees that might be affected by a minor exception authorized under section 7(b)(1).”

Mr. Minister, I gather maybe that renumbering was not correct in the eyes of the legislative counsel.

Mr. Bolan: You are one ahead.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest now that in fact the minister has an amend-

Mr. Deputy Chairman: My note is the bill has been renumbered by Mr. Bolan’s amendment. The minister’s amendments as you have them are in order. These things can really be cleared up by the legislative editors, as long as we are clear in our intent. They can probably pick these things up and put them in order. The legislative counsel’s advice is to leave this amendment of Mr. Auld as it is worded. I am not sure where it comes in regard to Mr. Swart’s proposed amendment, hut I gather this one comes first.

Let’s discuss the amendment Mr. Auld has made. Are there any questions in regard to it?

Mr. Swart: lit is my understanding that what we are discussing, if we take th0 bill as it is submitted to us, is section 2(2) v4iich says:

“An officer appointed under a bylaw passed under subsection 1, or any predecessor thereof, and any person acting under his instructions may at all reasonable times enter upon and inspect the land of any person for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of any such bylaw or inspecting land where an application has been made under subsection 1 of section 7(b).”

It is my understanding that the minister is moving this amendment which we have before us to change that subsection. If I am correct in that, and I think I am, then I think this is advisable because It gives greater powers to the officers who are enforcing the Trees Act. It will give them the power of not only enforcing the bylaw, but examining trees. A later section of the act gives the municipality the power to give certain exemptions. They would be able to go in and examine those trees ahead of time, it gives them the power to go on the property. It really gives the enforcement officers wider powers which are made necessary by the changes this bill makes in the original act.

Therefore, I am in support of that amendment as proposed by the minister. With due respect, Mr. Chairman, I believe when the minister read this into the record that in fact he was right in saying that it is section 4(2) of the act as set out in section 2 of the bill.

Mr. Bolan: I suppose it is not the first time in my life I have been confused, but I have to say that I am. I would like to go through the amendments which were put on my desk. These are the minister’s amendments. Turn to page two of those amendments.

Hon. Mr. Auld: The sheet that is on your desk is headed “section 3.”

Mr. Bolan: Right.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Change that to “section 2.” Then go to the second line, which says “as set out in section 3 of the bill.” That should say “section 2.” Then cross out “as renumbered.”

Mr. Bolan: The second page I have deals with section 3 of the act, not with subsection 2 of section 4. I am talking about the act, not the bill. There are two different things here. What I have before me -- and as I say this was placed on my desk as we sat down here at two o’clock -- says on page one: “Hon. Mr. Auld moves that clause (d) of section 1 of the act as set out in the bill be struck out.” That was dealt with.

Next page: Hon. Mr. Auld on section 2. “I move that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following sections: Section 3 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor: Every person who ties or fastens any animal -- “ et cetera.

Hon. Mr. Auld: That amendment never went forward. The honourable member’s amendment came first; then that of the honourable member for Welland-Thorold, when it was settled at $1,000. So hat amendment never got before us.

Mr. Bolan: Okay; that is explained, that’s fine.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Is it the minister’s intention to put that amendment forward?

Hon. Mr. Auld: No it isn’t.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Auld moves that section 4(2) of the act, as set out in section 3 of the bill as renumbered, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(2) An officer appointed under a bylaw passed under subsection 1 or any predecessor thereof and any person acting under his instructions may at all reasonable times enter upon the land of any person for the purpose of:

“(a) enforcing such bylaw.

“(h) determining compliance with an order made under subsection 2 of section 6, or

“(c) examining trees that might be affected by a minor exception authorized under subsection (1) of section 7b.”

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, you’d have to change your copy too, because in the second line “act as set out in section 3” as it is typed, should now he section 2, because the previous amendment added section 1(a) rather than 2.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I’m going to leave it, if it’s all right with the committee and let the editors tidy it up. I don’t think it affects the intent we’re working for at all.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Swart: I have an amendment to section 2 which immediately follows the amendment we just made.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Swan moves that section 4(8) of the act as set out in section 2 of the bill be struck out.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, the subsection I am proposing be struck out is on page 2 of the act. Subsection (8) states: “A bylaw passed under subsection 1 or any predecessor thereof, may be limited territorially.”

I’m moving this be struck out for, I think, very substantial reasons. Up to this time, a municipality had to adopt the bill to apply to the whole municipality. If we are familiar with the application of the act at all, we know it has been counties and regions which have passed these bylaws under the Trees Act. They have had to pass them for the whole of the municipality or for the whole of the region. This amendment would provide that the municipality could pass those bylaws to apply to only part of the county -- or in the case of a local municipality and very few municipalities have passed them -- to only a part of the municipality.

[5:15]

Having sat on county council in a region for many years, I know what the result of this will be. In those areas where there is a substantial amount of forest and where the tree-cutting bylaw really should apply to prevent the clear cutting of those forests, there will be pressure brought to bear and the municipality will now be able to exempt that rural municipality or two rural municipalities -- or even part of a municipality, whatever the case may be. All of us who have been in municipal life know very well that it is the exceptions that are the real difficulties. You can establish principles for bylaws in legislation such as the Trees Act, you can establish the principles of zoning bylaws, but if you leave it to the municipalities to be able to exempt certain parts of the municipality, where pressure is brought to bear and where it is sort of a co-operative organization, a federation if you will of municipalities, many of them are reluctant to tell the other municipality how they should run their affairs within the county council.

Surely, the main purpose of the Trees Act is to preserve a water table in this province. Anybody who is at all familiar with the original implementation of the Trees Act knows it was brought about because of a study, done I believe in the late 1940s. It was a comprehensive study done by this Legislature, which found that throughout this province there were many areas in danger of having the water table level lowered, where there would be greater runoff, particularly on the hilly lands, so that there was need to conserve what forest cover we had in this province. That is a report anybody who is at all interested in conservation should read. It was put in very strong terms, and it was endorsed by all members of this Legislature. It wasn’t written by any particular party in this Legislature. There was general recognition that it was necessary to do that.

I suppose if I had been in this Legislature at that time we would have put forward a very strong argument that the Trees Act should automatically apply across the whole province rather than leaving it to counties basically to implement it, making it optional whether they did or not. In any event, the majority of the counties in this province adopted it, realizing the need of it.

Now, in effect, if this section is left in, it will mean any county will be able to exempt any part of that county, even though they have a bylaw at the present time. It makes it retroactive that they will be. able to amend that bylaw to exempt certain parts of that county. The Trees Act has now been accepted in the counties, and once you pass this the pressures will start to have certain municipalities or parts of municipalities, exempted from the application of the act within those counties, and I say it is very dangerous.

It is almost fundamental to. this act to have it apply across the whole municipality, because the only place there will be pressure brought to bear to exempt will be, of course, where there is a lot of forest cover at the present time, where it is needed. Where the forest has all been cut, nobody is going to be worrying about exempting that part of the municipality.

To me, this is a very important decision we have to make; it amounts to a decision as to whether we are going to step backwards, that is what it is. We are going to step backwards by permitting more of the province to be exempted from the Trees Act. That is really what this amendment amounts to, and I suggest what I am predicting will in fact happen if we pass this amendment. Therefore I would urge all members of the House to support my amendment to have it deleted.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I wonder if I might comment briefly on that amendment. I may say this subsection was included at the request of the municipalities, specifically Bruce county as a matter of fact, where officials wish to treat the southern agricultural part of the county differently from the northern forested part of the county.

It has also been requested by regional municipalities which want to be able to deal differently, for obvious reasons, with urban and agricultural areas, wooded areas and so on. We have to remember that it is permissive legislation. If a municipality, county or region feels that act is unworkable, they will do nothing. It seems to me it makes sense to leave this freedom for municipalities, whose officials are responsible groups, certainly in my experience. They will then have the flexibility to deal in the best way possible, in terms of forestry and agriculture and the water table and everything else, with the laud they have. Of course soils and all kinds of conditions vary greatly around the province and within counties. I think that is the reason for this part of the bill.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment put forward by the member for Welland-Thorold pretty well coincides with the type of amendment the Association of Municipalities of Ontario asked for. Although I can see some merit in it, I can also see that such an amendment would subject local politicians to an awful lot of local pressure. I can see a lot of people becoming involved in this Trees Amendment Act. As a matter of fact I can see 27 different inspectors running around an area. Speaking personally, I am not sure I can support this amendment but --

Mr. Bolan: The honourable member is speaking for all of us.

Mr. Riddell: I am speaking for all of us then. I am not sure we can support this amendment, because I do think it would subject local politicians to a lot of local pressure; many people would become involved in the act and I think we want to keep it as simple as we can.

Mr. J. Reed: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the member for Welland-Thorold, if his amendment were to pass what would he the incentive for a person who owns land to undertake reforesting? What incentive would there be? It would seem to me, and I say this as a farmer and as the owner of land where I have just finished reforesting 15 acres, that if I have no prospect of harvesting those trees, if a bylaw were to be enacted that would apply to the urban area and the rural area alike and there was no differentiation made, what incentive would there be for me to make what at this point in my life would be an altruistic move in order simply to try and leave something for my children, and to improve the water table and the water runoff at the same time? In my opinion, if a bylaw is brought in that will prohibit the harvesting of certain kinds of trees in a given area and applied universally across the whole region, it would be literally stupid for a farmer to undertake to reforest a particular area, especially if there were particular varieties involved.

I will become very specific. My land happens to grow black walnuts very well. Over the last three generations my family has planted black walnuts for the purpose of systematic harvesting. Every year when the black walnuts reseed themselves, we replant and we keep regenerating these. If a bylaw prohibited the harvesting of black walnuts, for instance, what incentive would there be for me to continue that practice? Yet I know it is a desirable practice and I know it is in the best interests of good forest management and good agricultural management to undertake that kind of thing.

1 would also like to point out to the member for Welland-Thorold that we have certain areas that are quite unique in our region, unique to sections of the region. Is he going to suggest that any bylaw that comes in regarding trees should then be universally applicable?

I just don’t see it working. There are certain demands in urban areas for the preservation of frees. There are certain demands on the escarpment, for instance, for the preservation of forest areas and the maintenance of certain kinds of wildlife, but they don’t apply universally across the region, they apply to those very specific areas.

I would strongly suggest this territorial exclusion stay in the bill.

Mr. Swart: I think there is some misunderstanding, if I may say so, with regard to the amendment I proposed. The first thing I want to make clear is the amendment I proposed changes nothing that exists today. It is not something new we are introducing today, this leaves things as they were. The practice which has taken place over the years will remain. At the present time, Halton has such a bylaw in effect, it was passed on August

29, 1973.

Surely members must be aware that any bylaw like this does not prevent you from harvesting mature frees. It prevents clear-cutting young frees, hut in no way does it prevent the harvesting of mature trees. I would suggest you read the bylaw in your municipality. Of course mature trees can be harvested, but you cannot clear-cut land which has been in forest over the years; except for any trees over and above a certain size and the diameters are given in the preamble to this. Trees that should be harvested can, of course, be harvested.

This amendment makes no change to what we have at the present time. Anything one can do at the present time can continue to be done, as this makes no change. It is the amendment in the act which makes the change. It makes it permissible to exempt any area of the region or country from the provisions of the bylaw which is passed, anti which will invariably weaken the bylaw.

I am not sure at this time whether the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) is speaking for or against the amendment. He said it would create a lot of pressure on local politicians if the amendment went through. It is the minister’s amendment that will create that. My amendment is to delete that section so those pressures will not occur. It is the amendment the minister has in the bill which will create those problems:

“A bylaw passed under subsection 1 or any predecessor thereof may he limited territorially.” That is the one that is going to bring the pressure to bear from anybody who wants to clear-cut the forest.

As the member for Huron-Middlesex has said, it is very difficult for a federation such as a county or a region to stand op to those pressure. If we are really interested in preserving the forest cover we now have in this province, I suggest it will be done better by my amendment than by permitting the minister’s amendment to go through.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Swart’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

On section 3:

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to what is now section 4. Legislative counsel indicates the original amendment by the member for Nipissing which was given as section 1(a) has become section 2. The numbers have been changed.

15:301

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Auld moves that section 5(1)(e) of the act, as set out in section 4 of the bill as renumbered, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(e) apply to trees growing in a woodlot that is two acres or less in area unless the bylaw provides expressly that it applies to trees in such a woodlot.”

Mr. Auld further moves that section 5(l)(l) of the act, as set out in section 4 of the bill as renumbered, he struck out.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Originally the bill proposed that this two-acre exemption would apply. There has been considerable concern expressed that because of rural-residential zonings -- in many cases it’s a two-acre minimum lot for rural-residential, which is not really a woodlot but might well be considered to be and create some problems for the owner; and it’s a very small area -- there should be an exemption.

However, I know that both the official opposition and the NDP were proposing to change this and I’m hopeful with this provision, which will now provide that if the municipality -- the county, say -- wants to exempt the two-acre woodlot they can, but if they want to include them, they can still do that. It is really putting the onus a little? more on the municipality to take a good look at what they’re doing and to be able to pass an act with this exclusion, if that is their best judgement.

Mr. Bolan: We will support this amendment and withdraw the amendment we had which added a subclause to section 5, because basically we’re arriving at a solution to the same problem.

I have some notes here I would like to read into the record. The resolutions committee of the county of Perth’s argument on this is that many woodlots of areas not exceeding two acres help maintain the water level in rural areas and prevent erosion of soil. They act as a windbreak and aid in regulating drainage and provide an environment for wildlife and are irreplaceable for their aesthetic value.

The Catfish Creek Conservation Authority are also concerned that the decrease in tree cover of an area increases soil erosion caused by wind and lowers the water table in the soil. The authority points out further that it has been found that a free cover percentage of eight per cent or less indicates critical conditions insofar as soil erosion and lower water tables are concerned and it adds that it is known that the percentage of free cover of all the land in Elgin county is now down to about 11 per cent.

These are two of the reasons -- together with many others -- why we had proposed our own subsection, which is somewhat along the lines of the minister’s. However, we will be withdrawing that amendment in favour of the amendment submitted by the minister.

Mr. Swart: I think the best way to go about this is to move an amendment. Could I point out, first, so we have everything clear, that it’s not set out in section 4 of the

Any comments, Mr. Minister? bill, it is set out in section 3 of the bill. Let’s make that change.

We’re talking about section 3 of Bill 8. If you look on page two, the second paragraph from the bottom, it is (e) that we’re discussing.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Swart moves that section 5(1) (e) of the act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by deleting the words two acres” wherever they appear and that the words “one-quarter acre” be inserted in lieu thereof; and that all the words following “or less in area” be deleted.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I moved this amendment, in the words of the member for Nipissing, to express the concerns of the counties that they maintain the tree cover they have. These woodlots of less than two acres are a very essential part of maintaining the forest cover.

The minister’s amendment we have before us permits a municipality to pass a bylaw which would apply directly against one owner to prevent him from cutting off a woodlot under two acres.

I ask anybody who has been in municipal life, if you have a general policy which says it doesn’t apply to woodlots under two acres, how many municipalities are going to pass a bylaw which says “except that” on that parcel of land belonging to that particular person? He may not cut off that, even though he owns only an acre and a hail.

Surely, Mr. Minister, the provincial government must take some responsibility for the overall principle of retaining the forest cover we have in southern Ontario. It seems to me the basic principle they accepted 30 or 40 years ago, when they passed the bylaws they had at that time, was just weakened by the amendment passed previously. When there has been the request by many, many municipalities -- and all the conservation organizations -- that this two acre minimum is a very critical matter, to give anybody the right if they’ve got less than two acres to clear-cut it all is a very critical matter and they’ve asked that it be amended.

The amendment proposed here is nothing more than a gesture; I’m sure you’d agree with me if you’ve been in municipal life. It won’t make a single change in the application of this act. Anyone with under two acres will still be able to cut it off unless a specific bylaw applies to frees in such a woodlot. There may be the odd municipality, the odd county, that will do it, hut if we really mean we want to preserve those woodlots which are under two acres as being essential to the forest cover in this province -- as they are; the conservation authorities have asked for this; several of the counties have asked for this; in fact, there is a general request for this -- your amendment will not accomplish it. I am suggesting we change that to one quarter of an acre. Anyone with under one quarter of an acre will be able to cut it off. That’s roughly 100 feet by 100 feet. One would be able to cut off any woodlot that small.

I want to point out to you that there is another section of the act later on which gives permission for exemption. Why do we not use that section -- say a quarter acre here -- if there are situations Where they need to cut off, for very substantial reasons, a larger area than can be given under the municipal exemptions section? Why not use that rather than leaving this provision which we know is going to be inoperative? It just will not be passed by those municipalities. It substantially weakens the preservation of our forests, our forest cover and will, in the long mu, adversely affect the people of this province.

Of course, this is Why the bill was passed when it was and most of it was passed in many other areas throughout North America. There was tremendous clear-cutting going on during the early years in this nation. Those who were conservationists, even those agriculturalists and agronomists who worked for the Ontario government back in those years, recommended that there be bylaws passed to prevent any more clear-cutting of the forests in this province. Your government at that time agreed to it and now you’re weakening the act.

We know of the dust storms in the depression years. We know of the droughts and the floods. The more forest cover you take away, the more severe all of those things are going to be in the future. We’re going to pay a price in our society if we go on watering down an act such as this which provides some protection for the forest cover. Especially in this one where, later in the act we give some local autonomy to the municipalities, to give minor exemptions, why don’t we let it be handled under that and accept the principle here?

I would appeal to the minister to accept this amendment I have proposed and leave the minor variations. We will support that in the latter part of the act where it can be d’all with if there is some justification for clear-nutting under two acres. I suggest that if we’re concerned about preservation it’s a much more effective way of doing it and would give us the opportunity to make those exemptions which may be necessary.

Mr. Riddell: Listening to the member for Welland-Thorold, I wonder if he can actually visualize a quarter acre woodlot. One quarter of an acre to an urban person may seem like a lot of land but if you talk about a one-quarter acre woodlot to a farmer --

Mr. Bolan: To an urbane person.

Mr. Riddell: -- he would think you were right out of your head.

The member for Welland-Thorold talks about all his municipal experience, and I trust he has played an active part in the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, but you know what they want. I don’t agree with it, but their recommendation was that it be changed from two acres to five acres because they said that two acres in this day and age is too small a parcel of land. In other words, when you purchase land to build a house in many cases you’re talking about two acres of land. So to change from two acres down to the quarter acre woodlot as suggested by the member for Welland-Thorold, to my way of thinking would be ridiculous and certainly contrary to what AMO believes in that they think it should be stepped up to five acres. I think we can reach a compromise and stick to two acres.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments on the amendment to the amendment? If not, is the committee ready for the question?

Mr. Bolan: I’d just like to make one comment. This relates to the other clause mentioned, Mr. Chairman. You further read an amendment to section 5(1X1) of the act. Are we dealing with that particular amendment?

[5:45]

Mr. Chairman: We are still dealing with the amendment to the amendment.

Shall the amendment to the amendment carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Chairman: Shall Mr. Auld’s amendment carry?

All those in favour say “aye.”

All those opposed say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is there anything further on section 3?

Mr. Bolan moves that section 5(l)(k) and 5(l)(l) of the act as set out in section 3 of the bill be struck out.

Mr. Bolan: If I may speak briefly; clause (k) states there is an exemption which applies to trees cut in accordance with good forestry practice. The question is, how do you determine good forestry practice? Who defines it? It is not defined by regulation. Again, you are relying on the individual to determine what amounts to good forestry practice. It is felt the best thing to do is to take this section right out.

This subsection may have been introduced because of a concern by the ministry that bylaws passed pursuant to section 4 have not been as effective as they could be. Instead of setting out standards and specifications for cutting, which would ensure proper forest management practices, the bylaws have generally prohibited cutting of trees below a minimum trunk size expressed as a diameter in inches at breast height. Proper forest management requires taking into account individual differences between forests and between trees within a forest and marking of trees on an individual basis.

No single measurement can appropriately be applied to all forests, If this subsection was intended to promote proper forestry practice I feel it is misconceived and that would not be the end result. The end result would create more problems than you already have, because everyone would be applying for the exemption by saying according to the standards of this particular type of tree cutting this is accepted as good tree cutting.

Does it depend on the type of chain saw you use? Does it depend on the type and length of wood you cut into? I don’t know. Really, you are leaving it up to the individual to determine good forestry practice. For these reasons, we are moving this clause be deleted.

Mr. Swart: We will support the amendment to delete clauses (k) and (I) for the reasons given by the member for Nipissing. Of course, in the ease of clause (.1), it is being deleted by the ministry in any event, because it is going to take away the right of the minister to make regulations to apply in cases which may not be covered by the act.

I would think the intent of clause (1c) is to provide that trees which have become diseased and trees which have reached maturity should be cut. With that we don’t disagree, but as has been stated, the term “good forestry practices” is so broad it can be applied to the way you cut the trees down.

Because up to this time the act seems to have not given any problem in this regard, the municipal bylaws have never been challenged. Of course, they give authorization for the cutting of diseased trees, as the minister will know if he’s seen many of these bylaws, or “trees that have reached maturity,” et cetera, et cetera. Unless he can point out a legal problem they have had in the act as it now stands then I think this is unnecessary and can lead to some abuse of the intent of the act and so for that reason we’re supporting the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Auld: While I agree there is no definition of good forestry practice in the act, the purpose of this is that good forestry practice will be achieved. In other words in any stand -- say a young stand -- thinning is going to take place just as it does in our own provincially operated forests or county forests. There is a certain amount of pruning and removing of diseased stock and that sort of thing as the honourable member has mentioned I .

Really, just not to permit a woodlot owner to improve his woodlot by doing the sort of thinning that is good forestry practice just seems very silly. Any indiscriminate cutting could be prosecuted; it is not producing a loophole under the law. I’m not sure that every tree committee would have a forester as a member of it or as an adviser, but certainly in any case where it appeared that somebody was abusing this section, a prosecution could be launched, and it would he up to the person who had cut the trees to prove that he had in fact been operating good forestry practice.

This clause is here to encourage good forestry practice and to discourage people with a lack of forestry knowledge from attempting to impose impossible conditions on those who wish to improve their woodlots. For that reason this is in the amending bill.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of the amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Swart: I have another amendment to section 3. Perhaps I should have put it ahead of that amendment because it did come ahead, although the amendment I had from the Liberal Party had (e) in it which came ahead of (f), however they dropped (e).

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Swart moves that section 5(1)(f) of the act as set out in section 3 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor: “(f) apply to trees which subject to prior approval of the enforcement officers are necessary to destroy in order to erect any building, structure or thing in respect of which a building permit is issued.”

Mr. Swart: I think the intent of this amendment is perfectly clear. It is to have the enforcement officer look at the area where a building or structure or thing is going to be built and to determine what trees it will be necessary to he cut there ahead of time and how to come to an agreement with the owner. As long as this is in there you can have someone who buys the property and says he wants to construct something there, and go ahead and cut down a lot of trees unnecessarily. Then, of course, it is too late to replant them.

It seems to me we should give some responsibility to the enforcement officers, as the minister did in an earlier amendment. It seemed that to give them the right to go in ahead of time would be advisable here and that is the purpose of our amendment. I am wondering, Mr. Minister, if this isn’t in conformity with your previous amendment, if you might be willing to accept the amendment to this section which we propose?

Hon. Mr. Auld: In answer to that question, I am afraid I wouldn’t be prepared to accept this for a number of reasons. First of all, *hat we are doing here, very clearly, is giving an official power to deal with private property and make a decision from which there is apparently no appeal. It seems to me this is a matter of judgement in many cases -- when somebody is building a house, for instance -- as to how the house is sited, whether they want a leaning tree hanging over the roof, a whole host of things. But the thing I find particularly offensive in this is that we are giving an official the authority to make a decision which affects a person on his own private property and from which there is no appeal.

Mr. Swart: I don’t think we can let that go unanswered. The whole purpose of the Trees Act affects what people can do with their private property. It tells people whether or not they can cut down their trees. That is the whole intent of it; it applies to private property.

If somebody is going to build some structure -- not necessarily a house; most people who build a house in an area where there are trees want to preserve the trees -- there are all kinds of other things that can be built in these areas, frequently the trees could be saved. Many could care less about them. Once they are down you can’t replace them.

It seems to me only reasonable the enforcement officers -- and this is what they are

-- should look at it ahead of time, rather than afterwards. Perhaps afterwards they have to lay charges. There is a judgement to be made, as you have pointed out, put surely that judgement has to be made with respect to the Trees Act.

Shouldn’t the enforcement officers of this act be there to help make that judgement? The person can still go ahead and cut down those trees, but then he can be charged under the act. It seems to me it is much better to determine this ahead of time. As far as interfering with the rights of the person to determine what trees they cut on private land is concerned, that is what the act is all about.

Hon. Mr. Auld: The honourable member mentioned the point that if there is a violation of the law there should be prosecution. But that should be decided in court rather than by an official.

Mr. Bolan: We will not support this amendment. I agree with the government’s position on it. If there is something which contravenes the act charges can be laid -- there are other ways of dealing with it. Deleting the clause does not accomplish the desired results which the member seeks and, as such, we will not support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman; Shall Mr. Swart’s amendment carry?

Those in favour will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

Motion negatived.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Swart moves that section 5(1)(j) of the act as set out in section 3 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor: “(j) apply to trees which subject to prior approval of the enforcement officer it is necessary to destroy in order to lawfully establish and operate or enlarge any pit or quarry on land that has not been designated under section 2 of the Pits and Quarries Control Act, 1971.”

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that we set this bill down now, or whatever the proper language is, because at eight o’clock, by agreement, we will commence with Bill 93 while we are in committee of the whole House.

Mr. Nixon: It would be too bad to carry the Trees Act.

Hon. Mr. Welch; I take it there is more work to be done on the Trees Act, It being six o’clock and as no time is provided for it tonight, if this bill could be set down now. wherever it may be, we will call Bill 93 and get at that at eight o’clock.

In my opinion the nays have it.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.