Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 10 o’clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

WATER TREATMENT

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, over the past few days much has been said and written about water treatment, water contamination and related scientific and medical research. I am pleased to see this public interest in this very important area of environmental protection, because it gives me the opportunity to discuss with the hon. members some activities of which Ontario can be proud.

We are pioneers in environmental protection in this province, particularly with regard to water treatment and water pollution control. I can say, and without fear of contradiction, that there’s not a system in the world better than the one we have right here in Ontario.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Applause, applause from across there.

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Come on, fellas.

Hon. W. Newman: This province established the Ontario Water Resources Commission in 1957 to protect the water we use.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): The government has been watching the problem from afar for 30 years.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We thought the minister was talking about patronage.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): The Liberals are the ones who know all about that.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The experts.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Could we have the minister’s statement?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The “big blue machine.” Does the Premier know what that is? It is a patronage machine.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Whose list in Ottawa is the Leader of the Opposition on?

Hon. W. Newman: We enjoy one-fifth of the world’s supply of fresh water here, which imposes a considerable amount of responsibility on us. My predecessors in the OWRC and the Ministry of the Environment have met this obligation well, and I intend to continue this tradition.

At this time, we have 438 water treatment plants serving 307 municipalities in Ontario, and 88 of these plants are owned and operated by the province. Over the past two decades we have built up a substantial wealth of scientific and technical expertise in water protection and water treatment. We have millions invested in scientific equipment and a staff whose knowledge and experience in water pollution control cannot be measured in mere dollars.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Hurray! Best in the world.

Hon. W. Newman: Four years ago, an $11 million major expansion was planned for our laboratory and research facilities in Rexdale. This expansion is completed and scientific equipment worth about $2.5 million has been delivered to add to our existing facilities. We maintain the most up-to-date research programme possible to protect our water. This is a basic and essential public service.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): What about arsenic in the Moira River?

Hon. W. Newman: Our research and analysis programme has been developed to the point where we can detect and measure the most minute trace organic and inorganic elements in water samples. In fact, our ability to measure these elements has outstripped the medical profession’s present level of knowledge of their effects, good or bad, on human health.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): That is not what they say about asbestos.

Mr. Shulman: How about arsenic?

Hon. W. Newman: This research is continually being applied in our operational programmes, benefiting our treatment plants and municipal plants. But before we apply a new process we make sure all the research and testing on that process is done, and we know the effects of the process.

For example, from time to time we hear critics of chlorination advocating other treatment methods. We have tried the alternatives, from ozone treatment through gamma irradiation.

Ozone treatment has its advocates, but the chlorine method we use has at least two basic advantages. First, we have the experience and expertise to deal with it, and we know how to use it to best advantage.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Who wrote that for the minister?

Hon. W. Newman: We still have no certain knowledge of all the reactions that can take place between ozone and water and its trace contents.

The other basic advantage of chlorine is its persistence. When you add this element to water, it stays with it. This means it not only purifies the water, it purifies the treatment plant, the mains and the entire distribution through the plumbing and taps of our homes.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Great. Just great.

Mr. Breithaupt: Sounds like the minister’s monthly bulletin.

Hon. W. Newman: Well, those fellows brought it on. Ozone does not persist in water and so can’t provide this cleansing action.

Mr. Shulman: And it doesn’t produce carcinogens.

Hon. W. Newman: However, we are still investigating this and other methods to maintain our high standard of treatment quality. The care and study we put into water treatment goes into all our water management programmes. I don’t think any intelligent person could question that the Great Lakes are around the corner in terms of pollution, and getting better every year.

Ontario, I am proud to say, was the prime mover in getting international action on these lakes under way. We have consistently done our best, with outstanding co-operation from the municipalities, to meet our obligation to clean up the Great Lakes, and we have worked closely with our counterparts in Ottawa, in Washington, and in the Great Lakes states on the total cleanup programme.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I can get that copied and sent out to all the Tories.

Hon. W. Newman: When I assumed responsibility for this ministry I inherited this and I intend to continue.

I would also like, Mr. Speaker, to quote from a medical report regarding asbestos ingestion, because I think there has been a great deal of concern on the part of the public of this province.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I understand it is good for you.

Hon. W. Newman: I notice the member for High Park is drinking water this morning. I am pleased to see him doing it.

Mr. Shulman: It is from a distillery; it is okay.

Mr. Breithaupt: We can see through that too, but people can’t swallow it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: He usually drinks wine, doesn’t he? Imported wine, in fact.

Hon. W. Newman: I would just like to quote briefly from this report, Mr. Speaker:

“Three different laboratories independently investigated the ability of ingested mineral fibres to penetrate tissues in rats. All concluded that there was no evidence of tissue penetration by ingested mineral fibres.”

Mr. Breithaupt: What do rats know?

Hon. W. Newman: The report says:

“These experimental observations are supported by the findings in coal and hard rock miners who swallow, during their lifetime, nearly 100 times the amounts of dust that is stored in their lungs. The lymph nodes of these people show no evidence of storage of the ingested dust particles at all. Animals fed asbestos over much of their lifetime and allowed to live to the age of cancer production failed to provide evidence of carcinogenic effects.”

This research was done by three different universities -- one in the US, one in England and one in Scotland.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): That does it; I go back to water today.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Housing.

CONDOMINIUM MORTGAGES

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to my statement of yesterday and correct an address. I was incorrect when I stated that the Morris family purchased their initial unit in Crescent Town and their subsequent units in Crescent Town. The address should have been Flemingdon Woods.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The Leader of the Opposition.

FOOD PRICES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to ask the Premier for some clarification. Is he familiar with the report released yesterday by the federal Food Prices Review Board that indicates that we can expect a further 16 per cent increase in the cost of food in the province? While I do intend to ask some questions of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart), can the Premier clearly indicate what machinery we have for the review of these increases as they come along to see that the increases are justified, if they are, to see that there is not undue profiteering at any level between the producer and the consumer, and to see that this increase of 16 per cent, if it does happen -- and apparently it will -- is going to accrue at least to the primary producers in some way as an improvement in their economic position?

The question is this, really, of the head of the government before I put it to the Minister of Agriculture and Food: What machinery is presently in place to keep these matters at least under public review?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think that question should be more appropriately directed to the Minister of Agriculture and Food and to the minister, who is unfortunately a little under the weather at the moment, who has this matter within his jurisdiction. In that he is not here, I will endeavour to get an answer from his ministry for the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture and Food might have some general observations, with his very great and sincere interest in the primary producers when it comes to food.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If I might direct the question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, is it his intention to upgrade the Food Council, which is an arm of the ministry that has been available and in operation for six years now, as the major review body for food prices and particularly to see that between the producer and the consumer there is not an undue level of profiteering and that these reviews can be carried out publicly so that the people concerned, from the producer to the consumer, are not only going to see but going to believe that the force and the authority of the government of this province is going to be involved in such a review?

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, we haven’t intended to include within the terms of reference of the Food Council a review of all food prices. We have now a federal Food Prices Review Board under the direction of Mrs. Plumptre. We believe that if food prices are going to be reviewed they should be reviewed at the national level, and that has been going on. I think, with few exceptions, the reports that Mrs. Plumptre has submitted -- and there are many of them -- would indicate that there doesn’t appear to be undue profiteering in this particular regard.

I was asked a question a few weeks ago by the member for Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis) concerning markup in beef prices. We did a review over the first 45 weeks of 1974 of five meat outlets in this province which doesn’t indicate there is any great increase whatever in the markup between what the outlet pays for the beef and what the retailer sells it for -- that is, the consumer purchasing price. I answered the question a day or two ago in the House. That was done by the Food Council. The Food Council are not equipped to get into the field of examining such matters in detail.

But I would point out, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Ontario Milk Commission, for instance, that every price increase in Ontario on fluid milk goes before the Ontario Milk Commission in that the producer price is worked out with the processors’ council and the Ontario Milk Marketing Board then that price has to be ratified by the Milk Commission. There have been times in the past when there have been differences of opinion.

I would suppose that as far as milk is concerned and as far as beef is concerned the share of the consumer’s dollar goes directly to the producer in a larger percentage than perhaps any other two commodities that I know of.

With regard to many other commodities that are on the basis of a negotiated price, the marketing boards having to do with processing fruit and vegetables are just beginning their discussion. They’ll continue for the next two or three months.

We will have someone present from the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Board who will be monitoring those discussions on a daily basis. On this board is the president of the Consumers’ Association of Canada, Ontario section. Those agreements will be finally resolved, I trust, by early spring.

But I believe people must recognize that if we are going to have the kind of increases in costs to the primary producer now evident, then prices at consumer level are going to have to reflect those increased costs or we are simply not going to have production.

My hon. friend can become quite excited about increased costs at consumer levels. None of us are really anxious to see that happen. But I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that unless those costs are reflected at producer level there is not going to be production -- and it is just as simple as that. I firmly believe that food is still the best buy we have in this country as far as consumers are concerned. I stand firmly by that position.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): It is also necessary.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Quite specifically, since we have had a year of rapidly increasing food costs and the Food Price Review Board predicts a further 16 per cent in the following year, would the minister not think it advisable on behalf of the people of this province to strengthen this review arm? It is presently there and capable of responding, but so far only on an ad hoc basis. There should be capability in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food for a monitoring service upon which the minister can report on a regular basis during next year when the food prices are going to escalate even more rapidly than they have before. Does the minister not agree that this could be done without duplicating what is being done by Mrs. Plumptre’s committee, in the area where there is a provincial jurisdiction and where the price increases are going to have impact in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not share that opinion. I see no reason why the Province of Ontario --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I believe the minister will reverse that position before 1975 is over.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: We may, we may indeed. At this particular, precise moment in time I just feel that any such review board would simply be a duplication of what’s being done at the federal level.

There may be specific instances, where I will, as I did with beef, look into these things. But we have never found in any of these ad hoc looks that we may have taken that there is any undue profiteering. Certainly there are variations. There are variations between stores, and there are variations between commodities week to week and day by day. All one has to do is look at the ads. I reviewed the ads of all the major chain stores that appeared in the paper yesterday.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Are there any real bargains?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, there are some real bargains. Turkeys, for instance, are priced below cost of production; there isn’t any question about that.

Now what are we supposed to do? Are we to step into the market and say to the turkey producers and to the consumers: “You’ve got to increase the price of turkeys to come up to the cost of production”? There is no possible way turkey can be produced at the price it is selling for today in the chain stores of this province. Why doesn’t my hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, stand up and say: “What are you going to do about turkey prices?” That’s the problem right now.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, what is the minister going to do about turkey prices?

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister without Portfolio): Buy turkeys.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. member for Wentworth with a supplementary.

Mr. Deans: It sounds like a turkey farm we are running.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Is the minister trying to split the Liberal caucus?

Mr. Deans: When the food council conducted its 42-week --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I can’t hear the hon. member.

Mr. Deans: I don’t blame him, I can hardly hear either.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. We can’t hear the question.

An hon. member: Speak up.

Mr. Deans: I am having a little trouble this morning.

When the food council conducted its 42-week study or whatever number of weeks it was -- into the price of beef and it came to the conclusion there was no difference in the markup, was it talking about constant dollar difference or was it talking about a percentage difference? And when it came to the conclusion there was no difference in the markup over that period of time and yet recognized there was a rapidly escalating cost of beef at the retail level, did it then look beyond that markup to determine why the beef prices had risen as they did?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, Mr. Speaker, there has not been a rapidly increasing cost for beef at the retail level. That increase took place in 1973. This past fall until the last two weeks, live cattle and dressed beef by the carcass were selling at a higher price than in late 1973. The problem with my hon. friend is that he doesn’t realize that these feeder calf prices and the feeder cattle prices, which are not dressed beef prices at all, bear no reflection to them whatever, are far less than they were a year ago. The finished beef price up until two weeks ago is at a higher price today than it was in 1973. But, strangely enough, the retail prices have maintained almost the same level as in 1973 when we had the consumer boycotts -- which resulted, incidentally, in the United States in a drop in per capita consumption of six pounds per person. That means two million less cattle were consumed in the USA.

Mr. Deans: They couldn’t afford it.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: This is the whole problem. All right, can the producer afford to produce it at the price that feed is today? They say that the consumer can’t afford it?

Mr. Deans: That’s exactly what I’m asking the minister.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Is the member suggesting -- and I interpret what he says as suggesting -- that the farmer should produce it at less than the cost of production?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Of course, that is what he always does!

Hon. Mr. Stewart: So the consumer can get it for less than cost of production.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: I’m suggesting the price of beef went up and there was not study made to determine --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: The whole thing is that the price of beef went up in 1973 and it did not come down to meet the level.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: And there was no study made.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, a study was done, as I indicated.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, we have spent 10 minutes on this one question. I think that is sufficient. Does the Leader of the Opposition have further questions?

BRADLEY-GEORGETOWN HYDRO CORRIDOR

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Energy if he can explain to the House why he gave ministerial approval to the construction of the Bradley-Orangeville-Milton Hydro corridor -- it may be also called the Bradley-Georgetown corridor -- without releasing the environmental impact studies upon which the approval was to be predicated and without having the open hearings of the type that had been used in the Nanticoke-Pickering decision?

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): Well, Mr. Speaker, this was thoroughly explained in a very lengthy statement on July 11. I think if the member would go back and read that he would find all the reasons.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have looked at it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Very basically it was a question of timing. We regretted that the full public process could not be carried through. There were very extensive hearings on the northern route. The northern route, as much as anything I think, can be said was acceptable. The southern route was not acceptable. Ultimately, we ran out of time and, rather than have power locked up at Bruce, it became necessary to make a decision. The decision was made to proceed with the northern route and, for the time being, to forget the southern route and put it into the context of the long-range hearings which will probably be held next year. I think it was fully covered in the July 11 statement.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Can the minister explain why the environmental impact study is not now readily available? Would it not be possible to conduct the kind of hearing that would permit those people, who are now mounting a very legitimate action of complaint, to have an opportunity for an open hearing in this regard? Does it really mean that any further delay would imply that the power from the developing Bruce would simply be lost to the rest of the province? Are we at that point of inadequate planning?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, we are not at the point of inadequate planning at all.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Then why can’t we have a hearing about it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Because we have run out of time. Bruce will be on stream and the first unit will be on stream.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s inadequate planning.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, it is not inadequate planning. The Leader of the Opposition should just go back and read some of these things, instead of coming blithering in here five months later --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I read that statement and it was a complete pull-back.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- and talking about things which --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The July 11 statement was a complete pull-back on the minister’s commitment that there would be a full hearing before the decision was made.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister completely reversed himself.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: All I can say is that it has taken the Leader of the Opposition five months to figure that out. If that’s his timetable, then he has got a little inadequate planning too.

An hon. member: Let him do his homework.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: All right, the citizens come in here -- a supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: All right, one supplementary then.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like the minister to explain to the House and those people who are concerned about it in the areas of Wellington county, particularly, and that have been in to see us and complaining that they are not getting adequate answers from the government, what is he going to do about having a hearing to satisfy their feelings that once again the great McKeough is imposing his will on a whole segment of the community?

Mr. Breithaupt: Right -- and that is saying something.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Probably he has done that more than any other minister over there.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, there have been numerous meetings. We have met with those people. The position of the government was laid out on July 11, and I am simply delighted that the Leader of the Opposition has come out of his long summer sleep and is waking up to some things that are going on in this province.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, we know about the minister --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): A supplementary --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He says they blame him for everything. Well, they blame him for this one.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Huron-Bruce has the floor.

Mr. Gaunt: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Why hasn’t the minister considered, as an alternative, the Bruce-Essex line to supply Toronto with power from the Bruce plant, and shouldn’t this alternative have a great deal of appeal since Hydro already owns that particular right of way?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We now know who it is who has been talking with the opposition, but that’s fine; be that as it may --

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Isn’t that legitimate? They wanted to save the government another $100 million.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- the determination was made, and that was covered in the July 11 statement. I wish the official opposition would get into some of these things at an earlier stage instead of coming along as Johnny-come-latelies.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why doesn’t the minister answer the question instead of stonewalling?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The question of the Essa corridor --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am really hurting the opposition this morning, am I not? I am really hurting them.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The Leader of the Opposition has wakened up and is publicly exposed to the fact that he is catching up with something.

Mr. Breithaupt: Is the minister going to punish the person who told us?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: They really are something else over there.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’d like to answer this question, Mr. Speaker, but I am being barracked by people over there.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The matter of the Essa corridor was gone into by Dr. Solandt, something over a year ago --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Take a national view.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Dr. Solandt determined that the correct crossing of the escarpment is in the Limehouse area and not the Essa corridor.

The other point that must be added is that as we build more power generation in the north -- and I think many people would agree that we should try to build as much of it in the north as we can -- it will be necessary to transport that power to southern Ontario, where the greatest load is --

Mr. Deacon: Why?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why not try to use more of it up there?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- and the Essa corridor will be preserved for that use, wherever it can.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: No, I think not. There is too much time being wasted on the supplementaries. We have to give some of the other people a chance to ask questions.

The Leader of the Opposition. A new question.

Interjections by hon. members.

NON-RETURNABLE CONTAINERS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to ask the Minister of the Environment if he can justify his rather timid statement yesterday which once again shied away from even holding out hope that the policy of the government eventually is going to be to ban non-returnable containers. How does he square this with the statement made by his predecessor, now the Solicitor General (Mr. Kerr), which was foursquare for the acceptance of the policy that eventually throw-away cans and bottles would be banned and would be removed as a blight on our countryside?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, the statement I made yesterday outlined very clearly the policy of the ministry --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, the very timid policy.

Hon. W. Newman: -- and I would just like to say that I have had many meetings --

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): That alone will cost the minister his seat.

Hon. W. Newman: Listen, the member is going to lose his, so he shouldn’t worry about me.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): No way.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. W. Newman: Is that all the members opposite do -- gamble? I am sorry to hear that.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): That’s not a gamble; it’s a sure thing.

Mr. Breithaupt: The voters are going to change one Newman for another.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I wonder if we could continue with the question period in its proper form. The minister is completing his answer.

Hon. W. Newman: Would the members like to hear my answer?

Mr. Ruston: No!

Hon. Mr. McKeough: They bombed twice over there this morning; now they are bombing again.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have had many meetings with the manufacturers of both bottles and cans, with the union people, with the glass people, with all those people who are involved --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. W. Newman: -- and certainly I am convinced that they are looking for direction, which they are going to be getting early in January when I will be meeting with them all. We will sit down at the table and discuss what directions we think they should be moving.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Would the minister not think that we should proceed by way of legislation rather than simply attempting to persuade the industry to follow some sort of a guideline that the minister has enunciated? Surely, as the authority in the province in this particular area, we ought to establish what we are going to do and then, by legislation, require the industry to conform. How can he expect to accomplish even this persuasive goal without a timetable that is significant?

Mr. Stokes: Why doesn’t he lead for a change?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, it is all very well to say “legislate it.” Sometimes I get a little tired of too much legislation. If it can be done without legislating it, why not do it that way?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He’s been Mickey Mousing around here all fall.

Hon. W. Newman: I also said, Mr. Speaker, I would be meeting with all the people concerned in the industry early in the year, and I did accept 14 of the 16 recommendations of the solid waste task force.

Mr. Shulman: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary and then we will move to the next questioner.

Mr. Shulman: Does the minister not think that instead of espousing the policy of the industry he should espouse the policy of the government and the people?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I said I was going to be doing early in the year.

Mr. Shulman: He is very slow.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

Mr. Stokes: Brace yourself.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Santa Claus has lost weight.

NOISE REGULATIONS

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of the Environment about noise pollution: When will he make available to Ontario municipalities his model noise bylaw --

An hon. member: Before the end of November.

Mr. Burr: -- which is all that is left of the years of noise legislation promises ever since the time of the present Solicitor General?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is editorializing.

Hon. Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I knew I shouldn’t have come in the House this morning. I do have two model noise bylaws.

Mr. Breithaupt: A and B.

Hon. W. Newman: I did have them ready by the end of November but I am not convinced that the Ontario Municipal Act has enough authority to really make them effective.

Mr. Haggerty: We told him so.

Hon. W. Newman: I am not sure that it has, so I have asked our legal people to draft this --

Mr. Good: Right back to square one.

Mr. Speaker: The minister is answering the question. Let’s have fewer interjections.

Hon. Mr. Newman: I have asked our legal staff to draw up an amendment to the Environment Protection Act, which they are working on right now, and I would hope that I would be able to bring that in in January when we come in. I have the model noise bylaws but I don’t think they would be that effective without the necessary backup legislation.

Mr. Good: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North with a supplementary.

Mr. Good: Now that the minister has refused to proceed with regulations under the Environmental Protection Act to control noise and now that he says that his model noise bylaws are inadequate, that means the Province of Ontario is completely --

Mr. Speaker: Your question?

Mr. Good: -- without noise bylaws. Is that correct?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the member is really all wet this morning. I wish he would get his facts straight.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Reid: My hearing is going.

Hon. W. Newman: Some municipalities have legislation by private bill, and we don’t want to destroy what they are doing. As I said, I had two model noise bylaws but I don’t want to get into the municipalities and say, “Here they are, go ahead and pass them” -- because that’s what they could do. I want to make sure there are enough teeth to back up those bylaws so they can do a more effective job.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

USE OF ASBESTOS IN PUBLIC PLACES

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of the Environment: When will the minister let me know whether asbestos is actually being used to control or counteract ice --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, with all the noise I didn’t hear that question.

Mr. Speaker: I had difficulty hearing it, too. Could we have less noise in the chamber, please?

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: ’Tis the season to be jolly.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

Mr. Burr: When will the minister let me know whether asbestos is actually being used to control or counteract ice on roads in Ontario, as he undertook to do during the estimates on Oct. 24?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I thought I pretty well answered all the questions that came up in estimates. If I have missed one, I am sorry. As far as using asbestos in the salt on the roads, I really think that question could be more directly put to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes).

Mr. Stokes: Ask Dusty Rhodes there.

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL STANDARDS

Mr. Burr: I have another question of the Minister of the Environment: When is the minister introducing legislation to prevent air pollution -- especially asbestos air pollution -- during demolition of buildings, as he undertook to do on Oct. 24?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I believe if you check, we have already passed regulations controlling dust and things on demolition. I think the regulations have already been passed; I can’t tell you the exact date.

Mr. Burr: It must have been done very noiselessly.

Hon. W. Newman: Very noiselessly.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, he is opposed to noise.

ASBESTOS SPRAYING CONTROLS

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, another question of the minister: When will he send me a report on the question of whether the spraying of asbestos is still allowed in Ontario, and if so, what precautions are taken to keep the asbestos dust out of the air in the vicinity -- as he undertook to do in the estimates of Oct. 24?

Hon. W. Newman: I believe, Mr. Speaker, there are certain controls that are necessary when spraying asbestos. Is the member talking about insulation? There are certain controls. As a matter of fact, I believe we just charged somebody the other day for not effectively keeping it under control when he was doing some spraying.

Mr. Burr: When am I going to get the answers that were promised to me?

Hon. W. Newman: I thought the member had most of his answers; but certainly --

Mr. Stokes: But the minister was wrong, obviously. Give him the answers.

Hon. W. Newman: We have nothing to hide in this ministry; we always give answers. We don’t have any secret reports or draft reports. We don’t hide anything here.

Mr. Ferrier: Why doesn’t the minister send him the answers, then?

Hon. W. Newman: If I’ve taken on an obligation to answer any questions, then he will certainly get some answers.

Mr. Breithaupt: In the fullness of time.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A supplementary.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Supplementary: Can the minister give us more details about the case that he just mentioned? Where is the charge being laid; under what conditions and under what regulations?

Hon. W. Newman: I certainly can’t give details on it right now, because I didn’t have time to check it out this morning before I came to the House. But certainly I will get them.

Mr. Foulds: Doesn’t the minister know what is going on in his ministry?

Hon. W. Newman: I certainly do. A lot more than the member does; that’s for sure!

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Come on; the member doesn’t know what is going on in Thunder Bay.

Mr. Breithaupt: The minister sure knows how to hurt a fellow.

Mr. Shulman: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary, the hon. member for High Park.

Mr. Shulman: Will the minister agree that Dr. Selikoff is the outstanding expert on this problem involving this question of asbestos as a relation to human ills? And has the minister read the report made last week by Dr. Selikoff to the US Senate on this very problem, on which I’m sure he’s up to date?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, is the member asking me about the inhalation of asbestos or the ingestion of asbestos?

Mr. Shulman: The inhalation and the ingestion.

Hon. W. Newman: I have already covered the ingestion part, which comes under the Ministry of the Environment. If the member wants to talk about inhalation --

Mr. Ferrier: Did the minister read the book?

Hon. W. Newman: -- I guess that really comes under the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller), as far as I know. Is that right?

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, the question I asked the minister -- I guess he couldn’t hear because of the noise -- was: Has he read the report?

Hon. W. Newman: I have talked to my people, and they have read all these reports.

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister read?

Hon. W. Newman: I have read some of them myself. The member makes a joke about it. He is playing around with people’s lives. He gets people upset because he is not willing to listen to proper scientific data. I think it’s terrible what he does to the people of this province just to get himself in the headlines. I think it’s terrible!

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It seems to me that this is developing into a debate. The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside has further questions.

An hon. member: The member for High Park should sit down.

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, surely I am entitled --

An hon. member: Sit down.

Mr. Shulman: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Calm, gentlemen, calm; it’s Christmas.

Mr. Speaker: You may state your question of privilege.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Can’t hear him. Can’t hear him.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Shulman: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the minister has accused me of playing with people’s lives. I wish to refute that. What I have done is reveal the facts. He is playing with the lives of the people of this province by concealing the facts; ignoring the facts -- and not releasing the data available to him.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. There seems to be a difference of opinion. I don’t think it’s a matter of personal privilege; it’s a difference of opinion. The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside has a further question.

ASBESTOS IN DRINKING WATER

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Health about the possible harm from asbestos-contaminated drinking water:

Are there any plans to ask pathologists engaged in performing autopsies to look for accumulations of and possible damage from asbestos that has entered the body as the contaminant of drinking water?

Mr. Deans: Where’s the minister’s bow tie?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I would think it’s almost presumptuous of me to need to tell trained pathologists what to look for in examining human bodies.

Mr. Burr: I said “ask.”

Hon. Mr. Miller: I would be quite happy to suggest they look for signs of any such troubles. But the fact that seems to have been lost in the discussions in the last few days, which have tended to become emotional, are these, that a study by international teams in 1972, convened in Lyons, France, did state they have no indication of gastrointestinal cancer due to asbestos in drinking water.

Intensive tests in laboratories, giving animals water containing large quantities of asbestos, have proven no indication of it being a carcinogen. Statistical analyses of the frequency of gastro-intestinal cancer in Duluth, Minn., which I believe is the city with the highest level of water containing asbestos in North America, run in parallel with a neighbouring city that did not have the problem --

Mr. Shulman: No, wrong.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I don’t know that it is wrong, I am only told that it is right. That makes the difference between us. I at least will be willing to go back and consider that maybe it is wrong, that is always a possibility with data that comes from scientists. The Duluth analysis showed no correlated difference in those two factors.

Mr. Shulman: I will give the minister the paper immediately.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Thirdly, in the Province of Ontario, in the last 30 years, the occurrence of gastro-intestinal cancer has dropped in males by roughly 25 per cent.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions.

Mr. Burr: As a supplementary, is the minister aware I put this identical question on the order paper in the spring of 1972?

The answer that came on June 20 from the then Minister of the Environment, probably through the Minister of Health’s department, said:

“Pending the results of experiments on animals, pathologists engaged in performing autopsies are not yet being asked to search more diligently than they are already doing for accumulation of and possible damage caused by asbestos that has entered the body via the drinking water.”

I asked the minister whether he would ask pathologists to do it; not tell them, just ask them.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I said it is presumptuous of me, because I hoped that pathologists would do it. Let me say this: I have a great scepticism of any statement that says categorically there is no problem, or categorically there is a problem, until we are more sure of our facts. I would be glad to see us keeping an open stance in any investigations at any level, to determine whether the risk is real or not. If this involves a voluntary request to pathologists to keep their eyes open, certainly I would endorse it.

Mr. Burr: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

NATURAL GAS FLARES

Mr. Burr: I have a question of the Minister of Energy about the natural gas which has flared or burned in the open air at producing oil fields. Does the minister know how much natural gas is wasted in Canada annually in this way?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, but I would suspect the amount is very small.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: He has it all written out.

Mr. Breithaupt: Everybody else was at the party last night

Mr. Burr: Supplementary: Inasmuch as the United States Department of Commerce in a recent press release --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Is this a question now, or another rebuttal?

Mr. Burr: This is a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The last one wasn’t.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Extraneous supplementary.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): He has the right to ask a new question if he wants to.

Mr. Burr: Well, you can call it a new question, but it is related to this answer, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Let me point out, please, that these question periods are getting a little off course. The last supplementary was really a rebuttal of the minister’s statement, and really this is not the time for debate. If you have a supplementary question, fine.

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, just a point of order, I asked the Minister of Energy a question. He said the answer was “very little.” Now I am asking him a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: What you had started to say didn’t appear supplementary. That’s why I ask is it a supplementary or another rebuttal?

Mr. Burr: Yes, it is a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Now we are wasting time.

Mr. Burr: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I wouldn’t dream of asking anything else.

Mr. Foulds: The two are not mutually exclusive, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Burr: Inasmuch as the United States Department of Commerce in a recent press release, said that three per cent of the world’s energy production is being wasted in this way, would the minister make some representations to prevent this destruction of our irreplaceable, unrenewable source of energy?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the member asked about Canada and I said I thought the answer would be very little. What the member is asking on a supplementary, apparently concerns the world. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was higher than three per cent of the world’s energy. There is a great deal of gas in the Middle East, where it is not economic and where what is wanted out of the ground is the oil, and there is no economic use, as yet, for great quantities of that gas. A day may come when LNGs are economic, but they do not appear to be at this moment in time.

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: The economics of the matter are not involved. With an unrenewable resource, if we are going to waste the energy --

Mr. Breithaupt: Wearing them down.

Mr. Speaker: Order; order please. That’s not a supplementary question, as I was pointing out to the member before.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I would have to answer that supplementary and say it does not surprise me that a member of that party thinks the economics are unimportant.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. May I point out that the two leadoff questioners have taken an undue length of time this morning and there are many other people who want to ask questions?

Hon. Mr. Davis: They certainly have.

Mr. Speaker: I think we will move on to the next question. The Minister of Labour has an answer to a question.

FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY STUDY

Hon. J. P. MacBeth: (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I believe I have located the study which the member for Scarborough West referred to on Dec. 16. It was prepared by the legislative research branch of Labour Canada, is entitled: “Wage Protection: Collection of Wages; Priority of the Wage Claim; Securing the Wage Claim,” and was circulated for comment and criticism in the summer of 1973.

The director of the employment services division has held meetings with representatives from the UIC, the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the federal Ministry of Labour to discuss the possibility of changes to the Bankruptcy Act, as well as the possibility of an insurance scheme that would guarantee workers’ wages. The latest information is that the UIC expects to be able to release the results of its study shortly.

The report is rather a voluminous one. I have one copy which is available for anyone wishing to review it. Of course, when recommendations arise from this working paper, these will be brought to the attention of the House.

The member for Scarborough West is not here but I’ll see that he gets this, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron.

LOCATION OF HYDRO STATIONS

Mr. Riddell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was wondering if the Minister of Energy could tell me whether Ontario Hydro has purchased land in the Varna area, south of Goderich, for the construction of a generating station? Is Ontario Hydro not violating its own principle by establishing generating stations so far removed from the major load centres?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The answer to the first question is, to my knowledge, no.

Mr. Gaunt: What about the second one?

Mr. Deacon: What about the second one?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It’s hypothetical.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Did the member for York Centre hear the question?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury.

SUNDAY TRUCKING OPERATIONS

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Now that the federal appeals court has ruled against his application to overturn the decision of the CTC to allow Sunday trucking, when is he going to back up his brave words with some legislation to contain Sunday trucking in Ontario?

Mr. Foulds: That’s a good question.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I think I’ve said very clearly that I intend to go ahead and prepare the necessary legislation to back up what we have said. I think the words aren’t necessarily brave. They were simply a statement of the fact that we did not want the trucks on the highways on Sundays and we’ll get the necessary legislation to control it in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Stokes: When?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: If the CTC cannot see the importance of what we are trying to do here, then we’ll have to go about it in our own way in our own province. But I do want to point out that we have been having a great deal of co-operation from the trucking industry as well. They want to cooperate with us to get trucks off the highways on Sundays.

Mr. Speaker: The Solicitor General has an answer to a question.

REVOLUTIONARY PAMPHLETS

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Mr. Speaker, on Dec. 3 the Leader of the Opposition asked whether or not there was any control over the importation of the sort of printed material seized from a juvenile in Orillia who had been experimenting with explosives. Any control over the importation of this sort of material comes under the Customs Tariff Act, a federal statute which has appended to it several schedules, one of which outlines goods prohibited from import.

Among the articles seized during the investigation was a catalogue from an American publishing house located in Ohio that deals extensively in books and materials on weaponry, guerilla tactics, bombs and incendiary devices. Most of the material seized or surrendered during the investigation in Orillia are listed in this catalogue. One of the titles advertised is prohibited under the Customs Tariff Act.

All the printed material seized was printed or published in the United States. I’m informed, Mr. Speaker, that the titles of the publications surrendered and seized have been forwarded to the security services of the RCMP here for review and to see if further action is warranted.

As a result of the Orillia police department’s investigation, four charges have been laid against juveniles for possession of explosives without lawful excuse under the Criminal Code. Another person near Orillia has also been charged with improper storage and security of explosives under the Explosives Act. More recently, eight charges have been laid against five juveniles arising out of incidents involving smoke bombs, also in Orillia.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Welland South.

NON-PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES

Mr. Haggerty: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. What steps, if any, has his ministry taken to stop the fraudulent practice carried on in Ontario by a group for a syndicate operator, whose business originates in United States and who has been operating a business in Ontario called, “FigurMagic, Today’s Woman” and now called “Body Magic,” who through unscrupulous operations have failed to provide wages for employees?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, the member sent me a copy of the question and I appreciate him doing so. I also have a telegram from the union in Port Colborne, the United Steelworkers of America, raising the same question.

My ministry is well aware of this problem, as is the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Affairs. We’ve done our best to try and get after these people, but they hide behind the corporate veil and there is very little we have been able to do to date. However, I would like to draw the member’s attention to section 60(1) of the Employment Standards Act which is awaiting third reading of this House. That is the instrument we hope to be able to use to pursue the employers rather than the company itself; that is we can now get after the individual person as opposed to the company. It is section 60(1) that I refer the member to. With that added weapon in our arsenal, I think we will be successful.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Nickel Belt.

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO ACT

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. In view of the fact that the University of Toronto Act requires that it be brought before this chamber by July 1, 1974, when does the minister intend to do that?

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Mr. Speaker, my recollection of the Act says the report of the committee was to be submitted to the minister by July or sometime last summer, and that the minister then will place it before the Lieutenant Governor in Council and decide what to do with it.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, supplementary question: When does the minister intend to do that?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, as soon as I’ve gone through the rest of the process. As a matter of fact, in five minutes I’m meeting some of the student federation about it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Rainy River.

REPORT OF DOG FOOD FED TO CHILDREN

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I was almost worn out getting up here.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health relating to the Metro Family Service Association report on families feeding their children dog food -- a sad commentary on our society, I would think. In view of the fact there is probably no immediate remedy for this, will the minister at the very least make a statement concerning the ill effect and the danger to health of people eating this kind of food?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I want to get some facts before I make any statements, either to reassure or to confirm that a state of affairs like that does exist.

Mr. Reid: Even if one person does it, can’t the minister say that it is a hazard to health?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I would like to know that for sure before I make that statement.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

THUNDER BAY STUDY

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Treasurer. Is the final version of the phase 1 study for the Thunder Bay industrial complex commissioned by his ministry with the consultants, Proctor, Redfern and C. D. Howe Engineering finalized yet? Is he willing to make the copies available to the people in the area?

Hon. J. White (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Apparently not, because I haven’t seen it. I’ll have to get a report for the member.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron Bruce.

BRADLEY-GEORGETOWN HYDRO CORRIDOR

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker I have a question of the Minister of Energy. When did the minister say he was going to release the environmental impact study with respect to the Bradley-Orangeville-Milton Hydro corridor?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’m not releasing it; Ontario Hydro is. I thought it had been released now. I think there are two versions, a big one and a smaller one, in many colours. If it hasn’t been released, it’s to be released any day. I think it’s simply a question of getting enough copies, and I believe they are sending out something like 2,000.

Mr. Breithaupt: There is no holdup?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: There is no holdup as far as I know. I thought it had gone, but if it hasn’t it will be any day now. I’ll find out.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, before we go any further, may I just interrupt the proceedings of the House very briefly to comment upon the amendments to the Legislative Assembly Act, which will be called very shortly and which I assume will receive everybody’s endorsation? It just came to mind that it deals with the position of the Clerk of the House.

It will be 20 years ago, on Jan. 1, that the present Clerk of the House was appointed to that position and also as chief electoral officer. I would just like to say to him, on behalf of all of us, on what is very close to the 20th anniversary, just how much we all appreciate the task that he has done -- the quiet advice that from time to time, Mr. Speaker, he passes on to you, sir; and of course his many other responsibilities.

I shouldn’t divulge this, of course, but it’s a matter of public record that when the present Clerk was appointed in 1955 there was, for the combined responsibilities, a salary of $5,700 per annum.

Mr. Breithaupt: It should be at least $6,000 now.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I just want to join with the Premier in offering our best wishes and congratulations to the Clerk. I can recall sitting up there somewhere as a boy and seeing his father in the same chair, and perhaps meeting him at that time as well.

It has also been suggested that if there is somebody in this province who would appreciate an anti-noise law it’s probably the gentleman right here.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I just want to add the congratulations of the New Democratic Party to the Clerk. We occasionally disagree, but we recognize the tremendous service he has put forth on behalf of the Province of Ontario and on behalf of the members of the Legislature. I congratulate him.

Mr. Breithaupt: I think his salary should go to $6,000.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That is inflationary. The member is starting to sound like his colleague in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker: The Board of Internal Economy may look after that.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. White presented the report of the Ontario Education Capital Aid Corp. for the year ended March 31, 1974, and the Ontario Municipal Improvement Corp. for the same period.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that when the House adjourns today it stand adjourned until a date to be named by the Lieutenant Governor by her proclamation.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this motion carry?

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, before the motion is put, I think it is certainly of interest to the members to follow through on the earlier comments by the Premier that we would expect to be returning in January. Is it not possible at this time to advise us as to whether it will be likely in the second or third week? Presumably a session might go for two or three weeks or perhaps even longer, but surely it would be a great convenience to the members if we had some idea as to the likely starting date.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to give the hon. members as much information on this as I can. It would be my hope that the House would not reconvene for the first two weeks of January, in any event, so that those members who are planning work in their constituencies and other matters of urgent public importance can have that sort of guidance. I can’t guarantee that, of course, but I would think we would be relatively safe in assuming it would not be the first two weeks in January.

While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, just in case some have other important commitments before the House does adjourn later on today, I recognize we have very heated discussions here from time to time and, Mr. Speaker, a shade noisy, as was observed earlier. In spite of that, I would say that we do accomplish a great deal during the discussions in this House.

We on the government side, are always appreciative of the constructive criticisms emanating from the opposition -- I have to say that sometimes they aren’t totally constructive. But I would like to take this opportunity to -- and I regret the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) is not here because I wanted to extend very personally to all members of the House the very best wishes for a joyeux Noel; or for those members who aren’t familiar with that, in another basic language of this country now, buon Natale --

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): What is that, Yiddish?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Happy Chanukah.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Provincial Secretary for Resources Development will add his greetings in Hebrew or Yiddish, but a very merry Christmas to all of you.

Mr. Speaker: Shall Mr. Winkler’s motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ACT

Mr. Bounsall moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act 1974.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Mr. Speaker, this bill proposes the postponement of polling day for municipal elections by one week in the case of emergencies, such as arose in the Windsor-Essex county area on the last municipal polling day, after notifying the minister concerned.

It also shifts polling day to the first Sunday in November with the council to take office Dec. 1; and allows council to initiate an official inquiry before a county or district court judge into election practices, rather than the present situation where a writ must be issued, often by a private person.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: His colleague from Cochrane South is going to vote against him.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading upon motion:

Bill 72, the Education Act, 1974.

Bill 113, An Act to amend the Municipal Affairs Act.

Bill 134, the Employment Standards Act, 1974.

Clerk of the House: The 12th order, resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 170, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ACT (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Mr. Speaker, I believe I adjourned the debate on this bill last week.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): I have just one point to raise, if I might.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, will the member defer to the member for Kitchener?

Mr. Laughren: Yes.

Mr. Breithaupt: The bill is now reprinted and I presume that our comments and our remarks are to be taken on the assumption that the bill, as reprinted, is the one with which we are to deal.

Mr. Speaker: Is that understood? Agreed? Agreed.

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, since the last debate we had on this bill, I have given consideration to many of the suggestions made by the hon. members. The bill has been reprinted, including these revisions, and when we go into committee I will be moving the amendments that are included in the reprinted bill.

Mr. Speaker: Is this agreed by the assembly?

Agreed.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I think we can take the amendments in the bill as reprinted without them having to be separately moved.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, that’s the motion I will be making, that the bill as reprinted be considered in committee, but I also remember certain instances in this House when that was not acceptable, so I have all the individual revisions ready if the hon. members want them moved separately.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I should commend the minister for bringing in those amendments. I think that they are a move in the right direction, and I am pleased that he listened to the opposition and changed the bill.

I just want to conclude very quickly my remarks dealing with the whole question of constituency offices for provincial members. I think the presence of federal constituency offices across the whole country is proving a point, that it allows elected members to be closer to their constituents and to better serve their constituents.

I believe that if a member of this chamber does not wish to have a constituency office, that’s fine; let him go his own merry way. But there are those of us who come from a long way from Toronto, who in some cases represent very large and spread-out ridings, and it would be a tremendous asset to the people in our ridings if there were constituency offices funded by the Province of Ontario.

It’s not as though all ridings were the same. I have felt for some time that there are certain ridings in the province which are more difficult to serve than others. Now I know it’s very difficult not to be parochial in a discussion like this, but I would suspect that the three elected members from the Sudbury basin, for example, have an unduly heavy constituency case load because of the nature of the work force in the Sudbury area. Obviously, we have a mining community and there are a great many problems in the community in terms of workmen’s compensation, for example. I dare say that all three of us could work full time solely on workmen’s compensation problems without dealing with the business of this House at all. Of course, that’s a sad commentary on the delivery of service to the people.

I suspect, too, that in a community such as that, and in other northern communities, people will turn more readily to their member than those in southern Ontario. I suspect as well that constituents of Don Mills, York South or York North, for example, don’t have the kind of problems experienced by constituents in the more northern, more remote communities. That in itself is one reason that I think there should be constituency offices for members who would like to have them, and I don’t think they would be an undue expense or drain on the public purse.

I think that all the people in Ontario would be better served if there were constituency offices. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak to this bill?

The member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I realize that pursuant to rule 20 of the rules of this House I would not be able to vote on this bill, but I trust I will be able at least to make a few comments with respect to some of the changes which are now being brought forward to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

It was of interest to receive this bill originally and to find that there were a number of things proposed, especially with respect to the Office of the Assembly itself. As the minister has announced, he has now accepted in a reprinted version of this bill a number of substantial amendments with which we agree. In conversations with various members of the staff who were affected by these amendments, we found that the points which they had to raise were logical and were worthy of support, and I am pleased to see that the minister has accepted the comments which have been suggested as amendments to the bill.

Certainly in the first section, the changes which set out the more clear procedure of electing a deputy Speaker and resolving various problems which could arise, are worthy of support and appear to be in order. As I had mentioned, with respect to section 68 of this proposed bill, I, of course, will have no comments and no opinion on that particular matter.

Section 69 dealt with the matters raised concerning the provision of the unconditional grant moneys which have been set at $5,000 per member. This point was substantially debated in the supplementary estimates which have now been passed by the House. Comments were made at that time with respect to removing from that allocation the members of the executive council. Since that matter has been debated and dealt with, I will certainly not proceed to review the reasons we had for that position. However, I still think the points were validly made and perhaps some day that matter may be changed.

In the latter part of section 69, there are proposals now that the amounts would be as appropriated by the Legislature, rather than the 20 per cent figure which was used earlier on. I think that this is a good change because, while the percentage might change from time to time, based upon the needs of the opposition and based upon the numbers involved, that surely can be done by the Legislature without the necessity of having to amend the Act and deal with a particular percentage that would have been enshrined in the legislation.

With respect to section 3 of this bill that deals with section 71 and others, concerning the Office of the Assembly, we noted originally that there was apparently some confusion between the legislative assembly as such and the Office of the Assembly. We think that confusion has been substantially resolved by the proposed amendments, and we think that this reprinted bill is the better for it.

Historically, as you are aware, Mr. Speaker, there are two officers of the assembly, namely, the Clerk and the Provincial Auditor. While the auditor has had various protections, pursuant to section 2 of the Audit Act, in order that that office be able to have removal only under an address of the assembly and a continuation during good behaviour, that had not been the situation with respect, at least formally, to the office of the Clerk in this Legislature. Those statutory provisions which benefited the independence of the auditor as a servant of this assembly are now to be included in the proposed amendment in section 72. We think that that is exactly what should happen.

As originally proposed in section 72, the various appointments were set out of Clerk, First Clerk Assistant, Sergeant-at-Arms and director of administration. These were to hold office, in effect, during the Speaker’s pleasure. I think that it is wise to separate the positions and now to give the Clerk the fullest protection of the terms of this distinguished office, which I must say is graced by its present incumbent. The terms which are set out as proposed in the amendments are most satisfactory. Surely, this office should be filled, clearly during the good behaviour of the incumbent person, and also the removal of that person should be not on any capricious basis, but rather on the address to the assembly, if such a most serious step should ever be necessary, and one done, obviously, with great and serious reason.

In section 74 in this amendment, we originally would have had the director of administration prepare the estimates. We thought at the time that this was not the satisfactory way in which to handle this because, obviously, it is Mr. Speaker’s responsibility to prepare the estimates, although the mechanics of that might well be done by some other person. It is quite clear in the reorganization of this office that the director of administration would likely have the mechanical work to do through the members of his or her staff and that this task would come under the direct control of the director of administration, although the responsibility is obviously still that of the Speaker.

In section 80, as set out here, the comments earlier from the member for Sandwich-Riverside (Mr. Burr) had perhaps led some of us to consider applying for advances in order that we could make some money by putting those funds out at interest, but I suggest that that is probably not going to be open to members of the assembly. The whole idea, obviously, was for the convenience of those staff persons, particularly on select or standing committees, who might have to have some expense funds -- which, of course, would be entirely accountable in advance.

Now that it has been changed to a committee of the assembly, it includes obviously both select and standing committees. That is a good thing to have so that should the occasion arise, where fully accountable advances would be required, this could be attended to on the authority, and I am sure under the close and personal scrutiny of Mr. Speaker.

Section 82, of course, is the one which creates the Board of Internal Economy, and that comes of great interest to all members of the assembly.

I understand that in the federal House of Commons the procedure was to appoint certain members of the Privy Council and the question arose when the hon. Marcel Lambert sought appointment, since he was a member of the Privy Council. But, of course, he was as well a distinguished member of the official opposition in the House of Commons. From that point I think has developed the view, especially in this proposed amendment, that there should be input from the opposition parties in the formality of running the Office of the Assembly and in controlling the various financial and sessional requirements of the legislative assembly.

I am certainly pleased that the commissioners who are going to be appointed, obviously have to have the confidence and the belief from the members of their own caucuses that they will be able to carry out these particular tasks which are going to be required of them. There must, of course, be a government majority, and this has been attended to very nicely. On the other hand, there must be representation from the two opposition parties, and this, too, is proposed.

There is the interesting subsection here which would allow appointment, really, from any party other than that of the official opposition. Now, as you are aware, Mr. Speaker, we have had the view, at least in the other financial Acts with which we have dealt, that third party representation was based on the requirement of having 12 members in that third party.

I don’t know why this hasn’t been spelled out in this section, as it might prove at some point in the future to be awkward if a splinter group of two or three or, indeed, perhaps an independent member, should demand membership on the Board of Internal Economy because of the way subsection c, sub iii, reads.

If a two-member splinter party formed a caucus and wished to appoint a person to this Board of Internal Economy, you might be bringing yourself in for some problem in the future, Mr. Speaker. This may not be the case; I may have read too much into this situation. But I would have thought that the 12-member term that we have used in the past might be here. It may be that the minister has an answer to this point and that I may be in error, but I raise it and perhaps it can be discussed.

Under section 84(f) I would draw the attention of the House to the powers which the Board of Internal Economy will have in that subsection. It seems to me that this board is going to be dealing more with financial matters. I wonder if really the board should be in the position to, as subsection f says, and I quote:

“To advise upon and give directions in relation to any matter the board considers necessary for the efficient and effective operation of the Office of the Assembly.”

I would have thought that the word “financial” might go into that between the words “any” and “matter,” so that the Board of Internal Economy is not presuming to deal with certain matters that it is not the intention that the executive council might have to give to that board.

Again, it’s a suggestion which I think might be an improvement, because certainly the work which this board is going to be doing will be to deal particularly with the financial aspects of the operation of this assembly, as all-inclusive as those may be.

In section 89, Mr. Speaker, there have been certain representations brought forward and certain concerns, particularly by the staff members, as to how grievance and other disciplinary matters might be handled.

In the original proposed Bill 170, there were certainly some loopholes, and I understand there was some unhappiness with the procedure as had been explained there. We have now seen substantial amendments and I commend the minister for accepting those amendments as set out in section 89 and the sections immediately thereafter.

It certainly appeared to us that the Speaker was not the person who should sit in this particular position but that this, in fact, was the responsibility of the Clerk in order to deal with the initiation of any inquiry, if such a thing should unfortunately be necessary. The Clerk should be, and is certainly, in a good position to deal with the administrative matters and this would avoid any hasty, perhaps political, reaction that could occur in a disciplinary matter and which might prove to be unfortunate for all of us.

The matter of having appeals through the usual procedure of the public service grievance board again builds in an independent factor and a proper procedural safeguard to make sure that any of the matters complained of through the inquiry which the Clerk might initiate would be dealt with in an unbiased and completely proper manner. I appreciate very much that this term has been put in, to have the public service grievance board procedures to be available to the various members of the staff, and I think that should the unfortunate occasion arise where section 89 would be used, at least the end result would be after a full and proper hearing.

Section 91 does rather bother me, and I raise a point which I think might be of use to the Minister of Government Services. It would appear that the members of the public service who have agreed to accept appointment and employment in the Office of the Assembly are going to be put to this decision immediately upon the day that this Act comes into force. It would appear, therefore, that these persons have no option as to whether, in fact, they may wish to consider this matter.

I’m going to suggest, Mr. Speaker, when we get to section 5 of the bill and deal with the matter of when this bill comes into force, that there could well be an amendment to allow section 91 to come into force on a date to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant Governor. This might be a more pleasant and a more relaxed way of allowing this particular decision to be made by members of the staff if they so wish to do and will give them time to exercise the option that is put forward, perhaps in a month’s time, or whatever. I commend that idea to the minister, because I think that it would be a way of dealing with any personal matters in a good form should they come up.

Section 93 deals with the building and its control by the Office of the Speaker. There are, of course, those of us who feel that this entire building should be the prerogative of Mr. Speaker, and others should be here as may be required, but with the long-term view that the building will be solely for the operation of the legislative assembly. As we proceed hopefully to that goal, and as other space is available into which proper facilities may be developed, if that should be the occasion, we obviously have to know which parts of the building are going to be under Mr. Speaker’s control.

I feel that the definition of the areas which are to be under Mr. Speaker’s control should be well known, not only to the members of the assembly but to those of the press and the public who might be involved in the operation of this organization. The fact of the order in council being laid before the assembly with a clear record of the precincts of the building which are under Mr. Speaker’s control is, I think, a good idea.

The matter of security is something in which we certainly have seen great improvements over the past year or so. The government protective staff that is now available to us in this building, I think, from my observations of it, has proven to be well organized and I think is doing a most acceptable job.

It is a pleasure to see the two young ladies who have been appointed to the staff. I think this is a good idea, and certainly it is a requirement where the public is being involved.

Perhaps it’s only my military background that occasionally shows through, but I think that seeing the members of this staff nicely uniformed and well turned out is a commendable thing. I feel that they provide a good touch of discipline and their bearing has been most commendable. This is an improvement over the system in the past and I commend the changes that have been made and the good taste that I think has been shown in that situation.

I realize that the personnel who are enforcing security are on a rotational basis, as I understand it, and have responsibilities in other buildings and, I think, at Osgoode Hall as well. I would suggest that at least certain persons who are on the staff within this building should remain on duty here rather than being seconded to other buildings, so that they will have a greater familiarity with the members and perhaps with the mechanics of the operations of the Legislature than might otherwise be the case if all the members of the staff were being rotated through a series of responsibilities.

This might be a way of building a slightly better familiarity with the operation of the Legislature in the useful approach which could be taken by these members of the protective services as they get a sort of feel for the operation of this place. It is surely not like the real world on many days. I would think that some continuous exposure within the chamber, while it might be a strain at times on their patience, might at least be of benefit to the members.

Mr. Speaker, those are really all the remarks I had. As I said, I would commend an amendment to section 5 for the minister’s consideration. I would not take it to committee solely for that purpose, but I think that section 5(1), could read: “This Act, except sections 2 and 91, comes into force on the day it receives royal assent.”

Subsection 2 could remain as it is and a new subsection 3 could usefully say; “Section 91 shall be deemed to come into force on a date to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant Governor.”

I think if the minister does that he will resolve any particular problems in the options which he is putting to the assembly staff under section 91. It would be a useful way of resolving a problem before it perhaps comes up. If it is not taken advantage of by any of the happy crew that are involved in this organization, then so much the better. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I would just state that if anyone was worried about the member’s suggestion at the beginning of his remarks that section 20 might apply, I’m sure he meant it in a jocular fashion. It does not apply.

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to make one or two comments about the bill. Really the point has been raised in various ways by different members about the problems of disparities of resources between both the two sides of the House and perhaps also between different members in the House. This is one of the most difficult problems, Mr. Speaker, that you and your staff have to try to determine or that we as a Legislature have got to determine. How do you provide resources to one member who simply has to appear in his riding once every year and does nothing around here either and yet is guaranteed election from now until doomsday, and another member who, because he is either driven and harried by a tiny majority or because of natural inclination or talent, is exceptionally busy and very much involved in the process of being a member and all that that entails?

There is no easy answer to it, but I think that the point at least needs to be raised. In a general way, I think that the problem of disparity of resources between the opposition parties and the government has still not really been accommodated by the various measures that have been taken in the wake of the two Camp commission reports.

Perhaps I can just recall -- the Minister of Justice (Mr. Welch) isn’t here today -- that the other week there came up in the House some amendments to the Judicature Act that affected the rights of the press to take photographs in or around courtrooms. As so often happens, Mr. Speaker, with the amount of legislation that comes through this place and with the very limited amount of support staff that we have to do research for the Legislature, the bill came forward and certain points were made by our side and then other points were made, in that case by myself as a former journalist, but scrambling, trying to get the kind of picture straight. So often one doesn’t have time to sit and give a bill half a day of thought and come forward with cogent and coherent kind of arguments and put the case in an elegant fashion.

The minister got up in reply -- and in fact did reply in a very elegant fashion -- and we had an interesting debate on the points of principle in that particular bill. But what struck me in the minister’s reply was, I realized, that he was replying from notes that had been prepared for him by a member of his staff who had been able to think through the various issues of principle which might be raised during the course of the debate. The minister used metaphor and allusion and strophe and all sorts of rhetorical devices in putting forward very ably the argument for his point of view. The minister is capable of making a good argument -- I don’t deny him that -- but it certainly helped a lot that a busy member of this Legislature had the support of somebody in his staff who could anticipate the kinds of things that would be stated and was then able to put together the rebuttal in form that the minister could use.

This happens all the time, Mr. Speaker, whether it’s the Liberal caucus of 20-odd or whether it’s the NDP caucus of 20 members.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Twenty odd members.

Mr. Cassidy: They are 20 odd members. We are just 20.

Mr. Deans: They are odd members. We are just 20.

Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): I would say the members opposite are all odd.

Mr. Cassidy: Each of the opposition parties in its work in the Legislature carries as much of a load as the government, but carries it with far fewer resources. We have five researchers. The Liberals have five or six or seven. Any one of the ministers of the Crown who brings forward a bill in this House, Mr. Speaker, has the benefit of the equivalent of at least five or six people who know the area intimately and are capable of doing the kind of work that our researchers can do when they have the time to devote to it. And not only that; there is of course a tremendous amount of preparation md consideration and so on of the pitfalls that go into bill or are said to go into bills before they come to this place.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that one of the problems with the resources given to the various caucuses is simply this, that the government-side back-benchers don’t basically participate in debates, although they may do a certain amount within their caucus. The legislative responsibilities that they have tend to be those of attendance and not much more and, judging by the dozen or so who are here for this particular debate, they don’t take those responsibilities too seriously.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): All the time. That is the problem.

Mr. Cassidy: The ministers obviously have other responsibilities, but they also have very substantial support staffs in order to help them in their particular jobs. The burden of the debate in this Legislature is carried by the New Democratic Party and, to a lesser extent, by the Liberals. Without being partisan, it is being carried by the opposition parties.

Mr. Carruthers: Like the member for Ottawa Centre.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): The burden is on us having to listen.

Mr. Deans: The difficulty is having to use words small enough so that the Tories will understand them.

Mr. Cassidy: I think at times it’s a bit distressing, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to make a serious argument here; this is not intended to be particularly partisan. There is a serious problem here that relates to the Legislature as a whole. Members of our party, if I want to talk in specific terms, have responsibilities to get re-elected; they have responsibilities to their local riding association; they may have some obligations to their party; they have responsibilities to their families, who all suffer because of the work we do as members and the degree of absences that we suffer.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): If he can’t stand the heat in the kitchen, he’d better get out.

Mr. Cassidy: Fair enough, okay.

Mr. N. G. Leluk (Humber): He’d better leave.

Mr. Cassidy: They have responsibilities to constituents in case work, they have responsibilities outside, in terms of responding to letters and so on, and what happens is that the Legislature has a tendency to come last on the list, rather than near the front. With the kind of support staff that members have, many of those things that we do outside that might be done by other people are either done by the members themselves or else the members have to engage themselves, and their energy and time and effort, in ensuring that those things are done.

In my particular case, among the other ways that I occupy my time, every couple of Saturdays I go out in my car for a couple of hours along with 20 other members of my riding association to deliver a community newspaper. We do that in order to raise the funds for a $10,000-a-year constituency office, and without that constituency office, Mr. Speaker, I would be helpless to do what I can do, in legislative terms or any other terms of the job that I have to do.

Mr. Haggerty: Where is that? In Toronto Island?

Mr. Cassidy: But those funds have got to be raised. The pressure is always there, and the Legislature suffers, I would suggest, in many cases.

The members of this Legislature ought, above all, to be concerning themselves with what goes on here; to be concerning themselves with informing themselves in those areas of legislation and policy that are of particular interest. But I have to ask you, Mr. Speaker, how many members in the opposition have been able to go off, let’s say, for even a week, let alone two or three weeks in the past year, to go to Quebec, or to go to British Columbia, or to Washington, or maybe even to Britain, or some other jurisdiction in order to see how people in another jurisdiction comparable to Ontario’s solve the very difficult problems of government in these days? The Treasurer (Mr. White) went to Yugoslavia a year or so ago to see their patterns of municipal government, and I am sure that was a stimulating trip for him. As far as ministers are concerned, even they don’t get that kind of input very often. How many members of this Legislature find the time to do serious reading, on a sustained basis, on the areas in which we are spokesman, or critics, or parliamentary assistants or whatever? Again, not nearly enough for the health of this body, which is the major policymaking body of the government of Ontario -- or at least is intended to be.

In the case of the opposition, Mr. Speaker, I can’t guarantee that given more support, we would suddenly turn into paragons, and obviously, given more support, not all of our efforts would go into policy-making in legislation. We might try to do a bit more for our party, because we are partisan people. We might try to spend a bit more time with our families, which isn’t such a bad idea either. But, nevertheless, we are labouring with very small resources.

The pattern in other jurisdictions has been pretty inexorably to say that if legislators are going to do a good job they have to have more support than people are getting right now. That particularly applies to the obligations on members of the opposition parties who have to respond and try to cover off an entire ministry that may cover the province, may have thousands of employees and may spend billions of dollars. We get the member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa), with his secretary and the help of a fifth of a researcher or half of a researcher, covering off Transportation and Communications. We get the member for Parkdale (Mr. Dukszta), also very ably covering off the Ministry of Health. But one really has to ask oneself whether that is really sufficient scrutiny of the work of a ministry whose spending is now up to the level of a couple of billion dollars a year.

For reasons of the way in which the media works, and other things like that, we tend to sort of concentrate our fire in a very few areas. To some extent, there is a tendency to take cheap shots; to come up with something that we know will grab headlines. With great respect, like the kind of things that the member for Downsview (Mr. Singer) had to say yesterday on the OHC condominium sales. It is that kind of thing. It is so much more difficult to get the information together and the knowledge for a really sustained critique of what the government is doing. I suggest that all of us in opposition, Mr. Speaker, are subject to this kind of problem.

The Legislature itself is being hurt by that problem. And if the Legislature is hurt, then I think that we are all involved -- partisan considerations apart. There isn’t the quality of debate, the quality of thinking, the quality of interchange that ought to take place.

I can see, Mr. Speaker, that this isn’t only a problem for the opposition parties -- perhaps this is not quite apropos on this particular bill. But I can see that the ministers of the Crown are persons who are harried and beset almost beyond reason. Some of that is because of the political circumstances, which make it more difficult to be a minister of the Crown nowadays than it was, say, back in 1971, and I don’t want to go into those any further. The other thing, though, relates to the very heavy burden of running the affairs of the Crown and of trying to relate together, and so on. They simply can’t put it all together.

If that’s the case for ministers, with the kind of resources that they have, then one has to ask: “What is the situation for members of the opposition with the very limited kind of resources that we have?” I will give you a couple of other examples before I sit down, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) and I struck a common chord the other day when I said that I couldn’t get more than two bills out of the Clerk’s office here when I needed them in a hurry. I was told to go over to Bay St. to the bookstore. Now, that’s very nice, but that means that a secretary -- of whom I only have one and who works seven hours or so, and works very hard each day -- has to spend a half an hour of her duty to slip over to Bay St. and to come back.

Mr. Speaker, when we try from time to time to get copies of the consolidated statutes or of other statutes from behind the Speaker’s chair, they aren’t always available. As a rather lax user of libraries, I sometimes find that my peccadilloes are not tolerated by the legislative library, which seems far more anxious to protect the volumes it has than to ensure the best service possible to busy members who are trying to get information in a hurry.

There is a whole series of petty frustrations about this place which should not be visited upon people who are earning more than $20,000 a year and, for the most part, devoting their full time to the business of this particular Legislature.

The government has its own processes of consultation with interest groups around the province. Members of the opposition are often not invited into those. In other cases where they are invited to them, we don’t take part because it is their show and not ours. In other cases, even though we would like to take part, we just simply have too many other obligations. We can’t do it as consistently as we would like to. I would like to go to every meeting of the provincial-municipal liaison committee, because the Treasurer isn’t really doing a bad job with that particular committee. That’s Merry Christmas to the Treasurer. However, we would like to be able to consult too.

We find it frustrating when the government rams business through, and we have said that several times before. It is also frustrating when you simply lack the resources to get together a list of the 30 to 40 heritage groups in the province and get a bill or a letter out to them quickly and get their comments back in time in order to comment on a particular situation. Again, it is difficult to seek comments from maybe a couple of hundred municipal leaders across the province when you are working with a very limited kind of resource with which we soldier on.

So there are real problems, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to put them on the record and I won’t speak any longer now. I hope that the Board of Internal Economy will be seized of this kind of situation and that the board may, in fact, work almost like a continuing Camp commission, in continuing to try to improve a situation which no more than a few years ago was far worse than it is today.

If I can make one other comment related to the bill, Mr. Speaker, I think that the reformulation of the Board of Internal Economy is a welcome change in putting representatives of three caucuses in there. I think I really question, however, the fact that the government side, between its caucus representatives and members of the cabinet, has a majority.

I think that I would support a reduction in the number of cabinet ministers in that Board of Internal Economy to the point where we had a member of the cabinet, a caucus member from the Conservative side, and a caucus member from each of the two opposition parties and, you, Mr. Speaker. In other words, there would be an even balance from both sides of the House and then the Speaker himself, in his independent position, would have the deciding say in case of a profound disagreement. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker: Any other hon. member wish to speak to this bill? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a lot of notes of comments that have been made by the hon. members, mostly from the other evening’s debate. I think it’s rather unnecessary for me to reply to most of those comments because certainly the vast majority of them, and I believe all the constructive comments, have been taken into consideration and are now a part of the amended bill.

To comment briefly on the remarks that have been made by the speakers today, the matter of riding offices has been mentioned by several speakers, in fact, by speakers from all three parties. It certainly was not commented upon to any degree in the commission report, but I understand there is a fourth report of the commission to come down finalizing their total responsibilities and that this will deal with or make some recommendations regarding riding offices.

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre spoke at great length about research staff and more facilities for members of the opposition parties. I think, Mr. Speaker, this new organization which this bill sets up, the Board of Internal Economy, and the Camp commission recommendations that have now been implemented, giving substantial increases in funds for research purposes to the opposition parties, has gone a long way in meeting these requirements.

Mr. Cassidy: It’s only the beginning. It really is still quite inadequate, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre says it’s only beginning. I reiterate that I think it’s going a long, long way, Mr. Speaker. But we will never agree on that and I don’t expect the hon. member to agree.

Mr. Cassidy: No. The gulf in resources is far too great still.

Hon. Mr. Snow: In any case, Mr. Speaker, basically the money for both the opposition leaders’ offices and so on is now to be settled by the assembly here. We took out the percentage figure that was in the first bill, which I think is an improvement.

The hon. member for Kitchener made a considerable contribution in his comments, Mr. Speaker. I think on one point that he brought up relating to section 82, sub c, subsection iii, regarding the representative on the Board of Internal Economy for the third party, that clause can be improved somewhat. I have an amendment drafted, where if we go into committee with this bill, we can improve that slightly, without taking up a lot of time which I know we all feel is rather precious today.

As for the comment regarding section 8(f), I am advised by the drafters of this legislation that the word “financial” is not needed in there, that the matters that are referred to here are covered in some other way. They refer to the duties of the board that are financial, organizational and administrative. I don’t think there is any need to amend that particular section.

Also the member mentioned section 91 and the fact that that section comes into force on the day that this bill receives royal assent and the fact that certain members of staff may not have had ample opportunity to consider their position, or whether they wished to stay with the civil service or join the staff of the Office of the Assembly. There are some complications here. I understand certainly the member’s concern.

These changes have been under consideration for some time, of course. The staff, I think, in most cases have had consultation and opportunity to consider their status. There are other staff; there are staff from my ministry, a small number of staff in my ministry that are now handling some of the duties that will be assigned to the Office of the Assembly that are transferring, too. In order to get this office set up and in operation to carry out the intent of this Act, and on the advice of Mr. Speaker and the Clerk, I feel it is advisable that this section stay as it is.

I really don’t feel there is any great hardship. I think it is covered well in the Act that the members of the public service who join the Office of the Assembly are to retain every right that they have. They are to have the opportunity to maintain their seniority in the public service and to transfer back. For instance, if a clerk from my ministry transfers to the Office of the Assembly now and six months from now an opening that would be a promotion for that clerk becomes available back in my ministry or in another ministry he has the perfect right to apply for that competition. I think the staff between the Office of the Assembly and the public service will be kept so that they will not lose any opportunities for advancement and will be able to transfer back and forward.

I think that covers most of the comments, Mr. Speaker, that were raised today and, as I say, I think the ones for last week were covered in the new bill.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: I understand this is to go to the committee of the whole House?

Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, just for that one small amendment, I guess we have to do it. We have to go into committee anyway.

Clerk of the House: The fifth order, House in committee of the whole.

House in committee on Bill 170, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ACT

Mr. Chairman: Are there any questions, comments or amendments to any section of Bill 170 and, if so, what section?

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Section 89.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Isn’t there an amendment?

Mr. Chairman: I wonder if the minister has some amendments he might outline.

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Yes, on section 82.

Mr. Chairman: Section 82. Would the minister move his amendment before the discussion?

Hon. Mr. Snow moves that section 82(1)(c)(iii) be amended to read: “one from the caucus of the party having the third largest membership in the assembly.”

Mr. Deans: You’re trying to be sure you people will have representation after the election. That is what it is.

Hon. J. White (Treasurer, Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs): We’re trying to be sure that when the socialists divide into two they don’t have two representatives.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion on section 82?

Are there any further comments, questions or amendments to any other section and, if so, which one?

Mr. Haggerty: Section 89, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Section 89. Will all sections carry to section 89?

Agreed.

On section 89:

Mr. Haggerty: Section 89(1) says:

“If any complaint or representation is at any time made to the Speaker for the time being of the misconduct or unfitness of any employee of the Office of the Assembly, the Clerk of the legislative assembly may cause an inquiry to be made into such complaint or representation.”

I make reference to subsection 2 which says: “ ... the Lieutenant Governor in Council, reprimand or suspend him ... ”

I believe that if there are a number of female employees included it should be included in this. I think the terminology there should be corrected.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, I’m advised the Interpretation Act covers that matter.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 89 carry?

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): I want to ask a question just for purposes of clarification.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: Since they’re not classed as civil servants -- they’re considered public servants under the aegis of the Office of the Assembly -- do you not think it advisable that if they want to sit down and discuss something with the Speaker, you provide them with the authority to at least sit down, talk things over and be able to appoint a small committee within their groups for purposes of consultation, if for no other reason, or if there is something undue that is happening that they’re not clear on or they feel that they’re not being adequately represented? Is there some vehicle -- a committee -- so that they could sit down and chat even in an informal way with those responsible for carrying out the aims and the objectives and to make sure that the Office of the Assembly is working in an efficient manner?

Within the CSAO, or any other organization, this is recognized as something that’s advisable, but it seems to me that there’s no opportunity for anybody here. I’m not singling out any particular group, whether it be pages, attendants, Clerks, Hansard staff or anyone else, but there should be some opportunity for them to be able to approach the Speaker and those who are responsible for carrying out the duties of the Office of the Assembly if it should arise. I see no reason why some provision in this bill couldn’t be made for that express purpose.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, there is certainly nothing in the bill to prevent it. This was discussed the other night. There is nothing in the bill to prevent any type of a relations committee. Certainly it would be expected that this would happen. You have the Speaker, the Clerk and administrator and it would be expected there would be a staff relations committee. I understand that now Mr. Speaker and the Clerk are working out administratively a procedure by which these things you bring to our attention can be discussed. There is certainly nothing in the bill that prevents it. I understand that it’s already organized.

Mr. Chairman, the employees of the Office of the Assembly are actually the employees of ourselves, as the members, in the operation of this assembly they have, I think, ample opportunity, or will have certainly as far as I’m concerned, to meet with the Board of Internal Economy or with each and every one of their 117 representatives who sit here in these seats -- soon to be 125, I guess.

Section 89 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion on any part of this bill?

Bill 170, as amended, reported.

Clerk of the House: Bill 81, the Provincial Parks Municipal Tax Assistance Act, 1974.

PROVINCIAL PARKS MUNICIPAL TAX ASSISTANCE ACT

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments to Bill 81? If so, to what section? The hon. minister wishes to make a motion.

Hon. Mr. White moves that subsection 1 of clause (a) of section 4 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“$5 per acre for each of the first 100 acres of each such park and $2 per acre for each acre in excess of 100 acres in each such park up to 10,000 acres in each such park and 50 cents per acre for each acre in excess of 10,000 acres in each such park, or”

Hon. Mr. White further moves that subclause (i) of clause (b) of the said section 4, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“$5 per acre for each of the first 100 acres of such land and $2 per acre for each acre in excess of 100 acres up to 10,000 acres and 50 cents per acre for each acre in excess of 10,000 acres, or”

Hon. Mr. White: Sir, this amendment will authorize payments in respect of both provincial parks and commission parklands to municipalities. The payment of 50 cents per acre for provincial parks in excess of 10,000 acres will be authorized. As the bill now reads, no payments may be made on acreage in excess of 10,000 acres.

These enriched payments will mean an additional $41,375 will be paid to the municipalities affected. Those areas which will benefit include Dysart, which has 87,600 acres of Algonquin Park, and Kaladar, Effingham and Anglesea, which have 13,130 acres of Ben Echo Park.

I have a second motion. Will I put it now or later?

Mr. Chairman: We have a second motion. I think we should deal with any discussion on section 4. Then we’ll proceed with the next amendment which applies to section 6. Is there any discussion on this amendment to section 4?

On section 3:

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Actually, the minister introduced his amendment before I realized what section it applied to. I did want to make some comments on section 3 prior to that. They are general comments which I think have been clarified in my mind and relate to the present grants in lieu of taxes being paid by the Niagara Parks Commission. I have spoken to the minister’s people this morning and have now been assured that the whole park will not be treated as one 3,000-acre park but as various parks in various municipalities to which the basic 100 acres will apply in each municipality for each park. That was the question which concerned me the other day, and I did receive an answer this morning from his assistants under the gallery.

Speaking to the minister’s amendment, the extra 50 cents per acre over 10,000 acres affects relatively few parks -- I think two parks. Algonquin is the main park which receives a considerable additional sum of money and Bon Echo Park in the Kaladar area. All are down in eastern Ontario. When the cutoff for the $2 an acre was 10,000 acres, it was these parks that were adversely affected. This is a help.

My concern is over parks that have been assembled into one municipality, and I think Mono Rocks park is an example of where they have been assembled in 100-acre lots. The tax average, as I mentioned the other day, is roughly $400 to $600 revenue to that municipality which will be continued to be paid, I understand, until the park is developed. But once the park is developed, if it is situated all in one municipality, then the first 100 acres will attract only a $500 grant and the other acres beyond the 100 will attract only $2 an acre.

There is quite an advantage or disadvantage in this scheme, Mr. Chairman, depending whether or not the park is situated all in one municipality or is broken up within three municipalities. I think at some future date the minister should maybe give a little consideration to that, because in the final analysis from the way I read the bill the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) makes the determination as to who is going to get how much. I think even the breakdown I received for the St. Lawrence Parks setup gives the money to 14 different municipalities. That is very fine, because that park is strung out in a lot of municipalities and each municipality gets the advantage of the basic $5 per 100 acres. But if the situation were such that that were all in one municipality, it would reduce that $23,000 revenue tremendously. I feel that the formula used here could adversely affect the tax base in many municipalities.

The other thing I would like the minister to comment on, Mr. Chairman, is if there are any statutory provisions whereby parks should be paying money to the municipality for their commercial concessions. Niagara Parks has paid a substantial sum, I think $53,000. The provision of this Act will be in addition to the $53,000 or $56,000 by the Niagara Parks Commission. Then we have the contrast, Mr. Chairman, where the St. Lawrence Parks Commission hasn’t been paying a nickel to the local municipalities.

I just wonder why there is this discrepancy from one provincial park to the other, and if this is because it’s just a matter of decision of the park board. If that is the reason, I think something should be done about that.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 3 carry?

Section 3 agreed to.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Are we coming to section 4?

Mr. Chairman: We are coming to section 4 now. The minister has moved amendments. Do you want to discuss these?

Mr. Deacon: What I am concerned about is the effect of the parkway belt, say, in Markham. It might be 2,000 acres in Markham. We are still at the point where on 2,000 acres in Markham the average revenue will be just over $2 per acre on that. That is certainly well below the revenue that is now received on agricultural land as such. This is a basic problem I see in this formula where the minister is treating the parkway belt lands in the same way as the normal provincial parks.

In those areas which are highly developed you are, in effect, putting a burden on the local taxpayers that I think is undue, especially when the benefit of the parkway belt is largely for the developed urban area to the south. I would ask the minister to consider changing that clause. I haven’t worked out what it could be, but for an area where the agricultural assessment is at a certain level you should adjust it, continue it, and make it in line with the general agricultural rate of revenue.

Hon. Mr. White: Well, sir, this is a temporary measure, and a year or so from now we will be going to full grants in lieu of taxes based on assessment.

Mr. Deacon: Oh, good.

Hon. Mr. White: In the meantime there are no such lands affected.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Mr. Chairman, this is a bold and daring stroke by the master of derring do and we support it.

Motion agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Cassidy: The Christmas spirit has just overcome me.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion on any other section prior to section 6?

Section 5 agreed to.

On section 6:

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister has an amendment.

Hon. Mr. White moves that section 6 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), the moneys required for the purposes of this Act by a commission mentioned in subsection (2) shall for 1974 be paid out of the moneys appropriated therefor by the Legislature.”

Hon. Mr. White: If I may just provide a brief explanation, the money necessary for payments in respect of parks operated by the various parks commissions for the 1974 taxation year is contained in the appropriation of the Ministry of Treasury, Economics, and Intergovernmental Affairs. This amendment will authorize the payments to be made for 1974 only, to be paid out of the money appropriated therefor by the Legislature. Thereafter, the necessary money will be paid out of the funds of the particular commission.

Mr. Good: Just one point, Mr. Chairman. I think I could work it into this amendment in some way as it’s talking about money being spent. I hope the Provincial Treasurer makes it very clear to the Niagara Parks Commission, the St. Lawrence Parks Commission and the St. Clair Parkway commission that this grant by the province in lieu of taxes should in no way affect the grant. When I spoke to the chairman of the Niagara Parks Commission, who just left the chamber a moment ago, that was the first he was aware -- at least that he let on to me -- that this was going to be in addition to what they are already paying the municipality. I think that’s a very important point. Also, the Provincial Treasurer should look into the situation in the St. Lawrence Parks area where they have made no payments to the municipalities up to the present time from park moneys received.

Hon. Mr. White: This will be correctible also when we go to the assessment method. In the meantime, I am able to assure the House that the Niagara Parks Commission has been paying about $50,000 as payments in lien of taxation, and this will continue.

Mr. Good: Well, the bill doesn’t affect them.

Motion agreed to.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comments, questions or amendments to any other section of the bill?

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Chairman, there was a point put by the member for Waterloo North the other day which I didn’t respond to at the time. He pointed out that no payments are made in respect of Quetico Park, Polar Bear Park, Lake Superior Park and other large parks in northern Ontario. This is correct, but the reason no payments are made is because these parks are in unorganized areas and there are no municipalities to receive the money.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the bill be reported?

Bill 81, as amended, reported.

COUNTY OF OXFORD ACT

House in committee on Bill 174, An Act to amend the County of Oxford Act, 1974.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments to this bill? If so, to which section?

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

On section 3:

Hon. Mr. White moves that section 3 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(2) The said section 114 is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(9) Notwithstanding section 4 of the Conservation Authorities Act, the county council may appoint to the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority the same number of members as the local municipalities within the county were entitled to appoint in the year 1974.”

Hon. Mr. White: Now, sir, may I point out that this was done at the request of the member for Oxford (Mr. Parrott) and acceded to by us because it does seem unfair and unnecessary to downgrade the representation of a county when that county undertakes of its own volition to restructure and modernize its affairs.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Especially when it does so of its own volition.

Hon. Mr. White: I wouldn’t want some diminution to discourage counties from what they see to be necessary and desirable consolidations internally. That’s the reason for this amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the amendment carry?

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, neither would we, and I would be glad to support the amendment.

Mr. Cassidy: I would like to raise a question here, Mr. Chairman. I think it’s an interesting amendment, and we will support it, but is this an invitation to other upper-tier municipalities across the province, like regional Ottawa, to negotiate with their own area municipalities and possibly acquire the responsibility for representation on that local conservation authority? And does that represent a change in policy on the part of the government?

Hon. Mr. White: Oh no, sir, I can’t call it an invitation. I do point out, however, that the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee has had two or three sessions with the Minister of Natural Resources, and he is considering alterations of one kind and another. Now, I wouldn’t want this to be misinterpreted. What he is not considering is making conservation authorities a committee of a regional council. With that qualification, he is prepared to re-examine existing arrangements to see if improvements can be made.

Motion agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments, questions or amendments to any other section of the bill?

Bill 174, as amended, reported.

Hon. Mr. White moves that the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report three bills with amendments and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading upon motion:

Bill 81, the Provincial Parks Municipal Tax Assistance Act, 1974.

Bill 174, An Act to amend the County of Oxford Act, 1974.

Bill 170, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

MINISTRY OF CULTURE AND RECREATION ACT

Hon. Mrs. Birch, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Davis, moves second reading of Bill 180, An Act to establish the Ministry of Culture and Recreation.

Mr. Speaker: Is there a statement? The hon. minister.

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of this bill I should like to outline in more detail the existing government programmes which will be brought together within this ministry, and to comment briefly on the need for a ministry of this type.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. We have difficulty hearing the minister. Could she move over one so she would have the benefit of a microphone?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Thank you.

Since 1945, Ontario has changed remarkably. We have become not only an industrialized province, but a highly urbanized one as well. During this period, we have benefited from immigration from over 50 countries. In short, we are truly a multicultural province. Our growth has brought with it greater opportunity for social development, a broad base on which to develop, an enviable cultural heritage and the need to conserve the treasures given to us by past generations.

Underlying the priority the government attaches to this ministry is our firm conviction that individual and community involvement in the process of cultural and recreational development contributes to a full and equal citizenship.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): I don’t believe any of this.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: The objectives of the new ministry will focus on ways in which culture and recreation can enhance the general quality of life in Ontario. To achieve its objectives, the government had set for the ministry six main areas of involvement. The first area, heritage conservation, is one I know will be well received by all of us who admire and wish to preserve worthwhile examples of the talent and the ingenuity of the past.

Mr. Cassidy: This is hypocritical, it really is, you know -- given the record of the government and the pace at which it has gone.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Another political speech.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Earlier this session, a heritage conservation bill was introduced into the Legislature dealing with building conservation and archaeology.

Mr. Good: Last week.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: These functions will be the responsibility of the new ministry and of a considerably expanded Ontario Heritage Foundation, which will bring together a cross-section of highly qualified members of the public in its board of directors.

Mr. Cassidy: Including the former member for Carleton East.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: We intend also --

Mr. Cassidy: Including the former member for Carleton East.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: We intend also to bring within the heritage conservation programme the present historical interpretation and development activities which have met with so much success in projects like Ste-Marie-among-the-Hurons at Midland.

The second programme area relates to the cultural and performing arts. Here we will be transferring to the new ministry the cultural affairs division of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and a number of the agencies of that ministry. Our larger urban areas and growing standard of living in recent years have resulted in not only the financial capacity to support creative and performing arts but the demand for more and better facilities throughout the province. As funds permit we intend to meet that need and expand opportunities for cultural fulfilment.

Some months ago, in recognition of the many different ethnic backgrounds which now make up Ontario, the government established the Ontario Council on Multiculturalism under the chairmanship of Mr. Ernie Checkeris, of Sudbury. Its objective is to advise the government on ways to promote our cultural heritage. The council, which has to this point reported to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, will now report to the Minister of Culture and Recreation.

The new ministry will also be responsible for a variety of programmes related to citizenship which are now the responsibility of the Ministry of Community and Social Services. It is our firm conviction that equal access to the benefits of citizenship is a right to be enjoyed by all of those who live in Ontario. We believe it is in the best interests of the community at large that those who are unfamiliar with our customs be helped to adjust to life in Ontario as quickly as possible.

Moreover, those who require help from government but who are unsure of where to turn for assistance, may get that assistance from the new ministry’s citizens’ inquiry bureau, which will be transferred from the Ministry of Government Services.

Sports and recreation will be a fifth programme element and one which will receive added emphasis by the government.

The sixth programme will relate to youth and will involve the youth secretariat being transferred from the cabinet office to the new ministry. Good citizenship is a product of many things, not the least of which is a strong family and community identification. As Ontario society becomes more urban, we believe it is essential to develop opportunities so that the young can benefit from the associations and experiences of a healthy and active community sports and recreation programme.

These then, Mr. Speaker, are the main programme elements of the new ministry. I have outlined in some detail the programmes and activities which will be transferred from other ministries. Other programmes may be added later.

Mr. Speaker, the proposed Ministry of Culture and Recreation is a reflection of the pride we have in our heritage. It is a reflection of the pride we have in the numerous ethnic backgrounds which now make up Ontario’s culture.

Before I conclude these remarks, Mr. Speaker. I should like to pay special tribute to the member for Bellwoods (Mr. Yaremko). He is without doubt the acknowledged leader and living spirit in Ontario’s cultural development. As Provincial Secretary he was responsible for convening the Ontario Heritage Conference which can be considered the forerunner of the new ministry.

Mr. Cassidy: Why isn’t he here?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that I speak for all members of this House when I acknowledge his outstanding contribution over the years.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Well, I can assure the member she doesn’t.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. Cassidy: What about the francophones?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support the bill, Bill 180, An Act to establish the Ministry of Culture and Recreation, and wonder in my thoughts why it took so long for the government to set up such a ministry.

I listened with quite an amount of interest, Mr. Speaker, to the comments of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development in her dissertation stating that the province has changed substantially since 1945. Remember, Mr. Speaker, that means it has taken this province 30 years now to come up to what other jurisdictions of the North American continent have had for years and years and years; that is a ministry of culture and a ministry of either sports or recreation. Quite often it was referred to as sports rather than recreation. In those European countries when it was referred to as sports, quite often rather than a fitness aspect of government it was a propaganda arm of the government.

The minister makes mention of the multicultural heritage this bill intends to promote. Mr. Speaker, we could promote the multicultural aspect of our society actually without a bill. However, I do think the promotion of culture, whether it’s multicultural or otherwise, is a worthwhile objective. The fact that citizens of every ethnic background have decided to come to the Province of Ontario speaks quite highly for the province. I think it likewise would lead one to believe that they should, or must have been, most welcome on their first arrival into the province.

The arrival of the ethnic community has made the province by far a better place in which to live. We could have developed a province here strictly with the two founding races, or I should say three, the French, the English, and the natives who were here. However, that would be the equivalent of really building a home, say with bricks, with mortar and with maybe wood. You can build a substantial and a good home in that fashion, but just think how much better a home you could build were you to put windows in it and were you to put doors in it, were you to put other means of entrance and exit as well as other means of looking out of the home. I look upon the various cultures that have come into the province as being doors and windows in that home. The home is by far a better place in which to live when you do have the windows and the doors, plus a variety of furniture and different decorations. I think the various groups that have come into the Province of Ontario have done just exactly that. They have made the Province of Ontario a much better place in which to live.

Mr. Speaker, it was back in 1960, when I first spoke in this Legislature, that I asked for the implementation of a ministry of sports and recreation. At that time, Mr. Speaker, having had extensive background, not only in the teaching field but also in the recreation field, I wondered why government wouldn’t have implemented or wouldn’t have copied a lot of the good ideas that have been in operation in other jurisdictions. Having competed as a coach in Olympic competition, in world competition and Pan-American Games competition, Mr. Speaker, and having had pleasant associations with athletes from all parts of the world and found they are just as nice people as are the neighbours next door to us here in our own communities, I couldn’t see why this government, that is Canadian governments including the government of Canada, wouldn’t have put a little greater emphasis on culture.

When I say culture, I include physical activity such as sports as a part of culture. I don’t think culture is strictly drama or strictly the arts or strictly painting. I think culture is also part of the physical culture. It is part of simply playing cards, it could be part of being a spectator at athletic competitions. It could also be directly involved in the various types of athletic competition.

Mr. Speaker, back in the early days in 1960 when we had what was then called the Department of the Treasury, I had noted that only $28,000 at that time was being devoted toward the development of fitness. We are spending $28,000 to promote fitness in the Province of Ontario in 1960, and at that same time we were spending some $200,000 to develop race horses. So you can see, Mr. Speaker, this province certainly has come a long way. They have finally seen the light and they have finally decided that our youth and our people are by far more important than the development and the breeding of race horses.

Mr. Good: Now they spend $1.8 million to develop race horses.

Mr. B. Newman: Now they spend $1.8 million toward the development of race horses.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of criticisms levied in the House by myself and members from the New Democratic Party, as well as members from the government side, the hon. Premier of the day, John Robarts, set up on May 8, 1964, a select committee of this Legislature to look into the problems of youth. That was going to cover the whole area of youth. I noticed when the minister made her introductory comments the fifth aspect of her programme was devoted to youth. The terms of reference of the select committee of 1964 were, and I’ll read them:

“That a select committee of this House be appointed to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into and report upon the special needs of youth, with particular reference to educational, cultural, recreational and employment opportunities, as well as the health, welfare and sports facilities now available to youth and the steps to be taken to ensure a wider participation by youth in the life of the community.”

What the bill purports to do, Mr. Speaker, is to add to the original select committee’s terms of reference, to add, really, a ministry for the cultural aspect of our community.

The report, Mr. Speaker, does make some substantial recommendations. I intend to refer to this report in the hope the government will follow some of these recommendations in the establishment of this new ministry, so that a lot of the problems pointed out by the select committee can be resolved -- not in the fullness of time but much sooner.

The very first recommendation of that committee, when it did finalize its report, was that a separate provincial department of youth with its own cabinet minister should be formed at the earliest convenience of this Legislature.

This, Mr. Speaker, was back in 1966, if I’m not mistaken. In fact, this report was referred to as the Apps report, because it had been chaired by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Apps) who has had a wide background in youth work and in sports and recreation.

So you can see, Mr. Speaker, that the committee of the day in its first recommendation actually asked the government to set up something similar to what has been set up today. I would say actually it is what has been set up, or that what has been set up is really the recommendation of the select committee of youth back in the 1960s. What they have simply added to the title is culture.

Mr. Speaker, before you can come along and develop recreation programmes, and good recreation programmes, you need the personnel to assist in the developing of the programmes. One of the recommendations of that committee was that every elementary school teacher should have physical training qualifications to meet a minimum standard of physical education requirements for students in the elementary schools. So you can see we are attempting here to build a very strong base if we intend to have fairly good recreational programmes.

Most of my comments concerning the recreational aspect are going to refer more to physical education and sports activities than to the cultural activities that my hon. friend from Port Arthur will refer to when he looks into the arts and drama.

Another recommendation, Mr. Speaker, was that more incentives be given to encourage elementary teachers to gain proficiency and qualifications in physical education and thus raise the standards in that subject.

The third was that elementary and secondary school building programmes should consider the special needs of physical education classes.

This was suggested back in 1966, Mr. Speaker, and really nothing has been done in that aspect whatsoever. So you can see that in spite of the fact that a report has been submitted to the government, they have disregarded the report in that aspect. Were we to have a fairly strong physical education base in our elementary schools, if we only looked upon it as being an assist toward the better health -- both physical and mental -- of our students, then it would have been worthwhile.

One of the other recommendations of the committee was that there be a greater use of the schools. This recommendation was also heartily endorsed by the committee studying the utilization of educational facilities. In 1966 we recommended this, and in 1971 we had to have a select committee look into the greater use of the schools. The recommendations had been made in 1966. Another committee was set up sort of to study the first committee’s work and to once more endorse a community use of school facilities.

I know the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) has introduced a programme whereby he will attempt to maximize the use of school facilities. I applaud that. I think that is good. In some communities we have had almost maximum use. In other communities, there has always been the dollar sign that has prevented a greater use of school facilities.

No programme of culture or recreation would be complete if it did not take into consideration the new Canadians, the many thousands of people who have come to our shores and have decided to settle in the Province of Ontario. The minister did mention that as being the third aspect of the programme -- that is, looking into the multicultural aspect of this legislation, that would allow these citizens to get to enjoy the fruits of being a Canadian citizen and to adjust to a new way of life.

One of the things that I did not hear the minister mention was something that had been brought up by the select committee looking into youth. I’ll read the recommendation: “That equality of opportunity, of education, recreation and job opportunities be provided for our Indian citizens.” I think that we should pay special attention to our native people, our Indians, and our Eskimos -- the first citizens of this country -- to see that they should not be simply disregarded and lumped into the multi-cultural aspect.

Now also, in the overview of the setup of this ministry, I certainly hope that programmes are included in both the cultural field and in the recreational field for those who are handicapped. Too often we provide for those of us that are normal physically as well as mentally, but disregard those who have a disadvantage -- a physical disadvantage or a mental disadvantage.

I would recommend to the minister, especially referring to the physical disadvantage, one of the recommendations of the committee studying the use of the schools, and that refers to making facilities accessible to those who are handicapped. I think this ministry could look into that and see that the building code is enforced; and that all facilities, especially public facilities, be built in a fashion so that those who are physically handicapped have easy access and egress to and from the facilities.

Mr. Speaker, the select committee on youth did make a series of recommendations concerning recreation. As recreation is the other half of this bill, I would like to bring to their attention several of the recommendations.

Recommendation 112 states that “leadership training camp facilities similar to Bark Lake be developed regionally.” For example, northwestern Ontario, that is the Lakehead; southwestern Ontario, the Huron shore area; eastern Ontario, the Rideau district. And I would likewise include, but not recommended here, the Toronto area, where our maximum centre of population is located.

The facilities at Bark Lane are excellent, but they are utilized to their maximum. To me this should be developed on a regional basis if we intend to have good recreational programmes and to allow all of our citizens to participate in recreation. We should be able to develop leaders in a series of facilities and a series of camps. I think the recommendation of the committee in regionalizing leadership training camp facilities makes good sense. I can foresee one up in northern parts in the Lakehead area --

Mr. Stokes: Quetico Centre.

Mr. B. Newman: Quetico Centre, or some other centre; I wouldn’t care to say where it should be located. I think the people in the area would know better. But I think they should be regionalized so that not only southern Ontario has the advantages of such facilities, but those in the north likewise be treated on the same basis as we treat our residents in the south.

Likewise, these facilities should be winterized so that they could be used on a year-round basis. As it is now, they are used generally only for the few months in the summertime, because it’s a little too cool in the early spring months or the late fall season. You don’t get the maximum use of the facilities. I think by winterizing the facilities, by having all kinds of leadership training courses, we can develop a strong base of personnel who can go into the communities and promote and develop both leadership and good wholesome recreation.

Likewise, there was the recommendation that extension courses in leadership training be added to the high school extension programmes.

Now Mr. Speaker, another recommendation of the committee was that provincial certification be established for the recreational leaders. These would be sports coaches, drama, music and art coaches or teachers, playground teachers, and other part-time municipal recreation staff.

So you can see, Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of extremely good recommendations in the select committee’s report that this new ministry could look into and adopt or improve upon in the development of its new area of responsibility. Likewise, this ministry should be involved in the designing and planning of new schools and recreational facilities so that at any time when facilities are designed and planned they are designed with the community in mind -- and not just the educational community but with the whole community -- so that they could make input and also so that in another three or four years we would not be building another complex, such as a community recreational centre, in another location, when that same centre could have been fastened, attached or built adjacent to an existing facility, to a school.

In this way we could have multi-use of our school facilities. Gymnasiums, swimming pools, auditoriums and playing fields would not only be used by the school but would also be used by the community whenever the school was not actually using them.

Another recommendation of the select committee, Mr. Speaker, was that the province encourage and promote the establishment of municipally-sponsored co-ordinating councils made up of representatives of all youth, recreational, health and welfare agencies in the community, and this council should co-ordinate all youth programmes and, in co-operation with the province, promote the health, recreational and cultural activities of the community.

I would alter that last sentence so that it would read, “co-ordinate all youth and recreation programmes” etc.

A further recommendation of the committee was that a department of youth -- and in this instance that would be the Ministry of Culture and Recreation -- should have a registry of information and make it available to youth-serving agencies, regarding educational opportunities, welfare policies, recreational facilities, as well as employment opportunities for youth. Some of these may not actually fit into the terms of reference of this new ministry, but I think the areas that do fit into the terms of reference should be implemented.

Likewise there should be exchange visits. Exchange visits should be a responsibility of this ministry; a provincial government policy of encouraging youth visitations to other provinces. There are exchange visits. I do understand that, Mr. Speaker. However, that should be widely expanded and it should not be such that only those who are affluent get the opportunity to participate in exchange. I think we should select students from all strata of our economic society. We should not only allow those who have the financial wherewithal to participate in exchange. Students from all walks of life -- I shouldn’t say walks of life -- from all age levels as well as from all financial levels, should have that opportunity to participate in the exchange programme.

There should be research done in recreation, and substantial research. I could make mention of the research being done at the University of Windsor under Dick Lorearte in his school of health and physical education. I think what they are doing there is worthy of looking into on the part of this ministry, for the ministry to absorb some of the ideas and if they are worthy of implementation, to implement them.

The province should undertake a research programme in recreation designed to get the information necessary to implement a sound recreation programme for people of all ages in the province. The following are only a few areas that need research:

(a) A study to find ways of combining physical fitness with recreation for the youth of this province; (b) A research programme into overall recreation needs of youth; (c) A study to identify ways to secure more publicity for the positive achievements of youth; (d) A study of those recreation skills that may be useful in later years of life and when such skills should be taught.

Too often, some of the skills that are taught in the school physical education programmes have no carryover interest whatsoever. I think phys ed programmes in the schools could be updated so that the activities in which the students are involved do have carryover interest and so that after an individual leaves school he doesn’t become a spectator athlete but can still enjoy life.

For example, you curl at all ages, and the same is true of swimming. But it wouldn’t necessarily be so in diving or football. You certainly could play tennis, badminton or ping-pong at all ages.

(e) A study of methods employed in other countries in the area of recreation; (f) A study of the economics of effective recreation and its appropriate share of the tax dollars; and

(g) Special research into the area of recreational programmes for the handicapped, the deaf, the blind, the retarded, the emotionally disturbed, haemophiliacs and many others.

So one can see they certainly do point out a lot of areas that this new ministry could become involved in.

Likewise, I could mention to the minister that the Junior Ranger programme, developed by the Ministry of Natural Resources, is an extremely worthwhile programme; I strongly recommend it to my own constituents. But I would suggest to the minister that she look into widely expanding that programme so that more girls can partake; and so that those from a lower financial level can participate, also possibly arrange for some subsidy so they don’t even have to pay for transportation to the programme. Quite often families hesitate to allow their children to go because they cannot afford the transportation to the camp site.

I would like to see the programme widely expanded, and I would like to see it regionalized if possible. Some of these programmes could be centred on provincial parks, even in southwestern Ontario and in southern Ontario. I would also like to see a substantial improvement in the pay to the rangers so that it is not only a learning experience but also financially rewarding to them.

Mr. Speaker, there is also a need for community-centred sports facilities, and I know the minister will look into that; I mentioned that earlier in my comments.

In the cultural arts field, some of the recommendations have already been taken care of by the ministry -- not by this ministry, but by other ministries. For instance, the Province of Ontario Council for the Arts should be responsible now to this ministry. That was a recommendation made in 1966 to the committee on youth. Now I see it will be a responsibility of the Ministry of Culture and Recreation.

Increased amounts of money should be made available so that all young people could participate and enjoy the various types of cultural activities. It shouldn’t be the realm only of those who are financially well off to be able to enjoy the cultural activities.

Mr. Deans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we are rapidly getting to the hour of 1 o’clock; and if we’re going to sit beyond 1 o’clock, I’d like to know so that we might make appropriate arrangements.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might move that we do sit beyond 1 o’clock so that perhaps the debate on this bill could be concluded.

Mr. Deans: Well don’t just say it quite that way. I’m not going to oppose the minister, but it’s more than just so the debate on this bill might be concluded. Could I have an undertaking as to what we are going to complete this afternoon, now that it is 1 o’clock?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that the government had some interest in certain other bills, and if we could get the information requested by the House leader for the New Democratic Party, we would then be able to verify exactly what is expected of us before Her Honour would be coming in.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that orders 11 and 13 were to be debated this afternoon. For that reason, we would ask that the motion to sit beyond one o’clock be approved.

Mr. Breithaupt: The Minister of Transportation and Communications is then not going to be proceeding with that other bill at this time? Is that correct?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): No, Mr. Speaker, the bill on which I had wanted to complete debate this afternoon was order No. 11. -- just No. 11.

Mr. Breithaupt: Just No. 11? The minister will not require the other two bills standing in his name at this time?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That is correct.

Mr. Breithaupt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Handleman moves that the House sit beyond 1 o’clock p.m.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, continuing my comments, I wanted to bring to the attention of the ministry the recommendations concerning cultural arts. This happens to be recommendation 204, in case someone wants to refer to it. It recommended that the Department of Education take immediate steps to improve the number and quality of elementary school teachers of the cultural arts. More curriculum time should be allocated to the cultural subjects of art and music to give students a better appreciation of these subjects.

The next recommendation stated that increased amounts of money are necessary for the Ontario Council for the Arts to provide fuller opportunity for all young people to participate in and enjoy cultural art activities.

Mr. Speaker, another recommendation was that all communities in Ontario that do not have facilities for the performing arts examine their present and future school building programmes with a view to incorporating these much-needed facilities, that is an auditorium complete with staging accommodation and recreation needs, for example, and that all of these be incorporated in educational building projects present and future. I don’t think that necessarily all schools should have auditoriums, or that all schools should have sizable gymnasiums, but wherever feasible they should be developed, especially in some of the smaller communities that lack these facilities.

Mr. Speaker, under the music portion of the recommendations, I bring to the attention of the minister the recommendation that an integrated plan of diversified music instruction on an itinerant basis for the Province of Ontario be sponsored by the co-ordinated efforts of its major musical conservatories financially supported by provincial government grants. I know there are grants given and I know some of the organizations do travel around the province in presenting programmes of a musical nature. Those are worthwhile. I think there could be substantial improvements there.

Another recommendation was that local youth agency councils assist in originating a programme for young people who want musical instruction in their communities and arrange for the use of itinerant music teachers for them. I have had requests from schools in the community which would like to set up music education programmes on an after-school basis. One of the problems is that in the inner city schools there isn’t financial ability on the part of the parents to purchase musical equipment and the instruments necessary.

Another recommendation was that music camps be included in an expanded planned campsite programme sponsored by the Department of Lands and Forests, now the Ministry of Natural Resources. Camps in strategic sections of the province should be made available to musical organizations prepared to give musical instruction in summer camp settings at a nominal charge. Then the last recommendation on music is that grants should be made to approved schools and conservatories of music for scholarships to encourage talented students.

Mr. Speaker, the select committee report does contain a substantial number of additional recommendations, but I am only going to make mention of one. It did strike me as strange that the government, after having set up a committee which came down with good recommendations and supposedly interested in the overall fitness of our youth, has hesitated even to consider the implementation of this recommendation. It says there should be a minimum of at least 120 minutes a week of physical education taught each week from grades 7 to 12. All secondary schools should make available physical education courses for grade 13 students and every effort should be made to encourage students to participate in these courses. Physical training courses throughout secondary schools should concentrate on the carryover sports activities that will assist students to maintain good physical condition long after school-leaving age. It is strange, Mr. Speaker, that physical education is no longer a compulsory subject in our secondary schools, and in our elementary schools is only given to students on a very ad hoc basis.

Mr. Speaker, I support the setting up of a Ministry of Culture and Recreation. I simply wondered why it took so long for the government to act in this capacity. I have not spoken to the extent I would have liked to have spoken concerning other cultural aspects of our community, but I know others who will follow me will probably stress that a little more than I. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was going to support the bill. In fact, it probably would have been better if the provincial secretary hadn’t spoken on it before we voted on it. There I was, sitting looking at it; thinking yes, we should have this ministry; and then she killed it. She said the whole matter could be attributed to the member for Bellwoods. I’ve got to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if I thought for one minute that what this ministry was going to do bears any relationship to what was done by that member while he was the Minister of Social and Family Services and whatever other ministries he held, for example when he was Provincial Secretary, I would have to think this ministry would be a waste of both the taxpayers’ money and the time of this Legislature.

I found the actions of the member for Bellwoods, nice fellow though he is, to be most objectionable in terms of the way in which he dealt with the ethnic community in the Province of Ontario.

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): That is totally wrong.

Mr. Deans: Anyway, I want the minister to understand, there’s no point in saying she was speaking on behalf of the members of the Legislature. She may have been speaking on behalf of the government or she may have been speaking on behalf of some other members, but she was certainly not speaking on my behalf, not in that regard.

We’re going to support it, but I have some worries about the ministry. I’ve got to ask, first of all, whether there is assigned to this ministry a sufficient amount of work to justify the establishment of a ministry? I’ve got to ask the question whether in fact the ministry won’t simply become a promotional agency for the government?

One comment made by the provincial secretary about one of the responsibilities of this ministry might have made me wonder just what, exactly, the ministry was going to do. She said that within this ministry would be the citizens’ inquiry branch. I’ve got to ask myself if that’s an appropriate place for the citizens’ inquiry branch. I tend to think, if you want to know, Mr. Speaker, that the citizens’ inquiry branch should be an adjunct of the Legislature and not assigned to a ministry in this way.

I tend to think that a citizen’s inquiry branch ought to come under the general heading of a legislative function and should probably be assigned under the Office of the Speaker rather than under any ministry, because it tends to become a mouthpiece for the government, and I think we’ve got to avoid that wherever possible. So I urge the provincial secretary to consider not putting it in this ministry. I urge that the citizens’ inquiry branch not become a part of this ministry and that rather it become a part of the legislative operation under the bill we passed just prior to this one.

I listened carefully to what the minister said and I’ve got to conclude that she doesn’t appreciate two of the more important functions that any ministry of culture might undertake. First of all there wasn’t a single mention by the provincial secretary, nor has there been a single mention by anyone else of the role the ministry will play on behalf of the native people of Ontario.

It was not mentioned how we are going to develop and assist in the development of all of the very worthwhile values and take advantage of all the contributions that the native people of the Province of Ontario have to offer; and that should be one of the primary functions of any ministry of culture.

Then, next to that, there is the whole matter of the francophone community, the French Ontario factor. That has not received any attention from the ministry. There was no discussion of that. There was no indication there was going to be any particular attention paid to that.

I would have thought that those two things alone were perhaps the most important functions of any ministry of culture.

It’s not just simply a matter of being at the boat or by the aircraft when people arrive from another land to settle in Ontario. It is not just simply being there to hand out the information about what this great government has done on behalf of the people of Ontario. That’s not the function of a ministry of culture, but that’s what I’m afraid this ministry of culture will become. That’s why I have some real reservations about it.

That’s why I sat and I wondered seriously whether I could support the establishment of this ministry. The more I thought about what was being said about it and the more I thought about what was being left out of it, the more I appreciated that it was going to become something like an advertising agency for the government, that it was simply going to be making sure that there was an adequate distribution of the government’s propaganda -- and that’s what worries me.

The provincial secretary shakes her head and smiles, but the fact is that’s what the member for Bellwoods did. That was his function. That’s exactly all he did. When she ties it into that, I begin to really worry about it.

There was no honest-to-goodness effort by this government over the years to develop any sense of belonging within the ethnic communities of the province, other than to go and to shake a few hands at the right time of the year and to announce when their independence day was from a Legislature seat.

There was no honest attempt over the last 10 or 15 years to develop any sense of belonging among the ethnic communities. In fact, there was a tendency on the part of the government to hive them off and separate them.

I think that was why I shuddered when the provincial secretary sort of referred back to days gone by and the way in which this was developed as a result of the actions of those days. Because if all the provincial secretary is talking about is a continuation of the kinds of programmes and the kinds of attitudes that have prevailed toward the multi-cultural society of Ontario, then all she is talking about is some kind of government promotional programmes. That’s not enough, it is not nearly enough.

The provincial secretary talked of culture and recreation, and I listened to the comments of my colleague the member for Windsor-Walkerville as he read into the record the recommendations of the select committee on youth.

I think we all could have read those for ourselves. But that was fine; he chose to read them into the record to emphasize the point he was making. And even if all of those recommendations were to be adopted, I still wonder if that justifies a ministry. I wonder if that really provides sufficient things for a ministry to do.

We’ve got municipal affairs tied in with the Treasury, the largest single operation of government. We have municipalities being ignored day after day because of the heavy work load of the Treasurer (Mr. White) and because the government hasn’t yet seen fit to designate a person who will be responsible for the activities related to municipal affairs. Yet we can find time to set up a Ministry of Culture and Recreation.

I wonder if the priorities of the government are right. I wonder if this is, in fact, a priority matter, given all of the wide ranging problems that have to be resolved that are day-to-day necessities of the people in the province.

I wonder what the government is really going to do. What is it going to do in recreation? Is it going to continue to hand out grants to the municipalities so they can build additional ice rinks? Well, we don’t need a ministry to do that. Is it going to make sure, as I said before, that everybody is met at the plane so that someone can shake their hand and hand them a brochure telling them about the great Province of Ontario and what programmes are available to them? We don’t need a ministry to do that.

What exactly is this ministry going to do? It’s going to co-ordinate the symphonies across the province. It’s going to co-ordinate the ballet. It’s going to make sure there is adequate theatre. It’s going to make sure there is an adequate amount of art and culture available to people.

How is that to be done? The government has never voted a sufficient amount of money at any time that I have been here, prior to my coming, to enable anything of any magnitude to take place.

We are still talking about Toronto-centred operations. For the remainder of the province, in a cultural sense the government has done little if anything to try to take what is here, available on the doorstep of all of the Metro people, out into the community in order that the people of Thunder Bay or the people of northwestern Ontario or the people in northeastern Ontario, or even in eastern Ontario, can take advantage of it and can be a part of it. So the provincial secretary has to tell me what amounts of money she is going to have made available in order that we can in fact allow, as a right, all of the people across the province access to the culture that is available in the Province of Ontario, because that is what a cultural ministry would have to do.

Is the provincial secretary going to tell us about the programmes she is going to develop in the whole area of recreation? Surely she is not going to have a study of ping pong, much though I love the sport. But what is she going to do? What is it that she wants to do within this ministry that isn’t now being done and that justifies a further enlargement of a cabinet that is already far too big?

The people of the province are worrying. They are worrying about expenditures in government. They are worrying about larger and larger government all the time, and this is yet another ministry that has to be answered for. Maybe the provincial secretary could tell us what this ministry will do.

Section 6 of the bill talks about “preserving and maintaining the cultural heritage of residents of Ontario with full recognition of their diverse traditions and backgrounds.” A lovely policy statement; empty, hollow, meaningless.

“Promoting access to the benefits of citizenship and of active involvement in the cultural and recreational life of the province.” What does it mean? That’s what I don’t understand.

“Stimulating the development of new forms of cultural expression and promoting the concept of individual and community excellence.” What’s that? What does that mean? I don’t understand it.

I don’t understand how in heaven’s name anybody could -- relate, I suppose is the right word -- relate to those kinds of meaningless, empty statements. Does it mean simply that the government is going to continue to promote that which is already there? If it does: (a) It’s inadequate; and (b) it’s simply promotion on the part of the government.

“The minister shall perform such functions and duties as are assigned to him from time to time.” Well, I think we deserve a little more than that in the Legislature. I think when the provincial secretary is asking us to set up a ministry, the least she can do is to come forward with the range of programmes, come forward with the range of ideas and say to us these are the things this ministry is going to do; these are the areas the ministry is going to work in; and the reason she is telling us these things is because the government has identified a need which has gone lacking in the Province of Ontario.

So tell us, for goodness’ sake, what this ministry is going to have to do in order to fulfil those very nice, very empty statements about its responsibilities.

“It is the function of the ministry to advance and encourage responsible citizenship through the process of cultural and recreational development ... ” Okay, so be it. But I don’t know, and I am saying now that I have very serious reservations about the bill.

I don’t understand what the ministry is all about and I don’t know why the ministry is being set up. I know it’s a nice gesture to a great number of people across the Province of Ontario that the government has finally not only paid lip service, but in fact finally set up a ministry to deal with their problems; except that nobody quite understands what the ministry is going to do, nobody understands what the ministry is all about, nobody really knows whether what the ministry will be charged with will in any way benefit anybody anywhere.

What is going to happen with the ministry is this, it’s going to be the same kind of operation that was brought about by splitting Treasury up and making Revenue a separate ministry. We will be asking the minister some day about a programme and we will be told he only administers that programme; the responsibility for that programme is somewhere else, in another ministry. It will be the difference between the Treasurer and the collector of taxes, the Minister of Revenue. The Treasurer will make a policy and the Minister of Revenue will put into practice how it’s going to be done. I just don’t see it.

I suppose we can only judge it after we have looked at it. I don’t see any point in opposing it; because what is there to oppose? Really, it’s like motherhood; everybody loves it -- or most people do anyway. But the truth of the matter is that it doesn’t carry with it any weight, it doesn’t carry any direction, it doesn’t show any initiative, it doesn’t show any understanding; all it shows is that the government has decided, in the year 1975, immediately prior to an election, that it is going to try to pacify a great segment of the community which is being alienated because the government hasn’t really done anything to try to satisfy their problems with regard to the maintenance of their culture and the development of their contribution to society.

I think it’s political chicanery and I think that the whole thing is simply a whitewash. They could have had this ministry if they had come forward with the programmes that were needed in the Province of Ontario, the programmes that would’ve helped to fund the very culture that they are talking about preserving. That’s where most of the culture falls down, in lack of adequate funding. That would have helped to distribute throughout the province all of the culture that is so heavily centered in Metropolitan Toronto and given access to the rest of the province. What is required is a programme to do it. Not just simply an idle goal or an aim, but an actual programme; a distribution of funds and an opportunity for people to act.

Now if they are saying that, then say it; bring in the programmes and then tell us that as the result of all of these programmes that we have we now think we need a ministry to oversee them all. Don’t set up a ministry first and then start looking for things to do. The things have to be there before the ministry is of any value; but they are not already there, and that’s where the government’s difficulty is going to lie.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support the bill, a little more enthusiastically than my colleague who has just spoken, but with some of the same very real reservations. I am disturbed, frankly, by the definition in the bill, and the definition by implication in the minister’s statement. It seems to me to be really quite amazing that neither in the minister’s statement nor in the bill does the word “creativity” occur, nor does the word “imagination”; and those two things seems to me to be the essence of cultural development.

I am disturbed that there was no mention of Franco-Ontarians or the native peoples of this country, and I want to put it to the future minister, and to whoever is seconded into that ministry, that the encouragement has to be to community-based cultural activity; that the trend to high-visibility projects, which find so much favour with this government, even currently in sports and recreation to the detriment of community development, must be reversed.

I feel very strongly about the development of our culture in this province, but I also feel very strongly against the culture vultures -- those people who look upon culture as an activity for the elite, for the well-to-do, and who think that going to an opening night at the Royal Alexandra Theatre is the height of cultural participation and activity.

I’m disturbed by the emphasis on normalcy in this bill. I am frankly disturbed by clause 6, which says: “It is the function of the ministry to advance and encourage responsible citizenship through the process of cultural and recreational development.”

One of the primary jobs of decent, imaginative, great creative art in this world has been to encourage irresponsibility. Michelangelo was irresponsible and, because of the shock of the visual impression of his work, he causes people to rethink their normal concept of responsibility. In other words, I am afraid that the definition of culture implicit in this bill is a Philistinean one.

I take the minister at her word, and I take her intentions to be honourable ones, because in this respect I think the minister who is presenting this bill for second reading has the right intentions and the right directions. I have worked with her on a committee of this Legislature and I understand her personal desires, but the record of the government in some areas gives us cause to pause.

I want to speak very briefly, if I might, about one of the things that the minister and I agree on very much. That is, the cultural development and recreational development of the areas in the province that have felt that deprivation for some time -- northwestern Ontario and northeastern Ontario. If I may be immodest, one of the reasons that I prevailed upon my colleagues and argued very strongly with them to support the bill, was so that we could give the wherewithal in a practical way and the prestige that is necessary to the creation of a ministry to these two aspects of our lives, culture and recreation.

Mr. Speaker, we spend enormous amounts of money in welfare grants, in community and social services grants and in health; and rightly -- certainly it’s a first priority of my party -- we spend enormous amounts of money to try to ensure that people have a decent, basic materialistic standard of living. But the reason that I personally support this bill, and persuaded my colleagues to do so, is that I very firmly believe that it is no good simply to have health grants to keep a body healthy, if that person has nothing to be healthy for. If that man cannot make use of his good physical health, if he cannot make use of that to develop cultural and intellectual health, then there isn’t much use in human terms.

I want to say that I think the Ontario Arts Council, as it’s now called, has done quite a magnificent job within the limited framework that it has been able to operate in. I think of all the agencies of government that I have come in contact with that is one that has done a superb job. I’ve had quarrels with them. I have quarrelled with them about closing the regional office in Thunder Bay and I have quarrels about some of their priorities. But I think, within the framework within which they have to operate, the Ontario Arts Council has done a superb job and we should give credit to that in this House.

However, one of the things that does sort of bother me from time to time is that even with an agency such as that, we still give, I think, an undue proportion of our grants to the established theatres, performing groups, and well-known individual creative artists. I have nothing against the Stratford Festival. In fact, it’s a fine festival and it produces high-quality drama. I often enjoy their shows myself. They’ve gone through their growing pains and they’ve done their development, and I’m not entirely sure that we should still be giving them the largest chunk of the pie, which we do. We get into that trap. I would like in terms of theatre to see more support for the experimental, creative, offbeat theatres that have sprung up in Toronto and in other areas of the province, I would like to see government take more chances in terms of the grants that they give to developing theatre.

Who, four years ago, would have predicted that Tarragon Theatre, for example, in Toronto would have been the most single dynamic force in helping to develop creative Canadian plays? It’s the kind of stuff that Tarragon is doing right now with the Donnelly trilogy that I think we should be encouraging in order to develop a consciousness of what our province is about. It’s that kind of theatre. James Reaney’s brilliant writing is not chauvinistic, is not nationalistic and is not narrowly patriotic, but it tells us a lot about ourselves and our heritage. In a sense, James Reaney’s work is to stimulate us, to shock us and to teach us to dare to be a little irresponsible.

In developing the touring programmes, I was a little disturbed when the first press release about Artario, the travelling art thing from the art gallery, came out announcing the move out of the art gallery. It was the first step along the road to province-wide touring. Do you know where they went, Mr. Speaker? To Yorkville. That’s one small step, but it’s not enough to satisfy me; and symbolically, damn it, it was the wrong move. Symbolically, the first one should have been to Red Lake or Elliot Lake, just in terms of PR. Or if your first move had to be to Yorkville, keep it quiet; don’t get a press release about it. Just let people find out about it.

Now, two or three very quick things, if I might. I find it very, very disturbing that in the minister’s statement there was no mention of book publishing. I think in terms of the overall cultural development of our province, the book publishing question is the most urgent at the present time.

I would like to see that be one of the top priorities of this ministry within the next few months. We have had that problem detailed with a very detailed report on the provincial level and at the federal level. I just find that -- and I don’t want to say it provocatively -- a shocking omission. The question of book publishing in Ontario is a complex one and the thinking toward some of the solutions is not going to be easy at all. But it was not mentioned.

I think we seriously have to look at the whole distribution system, particularly in the paperback industry. I would hope that this ministry could take some initiative in that, but I imagine they will have to co-ordinate that with Consumer and Commercial Relations and with other ministries.

I think the real key to solving the book publishing problem is to find some method of wide distribution of economically priced paperbacks; and they need not all be pulp things. We have a good stock of what could be widely read books. Jonathan Manthorpe’s latest political book -- although you people might not agree with it -- I think would be read by a number of interested people throughout the province if it could be marketed in a paperback form at a price somewhere around $3; and of those kinds of books, such as Kaplan’s book about the CCF in 1948, those political science ones and the history ones, as well as the traditional ones that we have in arts and letters.

I think the second thing we have to look at, in terms of trying to salvage the book publishing industry in this province, is to really look at the whole school textbook question.

Now, I personally don’t agree with the answer, that, in fact, we have to subsidize the book publishing industry by reinstituting the direct grant to the school boards on condition that they use it to buy books for the kids.

But there has been a dramatic drop in spending on textbooks or books for classroom use by school boards over the last three years. I believe, if I recall -- and I am just going from memory here because I didn’t have time to get together all my files -- but I believe the drop went something from an average of $8 to $10 to somewhere around below $3. That’s indicative of the problem. I don’t know what you do to solve it, but surely we must solve it if we are going to develop Canadian materials for our school system. That must be looked at.

The third area of book publishing that the ministry should give its urgent consideration to is simply that whole area of continual takeover of Ontario companies by foreign firms. I think that is serious. I think independent Canadian book publishers need a very, very large helping hand.

Now, the second item that I want to speak on is libraries. I was surprised that the minister doesn’t seem to indicate in the statement that the library area will be under this ministry. It seems to me to be a natural for it. I know when they take things out from other ministries, hopefully at least, there are cross-ties within the branches of ministries. While I can see some reason why libraries might stay within Colleges and Universities, I would hope that they should be seconded to this ministry, because I think the libraries in this province are another area that need a massive transfusion.

I’ve spoken about that at length in estimates debate so I don’t do it here, but libraries, once again, in the latter part of the 20th century, can be marvelous creative places. They often are in this province, within the limited financial help that they get. In fact, libraries, it seems to me, are one of the wonders of our province -- that they continue to exist and that the librarians continue to exist with as much flair as they do. Certainly, that seems to me to be a top priority.

I just want to summarize briefly a little incident that indicates why I have some reservations, but not enough to make me oppose the bill. For about three years now -- it’s more than that, it’s five years -- there have been people in Thunder Bay working toward the development of an arts complex there. They had a meeting with the Premier (Mr. Davis) -- at the end of August, I believe -- about the possibility of some provincial funding. They left the meeting almost convinced -- certainly it was the Premier’s strong emphasis to them -- that the government couldn’t really support an arts complex on its own in Thunder Bay; it would have to be a combined arts and sports complex.

I hate to be immodest, but I happen to have 16 years’ experience in backstage activity in community theatre, and I actually once had an offer to undertake that activity at the professional level. There are a lot of members in this House who wish I had taken that, I’m sure.

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister without Portfolio): They all sit around the member.

Mr. Foulds: Pardon? They all surround me? I would think that’s possibly true, aside from a little island here in my immediate vicinity that fends off these waves.

A combined arts and sports complex just “ain’t gonna work.” There’s no way, technically, that they can make that facility a good one and an economical one, strangely enough. If the government is thinking along those lines, simply look at the Duluth Auditorium sports complex. It doesn’t work. It only works with massive state and municipal subsidies; partly because certain parts of the building have to be dead if you’re going to operate other parts.

An arts complex could very well work in Thunder Bay. I’m not sure about the ideal size, although I did a good deal of technical background work on the one that is being proposed there. The reservation I have is the easy acceptance that we can’t physically combine, under the same roof, the physical sports things with culture things. I simply cite to members the gymnatoriums that we’ve built in high schools throughout this province as a fine example of where it doesn’t work. You probably get a decent gym but never a good auditorium. They just don’t work in terms of acoustics and lighting; they don’t work because you don’t have backstage space; and they don’t work because you have no proper sight lines.

I have not spoken at any length on the recreation aspects of this bill. I certainly think they should receive encouragement. As I did indicate earlier, I am disturbed by the high-visibility emphasis on things like the Ontario winter games, even though they are taking place in Thunder Bay and I’m glad to have them and I’ll be participating in them --

Mr. Deans: Is the member running, jumping, skiing?

Mr. Foulds: I am ski-jumping on a toboggan, down a small hill.

But what they are doing there in terms of programming for the winter games is excellent; it is how sports and culture can work. They are developing a very full cultural programme to run alongside the games programme. If you remember, Mr. Speaker, they were able to do that in ancient Greece. In fact, the drama festivals and the games often took place at the same time. If you take a look at ancient Greece, Mr. Speaker, and look at the marvellous auditoriums that still exist there, you’ll notice that they never combined any of those with their running tracks; not even at Olympia or Delphi. They had them quite separate, but they ran the events simultaneously.

Now my friend from the back here has just given me the beginning of what I think are the saddest three words in the English language, and that is what you hear at 11 o’clock in the evening in every British pub: “Time, gentlemen, please.” I think that’s not a bad note on which to end, because I want to emphasize that I don’t have a snobbish view of culture; I believe that the fellow having a beer in a pub is also taking part in the cultural activity of our province.

Mr. Deans: And it doesn’t take a ministry to run it.

Mr. Foulds: My colleague interjects that it doesn’t take a ministry to run it. However, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Clement) is not doing a bad job, although some of his sub-agencies are. I would hope that we would second the LLBO and the LCBO to the Ministry of Culture and Recreation and that those activities would truly come under the minister’s purview as well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Why doesn’t the future minister take this on?

Mr. Breithaupt: I am glad to see that there is someone present now who can take on this portfolio.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with the support which the members have expressed in this bill, notwithstanding the member for Wentworth --

Mr. Deans: Right.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: -- the remarks for the most part were very constructive and I appreciate them.

Mr. Deans: I have no confidence in the government, absolutely none.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I am sure the remarks will be of great value to the new ministry as it organizes itself early in the new year.

The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville mentioned a number of areas of involvement for the ministry, including its role vis-à-vis the native people. I should like to assure the hon. member that the community services division of the Ministry of Community and Social Services will be transferred to this new ministry, and it is expected that the Indian community secretariat will be included in that transfer.

As for the reservations or concerns of the member for Wentworth, may I say his concerns are ill-founded. The citizen’s inquiry branch will not replace and is not designed to replace the role of any MPP in any way. Its role is to assist in government administrative problems.

Mr. Deans: Doesn’t the minister think, though, it would be better attached to the legislative branch than it would be to the cultural ministry?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: There are a lot of newcomers to this province who have difficulties with government agencies. To put it in an area where the focus will be on newcomers I think is a very good procedure.

Some concern has been expressed that there was no mention made of the Franco-Ontarians.

Mr. Deans: I understand that.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Well the new Franco-Ontarian council for cultural affairs will report directly to this new ministry. So that is another area that I am sure has been helped.

I have already commented to members about the native people and our concern for them and about that function being moved to this new ministry.

Mr. Deans: I have umpteen press statements about the minister’s concern.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: We have already given an indication of the six basic programme areas that will be part of the new ministry. Individual programmes are being transferred from the various ministries where they are already in existence. Many of them have been in existence for a long period of time. They are going to be brought together for the purpose of better co-ordination, and as the member for Port Arthur said for badly-needed emphasis in this area of culture and recreation.

The concern of the member for Port Arthur with respect to the exclusion of the word “creativity” is perhaps unnecessary, as one of the functions of this ministry is to stimulate “the development of new forms of cultural expression and promoting the concept of individual and community excellence.”

I would like to return the compliment to the member for Port Arthur. I think I got to know the way he feels about these particular areas as we served together on that select committee. I would like to assure him I am satisfied that this is certainly a development that is long overdue and something that this new ministry will be very interested in promoting, that is more community facilities, particularly in the northern part of this province.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 180. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 180, An Act to establish the Ministry of Culture and Recreation.

Clerk of the House: The 11th order, resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 161, the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, 1974.

MOTORIZED SNOW VEHICLES ACT (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York Centre.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr. Speaker, I want to make a comment with regard to this bill. It has been brought to my attention by the Federation of Agriculture in York county that they still face the problem in this legislation of those who travel on their lands and do damage and are not apprehended. It’s a problem similar to that which farmers face with regard to wolves or dogs running at large killing sheep.

In this bill if nobody can find out who did the damage, there is no one to whom the farmer can turn for compensation. In the case of the killing of sheep, there is a provision in the law for compensation. That certainly alleviates a problem that is not covered in this particular Act.

I would urge the minister to study the situation, since this is not in the bill and no provision is made for it in the bill, and to see if we shouldn’t be using some of the fees we are collecting from these vehicles for a compensation fund similar to the funds that are available for motor vehicles where there isn’t an insurance coverage and for which there is now a compensation fund. In this way, farmers who can prove damage caused by the drivers of these vehicles, the cutting of fences, destruction of trees and things like that, can turn to some fund for compensation. I urge the minister to take that into account.

Mr. Speaker: Is there any further discussion before the minister replies? The hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment briefly on the bill. I suppose we are indeed fortunate in having with us a number of the members of the select committee on snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles that made an intensive and extensive investigation of the whole area of snowmobiles, and of course all-terrain vehicles as well. It was a very full inquiry which involved the receipt of briefs and oral presentations from persons from all parts of Ontario, and it included persons with varied interests -- not only the persons who are actually interested in the snowmobile activity but others who are interested in the matter of mixing snowmobiles with automobiles, persons interested in the environment and other persons who were concerned about activities they felt might come into conflict with the operation of snowmobiles. It was in this open-minded and objective way that the committee studied the problem and received the representations from all interested parties.

I think it is significant that one of the basic recommendations was to recognize that snowmobiles are off-the-road vehicles. They were not designed to be on the highway, and it was for that reason the recommendation was that snowmobiles should be generally banned from the travelled portion of highways. I think there has been some misunderstanding and some misinterpretation of the intention of the committee and of this legislation in that regard. The chairman of the select committee is here and can make comments later if he wishes, and I imagine he will, in regard to this particular aspect of the recommendations and of this legislation.

There seems to be some feeling among the public that the intention of the legislation is to ban snowmobiles from the entire right of way, in other words from fenceline to fenceline. That is not the intention at all. The intention is to keep them off the travelled portion of the roads with the proviso that if the local municipality wishes to have snowmobiles mixed with automobiles and trucks on its own local roads, then it has the right to pass a bylaw to permit that.

I personally do not think that is in the best interests of the public or of safety. There are, of course, situations where the shoulder or boulevard or road allowance is so narrow, as over bridges, that there have to be some exceptions, and that again is provided for.

So I believe the intention of the legislation manifests good sense, but I did want to speak on that particular point because I think that is of interest to the snowmobiling public.

Now with that there has been created a programme of trail development; not that trail development hasn’t taken place in the past, but if we are to take snowmobiles off the highways, then of course we have to put them somewhere. It’s important that the public, who own and operate snowmobiles and enjoy the snowmobiling activity, has some place to carry on that activity. That is why I think it important and even urgent that this plan of snowmobile trails proceeds, so that there will be a safe and probably more enjoyable area to snowmobile than to mix with the highway traffic.

Mr. Speaker, without getting into the other areas of the bill, I think that the provision for better identification of the machines will lead to better law enforcement and will certainly assist the property owner in identifying and ensuring that persons who are not wanted on his property, and who may even do damage to his property, can be reported and apprehended. I think these provisions for safeguarding the interests of the farmer are very important indeed. There is no reason whatsoever why a landowner who accommodates trespassers on his property should be liable, in some instances, for damages that those trespassers might suffer. I believe these to be steps forward.

I certainly endorse the provisions of the legislation. I think it is well founded. I think it basically accepts the adoption of the select committee, which of course was comprised of members of all political persuasions of this assembly and had unanimous support.

Those are my comments, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this bill. As an owner of a machine and living in a region that has 14 snowmobile clubs, I feel the legislation is of very great concern to perhaps more people than one would realize; first of all, to the owners of machines who like to have their machine used in a proper manner and also to the people who, in certain instances, have been suffering inconvenience and noise and trespass and what not because of the indiscriminate use of machines. When they first came out a few years ago they were quite a novelty and I think people were even driving them around in the cities, until they came under certain regulations, and cutting across lawns and creating general havoc.

Well, that day has long since gone. It didn’t take long for people to realize that some control had to take place. I have met with the president of the association which governs the 14 clubs in the Waterloo region and they were greatly concerned about certain things that might be in the bill. Generally speaking, they agree with most of the provisions of the bill. Provisions must be made for regulations and provision must be made to make the snow vehicles acceptable in the areas in which they are now being used. I suppose the trails which have been developed by these 14 clubs will now be more or less integrated, and the section which was of great concern to the members of the clubs was whether or not individual permission would be needed for each member of the club. This has been provided for, but I see a great many other problems regarding the matter of written permission.

Maybe the minister could indicate what the intention is; whether, every time a group of snowmobilers come out of a bush or from a field, it is the intention to have a police officer standing there asking for individual permissions for those vehicles. This is very similar, I see, to the original apprehension of the public when the breathalyser test was put in. People said: “Are you going to have an officer standing outside a private party in a house or a hotel, and ask everybody coming out to take a breathalyser test?” In my view there is more argument for that than there is for an officer standing at the edge of the bush, and as 20 snowmobilers come through the bush to stop each one and ask on what authority they ride that trail. I hope that it’s not the intention to create enforcement problems unless there are, in fact, complaints lodged that sections of the bill are being violated.

I must say by personal experience, in the area where I do my snowmobiling -- and I have given up snowmobiling anywhere near my residence because it’s now impossible to get to the rural area without trailering it -- in the recreational and summer areas of the province, there are hundreds of acres of unused farmland and bushland. I’m sure a person would have to spend an awful long time to find out who the actual owners of these properties are.

I can think of one 100-acre farm in particular that has been sold by someone who lived in the US. You know, the neighbours are talking about that now: “By golly, I wonder who does own that.” You’re going to have to go to the registry office to find out, Mr. Speaker. To me, it’s going to be an almost impossible situation to try to enforce written permission every time someone goes off Crown property.

I’m sure there is much land that is neither Crown land nor private land. I think of areas where cottage lot subdivisions have been established. Land has been designated as a public roadway, and it’s never been taken over by the township. They don’t want it; it’s not up to standard. If they take it over, they have to maintain it.

Mr. Breithaupt: And plough it.

Mr. Good: They couldn’t get grants on it, because it’s not brought up to standard. I inquired last year as to where the actual ownership of such property lies. The director of the subdivision section of the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs said to me: “Well, actually, that’s something we’ve been trying to decide for 15 or 20 years.” He said: “It’s really in limbo; nobody owns it.” He said: “It was dedicated, the township won’t accept the land, so we really don’t know who does own it.”

Where would one go to get written permission to use that land? There is the matter of written permission being deemed to be individual when one belongs to a club. I wonder if the minister would give consideration to the idea that if one person in a group has permission to cross certain lands, whether that would not cover all in that group.

You know, Mr. Speaker, people don’t do all their snowmobiling in one specific area. People are often invited to someone else’s area, and as such they would not be there as a member of that club. They would not know who the owners were to get individual written permission. I think, for instance, if I am invited up to the zoo and go out snowmobiling with the minister, if he is a member of a club I should be able to snowmobile as his guest.

Mr. Breithaupt: Be sure he goes first

Mr. Good: Or if he isn’t a member of the club but has permission for an area, I think everyone with that person should be deemed to have permission as well.

In the town of Wiarton they have groundhog day every spring: and they always have a big snowmobile safari. During the last outing I was on a few years ago about 150 vehicles went from Wiarton down to Sauble Beach, up across to Oliphant and around through the bush, some of it private property. We had dinner up in the Wildwood Lodge at Red Bay. Now, I’m sure a great many of those people were not local residents, did not belong to the local club. They were cottagers who had come up for that particular weekend. Surely in a thing like that, persons wouldn’t have to have individual permission.

I can see a great many problems with enforcement in this written permission deal, the way it’s set up in this particular section of the bill. That is one of my gravest concerns, because of the fact that it’s almost impossible to find out who owns much of the land up in the area.

Take, for instance, some of the islands out in Georgian Bay. The owners are down in the United States; they’re in the old country; they’re all over the place. People snowmobile from Penetang out to the islands. In fact, I was told just the day before yesterday, by a group who snowmobile in the Penetang area all the time: “Well we’ve already talked to the provincial police, and regardless of what the bill says, we don’t think they’re going to be demanding written permission from us; and we’ll go on the same trails. If the Minister of Transportation and Communications wants to stop us, he’ll have to come up here with an army of 500 enforcement officers to stop us from going on our usual trails.”

Mr. L. Maeck (Parry Sound): I don’t think they’re that irresponsible.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: They are good, law-abiding citizens.

Mr. Good: Maybe they’re not that irresponsible; but they see the inherent dangers in the letter of this law. This is pretty rigid, and if the minister is going to enforce it without restraint, he is going to need an army of 500 enforcement officers. That is the problem I see in that written permission section of the bill.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): “Rhodes’ irregulars.”

Mr. Good: The other matter about which we had a pretty good discussion the other night in supplementary estimates is the amount of money being put by the province into the development of trails. According to the information I have from those members who were on the select committee, that was the single most common complaint.

When the registration fee was upped from $2 to $10, the coffers of the province were enriched by many millions of dollars. I have the figure here, which sounds reasonable to me. When we add up the registration fees for the vehicles, the sales tax derived by the province on the sale of the vehicle and the gasoline tax, we are talking about revenue of $13 million or $14 million a year from those who use snowmobiles.

I am not naive enough to suggest that the minister should plough all the money back for the snowmobilers’ use. I think the province has to use it as a source of revenue to some extent because it is a recreational facility. But just don’t try to make such things as snowmobiles into revenue producing sources, as in the sale of liquor. I think we have got to turn some of it back. Now $1 million is not much -- that is what we are ploughing back in the first year -- but when one considers the fact that nothing has been spent by the province on developing and grooming trails --

Mr. Stokes: It is not $1 million either; it is $150,000.

Mr. Good: No, $150,000 is going to the clubs and conservation authorities, the rest -- $850,000 according to the estimates -- is being spent by the ministry on Crown lands and work they will do through their regional offices. The whole estimate is for $1 million, as was explained to us the other night.

The Minister of Transportation and Communications can correct me if I am wrong, but that is what the Minister of Natural Resources told us the other night. When I asked him how many machines there were in the province, he didn’t know; he asked the Provincial Secretary of Resources Development (Mr. Crossman), who said about 200,000. Well I think there are probably closer to 250,000 or 300,000, according to other information I have been able to get.

Those are a few of my comments. I agree with the principle of the bill to regulate the use of these machines, but I hope the minister has given due consideration to some of the problems that can result for the need of individual written permission.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Durham.

Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks with respect to this bill. I am sorry I was not here last Monday night, because of another commitment I was unable to be here and I understood the bill would not be debated on that occasion.

Mr. Breithaupt: The member is learning how we do things here.

Mr. Carruthers: At this time I would like to make a few remarks as chairman of the Ontario select committee on motorized snow vehicles, and I wish to congratulate the minister and the government in responding so effectively, may I say, and so promptly, to the report of the Ontario select committee on motorized snowmobiles and ATVs.

Mr. Stokes: It wasn’t all that prompt. They had our interim report for a year and a half.

Mr. Carruthers: Well, I would say it was quite prompt when one realizes all the research that has to be done.

Mr. Good: That is prompt for this government

Mr. Carruthers: Mr. Speaker, the committee confined its research and its investigation to a major degree to the Province of Ontario, and the legislation reflects the opinion of the general public, of the participants in this fine form of family recreation and of the snowmobile industry itself.

Last week I had the opportunity of discussing the bill and the report at some length with a representative of the International Snowmobile Association, later with a representative of the Snowmobile Distributors Association and with representatives of the snowmobile clubs throughout the province.

All those gentlemen, while expressing some concern with respect to the development and control of snowmobile trails, supported the legislation and particularly that section of the legislation which I understand is controversial. I refer particularly here to section 5 of the bill, which pertains to the phasing-out of the use of snowmobiles on the serviced or travelled portion of highways.

The committee recognized, Mr. Speaker, that snowmobiles are incompatible with motor vehicles. It was pointed out to the committee on numerous occasions that the low profile, the speed and the construction of these machines create a danger on congested highways. Accident statistics provide ample evidence to support the legislation which is now before the House. In the period from November, 1972, to February, 1973, it was revealed that 168 of 198 accidents which claimed six out of 10 lives occurred on municipal highways. The accidents indicated poor manoeuvrability, steering and braking, whether on ice, whether on hard snow or whether on pavement. These effects with poor visibility constitute a real hazard.

On many occasions, Mr. Speaker, it was brought to the attention of the committee that automobiles, highway traffic and snowmobiles just are not compatible. I strongly support the legislation as it presently stands. In my opinion, I think if the present legislation is upheld it will have a real impact on insurance rates. There is no question about it: insurance companies are very concerned about the startling fatality rate among the participants in this particular sport.

It was also brought to our attention on many occasions, Mr. Speaker, the difficulty in identifying the ownership of the machine. This is limited because of the difficulty in identifying the plate, particularly for law enforcement authorities, where it presented a real problem. Bill 161 will correct this to a major degree, and I’m sure it will be welcomed by law enforcement authorities.

I wish to emphasize here if there’s one fatality -- the first fatality that occurs this winter -- if we don’t stand by this legislation, the members of this committee are going to be under very severe criticism, the government is going to be under severe criticism and all the members of this Legislature are going to be under criticism, because it came through very strongly and very clearly to us that snowmobiles must be gotten off the travelled portions of the roads.

An hon. member: Highways!

Mr. Carruthers: As an example, I will quote to the members from the London Free Press an editorial of Nov. 5. It is as follows:

“A government bill would remedy some omissions. However, in the control and operation of snowmobiles, it’s about time steps were taken to get snowmobiles off public roads, for each winter produces more deaths than injuries. The bill would bar snowmobiles from all serviced roads except those where municipal by-laws specifically permit their operation, a proper concession in northern communities where snowmobiles are a common form of winter travel.”

This was brought home to us on a number of occasions by the member for Thunder Bay.

Some 84 municipalities, Mr. Speaker, out of 903, have approved by-laws governing snowmobiles. However, the reluctance of municipalities to enact bylaws has, in my opinion, encouraged the operation of snowmobiles on highways. The present legislation should do much to encourage municipalities to co-operate with snowmobile clubs and the operators of these vehicles to develop a programme whereby certain designated roads can be used by participants of the sport.

One of the most localized controversial problems arising from the use of snowmobiles is that of trespass. Time and again this has been brought home to us by property owners, both urban and rural. I had a call on at least three different occasions from a farmer just north of Toronto who has some 400 acres of land and was perfectly willing to allow the use of the property for snowmobilers. But he said the only place they wanted to go was tearing up and down his rows of corn, tearing it to pieces, and the police that they called in just couldn’t identify them and never could catch them.

While a majority of snowmobile operators are recognized as responsible sportsmen -- and this is particularly true of those members of snowmobile clubs -- there are, however, as in all sports, those who abuse those rights and privileges and thus create a spirit of ill will, not only to themselves but to all operators of snowmobiles and to the detriment of the industry.

The industry was particularly concerned about this one feature. They said, “Get these off the roads because it gives us a bad name.” Every time there is a fatality -- and we found this out in our research work -- whenever a newspaper item appeared about a fatality, we had many people say they wanted to ban them entirely, not just off the roads, but ban them entirely.

There have certainly been many incidents where the no-trespassing sign has been torn down, fences have been continually cut, winter wheat, clover crops have been damaged, corn crops have been damaged, livestock has been harassed, even individuals have been harassed, and littering has become a common problem in many areas.

The Petty Trespass Act is a principal form of legislation at the present time designed to protect property owners, and under this Act the onus is, of course, on the landowner or the occupier to prove that he has taken all precautions through oral warnings or visible signs. As I said before, very often these are torn down. Those signs must be visible from every point of access and must advise that there be no trespassing. The Act is full of loopholes, Mr. Speaker, and very easily circumvented.

This legislation is applicable to the snowmobile operator and leaves no doubt as to the responsibility, and -- in the view of the committee members, I’m sure -- the requirement of written permission will not only protect the property owner but will encourage farmers and property owners to allow their land to be used for trail and snowmobiling purposes. The committee was of the opinion that the present method of accident reporting was not satisfactory, it was sporadic and doubtful in accuracy, and I notice that under the present legislation there is no requirement for reporting an accident for personal injury or property damage to the person or the property owner where only the driver is involved and where the damage does not exceed $200. Bill 161 will do much to correct that situation.

While it will require time to prepare regulations and forms I would hope that certain features -- and particularly the property rights section -- of the bill be proclaimed as soon as possible. I may have other remarks during the debate in committee of the whole House, Mr. Speaker, but may I emphasize again that this committee was a dedicated group and I was very pleased to work with such a fine group of men. I think it was brought home to all of us the real problems facing not only the sport itself but the industry as well. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex-Kent.

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I’m sorry, the member for Kent.

Mr. Spence: Yes, it’s all right, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words.

I do wish to congratulate the minister in bringing in a bill to bring some order to the snowmobile operators in this province. I know that practically every member in this House has been called about 1 o’clock or 2 o’clock in the morning by citizens who have been wakened by snowmobile operators, and, of course, after they are wakened they say they can’t go back to sleep; which is a great nuisance. I’m glad to see the minister bringing in a bill to bring order to this snowmobile industry in the province.

I’m quite concerned, Mr. Minister, about licensing a landowner who owns and operates a large tract of land, in that he has to purchase a permit and a licence and insurance in order to operate his snowmobile on his own property.

Mr. Stokes: We’ve got an amendment that takes care of that.

Mr. Spence: Right. I’m glad to hear that, of course, because an officer of the law can enter his private land and fine him or bring him to court, which I would say is a step too far in this bill. I have heard from other members of the Legislature that there are some amendments and I hope that the bill will be amended so that if the property owner doesn’t take his snowmobile off his own property he won’t have to pay for a licence to operate it on his own property.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m not going to take much time in debating this. I must admit that I haven’t been in the House too often when it has been debated, and I’m not sure what amendments have been put forth --

Mr. Stokes: There are none yet. That is what we are trying to do -- to get to clause- by-clause.

Mr. Riddell: -- but I understand there are some forthcoming. One thing concerns me a little. I can recall a terrible snowstorm in our area two years ago and many school children were locked in the schools for a period of two, three or four days. If it hadn’t been for the operation of snowmobiles, some of these children wouldn’t have been taken out of the schools and back home again.

In this bill, snowmobiles are being banned from travelling on serviced roads; and I take it that travelling on the serviced portion of a road means on the road proper or the ploughed shoulders of the road. But what concessions will be made under circumstances such as snowstorms where people rely on the operation of a snowmobile in order to get other people to safety? I’m wondering whether this is covered in legislation or if there will be an. amendment stating that it has to be a ploughed road in order to prevent snowmobiles from being allowed to travel on it, or if the road is not ploughed then the snowmobiles can travel on it.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to speak to this bill?

The hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Mr. T. A. Wardle (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr. Speaker, I too wish to congratulate the minister for bringing this bill forward. As a member of that special committee, Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased with several items in this bill.

While, of course, in my particular riding there is no snowmobiling allowed -- in fact, snowmobiling is banned in the Metropolitan Toronto area -- what happens here is of course of particular interest to the people living in my riding who have snowmobiles and who transport them to other sections of this province.

I am particularly pleased with the fact that everyone in charge of a snowmobile now must be licensed. At least we know now that there is a standard. In the past, it seems that anyone could just jump on to a snowmobile and have charge of this very powerful machine, but there was no standard of licensing. People who were not capable of handling this machine were able to drive it on the roads of this province.

I’m also particularly pleased with the fact snowmobiles now must have a muffler. In our discussions, the matter of noise was a particular concern to many people, particularly in the smaller towns. Now, under this legislation, this will be abated.

The matter of helmets was one that gave me particular concern. I know most snowmobilers do wear helmets at the present time, but the fact that they now are required to wear helmets is of particular interest to me. I know that a number of deaths have occurred because a person was not wearing a helmet when in charge of a snowmobile.

Another matter that the minister has in hand, as well as the Ministry of Natural Resources, is the provision of trails. Some trails are being used in Ontario, and others could be used. There are a number of abandoned railway lines here in Ontario and a number of mine roads that could be used. I think the co-operation of the people who own private property and the government, in the use of Crown lands and the use of private trails, such as abandoned railway lines, etc., could be used to provide a very fine type of trail here in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, the snowmobiling industry, of course, came forward dramatically. The use of the snowmobile was far ahead of the legislation we had in this province, but now I think we have, in this bill, the regulations and the requirements that will put the snowmobiling industry on a sound basis and be a protection for those who use snowmobiles. I congratulate the minister for bringing this forward at this time.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Victoria-Haliburton.

Mr. Stokes: What’s this, a filibuster?

Mr. Wardle: No.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Speaker, there are one or two things I want to mention in regard to this bill.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He’s going to congratulate them first.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: First of all, I consider the government and the people of Ontario are trying to use a hammer to kill a fly. I think there are more people killed in boating accidents and there hasn’t been any concern expressed about that.

Mr. Stokes: That’s federal.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: Yes, certainly it is; but they are provincial deaths, aren’t they?

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Make them wear helmets.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: I am concerned about the idea that a police officer can arrest somebody on someone else’s land without a complaint laid by that landowner. I think it’s pretty vital to have the complaint laid and signed by the landlord.

The other thing that has been thrown into this has been the liability problem of the decision in regard to a court case, and also the trespass law thrown into this situation. But what about the other uses of land in Ontario? I hope the government is going to go the other step and do something on the Trespass Act, and something in regard to liability for use of these trails for other than snowmobiles, because many of these trails are multiple-use trails, even though snowmobiles use them.

The other thing that I think is very important to have something done about it is the fact that today we have drivers’ licences and vehicle licences that are not required on your own land. Here we are, in a law like this, saying they must be licensed, they must be insured, and so on, all these things that are restrictive. So I just feel that someplace along the line we are using a hammer to kill a fly.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to speak? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think the bill itself will make the regulation of snowmobiling in the Province of Ontario a little easier for all of the various jurisdictions, provincial and municipal. I just want to touch on a couple of the points that have been raised. I don’t want to prolong this, so we can get into committee and get on with it.

One of the points was, the member for Thunder Bay expressed some concerns about how the legislation would apply to the native population. I think, as I pointed out to him several days ago, and I repeat briefly, this particular legislation will not apply to the reservations themselves, and in the areas that the member was concerned with, that is, the farther northern areas, it is our intention to develop the regulations to go with this particular piece of legislation, that will exempt large areas of the northern part of the province, particularly those areas where there are no highways serving the area.

As the member well knows, there are large areas in his particular riding and in adjacent ridings where it would really be of no value to have this legislation apply. In fact, it would be a detriment to the people who were working and living in that area. So that is intended to be taken care of, and I think that problem is recognized.

Mr. Stokes: They could never police it in any event.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, you’d go out of your mind trying to police it, right.

The member for Simcoe East (Mr. G. E. Smith) commented several days ago on the control on lakes, and I can only say to him that if it’s navigable water, of course, it is something over which we, as a provincial government, have no control, but if it is within a municipality, then the municipality itself would be able legislate control of the snowmobiles on the lake areas, the frozen-over areas, in its own bylaws.

The member for Waterloo North is concerned about the clubs and the written permission. Later on I think we will get into that when we look at some amendments which I propose to introduce during committee, one of which I think will take care of the concerns on the written permission.

I agree with the hon. member. If there is a complaint from the property owner or the occupier of that property, then the police would take action, but simply to be going on to someone’s property, or, as the member suggested, standing at the edge of a field waiting for them to come off to check -- I don’t believe that’s the way we want to enforce this. It will be as a result of complaints, and we will get to that later on.

I can’t comment on the trails. That programme is being developed by the Ministry of Natural Resources. Comment was made on the amounts of money that go into the fees. That money, of course, doesn’t come into my ministry; it goes into the consolidated revenue fund. Some of it will be going back into trails and hopefully there will be even more into trails. The development of the trails programme, again, will come under his particular area.

The member for Kent commented on the noise problem. I think all of us who live in an area where snowmobiling is popular have experienced complaints, as he has suggested. There really is nothing in this particular Act that is going to control the noise, but municipalities can pass bylaws to prohibit vehicles running at certain hours at night and, of course, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman) can pass legislation that will control the decibels.

Mr. Good: Yes, but he won’t. We have been asking him for four years and he won’t touch the noise problem.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It is very difficult to enforce noise levels. It is not the easiest thing in the world to handle.

The registration of the vehicles -- the changes there I think will be of value. This was commented on by the member for Essex-Kent during his remarks earlier. The new markings that are proposed will ensure easier identification of those vehicles that are being operated improperly. I want to join with others who have said that most of the operators of snowmobiles are reasonable, responsible people. Those who belong to the organized clubs have developed excellent programmes and have done an awful lot to enhance the snowmobile sport in this province, but we do have the irresponsible people whom we are going to have to deal with. These large registration numbers, easily visible, will make it much easier for people to be able to apprehend those who are operating in an irresponsible way.

I think with those few remarks we will perhaps move on into committee of the whole.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 161.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: I understand this will go to committee of the whole House.

Agreed.

Clerk of the House: The fifth order, House in committee of the whole.

MOTORIZED SNOW VEHICLES ACT

House in committee on Bill 161, the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, 1974.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment on section 1(k). I don’t have anything before that.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Essex-Kent

On section 1:

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Chairman, the member for Huron (Mr. Riddell) mentioned and I mentioned also that when we have a severe snowstorm snowmobilers are asked through their good graces to come out and help. We maybe should add on to section 1(k) in line 2 after the word “used” the words “or open” for vehicular traffic. Now, I am not sure if “serviced roadway” might cover it. In other words, if a road is not serviced, I suppose it is not open for vehicular traffic. Maybe the minister or some of his officials could advise me whether it is necessary to put this in. That would be the main reason I would be wanting it in.

Mr. Ruston moves that section 1(k) be amended by inserting in line 2 after the word “used” the words, “or open for vehicular traffic.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Highway 401.

Mr. Ruston: Yes, where it was on 401, which we know is prohibited for use. I realize that if the police call snowmobilers to help they are not going to arrest them, but on the other hand it’s rather a difficult situation to put them in. If the law contained that provision, I think it would be better.

Mr. Chairman: Does any other hon. member wish to comment on section 1?

Mr. Good: Maybe the minister has another way of making it legal for the police, in an emergency, to call snow vehicles on to Highway 401 to take people out of cars, as happened the other week.

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): I think it would hardly be necessary to put that into legislation, Mr. Chairman. Surely good, ordinary common sense is going to prevail in the case of emergency. There are so many instances of legislation being there, but in the cases of emergency and where people need assistance the legislation is never enforced and the police and all enforcement agencies co-operate.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): The police have the right to do it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I would be very surprised if we had to require that in legislation. The police themselves, as was suggested by the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, have the right to act on their own in the case of emergencies. As in the emergency referred to earlier by the hon. member for Huron, there’s no one who is not going to co-operate with the need to assist people who are stranded and find that they have to make their way, for emergency purposes, along what otherwise would be banned areas.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): No, but there are a good many roads in the province, where there is little or no snow, that are maintained the year around. But there are a good many areas of the province where a road isn’t open the year around. It’s not only the case of an emergency on Highway 401; all this does is tidy it up. There are many areas in the province where I’m sure there is a road structure but it’s not maintained and open to vehicular traffic the year around.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Chairman, I think it would be worthwhile to consider this amendment; it would seem to regularize the matter. While the question of legal liability might be more fittingly involved in a good Samaritan type of act, examples of which we have seen in the Legislature over the last several years, at least this might go along to try to regularize any activities and to avoid any confusion in the minds of those who might be called upon to be of assistance to the authorities.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other comments before I put the amendment?

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): I’d just like to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps the minister would give it further consideration because there’s no problem involved in including this amendment. I think it meets the case specifically. I see him glancing at his experts and they’re looking at each other. Now, why don’t we just do it?

Mr. Good: Go over and have a talk with them.

Mr. Breithaupt: We’ll take the opinions of three out of five.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Mr. Chairman, I’d just like to add that it’s all right to say that common sense would prevail, but in the areas in the snowbelt take the case where there is a sudden storm and a father may go out with a snowmobile to pick up his children at school to bring them home, knowing full well that if he doesn’t get them their chances of getting home may be quite remote. I think there should be a section in here to protect that chap if he does go and get his children out of school to bring them home so that he can’t be charged for travelling on the road.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I don’t think I could go along with that sort of an amendment. Who’s going to determine when it’s too snowy for the youngsters to walk home? What is a snowstorm in the Thunder Bay area would be a complete and total blizzard in your area. And what you call a snowstorm he calls a gentle fall of light fluff.

Mr. Stokes: Light precipitation.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: This amendment says, “if it is closed.”

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Somebody has to consider when it is a storm and when it isn’t. I really feel that in the case of an emergency, where youngsters have to be transported from their school to their homes or vice versa, there is no one who is going to take any exception to people running on an unploughed or open roadway.

Mr. Breithaupt: That is not what the law says.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, on the other point, as far as the rights of way that are unploughed in the winter time, we can deal with those quite easily through regulations. Municipalities can permit the snow vehicles, by bylaw, to go anywhere as far as their unopened municipal roadways are concerned; and unopened road allowances probably aren’t classed as highways anyway within the meaning of the Act, so they’ll be okay.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What about the Highway 401 instance?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The Highway 401 instance? Well, as I say, if it is an emergency then no one is going to complain about them being used.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why don’t you say then if the road is closed let them go?

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ruston moves an amendment to section 1(k), in line 2, after the word “used” insert “or open for vehicular traffic.”

All those in favour of the amendment please say “aye”.

All those opposed please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

I declare the amendment lost and section 1(k) stands as part of the bill.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Chairman: On section 2, does any member wish to speak on section 2?

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): Mr. Chairman, I haven’t an amendment but I have a question, and it refers to all sections. I would like to inquire of the minister his interpretation of this section.

As I take it, to be driven any place these snowmobiles have to pay a registration fee each year. Now the question of the minister is if it is property owned by the operator, who is resident on the property, do they have to pay this registration fee each year while on their own property?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to mislead anyone on that. As far as the registration is concerned, it is a registration fee that applies to all snow machines within the province, all of them.

Mr. Henderson: Annually?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Annually.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Even on your own property?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, that is the question.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, I say all snowmobiles in the province are subject to the registration fee, to be paid annually.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It may take a change in government to reverse that.

Mr. Chairman: Before we move on, to make it clear: Instead of a licence, you are talking about a registration fee in lieu of a licence?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I think it is common knowledge that there is no licence for snow machines in the Province of Ontario. There is a registration plate, and it is a registration fee that you pay annually. The licence referred to here is what we were talking about as an operator’s licence.

Mr. Good: Well on this same point --

Mr. Chairman: Just a minute, we are getting out of order a bit, it was a question of clarification from the member for Lambton. Could the minister tell me in what section of the bill that is dealt with?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I don’t think it was a section he was dealing with, it was just a general question as it pertains to the whole bill, as to the fees to be paid; which fees, of course, are in the regulations.

Mr. Good: Where is that in the bill?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It is not in the bill.

Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, it is in section 2 that any amendment would be appropriate, and I was waiting for the hon. member for Essex-Kent --

Mr. Ruston: I have one.

Mr. Chairman: Let’s come to order for a minute. Let’s come to order and get back on the track again. Section 1 has been carried. Agreed.

On section 2, the member for Essex-Kent has the floor.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to section 2, subsection (4).

Mr. Ruston moves that section 2(4) shall not apply to motorized snow vehicles driven on the property of the owner or occupier of the motorized snow vehicle.

Mr. Ruston: The reason for this, Mr. Chairman, is I feel this doesn’t stop the dealer, when he sells a machine, from issuing a permit, which he is obligated to do within six days. What I am saying is that after you have the snowmobile, and if you never take it off your property, it is the same thing as your car or truck, you do not have to renew it after that time. If you sell the machine you are still obligated to register it and have it transferred, but what I am suggesting here is that if a farmer who has a 200-acre farm never wants to go off that land, the initial registration doesn’t have to be renewed yearly.

Mr. Good: On this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say this, last winter I was called by a constituent who had received a fine of $23. He had 250 acres of land north of Waterloo and was fined for operating a machine without a licence on his own property.

I must confess that I was ignorant of the law because, under the Highway Traffic Act, of course, you can operate an all-terrain vehicle, a dump truck, a car, a trailer or anything you want on your own property as long as you don’t use it on the highway. You’re not subject to a licence under the Highway Traffic Act. This $10 fee applying to people who operate their vehicles solely on their own property is a real source of annoyance to a lot of people who have their own snowmobile farms and never set tracks off their own property.

I think the minister should give consideration to a permanent registration of the vehicle. Everybody agrees with this. You have to have a one-time permanent registration of the vehicle. But to nick those people for $10 every year when they’re operating on their own property seems to contravene any type of regulatory control that you might wish to get. It’s just a matter of getting money from these people unnecessarily. If the government is going to do it for that then, in fairness, it had better start to licence every farm truck that is used on personal property and see how far it gets with that.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): That’s not for pleasure, though.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lambton.

Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, I am in agreement with the amendment. I would like to add my remarks, Mr. Chairman, but I’m not sure this shouldn’t be in a later subsection. I was looking more to an exclusion under subsection 8 and I was going to suggest a subsection iii under 9(a).

As I say, I agree with the principle, but unless the minister can come up with an amendment that would be more fitting within the section I shall be forced to support this amendment. I feel much the same as the opposition on this. I feel that if we permit this to start at this stage, the next thing the farmer will have to have a registration to take his tractor or his combine over a field.

Mr. Good: Right.

Mr. Henderson: I’m not only speaking as .a farmer now, I’m speaking as a man in the city who has 100 acres of land and who wants to go out to relax on the weekends where he can have recreation.

Mr. Breithaupt: Who needs a combine?

Mr. Henderson: I’m in support of the amendment, unless the minister has a better place to put this exclusion in the Act.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, section 24(h) does give the opportunity for the exemption of vehicles from the requirements of section 2 and 8 of the Act.

Mr. Good: What about those on an Indian reserve?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We designate the classes as far as section 2 and 8 are concerned. We can determine whether they have to meet the requirements of those sections. I must confess that that amendment has got some merit, to my way of thinking.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Minister, you can operate your own car, your own automobile, from now until kingdom come on your own property --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Oh, I know.

Mr. Stokes: -- and your ministry has never been one bit concerned. There is no difference whatsoever in a motorized snow vehicle or any other kind of vehicle used exclusively on your own lands.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Some of my caucus members have spoken to me about this particular section. I think it’s correct. If you’re driving your vehicle, an automobile or truck or tractor, on your own property you’re not required to register it; you’re not even required to have a licence to operate it. I think the amendment may have some merit.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’d like to think about it for a moment. Perhaps there are some other members who wish to speak to it.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): Well, I would.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Chairman, I would like to support this amendment, because, first of all, you don’t even have to pay gasoline tax when you don’t have those plates on. I think maybe this is what the minister is trying to get at here.

Mr. Stokes: No, no.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: Let the snowmobile committee tell us the reason why then. However, I’m going to support the amendment.

Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): Mr. Chairman, I would support the amendment too. I took it for granted that this would be the case; you paid the first-time registration and after that if you used it only on your own property you were free, the same as were with a truck or a tractor.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Does the member mean that he hasn’t been registering his?

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): I want to speak on this.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Here is the great travel authority.

Mr. Drea: Have you got a wisecrack to make? Is there something the matter with you? Go ahead, make it.

Mr. Breithaupt: We just made it. That was all that was needed.

Mr. Chairman: Order, order.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: After getting the government into trouble last week, we will see what you can do this week.

Mr. Drea: I never get this government into trouble and I don’t take wisecracks from clowns. Now go ahead.

An hon. member: Why don’t we settle it outside?

Mr. Drea: It would be very unfair. You really wouldn’t want that.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out a couple of things in connection with the registration of snowmobiles on private property. First of all, there is a fundamental difference between the registration or the licensing of a car, because that licensing is to take effect because the car is only to be used on the highway. There is nobody buying a car, for practical purposes, that is not going to be used on the roadway.

Some hon. members: That’s wrong.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Ask your colleagues.

Mr. Good: All kinds of jeeps are used on private property.

Mr. Drea: How many?

Mr. Ruston: Trucks.

Mr. Drea: Yes, all right

Mr. Breithaupt: Back to Action Line with him.

Mr. Drea: Now, on the question of the snowmobile or the motorized snow vehicle, Mr. Chairman, the difference is -- and this is implicit in the original Motorized Snow Vehicles Act -- the reason that that machine was licensed even though it was going to be used on private property and even though the owner could say in good faith that he intended to use it only on private property, sooner or later it had to cross a road. I suggest to you that if you exempt the machines that are only used on private property, what happens when they want to go across a roadway, because sooner or later they will?

Mr. Stokes: They can’t do it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They can’t go across the road.

Mr. Drea: That’s right; all right, okay. If you are prepared, just so there is no misunderstanding, and you don’t come back at this government.

Mr. Breithaupt: Or your colleagues.

Mr. Drea: Oh no, my colleagues aren’t.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: You are the only one who doesn’t understand it.

Mr. Drea: Just so it is very clearly understood that if you are going to take this amendment it means --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: You are the only one who doesn’t understand it.

Mr. Drea: I understand it all too well and I’m just not going to have people say three or four months from now that they didn’t know that it means they could never go across a road.

Mr. Stokes: They know now.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is what the bill says.

Mr. Drea: Okay, if you want that; if that’s what people want, okay, but that’s what you are going to get.

Mr. Stokes: Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Mr. D. A. Evans (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Chairman, I’m going to support the amendment because I think it’s right.

Mr. Chairman: One more member would like to speak.

Mr. Eaton: I would also like to support the amendment, I think it should apply. I can liken it to what we brought up with the minister on the use of snowmobiles on Indian reserves. They are to be exempted on there. The moment they come off they have to have a licence. I think it should apply exactly the same way on the property that is privately owned. If they are going on to a neighbour’s property they’ll have to be licensed. It is exclusively for their own property.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Minister, have you anything more to say before I put the amendment?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes indeed. I certainly want to discuss this further. I accept the amendment but I want to change the wording on it

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could stand this section down and proceed, to give a chance to have the wording done so that in fact it accomplishes what the mind of the House seems to want.

Mr. Chairman: Will Section 2 carry, then?

Mr. Stokes: No.

Mr. Chairman: Except for the amendment there are no other subsections to be discussed.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I want to reword the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: We will come back to the amendment later on.

Sections 3 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 6:

Mr. Chairman: Section 6, the member for Middlesex South.

Mr. Eaton moves that subsections (5) and (6) of Section 6 be replaced by:

(5) Where the operation of a motorized snow vehicle is not prohibited on a highway under the jurisdiction of a county, district, metropolitan or regional municipality by a bylaw passed under subsection 2, the council of such a municipality may pass bylaws prohibiting the operation of motorized snow vehicles along or across such highway or part thereof.

(6) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations regulating, governing or prohibiting the operating of motorized snow vehicles upon serviced roadways in territories without municipal organizations.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to report to the House that the New Democrats are not here to participate in this very important bill. It should be shown in the record.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: You mean there is not a single NDP member present?

Mr. Breithaupt: That is an unfair comment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Henderson: It shows who is interested in the people of the province.

Mr. Breithaupt: That is an unfair comment, Mr. Chairman. I believe they are all paired as a result of their voting practices last night.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is all right. The member for High Park (Mr. Shulman) will come in and call a quorum.

Mr. Chairman: Would the member for Lambton like to speak to the amendment?

Mr. Henderson: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Okay, let’s proceed.

Mr. Henderson: I support the amendment.

Mr. Good: Perhaps the member for Middlesex South would like to speak on it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Eaton: Yes, Mr. Chairman, in bringing about this amendment I feel that we want to keep the option of what roads are used in the hands of the local municipality. In many cases, if we ban them right across the complete province, the councils may let the banning of the use of these roads stand without too much consultation. They’ve had an opportunity to ban the use of these roads and they are closed to the local people. They know what roads are busy in their local municipalities, and therefore they can ban the use of those particular roads rather than having them all banned.

In many of the small villages in my own municipality -- and there are five snowmobile clubs in there -- the only way that they can get out to the trails is to use some of the streets on the edge of the villages to get out there. If the council is going to have to pass a bylaw designating this one or that one or the other, they are going to come back and find that maybe they have missed one or two streets. This way they will be able to use the streets, but if the local municipality, under the pressure of the people there, wish to ban the use of snowmobiles on the busier streets or on some specific streets, they can do so.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, we would support this amendment. This then does the opposite of what the bill said. In other words, it makes the municipalities opt to restrict use rather to have the province say use may not be made and the municipalities have to opt to allow it. I think this is a much better procedure, in that municipalities will now be forced to act on public complaints after their own discussion. The way the bill is now worded, the impression could easily be given that the province has banned them and if the province is going to ban them in all areas, why should we open them? I think this makes much more sense, and we collectively will support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member from Simcoe East.

Mr. G. E. Smith (Simcoe East): I notice the minister, in responding to second reading, had indicated, as a result of my raising the point during debate, that the municipalities could control the usage of lakes -- frozen lakes, of course, and the inland lakes -- and also I believe the navigable waters. I think, as I said at the time of second reading, that the navigable waters certainly is a grey area -- I suppose in the winter it’s a white area -- but I do feel that --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Here comes one now.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Finally, a representative from the NDP. He knows all about farms.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Things were going so well.

Mr. G. E. Smith: I do feel that when this bill is passed there should be some input from our ministry here to the federal ministry, to try to sort out the actual jurisdiction of the navigable waters.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Minister, do you want to reply before we move on?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have had a number of members of this Legislature, from both sides, approach me and discuss basically what has been proposed in this amendment to section 6. I’ve read the amendment and I would be happy to accept the amendments as proposed for both section 6(5) and 6(6).

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Eaton moves section 6, subsection 5: “The operation of a motorized snow vehicle is not prohibited on a highway under the jurisdiction of a county, district, metropolitan or a regional municipality -- ”

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Go ahead, Bill -- Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: I wish you wouldn’t interrupt me.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Sorry. You could always report to the Speaker.

Mr. Chairman: Don’t be too sure that won’t happen.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I won’t.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Unanimous.

Mr. Chairman: “ -- may pass bylaws prohibiting the operation of motorized snowmobiles along or across such highways or part thereof.”

Subsection 6: “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations regulating, governing or prohibiting the operation of motorized snow vehicles upon serviced roads in territories without municipal organizations.”

All in favour of the amendment please say “aye.”

All those opposed please say “nay.”

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Unanimous.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment carried.

Motion agreed to.

Section 6, as amended, and section 7 agreed to.

Mr. Good: We should have last days more often.

Mr. Chairman: Does any other member have any section he wishes to discuss?

The hon. minister.

On section 8:

Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves that section 8(1)(b) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(b) He holds a driver’s licence, or

“(c) He holds a motorized snow vehicle operator’s licence, or

“(d) He is a resident of any other province, country or state and holds a licence issued by such province, country or state which authorizes him to drive a motorized snow vehicle.”

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Really all this does is to classify them a little more clearly in the wording.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Wait until you see the kind they have in Kwangtung in China.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of the minister’s amendment, please say “aye.” All those opposed please say “nay.”

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Unanimous.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment carried.

Section 8, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, I presume there is no problem by referring only to “he,” that it would also apply to the feminine sex.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Heavens, no. I would be happy to put in the word if necessary.

Mr. Chairman: Any other section of the bill?

Mr. Ruston: Section 14.

Mr. Chairman: Anything before section 14?

Sections 9 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to propose an amendment.

On section 14:

Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves that section 14(1) of the bill be amended by inserting at the commencement thereof: “subject to subsection 2(a),” and further that section 14 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection thereto:

“(2a) A person shall not be required to carry his driver’s licence or motorized snow vehicle operator’s licence with him while operating a motorized snow vehicle on land owned or occupied by him.”

Mr. Ruston: You stole my amendment.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We talked about it, you know.

Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, the amendment says he doesn’t have to carry it. But does it stop there? Does he have to produce one later?

Mr. Good: Yes, but that --

Mr. Henderson: I think it should be clear --

Mr. Good: That’s not accepting that other principle.

Mr. Chairman: This is what the amendment says: “A person shall not be required to carry his driver’s licence or motorized snow vehicle operator’s licence ... ”

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No, that is different; the other is registration.

Mr. Henderson: No, this is the licence on your own property, is it not, Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It is the operator’s permit. What we are saying in the amendment is that he is not required to have on his person the driver’s licence or a motorized snow vehicle operator’s licence when he is running the vehicle on his own property.

Mr. Good: Does the Act still say he has to have one?

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, does that not mean that the person still is required to have that qualification? In other words, a person must have a licence even though he may not require it with him. Am I incorrect on this?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It is not the intent that he should be required to have that. If he is running the vehicle on his own property, he is not required to carry any type of licence with him, nor would he be required anywhere in the Act to produce it at a later time. He doesn’t have to have one.

Mr. Henderson: Agreed.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): Mr. Chairman, I’d like this clarified further. Last winter I had the case of a chap who was charged with being impaired while driving an automobile. He was later picked up for driving a snowmobile while he was impaired. He lost his licence for a period of time. But, according to the people in your department, the courts had no right to take it for the operation of a snowmobile. Would you be able to clarify that as to whether this is a fact or not? In other words, if he has not got a licence he can’t be charged with impaired driving of a snowmobile, can he?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that if the Criminal Code refers to the operation of a motor vehicle, and if the code defines a snowmobile as a motor vehicle, I guess he is subject to the conditions of the Criminal Code. But it is not considered a motor vehicle in the Highway Traffic Act.

Mr. Worton: Are you doing that now?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: At the present time snow machines are not considered motor vehicles within the definition of the Highway Traffic Act.

Mr. Ruston: They are in the Criminal Code.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: In the Criminal Code they may be, I don’t know. If they are, then you can get picked up for drunk driving.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Chairman, I want to enlarge on this, and I have an amendment in the same place, but I realize now I didn’t get what I wanted in that. I think that should have been in section 8 if the minister is saying what he is saying. You see what we are saying here is “he shall carry his driver’s licence unless he is on his own land.” My intention would be that it is not necessary for him to have a driver’s licence, so we should have had, probably in section 8, an added subsection 4 to say: “This section shall not apply when a person is operating their snow vehicle on land owned and occupied by themselves.”

An hon. member: By the operator.

Mr. Ruston: By the operator.

Mr. Chairman: That section has been carried.

Mr. Ruston: I think there was some confusion here as to the interpretation of what the minister is saying. In his amendment it says one does not have to carry his licence with him if he is on his own land; but that doesn’t say that he doesn’t have to have a licence. So the police could come in and ask him for a licence. If he doesn’t have it, I suppose they could say he must show it within 24 hours.

The Provincial Secretary for Resources Development kind of scowls, but that certainly is not the way I read it. I am not a lawyer but I --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Have you got a QC?

Mr. Ruston: Have I got my QC?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes.

Mr. Ruston: No, but some who have them don’t use them right.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Neither have I, so let’s both stay out of it.

Mr. Chairman: Does the member for Lambton want to say something in this area?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am a little concerned, but I am going to accept the minister’s word that a person driving a Ski-Doo or snowmobile on their own property is not required to have a driver’s licence.

An hon. member: Right.

Mr. Henderson: That’s what I accept from the minister’s interpretation of this.

I would like to go a step further, Mr. Minister. We do have problems in the rural areas that when a farmer loses his driver’s licence for a period of time, under the Criminal Code he is not allowed to drive the farm tractor or combine on a highway, but he can drive it on the farm property. I take the same interpretation from this, that no licence is required on your own property.

Mr. Chairman: Is it your pleasure that I read the amendment again or take it as read?

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Chairman, just on that point; I didn’t understand the minister in that fashion. The construction the member for Lambton has put on this amendment is somewhat different than I had understood when the minister initially announced it.

The construction that the member for Lambton has put on it is that if a person is driving on his own property he doesn’t need a driver’s licence at all. The construction that I had put on the amendment, when the minister introduced it, was that he still had to be the holder of a driver’s licence, but he didn’t necessarily have to have it on his person. Now may I have some clarification of that point, because there’s quite a difference?

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It seems to me that if you don’t have to carry something, then you obviously aren’t required to produce it while you are driving the vehicle on your own property.

Mr. Gaunt: No, no.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That’s your interpretation of it; there’s nothing in the Act that requires you to produce the driver’s licence at a later date.

Mr. Ruston: Section 14(2).

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Section 14(2) says “every person who is unable or refuses to produce his licence in accordance with subsection 1.”

Mr. Ruston: Yes, that’s the trouble. I’ll ask my learned friend from Kitchener --

Mr. Breithaupt: I would raise the same point that the member for Huron-Bruce has raised. It would have been my presumption that a licence was not required, under our present attitude, for a person driving a vehicle such as this on his own property. However, now that you are saying that a licence need not be produced, the presumption seems to stand in my mind that a person has to have a licence, but simply does not have to have that licence on his person, with him at the time; and therefore I think the matter is somewhat open to question.

I think the member for Lambton has raised a good point. The understanding I drew from the minister’s comments was quite different than the minister appears to have intended.

Mr. Eaton: I would tend to agree with what has been said, Mr. Chairman, and would suggest this should be the same as the licence for the vehicle itself. A licence for the vehicle itself or a driver’s licence should not be required on your own property.

Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I think maybe I’ve got it clarified in my mind now. Section 8 is the section that tells you where you are required to have the licence. That section says: “No person shall drive a motorized snow vehicle along a highway unless he has attained the full age of 16 years,” and so forth, “across a highway or on a public trail.” Those are the only places where you are required to have such a licence. It doesn’t say anything about having to have it on your own land or anywhere else.

Mr. Gaunt: Okay.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Okay? Section 14 is identification.

Mr. Gaunt: Yes, the interpretation is right.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: They’re right.

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

All those opposed please say “nay.”

Motion agreed to.

I declare the amendment carried.

Section 14, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Anything before 17?

Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, I am concerned --

Mr. Chairman: What section of the bill are you speaking on?

Mr. Henderson: I’m concerned with section 16 and its reference to a tow bar, which appears to apply to the overall bill.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I think maybe I’ve got it clarified in my mind now.

Section 15 agreed to.

On section 16:

Mr. Henderson: It excludes a tow bar where a machine has broken down and they have to pull it out of a ditch. I think there should be some exclusions where a machine breaks down back in the bush in an emergency situation and they have to use a rope. I think there should be an additional amendment here, Mr. Chairman, and I don’t have it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, remember again now that this only applies to the serviced roadway or highway. It doesn’t apply to towing it out of the bush. It is saying that you can’t tow them with a rope along the highway.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: Or a public trail.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Or public trails either. There’s really nothing wrong and I don’t see any need that we should have to provide that they can tow them. If we don’t want them towed, whether they’re broken down or not there are other methods of moving them. In fact, most of them are kind of semi-double-decked to be taken if they’re out of commission. I’m a little concerned about allowing the towing of these things. It’s a dangerous practice along the roadways in particular.

Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister to consider an addition to subsection 3 in 16, whereby -- and I don’t have the wording of it, I’m sorry -- a machine that’s broken down could be towed with a rope out to the closest roadway.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, he can do that now.

Mr. Henderson: Well, maybe I haven’t given it the proper interpretation. I’m thinking of unopened road allowances where it would be illegal in parkland. And you say it only applies to roadways?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Roads or public trails.

Mr. Henderson: I’m a little concerned yet, Mr. Minister. We lack something there in that section.

Mr. Ruston: Well, I have a recommendation here. Maybe you could change the section to read: “This section does not apply to a person while he is driving a motorized snow vehicle for the sole purpose of unditching a stuck vehicle or conveyance or when operating trail maintenance equipment or under emergency rescue situations.” I don’t know, maybe that’s more complicated than the minister would accept.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Does anyone else want to comment on that? I think it’s a delightful amendment.

Mr. Good: It ought to be on the association records.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I have got it right here.

Mr. Chairman: You’ve all heard the amendment proposed by Mr. Ruston.

All those in favour please say “aye.”

All those opposed please say “nay.”

I declare the amendment carried.

Motion agreed to.

Section 16, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any other section?

On section 17:

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Section 17, Mr. Chairman, I would move that section 17 of the bill be amended by inserting after “vehicle,” in the fourth line, the words “on a serviced roadway or public trail.” What we are doing, Mr. Chairman, is simply to say that the requirement of wearing a helmet can only be on the public roadway or on a public trail.

Mr. Chairman: Is the amendment carried?

Mr. Eaton: I would like to make one comment on that. I don’t know what you consider a public trail, whether it is one that is open to everyone in the public or to a snowmobile club. Some of the clubs have their own trails and I would think it would be well to legislate, and I know the clubs support the idea, the need to have helmets on the private trails of those clubs.

Mr. Ruston: It is in the definitions.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest there is nothing to prevent people from wearing helmets if they wish to wear them. We are simply not going to force them to wear them in areas other than on public trails and the highways. If they wish to run on their own property and private property without helmets then I suppose that is up to them, but they certainly have every right to wear them and we would encourage them to wear them as much as possible.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Simcoe East.

Mr. G. E. Smith: Could I ascertain from the minister, Mr. Chairman, whether this would apply to a lake in a municipality -- a public lake, public property, really? I think it should.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: A lake is not considered a highway as far as the definition in the Act is concerned. That would be something that the municipality which has a lake and over which it has control could legislate itself.

Mr. Eaton: Mr. Chairman, I would still like to refer to that because the reference here is to trails supported “in whole or in part by public funds.” Now the snowmobile clubs have their own trails.

An hon. member: They get the grants.

Mr. Eaton: They may not necessarily get grants. They really don’t want the grants the way it is set up now, because that is going to mean that anybody can come out and go on their trails, and yet those clubs have backed the use of the helmets and I think they should be mandatory on those types of trails as well.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to start putting legislation in to require helmets on these private trails. I suggest that these are private trails, as they don’t come under the definition of a public trail or highway within the Act, and, if the clubs which operate these trails want their members to wear helmets, then they can make it a club regulation and kick them out if they don’t, but I am not going to put it in the legislation.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the minister’s amendment form part of the bill?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 17 carry?

Section 17 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Anything before section 22? The minister has an amendment on section 22.

Section 18 agreed to.

On section 19:

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Chairman, I do want to commend the minister for section 19. I think it is excellent legislation and I think it is something that every property owner, and certainly every farmer in the Province of Ontario is glad to see and we are all grateful for it. Thank you very much, sir.

Sections 19 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: On section 22. The minister.

On section 22:

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I hope you will accept this with as much grace --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Oh, here it comes.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, it is actually a good one.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves that section 22 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection, subsection 6: “No action or prosecution for a contravention of subsection 1 shall be commenced except at the request of the owner or occupier of the land or his authorized agent.”

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think, Mr. Chairman, that removes the fears that some members have placed before me that it would simply be open season on anyone who was on private land if enforcement officers could go on to any private land and enforce the requirements of this Act. It can only be done under this section upon complaint.

Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, might I request a further clarification from the minister? I myself have a property a mile away from home which is used by snowmobilers all winter when there is snow. Now with this amendment, can the people continue to use that property and not need my consent?

An hon. member: If a charge isn’t laid.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That is correct. If you do not wish to complain to the police or the enforcement agency, or if there is no one to lay a complaint -- the owner, or the occupier, or the authorized agent -- then there is no reason for a charge to be laid.

Mr. Henderson: So this means that it is not compulsory for a snowmobiler to go to the property owner to clear himself to go across open lands in this province?

Mr. Gaunt: No, but he would be smart to do it.

Mr. Henderson: Well he might be, but it does clear the situation. He might be wise, yes, I wouldn’t argue. But it clears it in my mind and I support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the minister’s amendment to section 22 form part of the bill?

Motion agreed to.

Section 22, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any other sections before 27?

Section 23 agreed to.

On section 24:

Ms. Ruston: Section 24, Mr. Chairman, I am a little concerned about this. I don’t recall that we actually had this in our snowmobile report. It is “requiring, prohibiting or regulating the use of any equipment or ornamental device, accessories,” and so forth.

I’m just wondering, when the federal government lays down the standards of a machine, whether we should actually get involved in it, because I think it could be very complicated for the manufacturers who sell them in all parts of Canada. I don’t think we really intended this. Maybe this is something that we may have mentioned in our report, but I don’t think we actually recommended that we have the province set up regulations controlling accessories and components on any motorized snow vehicle.

I’m concerned about the problems that the manufacturers would face in different provinces if we start setting this up. I think it should be left in the hands of the federal government, because it would be very difficult to police it. Imports and all such things come under the regulations of the federal government. I just wanted to comment on that.

I have an amendment to have that section 24(1)(b) deleted. I don’t think we should have it in there but I would like to have your comments before I place the motion. Or I’ll make the motion, Mr. Minister, then I’ll try to put my point across a little more clearly.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ruston moves that section 24(1)(b) be deleted.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Minister, section 18 of this Act and subsection 15(2) of this Act require a motorized snow vehicle to conform to federal law and to be maintained in its original form during use. The regulations of the vehicle equipment, etc., should remain the responsibility of the federal government. If each province designed its own motorized snow vehicle, the cost of such units would skyrocket. Competition between many manufacturers based on uniform standards provides buyers with the lowest prices for the safety features of machines. What I’m getting at is that we might put something in the regulations that could make it rather complicated to import machines or manufacture them in other provinces.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, we recognize that the federal government covers the basic machine and the design of that machine in terms of the safety features on it. What our concern is -- and I think we should leave this in the Act -- is that someone can come along and put any sort of ornamental attachment they want on a snow machine. It could prove to be very dangerous -- dangerous to themselves and dangerous to other persons who may be using the trails or roadways -- so we feel we have to be in a position to be able to prohibit this sort of thing being added to the machine, over and above the requirements that have been set out in the federal legislation.

Mr. Ruston: Okay, Mr. Chairman, I think I’ll withdraw that amendment then. I may have been reading more into it than what’s really in it. The minister explained it okay.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other amendments or do any members wish to comment?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to section 26.

Sections 24 and 25 agreed to.

On section 26:

Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves that subsection 1 of section 26 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor: This Act, except subsection 7 of section 2; subsections 5 and 6 of section 6; clause c of subsection 1 and subsection 2 and 3 of section 8 and section 9, comes into force on the day it receives royal assent.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes further moves that subsection 3 of the said section 26 be amended by inserting after “section 6” in the first line, “clause c of subsection 1 and”.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Chairman, did the minister mention subsection 2? Should it not be removed? Was it removed? Subsection 2 of this section should be removed.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Ruston: Yes, but with the amendment from the member for Middlesex South, I felt that since subsection 2 -- I had an amendment to change subsection 2 to read Sept. 1, 1975, but that is out of the window now that we have a complete new subsection. I feel this should be taken right out.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, that’s correct. With the amendment that was placed to section 6(5) and (6), this is not required at all.

Mr. Henderson: You don’t want it? It is effective now?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It is effective now.

Mr. Chairman: Just a minute, until we get this one straight. You had better strike out what you want to strike out of your amendment.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, I think it is all right.

Mr. Chairman: It is okay the way it is?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes.

Mr. Henderson: Well, is that definite that subsection 2 is out, Mr. Chairman? I want to make sure of that.

Mr. Chairman: I better read this so I’m sure you understand it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes has moved that subsection 1 of section 26 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

This Act, except subsection 7 of section 2; subsections 5 and 6 of section 6; clause c of subsection 1 and subsections 2 and 3 of sections 8 and 9, comes into force on the day it receives royal assent. Hon. Mr. Rhodes moved that subsection 3 of the said section 26 be amended by inserting after section 6 “in the first line,” clause c of subsection 1 and”.

Mr. Eaton: Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, wouldn’t subsection 5 and 6 of section 6 now go ahead as they are and not be left out at this time?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Hold that for just a second. I want to go back to the section that we had set aside for new wording on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, the amendment to section 4, subsection 2.

Mr. Ruston: Section 2, subsection 4.

Mr. Chairman: I can only read what is before me.

Mr. Henderson: The member for Essex-Kent, Mr. Chairman, was speaking on clause k of subsection 1 originally. That was the one that was laid over.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, I think the one we are talking about was section 3.

Mr. Chairman: No subsection 2 of section 4, is that right?

Mr. Ruston: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: So we can take section 2(1). I’d like to add after “subsection 3,” the words “or except on land occupied by the owner of the motorized snow vehicle.” That will take care of the amendment as suggested.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If you say so.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: What seems to be the problem? Just wait a second and we will get it all straightened out.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Who’s on first?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, before we go on with that I would like to clarify that section 26.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves that subsection 1 of section 26 be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

This Act, except subsection 7 of section 2, clause (c) of subsection 1 and subsections 2 and 3 of sections 8 and 9, comes into force on the day it receives royal assent. Hon. Mr. Rhodes further moves that subsection 2 of the said section 26 of the bill be struck out.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes further moves that subsection 3 of the said section 26 be amended by striking out “subsection 6 of section 6” in the first line and inserting in lieu thereof “clause c of subsection 1 and”.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think that clears it up.

Mr. Chairman: You heard the minister’s amendment. Shall it form part of the bill?

Motion agreed to.

Section 26, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: We have to go back to section 2.

Mr. Ruston: Subsection 4.

Mr. Good: Just a minute, he is getting an amendment.

Mr. Breithaupt: Things go so smoothly when there are no lawyers in the House.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): You said it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves that section 2(1) be amended by adding after the words “subsection 3” in line 6: “or except on land occupied by the owner of the motorized snow vehicle.”

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think, Mr. Chairman, that is the place for the amendment that will meet the requirements which the member for Essex-Kent had proposed earlier.

Mr. Chairman: Carried.

Motion agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the bill be reported as amended?

Bill 161, as amended, reported.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report one bill with certain amendments, and ask for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 161, the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, 1974.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the members of the House that I have called for the Lieutenant Governor and Her Honour is waiting to give royal assent in the chamber.

ROYAL ASSENT

Hon. Pauline M. McGibbon (Lieutenant Governor): Pray be seated.

Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the legislative assembly of the province has, at its present sittings thereof, passed certain bills to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said legislative assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour’s assent

The Clerk Assistant: The following are the titles of the bills to which Your Honour’s assent is prayed:

Bill 72, The Education Act, 1974.

Bill 81, The Provincial Parks Municipal Tax Assistance Act, 1974.

Bill 113, An Act to amend the Municipal Affairs Act.

Bill 134, The Employment Standards Act, 1974.

Bill 161, The Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, 1974.

Bill 164, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Bill 165, An Act to regulate the Business of selling and dealing in Travel Services.

Bill 170, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Bill 173, The Regional Municipalities Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 174, An Act to amend the County of Oxford Act, 1974.

Bill 175, An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act.

Bill 180, An Act to establish the Ministry of Culture and Recreation.

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty’s name, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to these bills.

Hon. Pauline M. McGibbon: With permission of the House, before I leave, may I wish you all a very happy holiday season.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until a date to be named by the Lieutenant Governor by her proclamation.

The House adjourned at 3:45 o’clock p.m.s