The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. L. M. Reilly (Eglinton): Mr. Speaker, before beginning proceedings I thought you might like to know we have a distinguished visitor today from Haiti, the Secretary of State for Trade and Commerce, the Hon. Francois Murat. I thought you and the members would like to welcome him.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

PICKERING AIRPORT

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, as the members of the House know, I had given a commitment to present to the Legislature copies of letters; first the copy of a letter that bad been sent to the Premier (Mr. Davis) from the Hon. Jean Marchand, the Minister of Transport for Canada, and as well a copy of the letter that has been sent by myself on behalf of the government of Ontario to Mr. Marchand in response.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that both letters should be read into the record and I would like to do so at this time. First of all, Mr. Speaker, the letter, dated June 12, addressed to the Hon. William Davis, Premier of Ontario:

“It is obvious, Mr. Premier, that governments have some critical but difficult decisions to make. These relate to the provision of foreseeable essential services and to influence growth so that it does not concentrate in a very few metropolitan regions of Canada. It is for this reason that the Prime Minister wrote to you on Jan. 31, 1975, inviting your government to engage in discussions with my colleagues, Messrs. Andras, Danson and Mrs. Sauve, relating to desirable demographic objectives, a more balanced pattern of growth, a Canadian urban strategy and land use. These discussions can assist all governments in influencing the nature of this growth and its better distribution.

“It is with this in mind that I write this letter. I believe the decision of the federal government for a minimum international airport at this time allows us to provide the essential minimum services in the Toronto-centred region for the more immediate future. It further keeps options open to influence and adapt to changes in trends or to provide increased services when required.

“The views of your government on these matters will have a most important influence on the manner and degree in which we move in the future to achieve mutually agreed upon urban demographic and land use objectives. I hope, therefore, that you agree that this approach of our governments gives the maximum degree of flexibility under the circumstances.

“In this light, I am sure that we both found our discussions when we met on Tuesday, May 27, constructive. It is this kind of frank exchange of views that has enabled our two governments to co-operate so successfully on airport developments in the past.

“At our meeting you advised my colleagues and myself of your concerns relating to the minimum international airport as announced. You conveyed your feeling that the minimum airport, without guarantees of further development, represented an insufficiently secure basis for Ontario to take the kind of infrastructural investment decisions that will be required.

“In response to these concerns I should like to summarize the position as I see it:

“1. Pickering airport will be the site at which we will accommodate all additional facilities to provide for future growth in major air carrier activity in the Toronto region. Malton airport will not be expanded beyond the programme I announced in February to accommodate traffic until Pickering will be ready in 1979.

“2. Accordingly, we are finalizing the acquisition of the site, which equals the operational areas of the largest airports in the world, including Mirabel. We are currently finalizing the plan for the possible development of all these lands for appropriate airport uses.

“3. When the facilities I announced on Feb. 20, 1975, have been completed, the federal government will have invested well in excess of $200 million in the Pickering site. This is clearly a very major and permanent commitment. All of the committed facilities will be of permanent construction.

“4. The runway will be longer than any at Malton and will be provided with the full range of navigational aids.

“5. (a) The passenger terminal will be a permanent building costing some $30 million, designed to handle approximately 1.5 million passengers per annum, conveniently and comfortably.

“(b) We will develop this terminal in close proximity to the cargo and maintenance areas to ensure that capital and operating costs in the buildings and infrastructure are held to the minimum appropriate to the anticipated level of activity in this initial period.

“(c) By assigning 14 million international passengers to Pickering in 1979, Malton airport will be relieved of serious congestion and noise disturbance will be reduced.

“(d) As you know from the conclusions of the Gibson commission, based on all of the evidence, even the enlarged facilities at Malton airport will become congested again in 1981.

“(e) We are therefore actively engaged in planning for a possible subsequent phase of development for implementation by 1981 to meet the expected peak when further traffic would, according to current forecasts, have to be assigned to Pickering from Malton.

“(f) We are also planning for the major growth in air cargo which is forecast. The next major terminal could be large enough to permit consolidation of passenger activities and hence release the initial terminal for conversion to cargo to accommodate the major growth. We are satisfied this building will be appropriately used and will require the same level of infrastructure if converted.

“6. Accordingly, we consider that commitments to infrastructure should be made now to support this major initial development. Further, we must actively continue jointly to plan the infrastructure to support an anticipated subsequent major phase. As the Prime Minister stated, we shall undertake a formal review of the desirability and the need for a subsequent major phase. Should such additional facilities be needed by 1981, planning for them must be completed by early 1977. Related infrastructural commitments will be required by that time.

“7. We are committed to meeting our obligations under the Annex of Understanding, in terms of proceeding with the development in a co-ordinated way of sharing costs for infrastructure that your government undertook to provide, and in terms also of accepting financial responsibility arising from existing land uses that are incompatible with provincial and municipal land use controls related to airport operations.

“8. We look to Ontario similarly meeting its obligations:

(a) in terms of providing access and other infrastructure for:

“(1) the initial phase in accordance with the plans that have been prepared by the appropriate joint committees over the last several years, and

“(2) an ensuing major phase to be available in 1981, the exact timing and need to be determined in 1977.

“(b) in completing the programme of long-term protection by zoning the lands that might be affected by the possible ultimate airport development as described in the final plan which has been provided to the Minister of Housing for Ontario (Mr. Irvine). I understand that work is well advanced in this connection.

“The Prime Minister has recently established a small committee of ministers, of which I am the chairman, to consider all matters relating to the development of the new Toronto International Airport at Pickering.

“We of this committee wish to meet with you and those of your colleagues to whom you may be delegating ongoing responsibilities, to discuss the specific commitments stemming from our respective obligations and to co-ordinate ongoing arrangements for their realization.”

That’s signed by the Hon. Jean Marchand.

Mr. Speaker, I would like now to read into the record and to table with the House the reply to that letter, dated this date and addressed to the Hon. Jean Marchand:

“The Premier has asked me, on behalf of the government of Ontario, to respond to your letter of June 12, 1975, in which you outline federal government plans for the proposed Pickering airport.

“Let me, initially, extend to you our thanks for the detailed and explicit manner in which you have set forth the decisions and plans that have been developed by your government for this major transportation facility. It has certainly given us a clearer understanding than has been available heretofore of the ultimate prospects you hold for the Pickering facility.

“For our part, I must stress that we agree with a number of the basic assertions and assumptions set out in your letter. There is no question, for example, that decisions related to any major transportation terminal in Canada must be related to our attempts to formulate desirable demographic objectives, to achieve a more balanced pattern of growth and to move toward more effective urban development and general land use. Further, we accept the fact that, under the Canadian Constitution, a decision regarding the location of a major international airport rests clearly with the federal government. Finally, it is clear and acceptable to Ontario that effective co-ordination and co-operation, in this instance as it relates to the required infrastructure for the proposed airport, must be shown by the province.

“It is also clear, however, that if effective government is to be maintained in this country, each level of government must be left to determine its own basic priorities. Hopefully, these priorities need not be disparate or in conflict. Indeed, in this particular instance, I would hope that much common ground can be found as a basis of future action.

“Nevertheless, I must stress that, at this time, the Province of Ontario finds it difficult, if not impossible, to proceed with the relatively large dollar outlay that will be required for the infrastructure for the Pickering airport. Given the serious problems that we face with inflation and the particular demands that are currently being placed on the province in areas such as housing, energy, health and education, we do not feel that it is realistic to consider the early diversion of funds to a project of this type.

“In your letter to the Premier, you asked if he and other members of our government might meet with the committee to which the Prime Minister of Canada has named you as chairman, to discuss our ongoing responsibilities, commitments and obligations. Mr. Davis has named me to head the Ontario group that will meet your request, and we are anxious to have such a meeting as soon as possible. At that time we shall be pleased to outline to you, in greater detail, the point of view expressed in this letter. Until such a meeting is held, we trust that no start will be made on construction.

“I shall await your response as to the arrangements you propose for the requested meeting.”

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): It has been a long, long rime.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Lewis: Where is the member for Armourdale (Mr. Carton)? It took a long time to get that from the government -- three years.

PICKERING AIRPORT

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the minister who has just made this important statement. Because of the enthusiastic acceptance of the concept of the airport three years ago and the statements made by the present Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) at that time, can the minister make it clear that the same concepts, let’s say, are not going to permit additional growth at Malton where the problems with international aircraft transportation have been such a burden on that community?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I think we have made it clear in the past and will continue to do so that we do not in any way support any expansion of facilities at Malton as it now exists. We have said that very clearly and we don’t intend to change our position.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Since the letters the minister has read into the record have indicated clearly that the rate of growth of airport utilization -- while there is nothing definite about this -- is going to be substantial, how would the Minister of Transportation and Communications explain to the people of Malton that the statement of policy having to do with Pickering is going to mean there is no further growth at Malton? Is this a statement of a policy which will not be permitted under the planning regulations of this government?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I think the contents of both letters -- certainly the letter from Mr. Marchand -- indicates what they are anticipating in the way of growth at Malton in the number of passengers; they are accordingly developing the terminal facilities to handle that.

They have indicated, as I understand it -- and I have no intention of getting into a technical argument with the Ministry of Transport -- that there is sufficient facility there now, as far as runways are concerned, to handle the anticipated growth.

We have indicated very clearly that we do not support at all any expansion of the facilities at Malton. There are a number of things which can be done, we feel, in discussions with the airlines now using those facilities, to enable Malton to serve the needs of this province and this particular area for a number of years to come with its present facilities.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: How many years?

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary.

Hon. J. White (Minister without Portfolio): What’s the Liberal policy?

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): If it’s not obvious to the minister, it should be.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): What policy?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Roy: Our policy is clear.

Mr. Lewis: This is called government by reversal these days.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary, the member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: Is the minister willing to pass now the required provincial anti-noise regulations which would govern Malton immediately and in the near future, to bring the noise levels down -- we know, technologically, it is possible now -- in order to prevent the federal government from any further extravaganzas?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think I should say whether we are prepared to pass such regulations at this time. I will say, though, to the hon. member that his point in the technical capability to reduce noise factors is certainly well-known. In fact, the federal government has been distributing a pamphlet in Vancouver telling the good people out there how they will do it. So we are sure they can do it in Toronto.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right. Why not pass the regulations here?

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): That was a great plan.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That is a matter for discussion.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): We can’t.

Mr. Lewis: Of course we can.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions? A supplementary, the member for York North.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): I’d like to put a supplementary to the minister with regard to the area I represent. He has spoken about future meetings with the federal Ministry of Transport. As far as the region of York is concerned and the town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, can I have assurance from the minister that they will be included in any planning of services to be provided to Pickering airport and that the town of Whitchurch-Stouffville or the surrounding townships -- which I don’t have the pleasure of representing -- also the region of York, will not have additional costs as far as providing services for Pickering airport are concerned -- if and when it goes? Will they be included in any planning which goes on in the area?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I think as far as my ministry is concerned -- and I would suggest it would certainly apply to others which will be involved -- we would certainly discuss any facilities that we would be developing in that area with the municipal governments. For that matter, we go into public participation and allow the citizens of the area, individually or as groups, to make representations and take part in that planning.

As far as costs are concerned, should any type of infrastructure be required in the future then, of course, we would want to negotiate a sharing of these costs with the other level of government. So, hopefully, there would be no costs directly to the municipality.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to put a question on the same subject to the minister. The announcement of a postponement really means that we are foregoing the expenditure of how much money for infrastructure? I was interested to read that the minister indicated a ball park figure might be $50 million. What sort of savings, which is the basis for today’s announcement, are we going to accomplish over the next two years in this regard?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I would hesitate to say over the next two years. Let me say that from my ministry’s point of view -- and there are other ministries that would be involved in certain costs -- between $80 million and $100 million would be required for the ground transportation facilities to serve the airport as it is planned by the federal government. That does not include the possibility of urban transit systems. That is simply the highways and the land acquisitions and what have you. So it could be between 80 million and $100 million for the full airport facility to be served.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Milk and water.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? Supplementary question; the member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: Can I understand a little more the import of the minister’s statement? Is the minister attempting to convey opposition to a second international airport? Suppose the federal government said to him, “We will go ahead with the servicing; we will assume those costs”? Would the minister permit the airport to proceed, or is he simply assuming that, not willing to provide the services himself, it will come to a dead halt?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I think I should hopefully make this very clear that we have said, and we say it continually and will continue to say, that the federal government has the constitutional authority and responsibility for the establishment of an airport.

Mr. Cassidy: Oh, come on.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: If the federal government came along and said they were going to put all of those things in, I don’t know whether we are in a position to prevent it. We would like to look into that matter if it should arise. What we are saying at this time is that we are not prepared to commit provincial funds to that extent to provide the services that are expected for that.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): At that time.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Would the minister consult with his colleague, the Minister of Housing, to now lift a freeze on noise land affected by airport zoning, which was put on by the present Treasurer on March 2, 1972?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I would suggest that the hon. member can urge the Minister of Housing by himself. He is here and I am sure he is willing to listen to the member’s pleas.

Mr. Lewis: But can he answer? Can he answer without the minister’s help?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister explain why it is that the province will leave this decision to the federal government, when it is the Province of Ontario which is responsible for the land-use planning across Ontario and for the location of industry and jobs, and that kind of thing? How can the minister somehow ignore the location of an airport which is going to involve so much transportation, so many jobs, so many other things that have got such an impact on the economy of the province? How can the minister abandon the responsibility there if he has these other responsibilities?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I don’t believe we are abandoning our responsibility at all. I am simply --

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): He’d better look into that question.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I say to the members very simply that at this point in time this government is saying -- and saying it very clearly, I think, in this letter -- that it is not going to commit provincial funds to that amount at this time to service any airport anywhere.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister is copping out whether he wants it or not.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary; the member for Downsview.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Can I ask of the minister -- again, in an effort to understand the reason why -- is there anything in his letter of reply that tells the federal government that he doesn’t want them to go ahead, or that precludes Ontario, after 1977, from investing in the support services if it desires to do so? Either one of those.

Is there anything that says to Ottawa, “No, we don’t want you to go ahead;” or is there anything that says, “We are precluding ourselves after 1977 from building the support services?

Mr. Renwick: No, there isn’t. Of course not.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think the answer to both questions is simply no.

Mrs. Campbell: Specious.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Leader of the Opposition have any further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If I might ask, then, either a new question or a supplementary. The only justification for the reversal of the policy of the government, which I think was best exemplified by the Treasurer, who was quoted in the Toronto Star of May 26 -- “McKeough: Stop Fiddle-Faddle So We Can Start On New Airport” -- the only difference is that the government can’t afford the $80 million --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Did he say “fiddle-faddle” or “fuddle-duddle”?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What is the difference between “fiddle-faddle” and “fuddle-duddle”? Is one of them more fun than the other? Which is more fun?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, in response to the questions of the Leader of the Opposition, I would say that he should just look behind him; he has examples of both.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Because of the usefulness and the interjection of the fiddle-faddler, can the minister then say that the decision in this letter, which is really a very careful circumlocution that commits the government to nothing more than a postponement, is only on the basis of the money involved, which certainly wasn’t bothering the Treasurer in his previous incarnation in that office?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, in the response I have already sent to Mr. Marchand we said we will not commit any funds at this time; that is our position.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But the government is not against the airport?

Mr. Deacon: Maybe in 1976 it will support it again.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary. The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: I know the minister inherited this mess -- I understand that, it fell in his lap -- but doesn’t the minister think that the people in North Pickering, all of the citizens’ groups and councils of various municipalities who have waged such a heroic battle against the airport for so long, deserve something more definite from the minister than yet another announcement to take them through the election period, which is what the minister is engaged in today? Doesn’t the minister think they deserve something more than that?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, as I said in the closing portion of the letter to Mr. Marchand -- Mr. Marchand has invited us to sit down and discuss a number of matters as they relate to that airport -- in fairness to all of us in this House, I think I should go and sit down to hear what he and Mr. Danson and others who are on that committee with him have got to say.

Mr. Singer: All those nice fellows.

Mr. Lewis: This is called bad-faith bargaining. This government doesn’t intend to go ahead -- or does it intend to go ahead?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I intend to go ahead with the meeting with Mr. Marchand.

Mr. Lewis: When? In October?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Another election gimmick.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I have also suggested to Mr. Marchand that nothing be done in the meantime.

Mr. Lewis: This is going to catch up with this government.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition have any further questions?

REMOVAL OF SALES TAX FROM AUTOMOBILES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Treasurer if I may. Is the Treasurer contemplating some special action to assist those people engaged in the marketing of imported cars -- evidently 6,000 are employed in this business in the Province of Ontario -- who have found, as a result of the removal of the sales tax from cars manufactured in North America, that their business has disappeared for this period of six months? Is there some procedure whereby he can be of some assistance to them or are they I just out of luck because of the political approach the Treasurer has taken in this particular important matter?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I meeting with the association of imported car dealers this afternoon but --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Treasurer is just a sort of innocent bystander. Is that it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, I think the concern on this side is for Canadian workers and we make no apology for that -- none whatsoever.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Any further questions?

Mr. Roy: A supplementary. In view of the Treasurer’s answer that his government’s concern is for Canadian workers, how does he explain having set the standard at 460 cu in., when in fact the majority of these cars sold here are made in the United States? How is that Consistent with his concern for Canadian workers?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s so the Treasurer could buy a sedan,

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s a reasonable question.

Mr. Roy: What an arrogant fuddle-duddle.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Leader of the opposition have any further questions?

Mr. Roy: No answer on that, eh?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Snow), said, “Have they never heard of the auto pact?” I don’t know whether they have or not. We would be glad to take them through it some time or another. But I say to my friends over there, for once in their life they should stand up for Canada and for Ontario.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Did the minister say he was prepared to meet with these people, at least, so that they can convey to him the problems that they’re going to face because of the decision taken by the Treasurer? And what can he do to assist them? Just tell them to stand up for Canada -- is that what he’s going to tell them?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, I might suggest that they go down and see the member’s friends in Ottawa, who are wrecking Canadian industry right across this country.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Now that we’ve got it settled that it’s Ottawa that’s responsible for this, we’ll go on to something else.

WHITE-TAILED DEER

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I suppose we’ll have to put the question to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, because the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) is away again today.

Mr. J. H. Jessiman (Fort William): So is the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent).

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Has the minister received the briefs from the people in the Algonquin Park area who are very much concerned about the white-tailed deer population? They say that the management procedures are going to become redundant, since all of the deer are going to be destroyed. Has the minister received the information pertaining to this particular problem, and has he established any new policy with regard to it?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, that hasn’t come to my attention yet. I’ll draw it to the attention of the Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr. Singer: And then say that if there is a problem the federal people created it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Since a number of telegrams have been directed towards the ministry and to myself, and I’m sure to others, if I were to send this to the minister’s attention would he be able to give us some indication of any change in government policy before the House rises sometime within the next two or three weeks?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I’m sure my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, will provide this information to the Legislature.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He’ll be back?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He may even be back this afternoon. I was at a meeting with him this morning.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The member for Scarborough West.

PICKERING AIRPORT

Mr. Lewis: Another question, if I may, of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. There was a ministry report on which the minister’s reply to Jean Marchand was based, was there not? A report largely drafted by W. D. Miller in the ministry. Would the minister table that report so we can see what the provincial position is, as laid out in the document?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, I don’t believe I would table that report. That was an in-house report that I had asked to be prepared for me for my information.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It’s another one of those, eh?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I see no reason to put that on record here.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): We need a Freedom of Information Act around here.

Mr. Cassidy: We sure do.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary: Since that report, as I understand it, is the key both to the reply that the minister has given today and to the future intentions of the government, when is he going to stop the policy of suppressing, not so much internal documents, but major policy statements that have enormous public interest on which political decisions are based? What is the minister hiding in that report that cannot be provided for the members of the Legislature and the public?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’m not hiding anything in the report.

Mr. Lewis: Table it then.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I asked for information to come to me from the members of my staff for the purpose of developing a source of information and a volume of information on the particular problem. I have it, and if the member thinks I’m going to table everything in this House that’s sent to me when I request information, he has got to be out of his mind.

Mr. Lewis: No, no.

Mr. Renwick: No, just what we are asking.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, if I may: Since this report --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is this a supplementary? The questioner may ask his first, then the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Lewis: Since this report, as I’m given to understand, forms much of the basis for a major shift -- apparently not a reversal, but at least a major shift -- in government policy, indicating criticism of the federal I approach far beyond that which is contained in his reply today, doesn’t he think it should be a public document? The man’s name is W. D. Miller, and I gather it’s a report of some substance.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the man’s name is W. D. Miller; it certainly is a report that I found most interesting, and there are a number of interesting points in it. But, as I said at the outset, I don’t feel that I should table it in the House.

Mr. Lewis: That is the suppression of public information. It is a serious suppression of information.

Mr. Cassidy: Why doesn’t he come clean?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister has a responsibility in this regard, surely, to protect certain individuals if they are putting an opinion that has perhaps, not been accepted or something like that, or if it has something to do with the reputation of individuals, or the amount of money they’re paid. That sort of thing can always be, I suppose, kept from the public if it is the minister’s decision that individuals are concerned in that way. But, surely, the member has said, when this is the cornerstone of the change in public policies not only the members of the House but the people directly concerned as taxpayers should be provided with the information. I don’t see the justification for keeping this sort of thing secret.

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): The Treasurer can check our policy on that.

Mr. Lewis: He really can’t table it, can he, because it is an indictment of federal policy.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? Does the member for Scarborough West have any further questions?

RENT CONTROLS

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Minister of Housing.

In response to my colleague from Riverdale a few days ago the minister indicated a statement would be coming on rent control or rent review or something of the kind. When is it the minister’s intention to make that statement?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, that will be made when the cabinet decides what my statement should be.

Mr. Lewis: So they are finally putting some reins on the minister? I can’t blame them.

Can the minister tell me if his reply to my colleague -- that it would be in a very few days -- was just tossed in lightly or is there a scheduled time for this decision?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I never toss a statement in lightly.

CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING

Mr. Lewis: I have another question if I may, of the same minister.

What is the minister going to do about the so-called sector support for his community-sponsored housing programme, since he is so hooked on housing? Am I right in thinking that the minister budgeted $0.5 million last year in the estimates, not a penny of which was used; and has $300,000 this year, none of which has yet been used? Why is he budgeting this money for co-operative housing when it suits his purpose but never employing it?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, first of all the figure the hon. member quoted for last year, $500,000, is absolutely correct.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The other figure of $300,000 for this year is absolutely correct.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We have been trying to determine which is the best way to handle --

Mr. Lewis: Which is the best figure?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, which is the best way to handle the groups which have been suggested to us.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): The figures are unreal.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Should it be a central group or should it be by --

Mr. Renwick: Get rid of the member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener) and the minister might be able to find it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- northwestern Ontario, northeastern Ontario, central Ontario, eastern, and so on? We have talked with our federal counterparts but we haven’t been able to get assurance from them as to what their procedures will be this year and next. I happen to have had a meeting with my acting deputy minister this I week. We have proposals going forth very shortly to the sector group the member referred to and we will have a statement to make before long.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary: The minister made a pretty grandiose announcement in the spring of 1974 about co-operative housing and what would emerge and he had $0.5 million budgeted. Is the minister saying in all the time between then and now he has never resolved a policy as to how to distribute the money, despite all the pressure on him front these groups?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, let me put it very clearly to all members. I don’t give in to pressure, regardless of what group it is.

Mr. Roy: He lives in a world of his own.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: There is absolutely no way that we are going to --

Mr. Lewis: He doesn’t give in to sanity, to logic, to argument or anything, let alone pressure from anyone.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Very seldom does it come from that side, that’s why. Now let me finish my statement. When I have something which will be applicable and will work, I will certainly enforce it and I will provide it with funding. Until such time as I am satisfied in my own mind as to how the sector group should work I am not going to spend money foolishly. I don’t think the member would want me to either.

Mr. Cassidy: If the minister says it will work it will probably be a disaster.

PROVINCIAL HEALTH CONFERENCE

Mr. Lewis: To the Minister of Health -- would the minister consider it unfair of me if I asked him what the status was of the proposed health conference?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): No, far from it, Mr. Speaker. I was afraid the member wouldn’t ask.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The minister keeps planting questions with the member. I know.

Mr. Lewis: He phoned me to ask me to ask him.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I was afraid he wouldn’t do it. The fact is we have some symptoms of schizophrenia, I think, in the nation because we have a division at the Ontario border. Everywhere east of Ontario is willing to come; everywhere west of Ontario is not willing to come.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I wonder why.

Hon. Mr. Miller: We will have the meeting on Tuesday, that has been decided. We have re-contacted the four western provinces. In one case they clearly stated it was a bad day for them; the other cases were not sure why they didn’t choose to come to the conference. We simply believe it is important, that the timing is right and that the conference should go on. We are hoping that one or two of the provinces out west will reconsider today and let us know.

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister mean to say that the Tory government of Alberta also said no to the telegram?

Mr. Martel: Oh, Frank!

Hon. Mr. Miller: I am going to have to go out and talk to them somehow.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

COMMISSION ON THE LEGISLATURE

Mr. Lewis: I have just one last question of the minister of -- oh, the provincial Treasurer. Sorry, the House leader.

An hon. member: Somebody.

Mr. Lewis: Anyone.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): The Provincial Secretary for Resources Development.

Mr. Lewis: Can I ask the House leader what has happened to the final Camp commission report, which involved the specific reform of the entire legislative process and was the reason for the Camp commission having been struck in the first instance? I had understood it was to be tabled in May, then in June; can he give us a date for its tabling?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): I can’t give the hon. member a date, Mr. Speaker. I don’t know when it’s going to be filed.

Mr. MacDonald: The minister could catch up to Camp and get him to sit down and finish the job.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Education requests permission of the House to revert to statements momentarily. There may be questions raised later, depending on the statement.

Mr. Lewis: It depends on what it is about.

Mr. Speaker: Do we have that permission?

Mr. Martel: Is it a statement a day?

Mr. Speaker: Do we have that permission?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Education.

SHARING OF SCHOOLS IN METROPOLITAN TORONTO

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for asking this permission but the duties of our committee made it difficult to get this ready in time.

Mr. Martel: Is it something we can blame on the federal boys?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to report to the House on a crucial problem involving accommodation for pupils under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Separate School Board.

During the summer of 1974 I had several lengthy meetings with representatives of the Toronto Board of Education and the Metropolitan Separate School Board concerning school accommodation problems in west Toronto. Following these meetings, accommodation needs in that area of Toronto for the 1974-1975 school year were worked out by the parties concerned. Also, as a result of these meetings, a joint committee composed of the chairman and the directors of education for the two boards was set up to bring forward a report on the sharing of schools. This report, which was agreed to, Mr. Speaker, by all those on the committee, was presented to the two boards concerned in May.

It is obvious to me, Mr. Speaker, that this committee worked very diligently on this very difficult problem and came up with a workable report; I would like to commend the chairman of the Toronto board, Mr. Gordon Green; and the chairman of the Metro Separate School Board, Mr. Joe Grittani and their director of education, Mr. Ed Nelligan, for their fine work on this committee and the development of what, in my opinion, is a fair and workable answer to the question.

However, Mr. Speaker, while this report was accepted by the Metropolitan Separate School Board it was rejected by the Toronto Board of Education. This action makes it very clear to me that an impasse has again been reached relative to the accommodation issue in west Toronto. Having in mind that the responsibility of the Minister of Education is for the school accommodation needs of all children, I believe that action must be taken in order to effect: (a) a short-term solution to the immediate problem; and, (b) to establish procedures to create more effective solutions for the future. I will therefore, Mr. Speaker, take the following action:

1. A freeze will immediately be placed upon all approvals for new school buildings or additions under way or proposed by the Toronto Board of Education.

2. I will inform the chairmen of the Toronto Board of Education and the Metropolitan Separate School Board that every consideration would be given to the solutions that have been proposed in the report of the joint study committee if the boards will agree to advance the proposals to me. The projects concerned are the Pauline-St. Sebastian facility; the Earlscourt-St. Stella Maris joint-use facility; and the Perth-St. Luigi unit.

3. To meet what appears to be a recurring situation, I have instructed officials in the ministry to review the recommendations of the study team on the sharing or transferring of school facilities with a view to establishing a number of the mechanisms and procedures that were suggested by the study team.

Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere hope that both school boards in Toronto will be able to agree to a solution to the current impasse and thereby eliminate the freeze on building projects imposed on the city of Toronto Board of Education as soon as possible. I have written the chairmen of both boards today and suggested that we meet sometime next week.

Since the report of the study team, Mr. Speaker, it has been my express desire and hope that school boards would be able, by sincere co-operation and a mutual demonstration of good faith, to effect school sharing solutions that would not in themselves create other problems, be those problems the dislocation of children within families or the need to expropriate family housing that is so necessary within our developing urban centres.

The report of May, 1975, on the sharing of schools -- prepared jointly, as I have just indicated, by the chairman and officials of the school boards in Toronto -- is a good example of reasonable and creative solutions to local school accommodation needs. The Ministry of Education, as I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, is prepared to aid in the implementation of the solutions that have been suggested.

I recognize the difficulties that lie within any solutions that boards undertake. Nevertheless: , it is clear from much of the work accomplished to date by boards acting in go d faith, both in Metropolitan Toronto and elsewhere, that while solutions can be achieved to a degree, a point can be reached where the intervention of the ministry is required.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from a memo I wrote to school boards on Nov. 20, 1972, in which I said: “I am confident that the educational objectives of all concerned will not be compromised by a determination to avoid waste in the use of school buildings.” I believe that the people of Ontario share this view.

Mr. Speaker: We’ll add five minutes to the normal question period.

SHARING OF SCHOOLS IN METROPOLITAN TORONTO

Mr. R. F. Nixon: May I ask the minister a question on that statement: Did he meet with the representatives of the two boards since the problem in west Toronto became public and before making the decision to impose the freeze, or is this simply imposed during a period when he intends to meet with them?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I had informal discussions with the chairman of the Toronto board and the chairman of the Metropolitan separate school board yesterday afternoon.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Could the minister inform the House, was it his impression, on the basis of those discussions, that, in fact, reasonable co-operation was impossible, short of the imposition of this freeze?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If I thought that reasonable co-operation would have been forthcoming I wouldn’t have suggested the immediate freeze on the school buildings in Toronto.

Mr. Lewis: That was drastic, but good. The minister is right. Quite right.

Mr. Renwick: He should have limited it to west of Yonge St.

Mr. Lewis: They needed that done to them. It’s about time.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

OMB HEARING IN HAMILTON

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): I have a question of the Treasurer, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Will the Treasurer consult with the Attorney General and review an Ontario Municipal Board hearing that is currently being conducted in the city of Hamilton, which began in 1973, when the OMB was under the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, and was continued, as by the notice, today and yesterday, in 1975? It was heard initially by Mr. Arrell -- I think the senior vice-chairman -- and is now being heard by Mr. Speigel. Can the minister determine the appropriateness of the continuation of a hearing under a different chairman; a hearing which heard evidence under oath in 1973?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I think that question would be more appropriately put to my colleague, the Attorney General, who unfortunately is not here but who shall return.

Mr. Deans: Yes, but the hearing is going on.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa East.

OTTAWA-CARLETON DETENTION CENTRE

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Solicitor General, in the absence of anyone else from the Justice policy field. In view of the minister’s concern for public safety in the province, would he bring to the attention of his colleague, the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Potter), the sad situation presently existing in the regional detention centre in Ottawa -- where, as he knows, a breakout occurred on June 5; seven inmates got free and only four have been recaptured? Is the minister aware of the fact that the problems that existed at that time -- the security problems and the staffing problems -- are, if anything, worse than they were back on June 5? Would he also bring to his colleague’s attention the fact that nothing has been done to improve the security and, in fact, the staff has decreased since that time? Would he bring that to the attention of his colleague, the Minister of Correctional Services?

[Applause.]

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): We’re glad to see the Solicitor General here.

Mr. Roy: I didn’t realize my question was that good.

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Mr. Speaker, yes, I will bring the hon. member’s remarks and concerns to the attention of my colleague, the Minister of Correctional Services.

Mr. Roy: If I might ask one supplementary on this, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister also bring to his colleague’s attention --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member shouldn’t overplay his hand. No more applause.

Mr. Roy: -- the fact that apparently on June 30 there were only seven staff people and one receptionist to take care of some 125 to 140 inmates, both in the maximum and the minimum security sections of that detention centre?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, Mr. Speaker, he will be aware of the member’s question as well; it will be on the record.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary from the member for Carleton East.

Mr. P. Taylor: I would appreciate it if the minister would seek these answers from the Minister of Correctional Services. Would he also point out the tremendous concern by the very-quickly-increasing population of the north Gloucester area, where the detention centre is situated, that this situation exists? They are very concerned for the safety of themselves and their families.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East.

HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS AT ELLIOT LAKE

Mr. Martel: I have a question of the Minister of Health. Was the Ministry of Health involved, along with the Ministry of Labour in establishing the 120 work-level months as the criterion to be used for considering lung cancer claims at Elliot Lake?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it wasn’t a criterion for establishing claims. It was simply the maximum number of months that a person should, in our opinion, work safely within the mines; or the exposure to which they might be subject in their total lifetime without ill effect. Our ministry has been involved in the establishment of that guideline.

Mr. Martel: Supplementary question, then, Mr. Speaker: If records were not kept prior to 1968, and they weren’t, how then do we calculate the amount of exposure men have been subjected to who are attempting to obtain claims and who have been unsuccessful to this point because of the 120 work-level months?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the claim, as I understand it, in the absence of any illness, would be to allow that person to change the location of his work from an exposed area to an unexposed area, and would cover 75 per cent of his loss of pay in so doing -- is that correct in the member’s opinion?

Mr. Martel: Right:

Hon. Mr. Miller: This question was asked from the floor in Elliot Lake. We pointed out that we can’t create records that don’t exist; we could only try to approximate records. According to some of my technical staff, while we can’t state with what accuracy that will be done, we would do our very best to approximate for any workers the likelihood of their having been exposed to 120 months exposure during their working lives. If there is reasonable doubt about that, I think I implied that we should err on the side of the employee.

Mr. Martel: A final supplementary: If the minister has established four work-level months for any given year and 120 work-level months for the lifetime of the employee -- which really means it could be a minimum of 30 years of exposure, and yet in fact there are many men in Elliot Lake who have cancer now who certainly haven’t been exposed to radiation for 30 years, calculating four into 120 -- then surely to God there has got to be something more positive than the 120 work-level months now being utilized in establishing whether a claim is a viable one related to the exposure.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, where a person has, in fact, an illness, I think it’s an academic argument. We have to treat the illness on the basis of whether it’s caused by work or caused by some other symptom such as smoking. Of the workers tested last year, I believe only one of the people showing any of the category 4 x-rays had any indication of cancer.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Revenue has the answer to a question asked previously.

ASSESSMENT ACT CHANGE

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Speaker, on July 2 last, the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Shulman) asked me if I was aware that in order for a person to appeal his assessment under the new Assessment Act, he can only appeal if his assessment is inequitable in terms of neighbouring assessments; that under the new Assessment Act he is not allowed to find out what the neighbouring assessments are; and that these various inequities in the Assessment Act have been labelled an absurdity by Judge Scott in the provincial court in Niagara Falls.

Mr. Speaker, section 90 of the Assessment Act, to which the hon. member for High Park referred, is not new. It has been in force since 1971. It does provide that a complaint or an appeal against an assessment be supported by evidence that the assessment is inequitable when compared to similar property in the vicinity.

The hon. member is wrong when he claims that the person is not allowed to obtain the assessments on similar property. Any person does, in fact, have access to the assessment roll, which is a public document in the municipality and which is available at the municipal offices for anyone to examine during office hours.

The assessment roll contains a list of information on every property in the municipality, including such items as the description of the property, the names of the persons liable to assessment on that property, the market value of the land, the number of acres of the land and the assessment itself, among other items, all of which are provided for in section 17, subsection 1 of the Assessment Act.

I might add that if the taxpayer is not satisfied with the information obtained from the roll, he can obtain more detailed information on his own property from the local regional assessment office which has all the particulars on assessment data sheets and appraisal cards for every property in the municipality.

In the decision of His Honour, Judge Donald Scott, in an assessment appeal at the county court heard July 18, 1974 -- that being the case to which the hon. member referred in his question -- Judge Scott gave his opinion of section 90. He did say that he thought section 90 was unfair to the taxpayer because his only recourse in an appeal was to assessments on similar properties in the vicinity, which could all be assessed incorrectly.

He also said that that assessment appeal had been adjourned for several months because he was awaiting an interpretation from the Ontario Court of Appeal on section 90. But the decision was still pending and Judge Scott found it necessary to continue with the appeal in question.

Subsequent to the decision of His Honour Judge Scott, a judgement on section 90 was pronounced by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada in the matter of an assessment appeal. In his judgement, delivered on June 26 last, Chief Justice Bora Laskin stressed -- and I underscore the word stressed, Mr. Speaker -- that, inasmuch as the taxpayer is entitled to be assessed at the value at which similar property in the vicinity is assessed, section 90 does not diminish his protection through his rights to appeal. This would seem to put to rest the concern expressed by His Honour Judge Scott and by the member for High Park.

Mr. Speaker: Just a point of caution to the minister and anyone else answering questions, a long detailed answer like that might better have been made as a statement before the orders of the day. We’ll add five minutes to the question period. Supplementary, the member for High Park.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Supplementary: Is it not correct that someone wishing to appeal cannot get any of the details of the assessment of neighbouring properties -- which is what I asked the minister -- except by making application to a court? So that, in effect, he must go to court before he knows whether he is entitled to a reconsideration.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, the degree of detail to which the individual is entitled with respect to properties other than those registered in his name is spelled out in the section to which I made reference. He is entitled to complete detail -- floor area, type of bathroom fixtures, the whole and complete material on file with the ministry -- of his own property by application; and, if it is in the courts, then of course he is entitled to obtain that information otherwise. I think there is very good reason why a taxpayer may not go on a fishing expedition to look into the records of all of his neighbours’ properties to see what kind of bathroom fixtures they might have or what kind of family they may have.

Mr. Shulman: His own?

Hon. Mr. Meen: He can look at those figures --

Mr. Shulman: So how can he know if he is over-assessed then?

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- and if he questions them, sir, he may make his appeal to the courts.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron.

NOISE POLLUTION

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Minister of the Environment: In light of the fact that Kelson Spring Products Ltd., situated at 108 Brandon Ave., Toronto, has not implemented any corrective steps to control noise pollution problems, which the company was to have implemented for the approval of the ministry by Feb. 15, will the minister now impose a control order on this plant to alleviate the excessive noise problem which is of major concern to all of the residents of the area?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, as far as this particular plant is concerned, we have been working very closely with them. There is a noise problem there, but I must say that I worked very closely with the member for the riding in which it is located, the member for Dovercourt (Mr. G. Nixon), and have discussed this matter at some length with him. We are trying to work out a satisfactory solution so that we don’t put people out of work, and also do something about the noise problem they are faced with there.

Mr. Riddell: Supplementary: Is he aware that the noise pollution control section of his ministry, in a letter to the ratepayers’ association, suggested that legal action be taken against this company; and is he prepared at this time to take legal action?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to do nothing against the company until I have had a chance to fully review the situation personally.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cochrane South.

TIMMINS BYPASS

Mr. Ferrier: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Is he in a position to report whether his officials have met with the city council of Timmins concerning the development of a perimeter road from Highway 101 west, north of Timmins; and is he in a position to say whether a commitment can be made to go ahead with that road sometime this summer?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the recent Timmins planning study recommended that although the need for a bypass may not be justified at this time, the route should be selected and the right of way reserved. That’s our position at this time.

We have not had detailed discussions with the city of Timmins on this particular matter. One of the major problems is that the city of Timmins feels this is a provincial facility; as we look at it we are not sure, we feel it is more of a local facility at this time. We would like to sit down and discuss it in more detail with the municipal officials. I can’t give you any commitment as to what will be done immediately for this year.

Mr. Ferrier: A supplementary: Is there any way the minister can suggest to the council that it would be most advantageous to sit down and try to plan this project now, in view of the large construction that will be under way in a major way this fall and during the next couple of years? The need for it is great and the planning must be done almost immediately.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I always hesitate to make suggestions to municipal councils, but we certainly will have our people contact the municipal staff and suggest that we should sit down and have further discussions on the overall road requirements in that immediate area, because the expanding industry up there, as the member well knows, is going to create a problem in moving traffic efficiently around the community. But we will certainly get in touch with them.

Mr. Speaker: The Provincial Secretary for Resources Development has the answer to a question asked previously.

BEEF CALF INCOME STABILIZATION PROGRAMME

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, on July 8 Inst the hon. member for Rainy River asked me a question in the absence of my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) he asked:

“In regard to agriculture and the beef cow-calf stabilization programme, is the minister aware of the petition signed by approximately 125 farmers in the Rainy River district which totally rejects the cow-calf stabilization programme ...? Can he inform the House how many farmers have opted into the cow-calf programme and how many specifically from northern Ontario?”

I am advised that the petition received from the Rainy River district stated that the producers were opposed to the stabilization programme. This petition was received before the meeting with the representatives of the beef industry. Upon inquiry of the representatives from the Rainy River district, they indicated they were not opposed to the principles of the stabilization programme but were opposed to the level of support. However, the level of support had not been announced at that time, I am advised.

As far as the number of producers entering the programme is concerned, this figure is not available in the agricultural offices until after July 15. As mentioned at the time the programme was announced in the House, the registrations will not close until the end of August; therefore we will not know how many have registered until the programme closes at that time.

Mr. Reid: A supplementary: Is the minister aware that the farmers in the Rainy River district and across the province were informed at the meetings prior to the announcement of the programme that the subsidy figure would be set at 50 cents and that all of the farmers, to my knowledge, rejected that figure, including the one from Rainy River, and said that at least 70 cents would be a reasonable return on their time, money and investment in farming, and that that concern of theirs has not changed? Will he reconsider the 50 cents and make it 70 cents?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am advised otherwise, as I have informed the member in my answer. If he wants to pursue this further, I strongly urge that he speak to the parliamentary assistant, who can go into further detail because he has been involved in these meetings.

Mr. Reid: He knows the situation?

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): Mr. Speaker, may I table the figures of the production costs used in the Ontario beef calf programme in arriving at the support levels asked about by the member for Scarborough West?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nipissing.

NIPISSING HOMES FOR THE AGED

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. Has the minister made the appointments necessary under the Feb. 5 regulations of the Homes for the Aged and Rest Homes Act, which calls for his two appointments to be made to the east Nipissing and the west Nipissing homes for the aged by April 1? He has had six months to make these appointments and obviously both those homes for the aged are operating irregularly outside the Act.

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the hon. member that by recent orders in council those in west Nipissing have been appointed. I have written to the member but he probably hasn’t received my letter yet. The others are under active consideration.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a supplementary?

Mr. R. S. Smith: Just for clarification: I couldn’t hear what the minister said about the east Nipissing, to which he didn’t allude directly.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I said the appointments to the east home body are under active consideration.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron-Bruce.

EGG BOARD RESIGNATION

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. Is the minister an expert on farm legislation? I am going to pose this question in any event.

Mr. Roy: He is not an expert on anything.

Mr. Gaunt: Can the minister clarify whether or not under provincial farm marketing legislation the use of funds raised through levies for payment of penalties would be illegal, which was really the point at issue which led to the resignation of an egg board member some two weeks ago, I think?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to get that information for the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Ruston).

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Oh yes; I’m sorry. The member for Port Arthur.

NON-RETURNABLE CONTAINERS

Mr. Foulds: A question of the Minister of the Environment: Has the minister yet received a report from the solid waste management advisory group with regard to a policy on non-returnable liquor and wine bottles? I think at the end of March he made a statement that he had referred the matter to them.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, the solid waste management advisory committee has directed most of its attention to the soft drink industry. I made a statement to them on March 12, I think, and I gave them six months to come up with some answers. I asked them to look at the spirits and wine industry, too, but the other one had priority. I know they are doing some preliminary work on that at this point in time.

Mr. Lewis: Is the minister going to the party at Melody Farm tonight in celebration of the Pickering change? It has been announced.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. W. Newman: Don’t worry.

Mr. Lewis: They are waiting for him.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please; the member for Rainy River.

Mr. Reid from the standing public accounts committee presented an interim report.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend The Teachers’ Superannuation Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains a number of housekeeping and minor amendments to the Teachers’ Superannuation Act.

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Rhodes, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Bennett, moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Development Corporations Act, 1973.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides the development corporations with the necessary authority to implement the industrial parks programme referred to by the Treasurer in both the 1975 budget and the supplementary actions statement.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, this bill empowers a municipality that is acquiring or developing land for industrial purposes with the aid of a loan from one of the development corporations under the Development Corporations Act, 1973, to give security for the loan by way of mortgage or otherwise.

DOG LICENSING AND LIVE STOCK AND POULTRY PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Stewart, moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Dog Licensing and Live Stock and Poultry Protection Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, this amendment gives application to part II of the Act and is expanded to include fur-bearing animals.

Mr. Cassidy: And rabbits.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: And rabbits.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves second reading of Bill 129, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have an opening statement? Does the member for Essex-Kent wish to speak on this bill?

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker, Bill 129 contains amendments to cover the licensing of motor-assisted bicycles. I suppose that in the original amendment to allow these vehicles on the road they were exempted from having licences and so forth. Now that they have been selling for a few months and a number of people have been buying them, police in different municipalities are concerned as to their use without any controls. The minister is now bringing in this amendment to cover them under the Highway Traffic Act.

I suppose they are motor assisted, though sometimes one wonders with a few of them. Some that were brought in may have been pedal-assisted but they were more predominantly motor-oriented I would say. But when one looks at the majority of the ones that are on the market, Mr. Speaker, you start them by pedalling them until they go about four mph and then you turn on the gas. It’s the same type of a mechanism as on a motor cycle where you turn on the power as the fellow says; you turn on the gas and the motor takes off and carries you along.

As for the machines themselves, as far as I can see -- I’ve driven them very little but have driven a number of different ones -- I find that they are quite easy to handle. In my own interpretation, I would say that they are easier to handle and perhaps safer than a 10-speed bicycle. When one has a 10-speed bicycle one can get it going to about 25 miles an hour. The rider is sitting up in the air quite high, the way they sit; I’m not sure which end sits the highest. I don’t find them all that comfortable. If one wants to stop pretty fast, I think one can go right over the handlebars without too much trouble by putting too much brake on the front heel. With a moped, the way they’re constructed with the motor very low in them, the gravity situation gives one better control because the weight is in the bottom, whatever weight there is. They run up to 110 lb. I find the majority of the weight is slung under the frame and they’re quite easy to handle.

As far as I’m concerned, I think they are a means of transportation which many people are going to use as, probably over the next many years, we will see the price of gasoline rising and it will become scarcer. I was reading in an article today that we no longer produce enough gasoline in our country even for our own needs; and yet not many people thought this would happen five or 10 years ago. This, no doubt, will be a means of transportation which many people will find a good alternative to the automobile and other means as well.

With 150 miles to the gallon, I know some people are using them more for just pleasure riding but a great many people are using them for going back and forth to work. They would have disadvantages, of course, in the wintertime.

I believe the licensing of them is a good idea; I think they should have insurance if they’re going to be on the road.

The only problem is the other legislation allowed people of 14 years of age to drive them and a number of families vent out and bought them on the assumption that their 14-year-old and their 15-year-old could drive them. Of course, with the new legislation they will no longer be allowed to use them on the road. That is a matter of concern to people who have purchased them bemuse they have a fair-sized investment in them. What the alternative is to that, I’m not sure.

I can recall a couple of bills here with grandfather clauses which allowed the people who were already operating a certain business to continue without a licence. I don’t know that we can do that but it is a matter of concern and I’m not sure whether the minister has any answer to it. Maybe he will have in his reply. But it’s a concern he has heard of, too, I’m sure.

As far as it concerns the matter which is of great concern to some of the newspaper editorial writers -- I must say I don’t think the newspapers have any sole or major -- I suppose to some extent they are a major thing in making policy known to the public but I don’t think the editorial writers are necessarily endowed with a super philosophy or super knowledge over anyone else when they write an editorial and say we need helmets on them.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): They’re endowed with wisdom from on high.

Mr. Ruston: The member for Huron-Bruce says they are endowed with wisdom from on high. I don’t think so. They sometimes think they are but I don’t have quite that high an opinion of the newspaper system. I have always said freedom of the press is the freedom to print what they want, that’s my interpretation of freedom of the press. However, that’s beside the point.

I think as long as the speed is within the range we have it here, 28 mph, depending on the size of them -- I would say the majority are going to run at 20 to 27 miles an hour. There is an electric machine which is a little slower but it’s quite an interesting machine to operate and look at. It might be quite handy for some people who don’t want to be bothered with gasoline lying around in their garage; they can just plug it in and charge the battery up again. That’s another one which will probably be on the market; they’re just on the market now and one sees the odd one around.

I see the powers given to municipalities include being able to prohibit mopeds on portions of highways where the maximum speed limit is 50 mph or more. I’m not sure how this is going to operate. I can think of a municipality which has secondary roads running through it. Is the minister saying the municipality can prohibit them on provincial highways in that municipality, yet that same highway system might go on into another one? I could see some problems there. I suppose it is similar to the things we found in the snowmobile committee when we were studying snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles and their uses, that that was a bit of a problem. I am not sure how this is going to work out. Maybe the minister can explain it to me in his reply, but I can see some problems there with regard to this.

That is about all I have to say, Mr. Speaker. I think it is necessary that we have licensed people handling these vehicles. I would have no objection to people wearing helmets, in fact maybe they should be encouraged to wear them, but I really think if the minister is going to force them to wear a helmet it is on about the same basis as forcing a person on a 10-speed bicycle to wear a helmet. If he is going to do one, then I think he should do the other; otherwise I can’t see that there is that much advantage in making one group wear them. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, it is quite evident here that we are dealing with a very difficult vehicle. It is neither fish nor fowl; it is not a bicycle and it is not a motorcycle. I suppose we have to forgive the minister for making the original error back in February when he went gung-ho down the trail and practically gave everybody free reign to go out and terrorize the community on his brand new moped. There was an age restriction of 14; you don’t need insurance; you didn’t need registration or helmets. All you had to prove, I think, was that you had the $220 or whatever was necessary to go in and buy your moped and then go tearing around the country.

I suspected at that time that the reason for the haste was as a result of certain external pressure. The minister has assured me at various times that that was not the case. In fact, I did rise in the House during question period and put the question. This came about as a result of certain information I had received as a result of a telephone conversation from California. I attach certain credibility to that People don’t phone me from California unless they have a reason to do it.

Since that time, of course, I did raise the topic of certain pressure, maybe from the Unity Bank or certain individuals, and suggested this was the reason for the hasty and inept legislation. The minister assured me at that time that at no time had anyone from outside the ministry brought any pressure to bear and he was not bowing to any pressures. I have no further evidence on that; it was just an interesting sidelight which came up at that time when the original legislation was brought in.

I am satisfied now with the minister’s answer, as of last February, that he did bring in this legislation in such a fashion because he wasn’t aware, I presume, of what he was doing. Even today we are not really sure where the moped is going to fit in as far as bicycles and motorcycles are concerned. We did have the opportunity a week and a half ago to test these machines. I saw the minister out in the front parking lot and he was terrorizing some of the pedestrians going around the Legislature.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Is the minister going to give up his limousine for a moped?

Mr. Germa: I think we both agreed that these are quite exhilarating and exciting vehicles to drive, I think they will supply more recreation to the residents of Ontario than they will transportation at the present moment. There may be a point in time when gasoline gets to $2 a gallon -- which it undoubtedly will, given the past performance of this government; this government has no intention of intervening in the marketplace as far as it relates to the price of gasoline except for a miserable temporary 90-day injunction. After that, the people of Ontario might have to go to mopeds if they want to go anyplace. So we have to deal with them.

I have had limited experience on mopeds, as everyone else has, and I think they are here to stay. I look forward to the experience we are going to gain as a result of discussing the present legislation we are dealing with. When we are talking about a vehicle that doesn’t give any protection to the operator we constantly think of supplying some sort of legislation which will protect him from himself. There are two theories of thought as it relates to legislation forcing people to wear protective devices such as a crash helmet. We know that in Ontario it is necessary and mandatory for a person on a motorcycle to wear a hardhat. This met with certain resistance when it was first instituted, but now it seems to be generally acceptable.

We have now to consider whether we should make it mandatory for people on moped to wear protective apparel on their heads. At this particular point in time I’m not really sure which way we should go on this. We have already had a couple of deaths as a result of mopeds. In one death, just a couple of weeks ago, I understand the person could have been saved had he or she been wearing a crash helmet.

Then one has to look at the other side of the coin? An equally fast vehicle, such as a 10-speed bicycle, to my mind could cause a person to fall just as severely, or to collide just as severely with a pole or with another vehicle. Yet I don’t see any pressure by the public to demand that we wear crash helmets on 10-speed bikes.

As far as helmets are concerned, I hate to equivocate. It’s usually nice to have a clear position. It makes you sleep better at night. But I would tend to wait for a little experience as far as the moped is concerned. The definition of a moped is that for most it is, first, a bicycle and, secondly it is a motor-assisted bicycle: I think that’s the weakness in the legislation. I would rather criticize the definition of the moped than try to pass legislation to deal with problems the moped brings upon us.

I know the minister will agree with me, because I saw him struggling with some of these vehicles. These vehicles, in fact, are not bicycles. In fact, most of them are not bicycles in the true sense that they are a freewheeling light vehicle that you can propel by muscle power for any considerable distance. You can go almost all day on an ordinary bicycle, because it is a light-weight, easily propelled vehicle, whereas, because it has a certain weight factor of having to carry an engine, with the moped it is necessary to increase the size of the wheels and the weight of the frame. You end up with a considerably heavier vehicle than you do with the standard bike.

I presume that the manufacturer has to do that. I’m not an engineer, but I suspect that they have overbuilt the moped. If the engine size were curtailed, then, of course, they wouldn’t have to put such heavy framing and heavy chassis on these things, and then they would be readily pedalled by muscle power. The whole gear train, the ratios between the pedals and the wheels, are such that you couldn’t go more than three or four blocks by muscle power without being exhausted.

To all intents and purposes, we are now talking about a motor-assisted vehicle with auxiliary power supplied by muscle. I think the minister has to agree with me on that -- except in the case of one particular manufacturer who has devised a method of removing the engine totally from contact with the wheels or the pedals. That is my idea of what a moped is all about. That one particular vehicle has the power assist on the front end and is lifted from the wheel by a leverage. That vehicle can be pedalled quite readily. It seems not to have such a heavy and cumbersome frame. I could envisage that vehicle being pedalled equally as far as any ordinary bicycle. So I think we have to watch this very closely.

I’m a little disappointed in the definition given. The minister allowed a vehicle with a weight of 120 lb. I think he could have tightened up on the regulations a little bit as far as this is concerned. A 120-lb bicycle is quite a heavy weight to carry, when we know that it is possible to build a racing bicycle which can weigh as little as 12 lb. Of course, this is a $4,000 or $5,000 racing bike -- the ultimate in bicycles. Somewhere between 12 lb and 120 lb is the limitation we have. While I know we will never build a bike for common use at 12 lb, I think the 120-lb maximum which the minister has placed on these is giving them a little bit too much leeway and they are going to become more and more cumbersome.

The vehicles that we tested in front of the Legislature were something under 100 lb. They were sunning about 100 lb and yet there is another 20 lb they can go. We can be sure they are going to lavish more luxury items on to these things and come up to the maximum limitations. I wish the minister would take another look at that and pare down the maximum weight so that these things will not become too heavy to be propelled by muscle power. I think that is the only way we are going to protect ourselves from these things becoming totally and absolutely power operated.

Regarding insurance, I presume we need that for the protection of the public, given that the weight is such, and yet it defies logic. A person on a 10-speed bicycle could probably do equal damage, since we know that 10-speed bikes have been clocked as high as 60 mph. A 10-speed bike at 60 mph could probably do as much damage to a pedestrian as a moped at 30, which is the maximum speed that a moped is going to attain. I would ask the minister to explain the logic, as he sees it, in demanding that there be insurance on a vehicle with a maximum speed of 30 mph while he doesn’t seem to think that a vehicle capable of 60 mph should have the same protection.

I think it is logical to raise the age factor to 16, given the weight of the bikes. Some children of 14 would just be a little too light to handle some of these vehicles, plus the intricacies of operating them. Even though they are all operated by hand controls, it does take a certain amount of understanding and aptitude to control the vehicle. The braking system and the acceleration system are hand operated and a person’s hands are busy all right when he is driving one of these things, even though his feet are not doing very much while he is coasting along.

Registration is also provided for. I think there is nothing too much wrong with that. We do register even common, ordinary bicycles, of course, at the municipal level. I am not sure whether the minister envisages that or not, or is it going to be a provincial registration? I presume it’s going to be provincial.

The next point is the allowance given to municipalities to prohibit mopeds on highways with speed limits over 50 mph. I am not aware that there is presently any regulation in any municipality which prohibits a bicycle on a 50-mph road. Why would the minister assume that if an ordinary bicycle can go on such a highway, a moped couldn’t? I cannot see the difference. I know that he is prohibiting them from four-lane controlled access highways, and I agree with that implicitly, but I am not sure what he is planning to do on a provincial 60-mph highway. Is he envisaging that they are not going to go on our standard highway system when he allows a municipality to prohibit them in a speed zone over 50? I look forward to the minister’s reply and I think, based on his reply, we’ll indicate any action that we might want to take or any amendments that we might want to put after I hear the minister. With that, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Hamilton East.

Mr. R. Gisborn (Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can agree with what has been said by my colleague from Sudbury. We haven’t had the experience yet to deal in depth with this innovation. But I am concerned about this entire area, and maybe the minister will try to answer some of my concerns. They apply not only to the innovation of the so-called moped motorized bicycle. I also remember the concerns we had in dealing with snowmobiles when they were first put on the roads and on the fields of private properties in Ontario. We had to go through the same kind of concerns by setting up a select committee to investigate their safety and the licensing and so on.

I am not aware of the Patent Act covering inventions and that sort of thing, but it would seem to me that when a manufacturer or an individual decides to design a vehicle which is going to be used on our highways and public and private property, maybe we should have some legislation or some way that these things could be brought to the attention of the government, and it could prepare for them going into use.

One example was given today by the member for Essex-Kent, who pointed out that changing the age limit to 16 is an inconvenience for parents who have already purchased mopeds for children under 16. They must now either keep the machine in storage until the child is old enough to use it, or sell it.

Would the minister explain why there is no legislation or procedure requiring designers, inventors and manufacturers to submit designs for this kind of a gadget -- if it can be called that -- before they go on our roads and we are faced with dealing with emergency legislation.

I think this is sort of an emergency piece of legislation, because of the sudden emergence of the motorized bike and the accidents that have already occurred -- even two deaths, I believe, in the last two or three weeks.

This is my concern about these changes in our society. I remember that when the so-called three-wheeled motor cart was developed in Europe a few years ago. It caused quite an uproar in the heavy street traffic of European countries and they had to have emergency legislation brought in to control them; and they had to confine them to certain districts. It seems to me that some of these things should be dealt with prior to the designing and the manufacturing of new transportation units.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a very few minutes to share a concern with the minister, to which I am sure he will respond in his reply.

I will confess to him at the outset that I am not as familiar with such legislation as others are in the House; I don’t know as much about the subject matter. I once spent many months of my life travelling about the UK on a scooter; but beyond that I am not given to motorcycles or motor-assisted bicycles -- they frighten me more than they induce me to use them. However, there is much that is of value in the legislation, and obviously it was required; that we are happy to approve.

I am very concerned, and I think some of my colleagues are concerned -- although there are some who are a little ambivalent -- about the need to have helmets worn on mopeds. I think in a sense that it is the central point at issue in this legislative debate. I suppose it’s one of those horrible ironies that occurs from time to time. No sooner is the legislation announced and introduced, then there are two fatalities. One was clearly a matter of head injuries and, God knows, might have been avoided had a helmet been worn.

On the face of it, I suppose one of the logical inconsistencies appears to be that we don’t by law require bicycle pedallers to wear helmets. In the case of many bicycles, particularly 10-speed bicycles, obviously it is possible to achieve speeds in excess of even 30 miles an hour, but for them we don’t make the wearing of helmets a requirement.

From my own experience -- and I’ve been quite fascinated with the phenomenon of mopeds -- as I drive back and forth from my constituency each day, I have noticed that on the corner of Victoria Park and Danforth, in the Shoppers’ World shopping centre, there is a huge moped outlet with an actual test track apparatus. It has seemed to me, as I’ve watched the mopeds there and on the streets as I drive, that everybody tries to reach the maximum acceleration and that most of them in fact do travel at the 30-mph limit if they can, whereas bicycle pedallers tend not to travel at those speeds for any sustained length of time.

It seems to me that once we have put on the road a machine whose capacity and inclination, both in human and engineering terms, is to achieve a speed of 30 mph, we should require a helmet to be worn by law. It is terribly important. It’s not terribly important merely in terms of the prevention of fatalities; it may be even more important in terms of what might have been an inconsequential accident with a helmet turning into a very serious accident without one. In other words, there are measures of injury. One need not only speak in terms of fatalities.

I think all of the experience of helmets on motorcycles, all of the statistical documentation I’ve ever seen and all the stories I’ve ever heard, suggest to me that we would appreciably cut down the injury level if we were to require the wearing of helmets.

No more than others do I wish to impose on civil liberties to insist that people are required to wear such and such, be it seatbelts or helmets, as a matter of public and personal safety. But it seems to me that it would be a matter of folly to pass the bill without such a provision; it seems to me that it would be in the interest of public safety to pass a bill with such a provision.

Yes, it is an additional cost. Yet it might deter some people from driving mopeds. Yes, it might set a precedent for this particular kind of vehicle. But on the face of it, and I dare say on the basis of hospital experience alone with those who have had moped injuries, I think it is desirable and important that some form of helmet protection be made a legal requirement. I urge the minister to amend the legislation to incorporate it or to give it continuing consideration as this debate progresses.

It seems to me that to oppose such an inclusion is almost of kind of facile interpretation of the way society works or the way in which people behave. It’s just a little too easy. It’s just a little too superficial. It’s just a little too indifferent to the consequences which are now a matter of record. I would prefer to make helmets mandatory in advance, rather than to have further injuries and fatalities and come rushing in with an amendment in the wake of public protest and public pressure.

I don’t think I have anything other useful to contribute -- if that was -- in the course of the debate on the bill, because my colleagues will have covered it. Frankly, that’s the point which has worried me greatly as I watch these mopeds hurtling along -- that’s the way they appear as one drives in the laborious government machine I use that inches its way through traffic as the mopeds speed by at 30 mph --

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre: He would accept the moped, but it won’t carry passengers.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): No.

Mr. Lewis: But for public protection -- indeed, if the minister makes helmets mandatory, I will use a moped. It will save the government a lot of money.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The member is free to wear a helmet any time.

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

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say some words about this particular legislation. I think it’s necessary legislation in view of the increasing popularity of these vehicles.

If the experience in Europe and in Asia is any indication, these vehicles will become even more popular in the years to come on this continent. I think in Europe they have become very popular, particularly in France. I understand in France one out of four commuters uses a moped, which is a rather unusual and perhaps significant statistic. I believe there are some 20 million of these vehicles throughout the world now, so their use is obviously a factor in transportation.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: There are 20,000 in Ontario.

Mr. Lewis: Twenty thousand in Ontario?

Mr. Gaunt: Twenty thousand in Ontario? Already? I think that is just an indication of the kind of popularity these vehicles enjoy. So I repeat, I think this legislation is necessary under those conditions.

I share the concern expressed by the member for Scarborough West with respect to helmets. I understand the arguments pro and con, but as a personal view I feel people should be required to wear helmets on these vehicles.

The other section of this bill that worries me is the matter of weight; the 120 lb. What we are talking about here is not a motor-assisted bicycle, it’s a motor-assisted motorcycle. I think the 120 lb is far too heavy.

As I understand it, most of these vehicles at present run in the range of 70 to 85 lb, and it seems to me that with the stipulation in this particular bill that these vehicles should not weigh over 120 lb the maximum then becomes the minimum. Most of these vehicles, in their manufacture, will then come up fairly close to the 120 lb rather than maintaining their current manufacturing weight which, as I say, is between 70 and 85 lb.

I think the minister should rethink that one. I really feel that at 120 lb these vehicles are far too heavy for the kind of purpose and for the current utilization that they enjoy. I hope the minister will change that.

Other than that, Mr. Speaker, I don’t think I have any further comments on the bill other than to subscribe to a number of comments which have already been made in connection with it. I say again that I hope the minister will reconsider the weight of these vehicles, because I think it is very important.

What we have here is a vehicle that should be separate and distinct from a motorcycle. What the minister is doing in this bill is blending the two vehicles; making the two vehicles in many respects somewhat similar, certainly in terms of size. I realize many of the bigger motorcycles are much heavier than this, but a lot of the smaller ones, while they are heavier, are not that much heavier than 120 lb. I think that mopeds should be a separate and distinct kind of vehicle and mode of transportation, and the way the minister has it here I don’t think that will happen.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know whether one can persuade the minister during the course of this debate, but I would like to make a serious contribution to the debate on the matter of helmets and ask him to consider it as seriously as it is offered. Before I do that, I have one other point that he might possibly comment on in his reply on second reading.

I know that when the bill was introduced he made some reference to how the insurance arrangements would work for moped owners. I think the House should get an elaboration on that, now that he has been able to pursue his inquiries. If we find that insurance is going to cost $100 or $150 a year for moped owners, then clearly the intention of developing this as a cheap, accessible means of transport will have been thwarted by the private insurance industry. I also wonder whether the provisions of the unsatisfied judgment fund are quite the proper way to proceed or whether the insurance should not be made compulsory, but then government action taken to ensure it is available at a reasonable price.

I want now to talk about helmets; and to begin by making some apologies to the very effective group of lobbyists from grade 8 in Glashan School in my riding, with whom I talked for about an hour about mopeds when I was in to see them two or three weeks ago. These were kids aged about 14 or so who were most concerned about the fact that the age was to be raised to 16; the rumours were out at that time. I expressed my regret to them that I don’t disagree with that particular intention in the bill.

I am an ex-motorcyclist. I think I rode a moped at the age of 14; I had a motor-scooter at the age of 15 and I had a motorcycle at the age of 17.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Did the member have an accident without wearing a helmet?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: He walked into that one; I could see it coming.

Mr. Cassidy: Too bad.

Mr. Ruston: He did a lot of damage.

Mr. Cassidy: I eventually had a couple; they were off the road so often that I couldn’t be much of a menace.

I also had a couple of motor-scooters which I rode for many years quite happily when I lived in England.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the urge when you get these things, particularly for kids, is to get the most power possible out of them. If it is a 119 lb machine with a 50-cc engine then there is going to be a strong incentive for young people with a mechanical bent to bore the chamber a bit more and make the other necessary arrangements so that even without a gear shift they can get 35 or 40 mph out of it, despite the fact the machine is certified at the time it is delivered.

Secondly, having ridden these machines long distances along highways neck and neck with somebody on a flimsy 45-lb 50-cc motorcycle, going at breakneck speed of 60 or 70 mph there is also, as the member for Scarborough West said, a great incentive to drive the machine to the limit of its power.

In other words, the fact that a 10-speed bicycle is capable of speeds equal to or greater than those of motor-assisted bicycle doesn’t really represent what is going to happen most of the time. Most of the time a moped is going to be travelling at 25 or 30 or 29.9 mph. Most of the time, Mr. Speaker, a 10-speed bicycle will be travelling in the speed range of between 10 and 15 or 10 and 18 mph. Anybody who is a cyclist knows that unless one is really in good physical shape it is extremely difficult to keep above 15 or 16 mph on a sustained kind of basis. I can do about 12 mph; somebody who is younger can probably average about 15 or 16; but to keep up at 20 mph for more than a short spurt is pretty tough.

The consequence is that we are not talking about a vehicle which is in the same category as a 10-speed bicycle. Most of the time this vehicle is a vehicle which will be driven around 25 miles an hour, which is about double the average speed of a 10-speed bicycle. It is a vehicle, as the minister knows, which is being introduced to Ontario now for the first time. Although it has been available, I am sure, for many years, it is being marketed now and is reaching a market acceptance because of the energy crisis and so on.

The minister should be aware that at the time the legislation was brought in to make helmets compulsory for motorcyclists, there was great resistance. Civil rights resistance people were saying: “Why should you tell me what I should do? It just doesn’t work ... It is not feasible ... It will muss up my hair ... We will lose the helmets ... The helmets will be stolen,” and so on. The minister knows however from his own personal observations -- he drives up and down the highways and roads of the province -- that it is extraordinarily rare these days to see a motorcyclist riding his bike without wearing a helmet. The degree of compliance with that law is extraordinarily high; far higher, for example, than the degree of compliance with compulsory seatbelt laws in jurisdictions where seatbelts are compulsory.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It’s pretty obvious if the rider hasn’t got it on.

Mr. Cassidy: It’s pretty obvious, but all the same the police have other jobs to do, and surely the reason motorcyclists do wear their helmets is that fundamentally they agree with it. I am going to move a motion later today for an amendment to the Act, which would ensure that motor-assisted bicyclists -- people riding the mopeds -- will have to wear helmets.

It seems to me the minister ought to consider the nature of the helmet required for a moped rider and whether that might or might not differ from the nature of the helmet required for a motorcyclist. I want to put this quite seriously because the one really strong objection the minister seemed able to come up with, in not agreeing to helmets when these amendments came forward, was the few pretty girls who came to him and said, “Look, it is going to muss up our hair if we have to wear helmets.”

The fact is that physically the helmet standard required for motorbikes has to be a standard which will protect the skull in accidents at 60, 70 or even 100 miles an hour because, let’s face it, motorcycles are driven up to that speed and even over the ton, as they call it. There’s enough freedom on our highways for that still to be done. I don’t know what the standard calls for but I am sure that at legal speed limits of 70 miles an hour, that helmet has to withstand direct damage to the skull; whether it protects the neck or not at least it has to withstand damage to the skull in the case of a collision.

A moped is designed for no more than 30 miles an hour and the headgear required to protect the head from injury at 30 miles an hour is probably only a quarter as heavy and a quarter as structurally strong. The faster one goes, one’s need for protection doubles and redoubles with every 10 mile per hour increase in speed. It should therefore be possible for the standards people in the ministry to certify helmets for use only on mopeds which would be of lighter construction and more convenient, more easily carried up to the office or to the university class or whatever, and easier on the hair in the case of women moped drivers than the rather big and elaborate motorbike helmets which are now in use and which meet the standards.

Certainly the civil liberties argument is not a cogent one because, as far as helmets for motorcyclists are concerned, it is clear they are accepted. Nobody objects now. The ministry staff was saying that when the objections came in at the time of the introduction of that amendment, people said, “Of course, I won’t stop wearing a helmet but you are still infringing on the civil liberties of motorcyclists generally by making the wearing of helmets mandatory.”

I would like to talk a bit about who uses mopeds, again in relation to this argument about whether or not helmets should be mandatory. There seem to be two or three groups of people for whom it’s particularly useful. One is in our large urban areas for people who might otherwise need a second car, for students who are going to a community college or university a fair distance away, where the transportation is difficult; for a wife or husband, who have two jobs and the transportation is difficult and who would otherwise need a second car to get to work. That’s one use.

Another use is for people who want personal transportation but simply can’t afford an automobile. On my street in Ottawa which contains a number of rooming houses there are one or two older people living in the rooming houses on small incomes who have bought mopeds as means of personal transportation, In the country a moped is catching on very quickly, where there is no public transportation to speak of, for the person who has a farm six or seven miles from town; for the farm hand; for the teenage son or daughter who can’t get access to the family truck because it’s needed for work around the farm, and for the rural resident who is working out and needs some cheap means of commuting.

Finally, mopeds are getting adopted by teenagers: 14- and 15-year-olds are excluded now, but even 16- and 17-year-olds are not necessarily completely adult and responsible. Certainly I wasn’t at that particular age.

I think parents have always got a difficult time when their kid comes to them and says, “Look, I want to buy a motorcycle,” and he points to a 350-cc Kawasaki capable of doing wheelies and 100 miles an hour. Here’s a 16-year-old who hasn’t quite demonstrated completely to his or her parents that he or she is responsible, and the parents go a bit ape. If the compromise in the family is that the kid gets a moped, it would help a lot if that parent was also assured that he had the backing of law that a helmet be worn. At that point there would be no question whatsoever.

I suggest too, because mopeds effectively are new in Ontario, and since helmets of the standard I’m suggesting will cost $25 to $35, or about eight per cent to 10 per cent of the cost of a moped on the market right now, that most people buying a new moped will simply buy a new helmet at the same time. It will simply be added to the cost when they’re calculating whether or not they want to buy it.

In addition, if we act now, while mopeds are in their infancy in the province, then the helmet simply will be accepted. If you buy a moped, you buy a helmet and wear it. If your hairdo is too fancy, either you don’t buy a moped and you get your boyfriend to drive you around when you’re all dolled up or else you change your hairstyle. Certainly female motorcyclists have made those decisions, and it could be done with mopeds as well.

Finally, for older riders, who represent a problem we really haven’t come to grips with -- we’ve had one death in that category already -- it would help if we simply didn’t have salesmen saying, “Oh, you don’t need a helmet because it’s so safe,” but rather, when they bought a vehicle with which they’re quite unfamiliar -- remember that, because they haven’t had motorcycles and they haven’t been riding bicycles and so on -- that they simply accept as given that if you buy a moped in Ontario you also buy and wear the helmet.

It seems to me that there are so many good reasons for this that the argument that it’s got to be just like a motorcycle helmet does not wash. We can ensure that there are distinguishing marks on a moped helmet to ensure that it’s not used by a motorcyclist on a more powerful machine. I think that people will pretty quickly learn the distinction. In fact, the two kinds of helmets might look different.

The minister is in a situation right now where, by acting and agreeing to the kind of amendment we suggest, the saving may be two lives, 10 lives or 25 lives -- we don’t really know -- in the course of a year. He may be saving the taxpayers half a million dollars in hospital costs, or perhaps $5 million, by ensuring that moped drivers wear helmets.

There are really no significant costs entailed in this. It’s not an excessive cost to the owner or the rider who’s going to be using that helmet for several years at a cost, therefore, of a few dollars a year. It’s not an excessive handicap to the people selling these machines. There are no disbenefits that one can see, apart from the objections of some of the pretty women who have been in touch with the minister, and the benefits are very substantial, we would suggest.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Those pretty women were in touch with me on business dealing with mopeds.

Mr. Cassidy: Oh, yes. That’s fine.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I just want that on the record.

Mr. Cassidy: I recognize too, for the record, that the minister was not swayed by the fact that they were either pretty or female.

Mr. Roy: The minister doesn’t expect them to be in touch with him for any other purpose, does he?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Most of them are busy with the member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: The minister has got to be kidding himself.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that according to the limited research I’ve been able to do, mopeds in the United States are still considered as motorcycles and almost all of the states, oddly enough with the exception of California and Illinois, therefore make moped riders wear helmets compulsorily. European jurisdictions have had experience with mopeds for about 20 or 25 years, and a number of those have made moped riders wear helmets.

This is a case where some kind of a research paper, prepared by the ministry staff, about what happens and what’s been the experience with mopeds in European jurisdictions, where they’ve been common for so long, would be a very useful guide to the debate in this particular chamber. But all the same, the minister might comment on that experience. The fact that a number of European jurisdictions do make the helmet compulsory should be of interest here in Ontario.

I would like to make one final distinction, because it may be that this is another way that we can distinguish between vehicles that don’t require helmets and vehicles that do. As the minister knows, there are basically two classes of mopeds on the market. One has the little putt-putt motor which is over the front wheel of the moped, the Velosolex variety, and -- if I could just have the minister’s attention: There are two kinds of mopeds. One kind has the engine over the front wheel and a revolving kind of thing that makes the front wheel go round, and that really is a motor-assisted bicycle. With the motor working on its own, we can’t get more than about 10 or 12 mph. That is the kind commonly found in France and it is very slow.

The other kind has the motor slung where a motorcycle engine is slung, driving the back wheel through a chain. These are the ones that are capable of 25 or 35 mph. It may be that the minister, if he is wary about compelling all moped owners to wear helmets, might want to distinguish between the front engine variety and the rear engine variety, or between the variety that goes less than 20 mph and the variety that goes up to 30 mph.

If he can have a certificate to say that certain vehicles are capable of no more than 30 mph, it is possible to certificate those that are capable of no more than 15 mph. And since there are only one or two kinds and they are physically distinguishable, it might be possible to require that those that can’t go more than 15 or 18 mph would be exempt from helmet regulations but those that can go faster and will commonly travel 25 or 30 mph would require that the operators wear helmets.

I am making a number of suggestions to the minister. I would appreciate it if he explored this in the debate, because we are seriously concerned about the deaths and injuries that have taken place and inevitably will take place, about the hospital costs that the minister is going to have to find, and which will be taken away from other health care, if we don’t insist that helmets be worn by these moped operators, and we think that a reasonable kind of regulation can come in. It doesn’t require as tough a helmet standard as that required for motorcycles, and therefore the helmets can be lighter and cheaper and still do an effective job in protecting people’s lives.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one or two brief comments on this moped legislation.

First of all, regarding the definition of “motor vehicle,” I would like to pose a question to the minister: Why is a motorized snow vehicle not considered a vehicle under this Act?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It has its own Act -- the Motorized Snow Vehicle Act.

Mr. Roy: Well let me pose another question to the minister, dealing with this: If a motorized snow vehicle is involved in an accident with a pedestrian, is the onus on the motorized snow vehicle operator, like it is for other motor vehicles? That is the reason I want an amendment in this Act, because that problem has been discussed for some time and I don’t think it is clear in my own mind or in the minds of certain legal people whether it is covered. The minister can see the importance of it. If a pedestrian is involved in an accident with a motor vehicle -- and we have the whole definition of motor vehicle, including a moped, in this case -- the onus then shifts to the operator of the motor vehicle to prove that he was not negligent. I have heard of instances where motorized snow vehicles have been involved in accidents with pedestrians and some people have given the opinion that the onus doesn’t shift. But I am not clear whether it is covered under the other Act.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Never during the summer.

Mr. Roy: The minister is right; never during the summer. Although I don’t know -- the way those fellows are bouncing around and bringing out policies we are liable to see them operating one of those motorized snow vehicles across the front lawn of Queen’s Park.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The member will see me operating one in the summertime the day he becomes the Attorney General.

Mr. Roy: What’s that?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister can answer the hon. member later.

Mr. Roy: Yes, he can. I think you should bring him to order unless he makes some intelligent remark.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think you should get him back on the point, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Roy: Another thing which I’ve always found interesting in looking at the definition of motor vehicles is that we keep calling farm tractors self-propelled implements of husbandry.

Mr. Gaunt: Just SPIH.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Can I respectfully ask the hon. member to deal with mopeds and not tractors, snowmobiles and whatever else he’s been talking about?

Mr. Roy: It’s in the bill. I’m making a point, Mr. Speaker. My colleague never got higher --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I wonder if he has the right bill?

Mr. Roy: -- than being a police officer so he wouldn’t understand the legislation.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I wonder if the member would confine himself to the bill before us, please?

Mr. Roy: Yes. What I’m saying to him is when amendments are brought in --

Mr. Cassidy: He wants the women’s bureau to look at all this husbandry.

Mr. Roy: -- involving a number of things including the definition of a motorized snow vehicle, it’s open for me to speak about any aspect of this legislation, including the definition. That’s exactly what I’m doing. I’m pointing out certain things to my friend --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A point of -- will you sit down, please? On a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I have a point of privilege. I believe I understood the hon. member to make some sort of disparaging remarks about the fact that I never got higher than a police officer. I would like the hon. member to indicate here, in this House, if he feels that as a result of not getting higher than a policeman, I’m not competent in my job. Is he casting disparaging remarks on every police officer in this province because, with respect, sir, I have met a great many educated idiots?

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, if my friend feels he fits in that category of educated idiots he can fit into it. I meant no disparaging remark toward police officers at all, in fact, even toward him. Even though, in my opinion, he has limited capacity, I sort of like him.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Roy: I have nothing against my colleague at all, nor against police officers. I work with police officers every day. I made a comment about his legal training when he was making objections to legislation which I was talking about and trying to be kind to him. I had no intention of making disparaging remarks about police officers at all.

To get back to the bill, Mr. Speaker, and dealing with the main item of the bill, the fact that the minister has seen fit not to require the wearing of helmets, I think it should be emphasized, as it has been emphasized by a number of other members and as I personally feel, that is not adequate.

It seems to me, when we look at one of these vehicles, consider the speed they can travel and the lack of protection on one of these motorized vehicles, as we might call them, we should require helmets. If we’re going to be prudent -- if we’re going to go too far we should go too far in the area of prudence rather than be in the position of finding there are so many accidents, we have to bring it in after people have purchased and there are many mopeds sold. I think it would be easier now when we see the introduction of these vehicles in this province.

I want to bring to the minister’s attention that his comments at the time of bringing in the legislation did not do justice to his legislation. He said at that time and he was quoted in a number of newspapers -- he was quoted in Hansard, in fact -- that most of the complaints -- or a lot of the complaints -- had come from women who said they didn’t want to wear helmets. He is shaking his head but I say, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately that was the point which was brought across.

It seems to us that important legislation such as this, which is setting the pace and setting a precedent in this province, should have more depth than that. It seems to me, considering the use of these mopeds in many countries -- it has been mentioned by some of my colleagues how much use has been made of them across Europe -- that the minister should be in a position to furnish us statistics justifying his decision, not giving a justification for the decision based on certain complaints from certain individuals in this province.

I say to him that when we are trying to encourage safety on our highways; when we’re trying to encourage people to drive vehicles safely; when we have established legislation forcing motorcycle drivers to wear helmets; it seems to me when we have vehicles like these travelling at this speed, we should encourage the drivers, or young people, at an early age to take safety precautions and wear helmets.

It is ironic that from the time the legislation was introduced we unfortunately have had some mishaps involving mopeds. We’ve had some people killed. That is not to say whether the helmet would have saved them or not, but the fact remains that we do know when we take protective measures, be it seatbelts in motor vehicles, helmets or otherwise, we do cut down the rate of injury and we cut down the rate of death. I think that is an important point and that should be made and emphasized to the minister.

The argument for civil rights or individual liberties is not an argument we should have. We have all sorts of controls on motor vehicles now. We have all sorts of controls on motorcycle drivers. That is not an aspect. First of all, Mr. Speaker, we have the aspect of injury. We have the aspect of death. And then we have the aspect of cost as well.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) has said that motor vehicle accidents costs this province $1 million a day. One of the reasons that we are having problems in health and one of the reasons that the federal government, for instance, has been forced to impose some form of control is that health costs are escalating. We have a situation where we must emphasize deterrents and where we must emphasize preventive medicine.

I find it ironic, Mr. Speaker, that this minister talked about introducing seatbelt legislation. It was mentioned in the Throne Speech. And we had expectations that he would introduce legislation, but he has backed off. Here we have another similar situation. On the one hand the Minister of Health is crying about health costs and on the other hand we have another minister who could ha doing something about it -- never mind the injuries and the deaths caused, but just the health costs -- and he is not accepting his responsibility, I say, Mr. Speaker.

I have a quote here from the Ottawa Citizen, dated Friday, June 27, 1975, where the director of the Ottawa Civic Hospital made some comments on mopeds. The paper said:

“The increasing number of moped drivers on Ottawa streets is giving the Civic Hospital headaches. Dr. Goldwin Smith, president of the medical staff, said Thursday that the neurosurgical staff of the hospital has been complaining about the number of beds being occupied by moped drivers who have sustained concussions in accidents.

“Dr. Smith said the hospital emergency department has only just begun keeping track of the number of moped accident victims. But he added that neurosurgeon’s have told him the practice of keeping concession cases under observation for a few days is reducing the number of active treatment beds available. ‘It could be a serious problem,’ Dr. Smith said.”

I don’t know if the minister has been in touch with the Ottawa Civic Hospital. He indicates that he has.

I say to the minister that it seems to me that it is not for institutions such as hospitals, and the Motor League to be keeping statistics. In other words, it’s fine to keep statistics but the onus is not on them to accept the responsibility. It seems to me that if the minister can save people from injury, and he knows he will, and if he can save some from death, and he knows he probably will, and he will save costs, whether in the health field or otherwise, then he should act now.

Why do we always have to wait until we get into a situation where we get complaints that people have been hurt or that people have been killed or that people have been maimed, before we act? Why can’t we act now at the inception of this legislation? I would urge the minister to look at this question and to reconsider his point of view. I really don’t see where the problem appears, Mr. Speaker. If you do force people to wear helmets and some people say they are really not needed, how do you know?

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, looking at the legislation involving motorcycles, when you look at the speed of these things, that the minister should be compelled to reconsider it.

I come back to the health question. The Minister of Health is just really crying about health costs and we know that the major savings are in the area of preventive medicine and preventive care. Talking about seatbelts, the minister and I both know that once this election is over with we’ll probably see seatbelt legislation. The statistics on this are overwhelming. He probably knows, once this election is over in the fall, that we’ll probably see helmets for moped riders and that we’ll see other aspects in the health field where we will tell people: “You can do this.” “You mustn’t do this.” “If you are going to do this, you must wear a certain safety apparatus” -- and so on.

I would urge the minister, Mr. Speaker, to reconsider this aspect of the legislation, and accede to the request of members. Really, it’s not on a partisan basis at all. I think it’s just people who are concerned, concerned about the safety of individuals.

The last question I would like to ask the minister, Mr. Speaker -- and I have not been able to follow all the amendments because it gets relatively complicated about what all the amendments do -- but will moped drivers be subject to prosecution for careless driving offences, for instance? Will they be subject to prosecution for other offences under the Highway Traffic Act, like all other drivers of motor vehicles? Recently I have been able to observe some of the operators of these moped vehicles, Mr. Speaker. They may not be involved in an accident themselves, but there is a tendency to weave back and forth, and this causes concern.

You and I both know, Mr. Speaker, to the minister, that even bicycle drivers are often very careless. Some people, going from bicycles to mopeds at the increased speed rate, have a tendency to be careless. We feel that the rules of the road should be enforced for these vehicles. I would like assurance from the minister that, in fact, his legislation does this.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments concerning this bill, and bring to the attention of the minister the way the government has flip-flopped, especially with moped legislation.

You can recall it wasn’t too long ago, Mr. Speaker, when a moped was classified as a motorcycle and the individual had to have a licence and had to carry insurance. Then, all of a sudden, that legislation was changed and the moped was no longer that type of vehicle, it was really actually just a bicycle. No longer did the individual have to have insurance, no longer did he have to have a vehicle licence plate. In fact, I can recall a constituent of mine who happened to own two mopeds and asked me to get a refund for him for the vehicle licence plate. I recall at that time, Mr. Speaker, the ministry did not even inform local police officials as to what the legislation contained. The individual I refer to had been harassed riding his motorcycle, having to show proof of insurance and having to show a driver’s licence. At that time legislation had been passed that did not require all of this, but the police had not been informed.

Now, the minister, has done the right thing in my estimation or has partially done the right thing. The complete legislation could be amended. I hope in the course of this going through the committee of the whole House that there will be amendments made by the minister or from this side of the House.

The fact is the moped is a very popular vehicle in the European countries, and I can foresee this same popularity in North America. I can foresee, even by this fall, finding maybe 25 to 50 mopeds at almost every secondary school in the city, providing they are available for sale in the various communities.

In France, for example, I understand there is one moped for every two vehicles. There are 12 million vehicles and six million mopeds. I can foresee that type of a percentage may eventually coming here. With the price of gas, which has been mentioned by previous speakers, a lot of people aren’t going to have any other alternative but to use this mode of transportation.

I have driven a moped; I have found them very easy to handle. I found the one that had the motor on the front wheel -- I think it is called the Velosolex -- a little more difficult, because it felt a little top-heavy. Those that had the motor-assist at the bottom of the frame, right at the centre, were much more stable and easier to handle. I enjoyed use of the moped.

I am concerned very much, Mr. Speaker, that there is no safety legislation as far as the use of some type of helmet is concerned. I don’t think we need the same type of helmet for driving a moped as we do for a motorcycle but I do think we need some type of helmet. I think that the minister should make it mandatory rather than encouraging it. The reason I say make it mandatory is that his own ministry sends out a publication which has the following statement in it: “In a 30-mph barrier crash, an occupant strikes the interior of a car with a force of several thousand pounds causing serious injury to himself and damage to the interior of the car.”

An individual driving a moped at top speed can be confronted with a similar situation. He can probably suffer the same type of injury the individual suffers in the interior of a vehicle in a 30-mph crash. I think the moped driver or rider -- there are no longer going to be riders because only one individual can be on the moped -- should be required to wear some type of head gear. The head gear, as has been mentioned by other speakers, doesn’t have to be of the same substance or the same strength as the headgear or helmet used by the motorcycle driver.

Mr. Speaker, my community was so concerned about the changes when the law changed from the position where the moped had to be licensed and the individual had to have insurance to the free use of the moped that if I am not mistaken they sent a resolution to the minister suggesting some of the changes he is implementing here. I commend him for implementing them but I’m still concerned about the fact that in section 1, 15(c)ii, he lists a moped as weighing not more than 120 lb.

I think the high limit is too great -- 120 lb is too high. From what I understand, most mopeds run at between 73 and 86 lb in weight. I think that weight limit should be substantially reduced so that we don’t have vehicles, mopeds, driven by students -- and the students are going to drive them; not only adults will drive them, a lot of students will drive them -- and actually being heavier than the individual driving it. Naturally, one says with an automobile it’s always like that but this is one the individual is manipulating by hand and by foot so the minister has little too heavy a vehicle, in my estimation, when he gives a weight limit of 120 lb. He should reduce that substantially for safety’s sake,

The other item that disturbs me, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister is not allowing these mopeds to go in areas where the maximum speed limit is 50 miles an hour or more. What he is doing is confining the use of the moped on the part of the individual; am I right? Am I taking the wrong point of view on that? Is he allowing them on the highways or banning them from the highways?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Allowing them.

Mr. B. Newman: He is allowing them. All right then. I thought he was banning their use on the highways. What I was going to say is the individual isn’t going to drive the moped only in the city; he is going to go to the beach. Naturally, he’s going to be using roads on which the speeds are substantially greater than they are in the city. I may differ from some in that but I know I’ve got to be practical about it. The individuals are going to go to the beach and other places of recreation with mopeds.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: So do bicyclists.

Mr. B. Newman: Sure, they are bound to go. I think there may be a requirement for the extensive development of bicycle pathways on which mopeds could be used, but until the time we develop those throughout the Province of Ontario, I think the minister is going to have to allow them to be used on certain streets.

Those are the comments I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the minister does take into account the comments made by my colleague from Ottawa who mentioned the escalating costs of health. If at the inception of the legislation we require individuals to wear certain types of dress, we may substantially decrease the accident rate, the injury rate and, in turn, the cost of the delivery of health services.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to enter this debate? The hon. member for Cochrane South.

Mr. Ferrier: The minister is just encouraging me to go on at some length in my remarks in this bill; much as I would like to, I’m going to exercise a little bit of self-restraint today and make my presentation very short.

I notice that this bill is required because a number of people and organizations have made representations to the minister to amend the bill that he originally brought in last February and to bring in these kinds of amendments.

I think it is important when vehicles are on our municipal roads and highways, as the moped has come to be, that the people who operate them should have some kind of a driver’s licence and, in fact, they should know and practice the rules of the road. They should also be subject to the laws of the province in terms of demerit points and the various other provisions of the Highway Traffic Act. Moped riders, as I have seen them, tend to weave in and out of traffic in a way that people on bicycles do not, and I think extra consideration has to be given to the kind of rules they are subject to.

I know the 14- and 15-year-olds will be a little bit annoyed at us, thinking we are perhaps putting too much pressure on them and taking away a right we had granted them, but I think this vehicle is one that deserves a little bit more maturity than perhaps most of them are prepared to give it; therefore, I would support the minister in that.

One point I want to emphasize -- and it’s been emphasized by other members who have spoken in this debate -- is the need to require helmets for the riders of mopeds in the same way that helmets are required for those who ride motorcycles. It was the persistent efforts of my colleague from Yorkview, who hammered away at it, that finally brought Mr. Haskett, who was the minister at the time, to implement this kind of legislation for motorcycle operators.

We do not feel, of course, that a moped goes anything like the speed of a motorcycle or that there is the same degree of danger, but there have been some very unfortunate accidents involving mopeds and people have lost their lives. Not too long ago in Hearst in the riding of my friend from Cochrane North (Mr. Brunelle), a young person lost his life riding a moped. I am not sure if a concussion was involved or not. It seems to me that we should be prepared to protect the rider; if he is not sensible enough to do it himself, then we should require it. If a little extra is asked of them, then I think they should be prepared to live up to it.

I don’t know what to say about women and their beautiful hair being messed up if they wear helmets. I suppose if they are riding around with the wind blowing through their hair, it will be messed up anyway, if they don’t have one on. Whatever way it is, they may have to get their hair done up after they have been out for a recreational ride on one of these mopeds.

I think it would be a very good idea, and I would just appeal to the minister, along with others, to require the use of helmets by all riders of mopeds. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I’d just like to add a few remarks. I don’t want to prolong this debate, but I know how the Honda vehicle developed in certain parts of this province and I know that the moped will develop in rural Ontario in a big way, although it is not too well known there now.

I would say to the minister, after listening to the debate this afternoon, that I am one member of this House who would like the minister to really consider some headgear for those who use mopeds. I know in our part of the province, where a large number of Hondas are used, many fathers and mothers forbid their sons and daughters from using these vehicles without a helmet and if they ever find them riding one of these vehicles without a helmet they warn them that they will never have an opportunity to ride one again.

It is a concern to many if the drivers don’t use these helmets, and this afternoon, after listening to this debate, I would advise the minister to make it mandatory that those who use mopeds, those 16 years of age or older, should be compelled to use some kind of a headgear that will prevent them from being injured and save them tremendous misery or suffering for the rest of their lives.

I would like to see the minister give every consideration to making headgear mandatory when riding these vehicles.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to enter this debate? The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I listened with a great deal of interest to the comments made by the members. The two points that seemed to come through, obviously -- and I am not at all surprised, I might say -- were the question of the helmets, or the headgear, and the weight of the vehicles.

Let me assure the hon. members that it has not only been themselves who have been concerned about the question of whether or not we should have helmets or headgear of some kind. I have spent a great deal of time debating within my own mind this particular requirement. I have discussed with a great many people the question of whether or not this sort of headgear was required.

I regret very much that the hon. members would have fallen into the same trap I expected the press to fall into, and that is, I made the remark about women and after I said it I wished I hadn’t, because I knew the press would make that the main part of the whole argument. I am extremely disappointed that the members fell into the same trap, because it was said facetiously. Although it is true that I did have some submissions made to me, that certainly was not the major part of the submission on helmets.

Mr. Gaunt: It wasn’t the main cornerstone of the minister’s argument.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, I regret that it was taken that way. It was not intended to be. There was really no cornerstone to any argument.

Mr. Cassidy: That was the problem.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That is correct, and I am not arguing that paint. I am simply saying that there were so many various submissions as it related to the helmets and the wearing of them. A number of arguments were put forth. Quite frankly, I tried on helmets to see what wearing these things felt like. I had never worn one before on a motorcycle, because I am much older than the member for Ottawa Centre. We didn’t have to wear them when I was riding motorcycles. I found that when riding a motorcycle at a low speed the helmets were very warm.

I won’t try to justify what was said in the past. The whole argument on helmets was well made, I think, by the member for Scarborough West when he started the discussion on helmets. I think the same comments were made by the members for Ottawa Centre, Ottawa East, and others who talked about the helmets, and that is, “some form of headgear.” Understand, at the present time the only standard that exists for the helmet is for that helmet new required by motorcycle riders. This is part of what created a lot of apprehension in the minds of those who were opposed to the headgear.

I agreed with the thought that some form of headgear is a good thing, but I don’t know how I am going to establish this “some form,” because right now there is no standard. The only standard for helmets that we are aware of is that for the motorcycle rider. If someone knows of some standard somewhere and can let us know, we would be very happy to consider that and put it in.

Mr. B. Newman: We have a helmet standard in football.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: If we are going to set a standard, surely to goodness we are not going to say that one should wear a football helmet riding a moped or that he should wear a boxing helmet on a moped or that he should wear a hockey helmet on a moped. I am not arguing against the member’s logic. I am saying let’s find a standard that will be less than that very, very substantial helmet that one is required to wear to ride a motorcycle at 60 or 70 miles per hour.

Mr. Ferrier: We would wear a moped helmet on a moped.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: He can wear a moped helmet. I would like the hon. member for Cochrane South to develop the moped helmet and we would be all set to go. He could become a free enterpriser again.

Mr. Cassidy: It is a challenge to Ontario industry.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The helmet is a matter to which we have given a lot of consideration. I certainly have given a lot of consideration to that. We will be back to that point, but I think the point is well made of some form of helmet.

On the question of the weight of the vehicle, when we talk about the weight we are talking about the curb weight of the vehicle. We are talking about the vehicle as it would be with whatever equipment was on it and with a full tank of gas or whatever is required. I have in front of me a list of some of the various weights of the vehicles. To give just an example, one that has a dry weight of 99 lb, and its curb weight takes it up to 109 lb. Some of these smaller vehicles that were being referred to earlier increase considerably from the dry weight to the actual curb weight when they are ready to go down the road. I think that’s understandable.

We arrived at 120 lb as a way of handling the majority of the machines as we knew them. They have a much wider tire and wheel than a bicycle. It adds to their weight. They are equipped with a headlight that adds to their weight while bicycles are not. They do have the motor, which adds to the weight. We felt that we had to arrive at some sort of weight that would not suddenly preclude a great number of machines that have already been bought.

I have been criticized here in this House for allowing people to buy them and then suddenly making them illegal. I think we arrived at a weight that seemed to cover those sorts of machines at the curb weight. I have these figures here and I could make them available to members for comparison. They usually increase anywhere from 5 to 10 lb as a result of going from dry weight to curb weight.

I am, I think, reasonably satisfied and gratified -- I suppose that is the word -- with what appears to be the acceptance of the other sections of the amendments we have presented. We touched briefly on the licensing requirement. We want to have the vehicles registered. We want to have them subject to the requirements of the Highway Traffic Act and, for benefit of the member for Ottawa East who is not here, that would be a requirement. They would be subject to the Highway Traffic Act and the rules of the road. The driver who will now be licensed at the age of 16 will also be required to abide by the laws as they apply to a driver. He or she can be charged under the Highway Traffic Act.

I might point out that within the terms of the Act, if they are convicted of an offence that calls for the suspension of the licence, it will be suspended. That prohibits one from driving any motor vehicle, if he is suspended as a result of an incident involving a moped. The law is very complete in that manner.

Mr. B. Newman: Will points be accumulated?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Points will be accumulated. If one violates the Highway Traffic Act while riding a moped, it is classed as a motor vehicle and points will be accumulated. The licence can be suspended for that purpose and re-examination required and what have you.

I listened with interest to the member for Ottawa East for two reasons. I have a degree of respect, minimal as it may be, for his knowledge of what’s going on. The only thing is, I would like him to be on one side of the fence or the other. He made an impassioned speech about the Health ministry’s concerns about the rising costs of health. We are as concerned as anyone else is, but last February, while I was introducing the Act to require suspended drivers not to be permitted to drive their vehicles as a result of drunken driving and impaired driving on our highways, he’s the same fellow who got up and told me how terrible it was --

An hon. member: Shame on him.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- and what a terrible thing I was doing by taking those drinking drivers off the highway, infringing on civil liberties, and he went on and on. I would suggest to him that he go and read the copy of Hansard from back in February, and see what his position was at that time. Today he’s for motherhood. At that time he was not nearly as in favour of motherhood as he is now. He’s changed a lot.

We can save a lot of trouble in this province as far as accidents are concerned by simply banning everything. That’s the easy way. If we had banned mopeds and prohibited their use in the province, we wouldn’t even be standing here debating it.

The member for Windsor-Walkerville says they’re here to stay. The member for Sudbury says they’re here to stay. You bet they’re here to stay. I wish that I could have anticipated back in February, when I first brought in that original Act, what was going to happen; how these things were going to grow in popularity across this province. I wish I had been able to anticipate what some of the manufacturers were going to do. I wish I had been able to anticipate that they were going to try to put certain things on our highways and pass them off as mopeds, even if they weren’t. So, if they suffer a little bit as a result of legislation, much of it was brought on by themselves in an attempt to put things on our highways as mopeds that we don’t really want.

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre, I believe, referred to the question of the machine being able to be --

Mr. Cassidy: Souped up.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- souped up to go beyond 30. I would hope that we have that covered. I agree it can happen, because people can break the law regardless of what you do. But the Act says, “not capable of exceeding 30 miles per hour.” If it is capable of exceeding 30 miles per hour, then it is in fact a motorcycle and anyone riding one, with a moped licence under the moped regulations, would be guilty of an offence and that particular machine would no longer be classed as a moped. I hope that might cover that aspect of it.

There is the question of insurance. At the time of introducing this bill, I said I would like to see an amendment to the Insurance Act which might permit insurance on these things to be reasonable. My original information was that we were going to be faced with an insurance bill of around $60 to $75 for mopeds. That’s fairly high, I thought. But that particular information, I understand, was as a result of including in the premium, fire and their coverage at that time.

My latest information is that, without any amendments to the Insurance Act, just as they presently are and the way they will be eventually actuarially classed, the premium will be around the $35 to $50 mark. In there somewhere would be the insurance that would be required for these under the present situation.

The reason the insurance is involved here and I think members probably know -- is because it’s a motor vehicle. It’s been made into a motor vehicle within the meaning of the Act in order that they can be registered. Members well know that the motor vehicle accident claims fund says that the registrar of motor vehicles can’t issue you a licence or a registration for your motor vehicle until such time as you prove to him that you have insurance.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Or --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Or, pay into the fund. So, the individual who is driving the moped as a result of it now being a motor vehicle must have one or the other.

Mr. Singer: Nothing wrong with that.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, I see nothing wrong with it, but I was asked to respond as to why the insurance and what were we going to try to do about it.

I hope I may have touched on most of the points. I know we’ll be going into committee to deal with this clause by clause, so perhaps we can wait until that time.

One other point was helmets. Everyone talks about helmets and that we should put some form of headgear on. When it comes out it always sounds as if we had passed legislation banning the wearing of helmets. Everyone can wear them at any time. I agree with the compliance by the motorcycle riders, that the member for Ottawa Centre referred to. Anywhere I’ve gone I see motorcyclists --

Mr. Singer: Irwin Haskett took years getting around to saying “yes” to that.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- all wearing their helmets. But the only point is, do the members really believe that those helmets would suddenly disappear if all of a sudden we took the trend that California has taken, for example. California has said they’ve removed the requirement for their motorcycle riders because they say the statistics don’t show that helmets have added any safety factors. I’m not going to debate that one. But do the members think they would revert to riding without the helmets? I don’t know.

Mr. Ferrier: They’d be a lot more careful.

Mr. Cassidy: It would be gradual.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: They would probably go back gradually.

Mr. Cassidy: In four or five years we would be back to 50 per cent using them.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The member is probably right.

Mr. Singer: They only started wearing them here after we legislated them.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It is an unfortunate thing though. I am pleased to hear the hon. member for Downsview say that because he is, I think, a good lawyer, and there are not too many of them around.

Mr. Singer: I am watching for the trap.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, there is no trap. The thing I am a bit concerned about is where do we stop with legislation? I am not saying we shouldn’t do this; but if a tragedy occurs in someone’s backyard in a swimming pool, if someone drowns, do we ban swimming pools? What do we do? Do we prohibit people from using them?

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Is someone suggesting that?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, but someone will eventually.

Mr. Deans: Why is the minister asking such a silly question?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Some of the things that have been suggested to me by the members opposite over the last year and a half have been just as silly or more so, with the greatest of respect.

Mr. Deans: Perhaps equally as silly; they couldn’t have been sillier.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Certainly equally as silly. People are saying to me, and they have said over the last year and a half in particular; “For God’s sake, don’t legislate everything.”

Someone suggested we do something about licensing of bicycles on a provincial basis. I think somewhere along the line we have to draw the line on whether we legislate or not. I notice members opposite are not unanimous in their thinking in their own caucuses on this matter. I have listened to the debate.

Mr. Ferrier: Are we going to stop at roller skates maybe?

Mr. Cassidy: How about hoops?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I don’t think the member for Essex-Kent agrees with some of the things that were said by his colleagues as they relate to helmets. I think the member for Sudbury is probably in the same boat as I, that is we are not sure which way to go on this one. He has indicated that he isn’t necessarily gung-ho in favour of helmets, as his colleagues from Scarborough West and Ottawa Centre are.

Anyway, I think we can come back and deal with a lot of these items point by point as we go along in the committee.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Committee of the whole House?

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

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 129, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Essex-Kent.

On section 1:

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): I am still concerned a little about the weight. The minister in his reply cited the 99-lb weight, whereas the curb weight was 109. I just called one of the dealers in town a few minutes ago to get some weights. They had 73 lb and 82 lb and no doubt some heavier also. The weight is a very important part of this legislation. I was just looking at a newspaper clipping of a machine that wouldn’t come under the category of what is called a moped now, but I think it did before. My goodness, it is not a moped; it is a motorcycle. What the legislation does now is to take this out of the category because it has a gear shift and so forth, yet it has a 50cc motor and the weight of it would be much more than specified.

I think this is quite important. I was intending to bring in an amendment that we bring this down to 100 lb, but I have an open mind on it. I am sure you and your people have done more research into this. You have the staff and so forth to do this. But I am quite concerned; I think a very important thing in this bill is the weight of these vehicles. Of course the heavier they are the slower they go maybe.

I think the handling of them has quite a hit to do with the weight. I recall the member for Sudbury brought this up. I feel quite strongly on this matter. It seems to me that we could keep that down; with the ones yen mentioned and the ones that I have, even 110 lb would be all right. I thought 100-lb maximum would be quite satisfactory. I would like your comments as to whether you think it is possible.

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on that. I think my reasoning here is this. I looked at the basic curb weights of these various machines. I think the highest curb weight was about 107 lb; I think that’s the highest that I saw. Most of the members discussing this bill on second reading pointed out quite accurately there were these with curb weights of 85 lb, 88 lb, down to a low of 59 lb, which is a pretty small machine.

The thing I was concerned about was that if you took 100 lb, as someone has suggested, as being the curb weight, what you effectively do then is you eliminate the possibility of the owner of that particular moped from adding something to that vehicle that may be very desirable -- perhaps extra lighting for use at night or a carrier -- so that, rather than try to ride down the road from the corner store with a quart of milk, it can be put in a carrier which becomes a part of the machine. That’s going to add a little weight to the curb weight of the machine, because it becomes a part of the machine.

I really think it isn’t such a bad thing as take a curb weight of a vehicle, to which can be added some of these features that would allow it to remain a moped for all intents and purposes, in terms of power, speed and the other regulations, and yet allow it to reach that weight.

I agree with the member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa), who said earlier about many of these things. I sure wouldn’t want to be too far from home if the motor breaks down and expect I’m going to pedal home; I’ll get there but I’m going to be tired by the time I do get home. We felt there was some merit in leaving the weight in that vicinity so that we didn’t have them start to strip down a lot of things that you and I would find desirable in order to keep it as a moped, the biggest weight factor being the motor. Other things could be added to it that would help it.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Chairman, I would like to follow along and make further arguments for a reduction of weight. I think the minister has put the cart before the horse in that the moped was invented before he invented his legislation.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I know that.

Mr. Germa: He has practically said: “I’ve taken a look at the weight of these things and they are running at the weight new, so that is what we’ll have to accept.” I don’t think that is the responsibility of the minister.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, that is not necessary.

Mr. Germa: The minister is here to tell the manufacturer what type of vehicle is acceptable on the roads of Ontario, despite the fact that these people already have them in production.

Make no mistake about it: The industry will gradually bend to the requirements of the Province of Ontario. If they’re going to sell 50,000 or 60,000 of these vehicles in Ontario, and if you put a weight limit of 75 lb on them, you will see the manufacturers meeting those requirements. But when you give them 120 lb, they’re going to add tape decks, stereophonic radios -- practically all the junk stuff you get on an automobile.

I think you’ve got to take into consideration that you are passing the legislation to fit the people of Ontario, doing what you deem to be acceptable and safe and you do not have to meet the requirements enunciated by the industry.

You have had experience on those things, and there is no doubt in my mind -- and there should be none in yours -- that those vehicles you were riding two weeks ago in the parking lot are overbuilt. I’m sure you will admit and agree to that. Those things can be cut away down as far as the weight factor is concerned.

Why do we need shock absorbers on a bicycle? It’s a bicycle we are talking about. The first line of the first section says: “‘Motor-assisted bicycle’ means a bicycle.” That’s what I’d like to be talking about, a bicycle, and not some sort of a miniature motorcycle, which is precisely what we have here.

I think you have to reconsider the weights, even if you do offend some manufacturers presently and temporarily. Certainly you will offend them, but I have great faith in their ability to meet standards. They’ll devise a machine by using lighter metals or by more engineering. They’ll get the necessary strength there. I don’t think we need this vehicle with the huge wide tires it has on it now, with the massive frame with which it is presently constructed.

I think this would go a long way in keeping these things as they are meant to be; namely bicycles with a power assist, and not the reverse which I still see that we have. I think that’s where the minister erred in his definition. He did say at an earlier date that by tightening up the definition he is going to make sure it is a power-assisted bicycle and not a pedal-assisted motorcycle. Well I don’t think this has been accomplished in the definition.

The definition part is the key part of the bill. How do we separate it from that other thing known as a motorcycle? How do we get it closer to a bicycle? Well we have to start with the basic bicycle criteria; namely that it is built very light because it has to be propelled by muscle power. That is where we have to start. Then you add only that amount of weight necessary to carry this motor assist, and not the reverse.

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion on this point?

Shall this section stand as part of the bill? Anything on section 2?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I propose an amendment to section 2 of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves that section 2 of the bill be amended by striking out the word “repealed” in the second line and inserting in lieu thereof “amended by striking out 14 in the first line and inserting in lieu thereof 16.”

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, the effect of that is to raise the minimum age from 14 to 16 on royal assent, rather than wait until we proclaim the driver’s licence requirement.

Mr. Chairman: Shall this section --

Mr. Germa: I wanted to speak further on section 1 before the minister rose, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: My apologies. I thought the section was carried.

Mr. Chairman: The matter of weights, then, carries.

What section is the member for Sudbury on?

Mr. Germa: Section 1.

Mr. Chairman: Section 1, right; carry on.

Mr. Germa: This is back on the definition section, Mr. Chairman. The definition calls for this machine to be, “fitted with pedals which are operable at all times to propel the bicycle.” You know, I think if you take a look and if you recall the experience you had, these things have some sort of restraint on them which precludes your using it as a pedal machine.

Now, I am not a technician. I don’t know what it was that was dragging me down, but I couldn’t pedal the thing. Despite the fact I put in the decompression lever, it seemed to me that I was still turning over that piston, despite the fact there was no compression on it.

Now, maybe some of your experts have looked at this. It’s not a free-wheeling device. It’s not a free-wheeling vehicle like a bicycle should be, without any restraints whatsoever. It’s not only the dead weight of the vehicle, the 100 lb that was holding us back from using it as a bicycle, there was something in the gear box, or whatever, which was restraining the rotation of those pedals and not only the weight of the vehicle and the power of driving it. I’m sure you agree with me on that.

Now did your officials look at these vehicles? I think to make the definition clearer you must have a bicycle which is freewheeling and totally disconnected and removed from the motive power when it is being used as a bicycle. There was only one of that 25 or 30 we saw which was a freewheeling bicycle, where I felt the motor was completely removed. One was the arrangement that you lifted off the wheel with a lever, which hoisted it physically from the rotating wheels. That one pedalled in a very free-wheeling fashion, but none of those others which had the motor down close to the sprocket part of the machine did.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Well Mr. Chairman, I would hope that what we are saying here, and that it will in fact be so, is that the particular machine will be operable at all times with pedals. I’m thinking that if the motor was to be removed completely from the moped vehicle it still would be operable with pedals. That is how I was looking at this particular definition as far as being propelled by pedals is concerned. I don’t want the pedals on the machine to be there simply for decoration. They are to be there to propel that vehicle.

If we don’t have the wording right for that purpose, I am prepared to attempt to make some changes to it. I felt it did cover that, “fitted with pedals which are operable at all times to propel the bicycle.” I thought that wording did what I wanted it to do but it may not.

Mr. Germa: Maybe that was the intention, but I’m sure the minister knows it’s not going to accomplish that. Certainly the pedals are there physically; certainly the pedals are operable; but the bicycle, the motor-assisted vehicle, is not operable as a bicycle because you are dragging the weight of the engine with you. Despite the fact you have released the compression in the compression chamber, you still have the friction of that engine, as far as I’m concerned, going around with the pedal. It is, therefore, not operable.

The minister knows one can’t pedal it more than two blocks but one can pedal any bicycle 10 miles -- any one of us can quite readily -- but on that vehicle we couldn’t do two blocks probably.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): No, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell) can’t.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): I am not sure about the member for Welland (Mr. Morningstar) either.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Germa: Well, the average guy could. The minister admits that two blocks would be about all he could do by pedal with that thing. What is it that’s restraining it from being a bicycle? That’s what I’m trying to tell you. It is not really a bicycle the way it is presently designed.

What can we do to make it a bicycle? I would suggest there has to be some clear separation between the gasoline power or the electric power on the thing and the muscle power which is also provided. It’s not there.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I don’t think there is anything more I can add. I still feel that as we now define the vehicle that section does effectively provide for the pedals to be there to be operable at all times to propel the bicycle.

One other point is it was necessary to put this particular section in to rule out certain machines which had the pedals on them all right to make them look as though they were mopeds as we intended to define them but really all they were was something which could be adjusted to become foot rests for the motorcycle, which it really was. By saying they must be operable to propel the bicycle, we have turned certain manufactured products into motorcycles, which they really were, and they will not be able to become mopeds. I think it meets the requirements there. That’s why we did that, essentially, and in the hopes of having -- they can be propelled; maybe not as easily as I would like it to be but at least they can be propelled.

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

Mr. Cassidy: I had a comment on the definition of motor-assisted vehicle that related to the power of the bicycle, which I think is germane to the comments made by the member for Sudbury as well. Knowing human nature and knowing the nature of private corporations and so on the two will conspire to ensure that if the bike can’t go 30 miles an hour it will come awfully close to it. There are liable to be certain bikes that are mopeds, close to the 120-lb mark, with a relatively generous engine which has a capacity to be souped up.

The minister states quite correctly that if, at any time it’s tested, the vehicle goes over 30 miles an hour under the test arrangements here, automatically it isn’t any longer a moped. Somebody who is driving a vehicle as a moped, which has been adjusted to go faster, will have to pay the consequences but that’s pretty difficult to police.

I think what I would suggest to the minister is this. If the minister is not willing to change the definition of “on pedals”, at the very least there should be contact between the ministry and the people who were importing or manufacturing or selling these vehicles about the ones which seem to be coming awfully cloze to the line of being a motorbike and not a moped because the pedals really aren’t much use; or about the ones which seem to be just designed to be souped up by kids.

I would suggest that through the teenage sons and daughters of people working in the ministry and cabinet ministers and that sort of thing probably there is a fairly good information system which can be brought to bear in order to find out what’s happening in that particular sphere.

You have to give a certificate that a moped is a moped in order that it can be sold as a moped. I think possibly there, if you won’t give on the wording of the Act, the definition of the word operable ought to mean something more than pedals which will take a moped for two blocks or so.

As the member for Sudbury says, if you’re stranded five miles from home, you ought to be able to pedal the thing back even if you’re pretty tired by the time you make it. If a moped doesn’t meet that kind of standard -- that an average kind of rider, male or female, can’t ride it a mile or two with the pedals and without the motor assistance -- you would say it is not operable really as a pedal-type bicycle and therefore doesn’t fit the categories. Would the minister comment on that?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It is my intention and has been from the time I started to develop what I hoped would be legislation which would put some sort of reasonable control on the moped, that we would still have the motor-assisted bicycle. That’s the main thrust.

I make no bones about it and I’ve said it publicly before and I say it here -- let the manufacturers and the distributors be well aware that what has been done by statute can be altered by statute. If they want to play games with these machines, they are inviting more trouble -- not necessarily trouble but they’re going to get more regulation. By the stroke of a pen in this Legislature we can put those things right back into the motorcycle class very quickly. I say again publicly I can only warn the manufacturers, the distributors and the retailers that if they’re going to play games with these things, they are going to end up with an awful lot of them going right back into the motorcycle category and don’t come crying on my shoulder when it happens. I have warned them of that and I really believe they recognize that they’re going to have to accommodate this legislation.

In some of the discussions I have had, I find the majority of those now coming into Ontario will run at about 22 mph; the majority. Secondly, as I mentioned at the time I looked at them, if we can keep them in that category -- that 22 mph category as they tell me the majority of them are that are coming in now -- I think we can get along with them as being mopeds. I think as the member for Sudbury and I discussed the day we were out with them, there were a couple of them there that you could pedal: you could move along on them. There were some of them which if I had test driven them, I wouldn’t want to ride very far as a bicycle.

I can only say in answer or to comment on that, this is the initial legislation. I’m not going to pretend to you that it is not going to be amended next year or the year after or the year after. It probably will be. But I do say that we want this to be a motor-assisted bicycle. We want it not to become motorcyclized -- if I can conjure up that new monstrosity of a word. If it does, the legislation can quickly be changed to put an awful lot of those machines right off the road as mopeds.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comment?

Mr. Cassidy: Just a comment here. The certificate is given by the vendor?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes.

Mr. Cassidy: But the ministry has a means of communicating with the vendors to say: “This vehicle isn’t really operable for pedalling because after you pedal it for two blocks, you collapse of a heart attack and therefore we will tell you not to certify any vehicles of this make and model as mopeds.” If we could have that kind of an assurance, that would be at least helpful.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, I think that can be handled in the regulations which go with the Act. I say quite openly that the people I have talked to in the industry are willing to co-operate. As long as they are willing to co-operate and go along with the meaning of the Act, I think we’re going to get along fine. It’s when they decide to go in the other direction that there is going to be difficulty for them, and I think we can take care of that in regulations.

By the way, that same form will be required by the purchaser in order to be licensed as a moped at the issuing offices.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Chairman, it’s true what the minister says. By a stroke of the pen you can pass legislation, and no doubt you have the power. But have you got the will to do it? You only have to deal with 20,000 people now; there are only 20,000 of them out there. You are only going to offend 20,000 people. By the time there are 150,000 of these things in Ontario, there is a lot of political clout there and you won’t be so anxious to come in here and, with a stroke of the pen, rub these people out of business. No, I can’t agree with you.

Why don’t you deal with the problem now while it is small, before the problem gets too big? Why don’t you guarantee us, by passing some amendments here, that this is going to be a motor-assisted bicycle and not what it is today? Maybe you should provide that the dealer who sells and signs certificates should have to pedal that thing for 25 blocks. That could be one of the tests, or something like that. He would immediately say: “Well, I can’t sign that certificate because it’s not a bicycle and I can’t pedal it.” If you can’t define a definition by mechanical means, do it by trial by fire or something like that.

This is going to turn into a big problem. A couple of years from now it’s going to be very difficult to make any changes in the weight and in any of these things that we are talking about here. I think you should consider seriously the kind of a monster we are creating.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Number one, I don’t really think that it’s that much of a problem. I think you would agree that in legislating mopeds we are aeons ahead of what we were with snowmobiles. Eventually legislation was brought in for them, but we are away ahead. The things have only hit the streets and all of a sudden we have got legislation. I don’t disagree that now is the time to do it, but I don’t see anything wrong with coming back and amending legislation if we have to amend it, if it’s required.

Mr. Ferrier: That’s what you are doing here.

Mr. Cassidy: You have already amended it once. How many times are you going to come back?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That’s right. Let’s not be too hasty to be critical of the minister on that one, because I invite you again to go back to February’s Hansard and read all the debate that came from that side of the House when I introduced the legislation. You all supported me; you thought I was a wonderful lad.

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion on section 1?

Mr. Cassidy: On section 1, Mr. Chairman, or maybe on section 2, I just want to pursue a bit the question of insurance which the minister commented on. He said, from my notes, that he had thought the coverage, including fire and theft, would be $60 to $75, and had thought that was a bit high, but was now told that it will be between $35 and $50. If it’s $50 without fire and theft, it’s really just as high as $60 or more with fire and theft. I wonder if he can give some elaboration on that matter.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Which section are we on now?

Mr. Chairman: I don’t think that is in section 1. Shall section 1 stand as part of the bill?

Mr. Germa: May I ask one more question on section 1, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: Right.

Mr. Germa: Section 1(1) (15e)(iv) defines that the engine shall not have a cubic displacement of more than 50 cc, yet there is no limitation on the size that an electrically operated moped could have. Do you think it’s not important to put a horsepower maximum on the electrically operated one?

Let’s not kid ourselves, there is an electric one, we had a chance to drive one. Somebody might come in with a high-powered electric one.

Of course, you have the second definition that it cannot be sufficiently powerful to attain a speed of more than 30 mph. But you did see fit to put a cubic displacement on the gasoline-powered one, and you did not see fit to put a horsepower maximum on the electrically operated one. Is there any particular reason for that? Are you sure that is not necessary?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes. In fact, I think the first amendment to the Act was to make sure that the electrically driven moped was covered in the Act. I have been given the assurance that, combined with the maximum speed requirement, this is sufficient coverage.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 1 stand?

Mr. Cassidy: Subsection 1. I have a question on subsection 2.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, we have an amendment by the minister.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, not on subsection 2 of section 1.

Mr. Cassidy: Subsection 2 of section 1, Mr. Chairman, I believe, is the section in which the minister has indicated insurance will now be required on mopeds. I believe that is accomplished by including mopeds in the definition of motor vehicles; is that correct?

That’s my peg. I wanted to ask the minister the question as put to him: What does $35 to $50 get you and how will that differ among different classes of riders according to the information he has had from the industry?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: First of all, my information comes from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, with which I was having discussions to try to develop this thing for the third party sort of coverage.

The information I have is that the premium for the third party liability and accident benefits promulgated by the insurance advisory organization is from $45 to $48. A quick survey of the industry indicates premiums would be from $35 to $50. That really is the information I have. I think there is still some area here where insurance companies will be able to arrive at a premium, I don’t think they have anything to base their premiums on as yet. The experience with them is practically nil, I think, in Ontario and not too much in other provinces, because I think, as you pointed out, in many of the provinces they are classed at one end of the stick or the other; either they are pure bicycle or they are pure motorcycle. They will be required to have third party coverage and the $35 to $50 at least is cheaper than contributing to the fund.

Mr. Cassidy: How much is it for that fund?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think the fund is $50. Is it $50 now? It is $40 now, but there may be an increase in that, too, before too long. I can’t really give you much of an answer on that.

Mr. Cassidy: I think the next thing I am going to say is probably like spitting in the wind with the Conservatives. It would be very nice, given the nature of the people who will tend to buy mopeds, who will tend to have lower incomes and to be either elderly or young, in many cases, if there were efforts made by this ministry and by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations to ensure that the insurance industry doesn’t pick on moped owners and levy an unfair and unduly high premium on them. If they weren’t of modest means they wouldn’t be buying mopeds.

I would like an assurance from the ministry that you will come in and try to protect the people getting insurance for mopeds. I don’t know if you can do it since you don’t do that for anybody else, but it would be desirable for you to do so.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any discussion on any other section of this first part?

Mr. Cassidy: It won’t stand up.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 1 carry?

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Chairman: In section 2 we have an amendment by the minister. The minister moved earlier that section 2 of the bill be amended by striking out “repealed” in the second line and inserting in lieu thereof “amended by striking out 14 in the first line and inserting in lieu thereof 16.”

Any discussion on section 2?

Shall the section carry?

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.

On section 5:

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy moves that Bill 129 be amended by adding a new section 5(a) as follows:

Section 62(1) of the Act is amended to read, “No person shall ride on or operate a motorcycle or a motor-assisted bicycle on a highway unless he is wearing a helmet that complies with the regulations.”

Mr. Chairman: The minister has an amendment on section 4(a). I should read it at this time.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I don’t think I will propose that amendment.

Mr. Chairman: You will withdraw this amendment?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: At this time. I never introduced it; I respectfully ask that you wait until I do.

Mr. Cassidy: I would like to comment on my amendment, Mr. Chairman. There were a number of comments made about the need for making helmets compulsory during the course of the second reading debate on this bill. I think the consensus that the minister recognized in his comments was that people weren’t saying that motorcycle helmets should be mandatory, people were saying that helmets suitable for mopeds should be mandatory.

The minister went on to say, however, that he didn’t know of any standard that exists for moped helmets and he gave that as one of his two principal reasons for rejecting the recommendation. His other reason was the-least-government-is-the-best-government argument: Where do we stop? How far do we go on? Which, I guess, is the civil liberties argument, I am not quite sure. At any rate he was saying that he wasn’t sure that we should legislate in this field.

I would point out to the minister, Mr. Chairman, that if moped helmets are not being made right now, it leaves people on mopeds who are concerned about their safety with the alternative of either wearing a motorcycle helmet, which the minister tried and found uncomfortable, or risking their health, safety and life by going with no helmet at all. If the industry has not at this time come up with a moped helmet, specifically designed for vehicles going no faster than 30 miles an hour, then it’s unlikely that it’s going to come up with one until some jurisdiction like Ontario moves in and says: “Go ahead and do it.”

As I understand, the motorcycle helmets cost between about $35 and $75, depending on how elaborate they are. It’s probably possible for a moped helmet to be built and sold for $20 to $25. This is quite possibly something that could be done by Ontario industry and I rather suspect that it’s something that could be done quite quickly.

It interests me -- in the area of hockey, for example -- that when my kids play hockey they wear helmets because they are required to. The NHL players don’t wear helmets because they are not required to and the argument that people will protect themselves by wearing helmets if they are not mandatory falls down, both on the argument of human nature and also on the argument that suitable headgear does not appear to be available right now.

You are liable to get people wearing baseball helmets, football helmets, hockey helmets and other kinds of alternatives. You are liable to get manufacturers coming in with a helmet which they call a moped helmet and which people will mistakenly buy, thinking that they will be okay, but in fact those helmets will not meet any standards and will not give the kind of protection they purport to offer. On the other hand, you will have people unnecessarily buying very heavy, bulky, motorcycle helmets that are required only for fast motorcycles.

I would like to be specific with the minister as well. Another simple amendment would permit him to accept this amendment but not to proclaim it until the fall, by which time a standard could have been established by the CSA, the Canadian Standards Association, in conjunction with this ministry and quite possibly with the industry.

I presume it is fairly easy to get a standard in terms of the way the thing fits and fastens and so on. What is subsequently required is some estimate of the force against which a head needs to be protected by the helmet. I am sure that can be done fairly quickly too because we already know the number of g or the number of foot-pounds of pressure that’s exerted on a helmet in the case of a collision at 30 mph or less.

I am sure that the standards could be brought together fairly quickly and that the first models could be on the market by the fall, at which time the ministry could proclaim this particular section to amend the Highway Traffic Act to make moped helmets compulsory. For sales between now and then, people could be told either that they could buy a motorcycle helmet now, or that they would be free to wait until the helmets were on the market. Retailers who were concerned could quite possibly say, “You give us $25 now, and once the helmets become available and become compulsory, we will give you, for your $25, a moped helmet which fits the regulations.” I don’t think it creates a really serious marketing problem if people are aware now that in a few months they’re going to have to wear a helmet.

I would appreciate the minister’s comments but this is a two-step kind of affair. Pass this amendment now; get going with the Canadian Standards Association to devise a standard in the next month; get the industry to start manufacturing them by the fall; and proclaim this section probably before Christmas,

Mr. Chairman: Any other comments?

Mr. M. B. Dymond (Ontario): Mr. Chairman, it is seldom that I find myself in agreement with a proposal made by my socialist friend but I would be professionally careless if I did not impress upon the minister --

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): You are in trouble now.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: A welcome intervention, Mr. Chairman,

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): First time in eight years.

Mr. Dymond: I would be professionally careless if I did not impress upon the minister the need for government to give very careful consideration to this amendment.

I’m not at all impressed with the worry which seems to exist about interfering further with individual liberties. Governments all over the world are constantly interfering with individual liberties in matters of far less importance than one of this kind.

I’m not very impressed, either, with the lack of unanimity of opinion in respect to the value of helmets. My profession has probably been too silent on this matter although I’m quite sure that if the records were searched there would be plenty of medical and surgical statistical information out, perhaps, with specific reference to injuries arising out of moped accidents but related accidents.

All of them are worthy of consideration. Unfortunately, too few of those statistical records find their way into the popular press where governments and elected people will find them. Nonetheless, they do exist and I think the study presently under way or recently completed by the Ottawa hospitals is worthy of very careful and in-depth study.

The minister mentioned, of course, that a good deal has been said about headgear and helmets but that no standard has been proposed. The member for Ottawa Centre has, I think, covered that very clearly, Mr. Chairman, in my respectful opinion. This is one of the most simple matters to resolve and could be resolved very quickly.

I think the matter is of great enough public importance that the ministry itself might well commission a study to develop a helmet or a headgear, call it what one will, of a certain minimal acceptable standard. I’m quite sure if it were referred to the Ontario Research Foundation an answer could be had in a relatively short period of time. In this way the standards can be established and, as the member for Ottawa Centre pointed out, the amendment could be included in the bill to be proclaimed at a time when such standards had been found.

A good deal has been said about the possible monetary cost of these accidents and that’s very important, there’s no doubt about it. Mr. Chairman, I submit to you that we leave the money cost quite apart. If even one life can be saved by introducing a preventive measure of this kind or, even more seriously, if one human being can be prevented from becoming a vegetable -- and many accidents of this kind convert otherwise normal people into human vegetables -- or if even one person can be prevented from becoming injured as a result of this amendment, surely it is far more worthwhile than waiting to see what might happen and then amending the legislation.

I feel this is an amendment which is worthy of the support of this House.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury, then the member for Downsview.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Chairman, when I spoke at the beginning of this debate I said I was ambivalent regarding the wearing of hardhats as a protective device. I think the member from Ottawa solved my dilemma when I was speaking.

At that moment in time I was think of the huge affairs we now require for motorcycles. I was also thinking of the huge affairs we require for people to wear when they are on snowmobiles. Certainly this type of hardhat would be unacceptable, I am sure, to a large group of people who would like to buy one of these mopeds.

I think the main part of the suggestion is that new standards should be set to devise a helmet which will fit the requirements, as set out by research, to protect a person on a vehicle going no faster than 30 mph. I would assume that this helmet would be of a different design, a different weight and a different structure from what you and I are thinking about when we think about these huge things that motorcycle operators are presently required to wear.

I think we all know enough about legislation that we cannot pass legislation just because we happen to think it is good for the public of the province. Otherwise, we would have abolished alcohol long ago. We know alcohol is a killer and alcohol serves no actual useful purpose in society, and yet we know that the public will not accept prohibition, so we have alcohol. That’s the way all legislation has to be treated. You have to pass legislation which is acceptable to the community that you choose to legislate.

I think if the minister did get off his seat and get the research council to do some research in devising a helmet which would fit the bill here, he would then have no problem in encouraging people to wear it. I think six months should be enough time for them to devise a helmet. Look how rapidly we developed a helmet for hockey players, for instance, and the faceguard for goalkeepers. These things came on us rather suddenly.

I think that this helmet can be developed, since we have a standard helmet now for snowmobiles and motorcycles. It is a matter of engineering ourselves downward rather than upward. It would be difficult to go upward, but in this case we are engineering ourselves downward and I think it wouldn’t be too difficult to devise a lighter, more acceptable helmet.

I find no difficulty, Mr. Chairman, in supporting this type of amendment having followed what the train of thought was as it relates to this legislation.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I am quite prepared to support this amendment. I have sat here this afternoon and listened to the arguments and, as I listened to the argument and particularly the reply of the minister, I recalled a gentleman who was a member from Ottawa and a cabinet minister -- he was the Minister of Transport and his name was Irwin Haskett. We argued with him over a long period of time, probably about three years, trying to convince him that there should be compulsory legislation in this province to make people who rode on motorcycles wear helmets.

Mr. Haskett gave about the same kind of answer that the present minister gave this afternoon. He said -- well, no, he didn’t; he was a little more positive, even -- he said, “I don’t think I know what kind of helmet it should be. Should it be a big one or a little one?” I can remember he used to posture very obviously. He shook his head and said, “You wouldn’t expect me to tell people what to wear or how to clothe themselves? If I have to tell them what to wear on their heads, somebody might expect me to tell them what kind of shoes they should wear. What good is it going to do when there is going to be an interference with civil liberties?” All the same arguments “We have too much legislation,” and so on.

I think it is important that we legislate for the safety of our citizens. I was particularly taken by the comments of the member for Ontario, who is a medical doctor, has listened to these arguments over a number of years, has been in the cabinet, and is a senior member of this Legislature. I set great store by what he says, and what he is seeing, and what his experience is, and the calm way in which he approaches most debates. I think the minister should pay particular attention to his front-bench colleague and listen to the words that have been put forward. I don’t think it’s impossible -- any more impossible today than it was a few years ago -- to design standards, or to have our experts tell us what kind of standards should be necessary for a helmet that will protect the health and well-being of people who drive or ride on mopeds. The minister doesn’t have to decide it today, and there is ample time to finally bring this into effect -- to proclaim it by regulation and to finalize the design.

All of our legislation reflects, surely, in some way or other, on the safety of our citizens. I don’t hear the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W Newman) say, “You’re asking me to legislate about the environment and it’s wrong, because I shouldn’t be called upon to pass more legislation and tell people not to pollute the air, or tell people not to pollute the water.” It’s not wrong to have the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacBeth) tell people not to have dangerous machines in their factories. Surely it’s the responsibility of this minister to bring legislation before us that will protect people who use our roads and who use our roads with vehicles. There has been substantial evidence -- medical evidence, that we have to be aware of -- that these machines can be a danger to our citizens.

I don’t think, Mr. Chairman, this is a radical kind of an amendment. It’s in keeping with what we’ve done in other fields. It’s in keeping with what we’ve done insofar as the use of the roads are concerned. I know this minister is far more advanced and reasonable in his thinking than was his predecessor, Irwin Haskett, and that, after a little more consideration, he will accept the amendment and we will take another step to protect our citizens.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion on this point?

The member for Middlesex South.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words on this. I think that probably some of the logic that has been put forth is quite reasonable. When we see what has happened in a couple of instances already, when a helmet might have saved someone, I probably think it’s a reasonable approach to the thing.

I think the minister should be looking at some standards. He should be taking a look at this in the next very short while -- reviewing it and bringing in an amendment to the legislation to make sure the proper standards and those sort of things apply -- and not accepting an amendment at the present time when he is just not sure how it is going to apply. I suggest that he take a look at this and do something on it in the future.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Mr. Chairman, I hate to take a little bit of time because I know the minister is now convinced that our arguments are sound --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: There is lots of sound all right.

Mr. Ferrier: -- and that we do, of course, need the amendment that my colleague has put forward, and that it can be put into the legislation, and that this section could be proclaimed six months hence, or at whatever time the minister agreed to do it.

The truth of the matter is that people will suffer head injuries unless they’re wise enough to wear a helmet. Certainly, as the minister said, some people will wear them, but a good many others will not and it will encourage a little bit more carelessness than need be without this amendment and without the requirement of some kind of helmet appropriate to the riders of these mopeds being developed and made available on the market for their protection.

We all know people in our communities -- and often young people -- who have been involved in some kind of an accident and suffered head injury -- where they have, in fact, become human vegetables as, the hon. member for Ontario has stated. If we save one or two people in our province by requiring that they have protective headgear, then I think that we’ve served our people well. I hope the minister will agree to this amendment as proposed by my colleague.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion before the minister replies? The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, it has been an interesting discussion all afternoon. Strangely enough, I had an amendment all typed out and ready to move myself and then I listened to some of the debate earlier, especially the comments about the type of helmet and I thought “Ah, the light is dawning.”

I’ll be honest with you -- I was prepared to bring in an amendment, originally, that would have said go ahead, put the helmets on, start to wear helmets immediately the way the helmets are now. But I thought there was a lot of logic in what was being said about the type of helmet so I let this thing go.

I appreciate the debate which has come out of this and it’s been very interesting. My amendment was very simple. Yours is much more palatable to everybody I think. I think I could accept it. I wasn’t too sure until my colleague on the front bench got up; then I was sure.

Mr. Singer: The one on the back bench.

Mr. Ruston: He was a former cabinet minister also.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I do respect his good judgement. I would ask. Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member would change the number of the section. I think it would be better for us if you could make it 4(a). I think this is what you fellows want. Call it 4(a), the amendment; it would make it easier. If you would just change that so the section would then read as --

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Your people say 5.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I may have to have a draw on it, because I have another one over here who says make it 4. Have you made up your mind over there? Pick a number -- do you like 5?

Mr. Chairman: This will be 5(a) then. Is that agreed?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, it won’t be 5(a). It will be 5; a new section 5.

Mr. Chairman: A new section 5?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: And we will remember accordingly.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I would just point out a technicality to the minister. If you accept that you don’t intend to proclaim this amendment for some period of months until you have a standard, you will need to change the bill later on in order to ensure that particular section can be proclaimed at a different time from the rest of the Act.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Correct. I think perhaps we’ll have to change that in section 2, in order to --

Mr. Cassidy: Section 11.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Section 11. I want to comment a bit on the amendment.

I find the amendment very acceptable because I think it does two things. It gives us an opportunity to develop a helmet -- or headgear, to use that expression -- which can be used on these particular vehicles without pushing the panic button now and requiring everyone to run down to their nearest corner store, whatever it may be, and buy. I think the member for Ottawa Centre did talk about the types of helmets and that was one thing I think which was of most concern to those people -- the capital outlay to buy that particular type of helmet and the real need, did you need the type of a helmet you would require, as was suggested, on a motorcycle or a snowmobile.

I think this is a good amendment. We are indicating that we think helmets or headgear should be worn. We want to develop the right kind of headgear so we won’t have any problems with it.

Mr. Cassidy: I would like to welcome the minister’s support and I am glad the amendment is going to be passed. I think we should say in the Legislature that clearly a motorcycle helmet will also be acceptable since it meets a higher standard.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes.

Mr. Cassidy: I hope that nobody who was buying a moped tomorrow and wants to have a helmet and wants protection now will be deterred from buying a motor bike helmet because moped helmets might be coming along later.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Right on.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No ban on using motor bike helmets.

Mr. Cassidy: This should be said as well. The wearing will become compulsory later.

Mr. G. Nixon: Very positive.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cassidy, we have a slight change in wording here then.

Mr. Cassidy: Sure.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I would like to propose this amendment in order to meet what I suppose is some legalese.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves that section 5, subsection 1, of section 62 of the said Act be amended by inserting after “motorcycle” in the first line “or motor-assisted bicycle” and renumbering sections 5 to 12 as sections 6 to 13 respectively.

Mr. Chairman: We understand, Mr. Cassidy, this meets your particular original one.

Mr. Singer: A very clear amendment, that one.

Mr. Cassidy: That is fine by us, that is simply putting in legal language the proposal I put forward when we were still hoping for the minister’s support.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): We are lucky to have you.

Mr. Chairman: Shall this amendment then carry?

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The next section then shall be section 6. Anything further on this particular bill?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The whole Act is carried now isn’t it?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Chairman, as the member for Ottawa Centre has said, there is the particular difficulty of proclamation, which you will want to sort out.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, if there is no other discussion on any other section of the bill before 12, I would like to amend the new section 12.

Sections 6 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 12:

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I move that section 12 of the bill be repealed and the following substituted therefor:

“This Act, except subsections 2” -- I wish I could read your writing, fellows -- “sections 2, 1, and 10 of section” --

Mr. Ruston: You’d better get some new legal people.

Mr. Chairman: Is the committee willing to agree with the wording the minister can’t read?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think we can get it right.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves that the Act, except subsections 2 and 3 of section I 1, and sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 10 and 11, comes into force on the day it receives royal assent; and that subsections 2 and 3 of sections 1, and sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 10 and 11, come into force on the day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor.

Mr. Chairman: Shall these amendments carry?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I’m a bit confused because that changes a whole lot of sections and not just the new section 5. I don’t quite understand.

I wonder if the minister could explain why the difference in dates on the other ones. Is he able to take sections 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, and 11 and proclaim them on one date different from the Act, and then take 5, which is the one that is going to take longest, and proclaim it on another date; or doesn’t he have to bring all of those six or seven sections that are enumerated and proclaim them at the same time?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: What we are proposing under the first part of that was to get the new moped definition, the age, no passengers, the municipal bylaws empowering a ban on highways with speed limits over 50 mph -- to have those come into effect with royal assent; we wanted them right away.

Because it is going to take us some time to develop the licence plate that we want, the licensing form for drivers, and the other factors that are mentioned here, they will come with proclamation, as would the mandatory helmets, when they are designed, by regulation.

Mr. Cassidy: You can do all of those individually, not all at the same time.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes.

Mr. Ruston: Not until after the election.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I don’t want to let that go by. If the hon. member for Essex-Kent is capable of devising that helmet within the next number of days, before the election, you get it to me.

Mr. Breithaupt: How big is the number?

Mr. Cassidy: I reject the spirit of that comment as well.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Always give me the number.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, I think we have decided to bring the helmets in when they can be introduced, and that all parties have agreed that should be done regardless of the election date.

Section 12, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the bill be reported?

Bill 129, as amended, reported.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves 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 reports one bill with certain amendments and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 103, an Act to amend the Superannuation Act.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

Mr. Wardle moves second reading of Bill Pr33, an Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Beaches Woodbine.

Mr. T. A. Wardle (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr. Speaker, this is the first section only of the bill originally presented to amend the term of office of members of the executive committee. This is the first request to the city of Toronto. In 1969, the city obtained special legislation which provided for the establishment of an executive committee of the council. That legislation provided that members of the executive committee would hold office for three years, which at the relevant date corresponded with the term of office of the council. In 1972, the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act was amended so as to provide that in every area municipality, which would include the city, election of candidates for council would be held in the year 1972 and every second year thereafter. Council wishes to amend the city’s special legislation so it will conform to the amendment to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act and the Municipal Elections Act, 1972, which prevail.

The second part deals with the resignation of a member of the executive committee. In 1969, the special legislation obtained by the city respecting the establishment of the executive committee of council provided that, where an alderman resigned from the executive committee, he would be deemed to have resigned his office and his seat in council. It is the view of council that this restriction is undesirable and should be removed so that an alderman would not have to resign from council if he chooses to resign from the executive committee. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the executive committee replaced the former board of control in the city of Toronto. This is the only part of this Pr33 which is before the House.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): I beg to differ with the member for Beaches-Woodbine, Mr. Speaker. I’ll need your guidance on procedure on how to do it. It has never been done before. On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I have a reasoned amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill Pr33, An Act respecting the City of Toronto, which appears on the order paper, which is where it is meant to be. Do I simply read it in order to move it and can I then proceed to discuss it?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, you may read it while I read it.

Mr. Cassidy moves as a reasoned amendment that the bill be not now read a second time but be referred back to the private bills committee in order that the section of the bill relating to rent control, which was contained in the original application to the city of Toronto, can be restored.

Mr. Speaker: I am advised that the motion is out of order because the matter referred to herein has already been dealt with by the House and therefore cannot be raised again at this time. I rule that your reasoned amendment is out of order.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps you could explain at what time the House dealt with the matter referred to in the reasoned amendment, apart from first reading.

Mr. Speaker: That’s right. I am just reminded that it was dealt with by the House when the committee’s report which made the appropriate recommendation was adopted by the House. It was adopted by the House. Therefore the matter is closed in that respect. The motion is for second reading of the bill.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): The member was away that day.

Mr. Cassidy: It seems to me that the report of the committee then is followed by the relevant consideration of the various private bills.

Mr. Speaker: No. The bill was adopted by the House as it is printed and as it exists now.

Mr. Cassidy: I would like to move the adjournment of the House for the supper hour, Mr. Speaker, and consult with our procedural authorities on that particular matter, because it seems to me that this is --

Mr. Speaker: I have made the ruling. If you wish to challenge the Speaker’s ruling, that’s up to you.

Mr. Cassidy: I would like to talk for a bit first, Mr. Speaker, on the point of order.

Mr. Speaker: My ruling is not debatable. The hon. member knows that. If you wish to challenge it, you may do so by calling for a vote.

Mr. Cassidy: I move that the House adjourn for supper.

Mr. Speaker: No. We don’t need to move that.

Mr. Cassidy: I would call the Speaker’s attention to the clock then.

Mr. Speaker: I’ll see the clock. I place the motion for second reading of Bill Pr33.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, is there a quorum?

Mr. Speaker: No. Your motion is out of order. I recognize the clock.

Mr. Cassidy: In that case, I challenge the Speaker’s ruling.

Mr. Speaker: All right. Those in favour --

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this can be embarrassing.

Mr. Speaker: I understand.

Mr. Cassidy: I was trying to be reasonable and not to enter into discussion of your ruling.

Mr. Speaker: I understand, but it’s a very firm rule in the House that matters dealt with cannot be raised again and I ruled that the matter has been dealt with.

Those in favour of the Speaker’s ruling --

Mr. Cassidy: I challenge the Speaker’s ruling --

Mr. Speaker: That is exactly what -- would the hon. member take his seat? That’s exactly what I am doing this at the present time.

Mr. W. Hodgson: Sit down! Have a little respect for the Speaker.

Mr. Cassidy: Is there a quorum in the House, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I am dealing with the motion first of all. Those in favour -- would the member take his seat?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Would the member take his seat!

Mr. Cassidy: This matter is too important --

Mr. Speaker: No, this matter has been --

Mr. Cassidy: -- to be bulldozed by you.

Mr. Speaker: This matter has been dealt with. Will the member --

Mr. Cassidy: I am sorry. This is too important. I’ve asked for reasonable treatment by this House. This matter affects tenants across the province and we simply cannot do it this way.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Now the member has a requirement --

Mr. Cassidy: I am asking time to go to procedural authorities and the leader of the New Democratic Party in order to see whether the Speaker’s ruling is right on this debate.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: If it’s not --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: It the Speaker intends --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I have listened to enough. I hereby name the hon. member for Ottawa Centre and ask him to be removed from the House.

Mr. Cassidy: You can name me as often as you like, but this matter affects tenants --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: It’s past 6 o’clock. You have refused to look at the --

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Cassidy: You have refused to --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. member please accompany the --

Mr. Cassidy: If you adjourn the House, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Cassidy: This is stifling the House, Mr. Speaker. You are just abusing the power of the House.

Mr. W. Hodgson: The member is.

An hon. member: Not at all.

Mr. Speaker: No, I am dealing with this matter. Will the Sergeant at Arms please accompany the hon. member from the House.

Order, please.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: You are abusing it.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Germa: I do not see a quorum.

An hon. member: Acknowledge the clock, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I was just about to acknowledge the clock. We will continue with this bill after the recess.

It being 6 o’clock, p.m., the House took recess.