The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: We are always pleased to welcome distinguished visitors to our gallery and to our Legislature, and I point out to the hon. members that seated in the Speaker’s gallery this afternoon is Mrs. Winifred Ewing, member of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. I’m sure the hon. members will want to welcome this distinguished member to our House.

Mr. Evans: Mr. Speaker, to you, and through you to the members of the Legislature, I would like to introduce 20 second-year students from the Georgian College of Applied Arts and Technology from the great city of Barrie, along with their leader, Mr. Robert Warman.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the members of the House to join with me in welcoming 52 students from Doon Public School in the beautiful little village of Doon -- which also happens to be the home of the famous Canadian painter, Mr. Watson -- with their teachers, Mr. Smith and Mr. Garner.

Mr. Lewis: I challenge you to name the painter’s first name.

Mr. Sweeney: Homer Watson.

Mrs. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to welcome the grade 8 students from Glen Ames Public School, who are in the east gallery with their director, Mr. George.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Oral questions.

FARMLAND IN PRODUCTION

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Did the Minister of Agriculture and Food notice the speech made a few days ago by Gordon Hill, president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, using the latest statistics from Environment Canada to demonstrate again that improved land was going out of production in Ontario at the rate of 26 acres an hour?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I know this was quite an issue in the last go-round, the 26 acres per hour --

Mr. Breithaupt: Merry or not?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. W. Newman: But there are a few things that the member doesn’t know.

Mr. Lewis: I’m asking the minister.

Hon. W. Newman: For instance, using statistics from 1966 to 1971, when we had great agriculture surpluses, there’s a lot of land that was not in production at that time and is in production today -- I can give examples all over this province -- because the prices were not satisfactory for the owners to grow certain crops at that time.

Mr. Renwick: Don’t give us examples, give us facts.

Hon. W. Newman: More and more land is coming back into production. There are those small holdings which were listed in Statistics Canada which may not have had any bearing on it at all; some were in and some were out. As a matter of fact, we’re going to be doing a thorough analysis of the whole thing and I would hope that when that is done I will be able to give the members some very accurate figures.

Mr. Lewis: Good. By way of supplementary, did the minister notice Gordon Hill’s statement, he of the Federation of Agriculture, that on their findings and on the recent material from Environment Canada, the contention persists? What plans has the minister following the meetings in which his predecessor, Mr. Stewart and indeed the Treasurer of Ontario (Mr. McKeough), undertook to attempt to keep agricultural land in production? What particular land use proposals does he have?

Hon. Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, we have set up a special new branch within the ministry called the foodlands branch. We are looking very closely at all the official plans of the province right now. We have made recommendations on certain plans where we think that agricultural land should be preserved, and these people are very much involved in the agricultural land in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you. That was a full answer.

MORTGAGE INTEREST TAX CREDIT

Mr. Lewis: May I, Mr. Speaker, ask the Premier a question in the absence of the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes)? Did the Premier notice that the average house price in Metropolitan Toronto reached $59,325 in November -- an increase of, I think, $2,500 in one month -- and the carrying charges for that house, with taxes, would come to $627.49 a month on average mortgage rates and term, and that it would require an income of more than $25,000 to purchase such a home? Has he, therefore, reconsidered the position of the government on the subsidy of mortgage interest rates given this reality for Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the Treasurer indicated the other day, as did the Minister of Housing, that we were taking a look at the question of mortgage interest subsidy. We are very carefully analysing the federal proposal, and I’m not sure whether the minister may be here to state whether or not he has any more up to date information as to Mr. Danson’s proposal. We do not want a duplication. I think there is no question that the carrying charges are a part of the problem but they are only a part of the problem.

I did notice that the price had gone up, but whether this reflects, shall we say, a temporary condition or not I think it’s a little premature to say, because prior to that time there had been some indication, certainly in some areas of the Province of Ontario, that the price was stabilizing and in some communities was somewhat less than, say, six months ago.

We are not ignoring the potential of mortgage interest subsidy but we don’t want a duplication and we want to see, with the question of constraint, if this is the most logical way to expend whatever provincial resource we may have.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary: Has the Premier made any effort to associate the $1,500 home buyer grants with the possibility of having forced these prices up in this fashion?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t. If the member asks me for a personal point of view I would doubt, by and large, that the $1,500 grant has forced up prices. I think if one were to check the figure -- and I haven’t in the last couple of weeks -- there are a fair number of unsold homes in the marketplace still. I would doubt that the $ 1,500 has pushed up prices certainly in the areas I know best; I’m not as familiar with Metropolitan Toronto.

Certainly it has helped the market generally. There is no question that certain unsold homes have now been sold. It has made it possible for some first home buyers to buy, who would otherwise not have done so, which, I think, is a good thing in terms of economics; certainly the social benefits of people being able to purchase are very positive.

My own view is that I would doubt it. I don’t know that one could very easily prove this statistically one way or the other.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: The Premier hasn’t attempted to make a co-relation? Knowing the exact homes which were involved, could he ask that that be done to see if there is a relationship between the increase? Finally, given the exclusion, now almost total, of low and moderate income earners anywhere in Metropolitan Toronto from being able to afford a home -- I think something less than 10 per cent of us, I speak to the Premier and myself, earn more than $25,000 a year, what new housing provisions has he in mind to free the Metropolitan market for 90 per cent of the income earners in this area?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a question which should properly be put to the Minister of Housing. The government has two or three programmes which do have an impact on the lower and middle income groups.

As to what extent it has application in Metro because of the question of availability of lots, which is part of the problem in many parts of the Province of Ontario, the minister would be in a much better position to answer that question.

ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

Mr. Lewis: A question of the provincial Treasurer. Did the provincial Treasurer note that the medical association has determined to fight, with all the resources at its disposal, his sense of rough justice and the inequitability of the guidelines as they may apply to medical practitioners? Could he comment on that? Could he indicate what exactly has happened with professional incomes under the guidelines thus far?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I did not note it. No doubt the Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller) has.

Mr. Lewis: What has happened with professional incomes? What specific determination has he come to or is that still being negotiated with the federal government, as per his last statement?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: How is it that in his wish to provide protection from the ravages of inflation for the whole community, the area of professional income is being treated with such care and apparent generosity? Is there no way of devising a formula in this field at all?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, we have put forward proposals to the federal government on several occasions and presumably it has them under consideration.

OIL AND GAS PRICES

Mr. Lewis: I have one last question for the Minister of Energy, if I could, since the Minister of Housing isn’t here, Mr. Speaker.

Did he notice that Bruce Wilson, formerly, I think, head of Union Gas, indicated that the oil companies were making between 10 per cent and 100 per cent profit on the original investments for the oil generated as of Jan. 1, 1974; and, further, that the increases in profits of the refining companies noted in the third quarter of 1975 have not increased any exploration? Would he, on the basis of these emerging figures, consider a rollback in the price of gasoline at the pump and home heating fuel until the Isbister commission has reported in February?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I have not had a chance --

Mr. Lewis: I am sorry, I asked the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I did note the article, I guess it was in the weekend press or perhaps Monday’s Globe and Mail, referring to remarks made by Mr. Wilson.

Mr. Laughren: The Treasurer probably will make the decision.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I don’t think the member would want the government to take that kind of action on the advice of any one individual. The advice given to the government by the Isbister commission resulted in the expiration of the freeze, as the member knows, and we are awaiting the final report at the end of February to determine future policy.

Mr. Singer: Did you hear what Gordon Sinclair said about you the other day? He was right.

[2:15]

Mr. Stokes: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: What possible justification would there be for an increase of 5.4 cents per gallon for gasoline in northern Ontario when people there are already paying IS cents a gallon more than in the south?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The hon. member knows very well that this is a subject about which the government is very much concerned and has asked the commission specifically --

An hon. member: Oh, come on!

Mr. Lewis: Inflation concerns you except with rents.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. minister’s further answer?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- specifically to investigate. As the hon. member knows, the question of price differentials is not confined to just the north versus the south, but rather affects all parts of the province, and that’s a specific subject which the royal commissioner has been asked to investigate and report on in his final report.

TORONTO TEACHERS’ NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Nixon: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Education. Could he give us some further clarification or comment on the statement that came from the Education Relations Commission last Friday that it can advise the government that the strike has gone on too long and thus would endanger the successful completion of a course of study after 21 days? Since this is the 21st day of the strike -- not teaching day but calendar day -- perhaps it would be appropriate. Would the minister give us some clarification, particularly since the chairman has said that this is a statement of policy: “It is our decision and it is there for you to interpret it.” What is he talking about?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The chairman of the Education Relations Commission, on behalf of the commission, was stating the policy that this commission, as a body set up by this Legislature under legislation we passed, was going to adhere to, to fulfil one of its responsibilities and duties given to it under the legislation, and he was enunciating what would be the ground rules. Those ground rules were that if the minister asked for their opinion they would offer an opinion to the minister as to whether the students’ studies were being interrupted and the government should take some action.

They also stated that even if the minister didn’t act after a strike had gone on for 21 days they would then be in a position themselves, if they wished, to offer opinions to the government. They would hold hearings if they so desired, they would meet with the parties concerned and they would present to the government, if they wished, a recommendation on the matter. That’s what they mean, very simply and clearly.

Mr. Nixon: A supplementary question: Since Mr. Saunders, a member of the commission, is reported to have indicated that the commission does not want to interfere with government policy, and the minister has said many times that he does not want to interfere with the commission’s work, isn’t there a danger that this “Alphonse-Gaston” attitude is going to mean that nobody is taking a responsible position in this regard?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, we, of course, always take a responsible position over here.

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s right.

Mr. Roy: You have a lot to be responsible for.

Hon. Mr. Wells: If we deem that legislation should be brought into this House for any particular purpose we will do it. I am really at a loss to know what the leader of the third party is driving at. His colleague to the left said he would not vote for back-to-work legislation in this House yesterday, and he pounded the desk five times and said --

Mr. Shore: No, four times.

Mr. Bullbrook: No, I didn’t, on a point of order, sir, I didn’t pound the desk five times; I think, twice, if I recall.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Is there a further answer?

Mr. Lewis: And his colleagues pounded the desk.

Hon. Mr. Wells: He pounded the desk twice, and with his great stature in the Liberal Party I have to assume he was enunciating policy on behalf of that caucus.

Mr. Singer: Are you assuming that the teachers are going to go back to work too? Think a little bit about that.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary question arising out of the minister’s answer: Does the last answer indicate that the minister and the ministry are now considering legislation and drafting it?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am not considering legislation.

Mr. Nixon: I would like to put a further question to the Minister of Education. Since it is government policy that the government of Canada is going to direct the wage levels and that we are not going to have any implementation procedure here, and it is on the basis of Bill 100 that the Education Relations Commission is going to make the decisions as to when the pupils are endangered because of the length of the strike, what is it that the Minister of Education does, other than shirk the responsibilities that, under our constitution, lie on his shoulders?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I could speak for about five hours on what the Minister of Education does and I would have thought that, considering all my friend had to say about education in this province, he would have understood what the Minister of Education does, but he obviously doesn’t.

Mr. Riddell: You’d be repeating yourself.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think he again made that very abundantly clear when he refused to debate with me at any time during the campaign.

Mr. Lewis: He was terrified.

Mr. Bullbrook: He was afraid of your lightning wit.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Let me just say we all agreed, I think, here in this House yesterday that the best way to handle the situation in Metropolitan Toronto was for the parties to be back at the table bargaining. That’s what we all wanted. That’s what’s happening under the aegis of the Education Relations Commission at this very minute. Let us let that negotiation at the table get going and let’s see what happens. It is happening today. Let’s not hinder it in this House.

STELCO NANTICOKE PLANT

Mr. Nixon: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry and Tourism: Can he report to the House the effect of the decisions, evidently taken by Stelco in the Nanticoke area, to substantially reduce their level of operation and expansion in their new steel plant there? Can he tell the House what the employment involvement is going to be if their new statement of policy is carried forward as we expect it will be?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot indicate what the reduction in employment or potential employment will be. Stelco has indicated very clearly the reason for the cutback; I think it is understandable in light of the economic conditions of this day. They have indicated clearly that their cutback is due to a market recession in steel requirements. I will be pleased to find for the leader of the Liberal Party exactly what Stelco’s anticipated reduction in employment will be in that plant.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Since there is an indication it might in fact involve 5,000 jobs, I think it would be extremely helpful for those planning the development in the area if this information were made public.

HALDIMAND-NORFOLK PLANNING COMMITTEE

Mr. Nixon: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Government Services in an ancillary way: Is the minister still acting as chairman of the planning group for the Haldimand-Norfolk development?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Can she explain to the House who has this responsibility and if there is any strengthening of the local involvement in that plan?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the member should take this up with the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes), who has that responsibility.

Interjections.

Mr. Nixon: I will redirect the question to the Minister of Housing.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I met just yesterday with representatives from the city of Nanticoke. The member from the area was in attendance at the meeting and I thought he may have passed the information along to the leader of the Liberal Party, but there --

Hon. Mr. Davis: He is laughing in the back row.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- will certainly be more local input involved. We discussed the formation of a liaison committee that will be working and I will be announcing the appointment of the new chairman of that committee possibly today, if not, tomorrow.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary to the Minister of Housing: Since the whole operation is concerned with the provision of community for the new industrial situation, has the Minister of Housing been talking to the Minister of Industry and Tourism about the reduced requirements, since it may be that there will be 5,000 fewer jobs in the immediate future there because of this change?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, we are quite aware of the announced slowdown of that particular project, but I think the hon. member should also be aware of the fact -- in fact, it was brought to me again rather vividly by the visiting delegation yesterday -- that the situation can change very rapidly. In fact, it was suggested to me that from day to day the speed of the development in the area could change, upward as well as downward. So it was suggested, and I think quite properly so, that we continue with the planning process in the development of the area as we have been doing, because it is a long way down the line and a fair amount of development will take place there in the rather immediate future.

PAYMENTS TO DOCTORS

Mr. Nixon: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health: Can he report to the House on the state of the negotiations that he is carrying on with the medical association on behalf of the doctors of the province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, they have been awaiting clarification of some of the federal guidelines and regulations at the present time and I would assume that we will be looking at these within the next few days.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Would the same requirements apply to them that I believe the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), and perhaps others, have put before the House and that is that the negotiations should come to an agreement which could then be reviewed by the Anti-Inflation Board?

Hon. F. S. Miller: We had made considerable progress, Mr. Speaker, but unlike people on a salary, professionals have a cost component as well as, let’s say, a net take-home pay in their fee schedule. We had a number of problems to discuss -- whether it was averaging or not, how much cost allowance was in the normal fee schedule -- and some of these required clarification; we have been seeking that with some success.

STERILIZATION OF EMPLOYEES

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member for Oshawa asked a question which I think misled most of the House into believing that General Motors was requiring pre-employment sexual sterilization of female employees. That is not true; may I say that first.

Secondly, there have been four complaints lodged with the Human Rights Commission of this province this morning by female employees of General Motors on the basis that they have been directed by the medical officer, through the personnel branch, that those women of child-bearing age who might become pregnant would run the risk of fetal damage if they remained in that area, and that no more women of child-bearing age are likely to be employed in that area. Their complaint is that the males within the plant are not being treated in the same way.

Mr. Breaugh: The source of the question obviously came from a General Motors’ press release; what is the minister’s source that says it is not a condition of employment?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, my source is a copy of one of the complaints lodged by one of the complainants to the Human Rights Commission.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary on that: I asked the minister to investigate and to give the position of the ministry on that. I have yet to hear a response to that particular question. When will I get that response?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the complaints were lodged this morning with the Human Rights Commission. When the commission has completed its investigation and the occupational health branch of the Ministry of Health has completed its investigation, I shall be very pleased to give the member for Oshawa my opinion.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think the hon. minister has given the answer to the question.

Mr. Breaugh: May I read the question? I think that would clarify it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. If a member is not satisfied with the answer given to his or her question, there is a procedure to follow, which is quite clear in our printed orders. You might familiarize yourself with those, please.

[See later question.]

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the question period. I wanted to introduce some students who are here from the C.B. Stirling Public School in Hamilton -- 50 students from grades 7 and 8, with Mr. Becker, their teacher, in the east gallery.

SPEECH OF MINISTER OF LABOUR

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Labour: On Nov. 24 last, when addressing the Toronto Board of Trade, she apparently made the following statement:

“There are, however, some unions who profess concern about the safety of their members but who raise safety issues with management only as a lever to get bigger wage increases.”

Does she have any evidence to substantiate this statement and against what union is she directing this criticism?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, there is some evidence to substantiate that statement and I am not about to name the unions involved.

Mr. Warner: You can resign.

Mr. Lewis: When she effectively incriminates, in a sense even slanders, a number of unions unnamed, does she not think that, as Minister of Labour endeavouring to march the path of some impartiality in labour-management relationships, she should name the unions and give the evidence to this Legislature, rather than give that kind of irresponsible tripe before the Board of Trade?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I believe the hon. member is debating the answer of the minister.

Mr. Cassidy: You know, you’re coming down pretty fast.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. minister have a brief answer?

Mr. Lewis: You are the most prejudiced minister I’ve ever seen.

Hon. B. Stephenson: If the hon. members opposite had bothered to read the paragraph before that they would have found precisely the same kind of criticism of certain employers. I did not name the employers.

Mr. Lewis: They can protect themselves.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Would you like me to name the employers as well?

Mr. Lewis: We know the employers. Name the employers as well.

Hon. B. Stephenson: You do not.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This question, I believe, was asked a week or so ago --

Mr. Germa: No.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: All right. Order, please. One moment, please. It’s developing into a debate. I believe an occurrence happened -- what was the date you mentioned?

Mr. Germa: Nov. 24.

Mr. Speaker: Nov. 24, which is a little over a week ago. It was of urgent public importance and I think we allowed the member the question --

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The supplementary was arguing the minister’s answer, with respect. I think we should move on to the next question from the member for Victoria-Haliburton.

WOLF BOUNTY

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development: In view of the ministry’s hiring of hunters to trap brush wolves, would it not be more appropriate, useful and economical to introduce the bounty system for a period of time, in view of the fact that many areas of the province are experiencing problems with their animals at this time?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I refer that question to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier).

Mr. Roy: Don’t strain yourself.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Natural Resources, I believe, is not here.

[2:30]

SOMINEX 2

Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health: Can the minister indicate to this House whether the federal Food and Drug Directorate has informed his ministry of its intention to withdraw a drug product called Sominex 2 from the Ontario and Canadian markets, considering that the Food and Drug Administration in the United States has already done so because the product poses a significant health hazard as it is currently marketed?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, my information is that Sominex 2 is not available in Canada.

CARLETON UNIVERSITY HIRING PRACTICES

Mr. Mattel: I have a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. In view of the fact that the number of Canadians hired at Carleton University in Ottawa has declined from 87 per cent in 1973-1974 to 72 per cent in 1974-1975, and to 48.6 per cent in 1975-1976, what action does the government intend to undertake which in fact will reverse that trend and see more Canadians hired?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that the figures quoted by the hon. member are correct. I share his concern. I have asked that a position paper be presented to me.

I’m in the process of giving a good deal of consideration to this question. I don’t for a minute make light of the member’s concern and I know it’s a genuine concern that is shared equally on this side of the House. I expect in the new year to have a more direct answer for the member. I want to assure him that I’m very carefully considering it.

If there is any specific information that he wants at this time, I’m prepared to give him full co-operation in obtaining that information. Until I have a little more time to fully consider what I believe is a very serious problem, I’m not prepared to go beyond that at this time; but I am in full support of his concern.

Mr. Martel: Could I ask the minister one supplementary: Is this occurring at the same rate, or roughly the same rate, in the other universities in the province?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, it has not occurred at the same rate in other universities. I have found as I looked at this problem that there is a great variation; part of the difficulty of coming to a very firm and fixed position is that there isn’t a universal pattern in our university system.

SHELTER ALLOWANCE

Mr. Breithaupt: A question of the Minister of Community and Social Services, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister advise if the ministry is giving any consideration to changing the basic shelter allowance figure for those persons who are in receipt of general welfare assistance and family benefits, particularly as costs are increasing for them for shelter requirements in most urban municipalities.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Yes.

Mr. Breithaupt: Anything further on that?

FALCONBRIDGE NICKEL MINE LAYOFFS

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Premier: In view of the fact that the Premier has seen fit to appoint select committees to investigate and report on matters of such urgent public importance as all-terrain vehicles, the use of schools, land drainage and holiday closing for retail businesses, will he reconsider his decision not to appoint a select committee to look into the layoff by Falconbridge of almost 1,000 workers in the Sudbury area?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, it is true that a number of select committees have been appointed on a number of issues; I must remind the member with concurrence from both sides of the House, incidentally. I stated a few days ago that I felt there would be no useful purpose in terms of a select committee on this problem, which does not minimize the problem.

Mr. Laughren: Is the Premier aware of the pressing financial problems of the regional municipality of Sudbury right now, and does he not agree that the history of boom and bust in the Sudbury basin and the failure of this government to assess the mining corporations properly have been one of the causes of the most pressing financial problems?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I recognize in any community that is primarily dependent on a single industry or a particular kind of industry, problems are created from time to time.

Mr. Laughren: All the time.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not acknowledge that the policy as it relates to mining tax is necessarily related to that particular situation. It also applies to other communities that have no mining industry involved whatsoever.

Mr. Laughren: You haven’t answered my question.

ACCOMMODATION AT RYERSON

Mr. Sweeney: A question to the Minister of Colleges and Universities: Is he aware of a serious problem re accommodation facing the students at Ryerson Polytechnical Institute with respect to the Neill-Wycik co-op housing, and that it would appear that this institution may be foreclosed within the next two or three months? What, if anything, will his ministry do to guide or assist them?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am aware of this problem. I would remind my hon. friend that housing per se in the institution is the responsibility of that institution and of the student body, as it relates to the institution and is not normally a function of this ministry.

Mr. Sweeney: I think the concern in this particular case is an unusual one.

Mr. Speaker: The question, please.

Mr. Sweeney: Since the concern in this case is an unusual one because of the problem of accommodation, does the ministry intend to provide any guidance to these people as to how they should proceed?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am not prepared to say that we will give extra consideration to this particular problem because of the uniqueness of it. I think we must view housing in the university and college system as a function outside of our ministry. We will assist with information. We are not prepared to take a direct role.

Mr. Warner: Supplementary: Is the minister aware that the student union at Ryerson has made attempts to establish co-op housing and has not received assistance from the ministry in so doing?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I suspect that if I am not aware, I will be by about 4 o’clock this afternoon, because I am seeing a delegation from Ryerson in my office at 3:30 this afternoon.

HIGHWAY EXTENSIONS

Mr. Grossman: A question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications: In the event the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto fails to undertake and implement a traffic control system for the traffic generated by the new paving, will the province follow its practice of withholding its subsidy?

Mr. Singer: No, they will tear up all the roads.

Mr. Roy: Tell him it is a hypothetical question.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Snow: One of the conditions of the approval of the subsidy for the paving of the Spadina arterial road was that the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto would carry out and implement such a study prior to the opening of the expressway.

Mr. Singer: Aren’t you going to tear up all the roads?

STERILIZATION OF EMPLOYEES

Mr. Breaugh: A question to the Minister of Labour: Is it legal for a company to make sterilization a condition of employment and, if it is, who decides -- the company or the minister?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am not a lawyer. I would doubt that it is legal for any company to provide that kind of requirement re employment. As far as I know, the only one who can legally agree to this procedure is the patient himself or herself.

COMPULSORY USE OF SEATBELTS

Mr. McKessock: A question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: In view of the public interest, is the ministry considering requiring school buses to be equipped with seatbelts under the new mandatory seatbelt legislation?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The provision of seatbelts in vehicles comes under the Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which is federal legislation. Our legislation requires the wearing of seatbelts where required by the federal bill.

Mr. Deans: That question was out of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Right. That bill is under discussion in the House at the present time, and should not have been raised here. But I’m afraid I didn’t just comprehend exactly what he was asking when the question was posed. We are discussing the bill in the House, as the hon. member knows, and that would be an appropriate time to discuss it.

YORK REGIONAL COURTHOUSE

Mr. Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Attorney General: Some weeks ago, I asked the Minister of Government Services (Mrs. Scrivener) the stage of the plans for the courthouse and registry office in the region of York. I got the information at that time --

Mr. Singer: Question. Not a speech -- a question.

Mr. Hodgson: -- that they were with the Attorney General’s ministry. So I’m asking --

Mr. Singer: Question.

Mr. Nixon: Where is the question?

Mr. Hodgson: -- asking the Attorney General: At what stage are these plans --

Mr. Nixon: Don’t let them interrupt you.

Mr. Hodgson: -- with his department at the present time?

Mr. Singer: Have you got that?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I have advised my ministry to expedite any input they had with respect to the plans in order to facilitate the early completion of this courthouse --

Mr. Singer: The greatest input expediters in the whole place.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- and to my knowledge this is being done. Perhaps a question could be directed to the Minister of Government Services as to where the matter stands.

Mr. Singer: She is a good input expediter, too.

TRAINING SCHOOL STAFFS

Mr. Moffatt: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Correctional Services: Is it the policy of his ministry that the custodial aspects of the provincial training schools will be emphasized to the exclusion of the educational aspects of those particular institutions?

Hon. J. R. Smith: Mr. Speaker, no.

Mr. Moffatt: If the answer, then, is no, why is it that the custodial staff in all of those institutions seems to be maintained at a complement much higher than that warranted by the number of students, when last Friday the number of teachers was reduced by 14 across the province?

Hon. J. R. Smith: Mr. Speaker, in some of the institutions, such as at Lindsay, people are being used in an “aftercare” capacity. Ifs only in recent months that it’s become evident that the decline in enrolment in the training schools is a sustained decrease, and we’re re-examining the whole position of the full allocation and use of all of these schools. These teachers were not notified last week of the termination of services. They will be on staff until next September. It could well be that when full examination is taken of the total training school picture, there could be a reduction. Whether it’s a temporary decline or not, we don’t know at the present time. We want to retain good staff within the ministry.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary: It is my understanding that the Grandview School for girls had a reduction in staff of six in June and another six a couple of weeks ago. How can the answer just given be justified when it is also my understanding --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That’s debating the question, as I’m sure the hon. member is aware. Does the hon. minister have a short comment on that?

Mr. Sweeney: Will the minister --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I believe the question has been asked.

Mr. Riddell: Oh, give him a chance, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I indicated that the so-called supplementary question was more a giving of information and so on -- that isn’t really what I started to say -- but the member is debating. I think he posed a question at the end and I’ll allow it. Does the hon. minister have the answer -- briefly?

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: Well, if you are asking a supplementary.

Mr. Sweeney: In the light of the minister’s previous answer, can he confirm whether or not that school is going to increase in enrolment, not decrease?

Hon. J. R. Smith: Mr. Speaker, it’s my understanding that the people whom the hon. member has mentioned are presently involved in that region in “aftercare” work as teaching staff members. I do not know exactly the projections or the exact status of that particular institution. I’ll be pleased to find out for the hon. member.

HYDRO TRANSFORMER STATION

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the Premier whether he’s received a request from Toronto city council for an independent study of the McCaul St. transformer, and what action has been taken on that request?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t recall whether I have or not. If I have, it probably would have been referred to the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell); but I will check this out and get word to the member either later today or on Thursday.

HIGHWAY 403 EXTENSION

Mr. Makarchuk: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation.

To view of the fact that my predecessor indicated during the election campaign that the contract for the westerly extension of Highway 403 would be let in October, can the minister at this time indicate whether the contract has been let, and if so, when will the work commence?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker, the contract has not been let.

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary: In view of the fact that the statement was made to the press and radio, can the minister indicate why the contract has not been let? Or was my predecessor not really telling the truth in that case?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, this fall it has been necessary for me to delay the calling of several contracts that we had intended to call. Because of the excellent construction weather that we had all during the 1975 construction season, running right through into the fall, many of our projects that were under way have proceeded much faster than anticipated. So in order to keep within our budget this current year, and taking into consideration the heavier expenditures on some contracts, some other contracts had to be delayed.

[2:45]

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON DAY CARE

Mrs. Campbell: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Has the minister met with the Citizens’ Advisory Committee which has reported on day care? Has he discussed the recommendations of that report with them?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I met with the chairman of that committee last week, and I have a meeting scheduled for Dec. 8 to meet with the entire committee.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary: In view of the recommendation that it is urgent that people be appointed as supervisors in various parts of this province, can the minister explain why, in the north, the supervisor is not taking her position until January?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I’m sorry, I can’t explain why the supervisor in the north is not taking her position until January.

Mrs. Campbell: In view of the urgency of the recommendations?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: No, I cannot explain that. It was a report to me as minister. The council was appointed by the Minister of Community and Social Services to advise the minister. It was a report that was delivered to me. As a matter of fact, it’s the second report and I’ve read both reports. These are reports that, of course, I will be studying in more depth and presumably some recommendation and action will come out of them.

I may say that I am anxious for the committee to complete its final report so that a positive position can be taken in connection with this whole field. Until I have the final recommendations of that council, I don’t propose to take steps; which I expect will not, in any event, take place this year.

COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES

Mr. Lawlor: A question to the Attorney General: What is the minister prepared to do to assist the numerous groups in Ontario, and particularly in Metropolitan Toronto, which are rendering community legal services, outside but supplementary to regular legal aid, and which are presently suffering a very great attrition in funds that are running out?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: My friend the hon. member for Lakeshore is talking about legal aid clinics or storefront clinics that provide paralegal services of one kind or another to the broad base of the community. I should say to the hon. member that I am fully supportive of most of these clinic operations. I believe that they add a very important dimension to the delivery of legal services in our community, and as long as I am Attorney General I will do everything within my power to see that they receive the assistance that is available to them and can be made available to them.

It’s a matter that I’m discussing with my colleagues at the present time in relation to the allocation of resources with respect to my ministry. I am afraid I cannot give my friend a more precise answer at this time.

Mr. Singer: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There is just time for a question from one of the new members.

Mr. Singer: I haven’t asked a question yet.

Mr. Bullbrook: The member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Singer) hasn’t asked a question for 10 days. Give the kid a break.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wilson Heights is not a new member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, order. The Speaker is easy. It will be between the member for Wilson Heights and the member for Quinte. Who is going to use the last five seconds?

Mr. Singer: You are the Speaker; I’m not.

Mr. Speaker: All right, the member for Quinte.

FRANKFORD WELL CONTAMINATION

Mr. O’Neil: I think the member for Wilson Heights has had a bit to say.

Mr. Singer: Saved again.

Mr. O’Neil: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. I wonder if the officials within the minister’s department have yet been able to come up with a solution as to the pollution of the wells in the Frankford area?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, apparently one of the suspected sources of contamination was pickle liquor.

An hon. member: Pickle?

An hon. member: That’s the right word.

Mr. Nixon: Is that on the shelves in the stores in Burlington?

Mr. Singer: If not, we will sue them.

Mr. Nixon: The minister should make them pay.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It’s something Dr. Potter is up to right now. It was used on some of the concession roads to keep the rust down. There is a silo on a farm in that area which is also suspected of contaminating some of the neighbours’ wells. We’ve eliminated those two sources but the wells, of course, because this was going on for an extended period of time, still have contamination in the water.

I understand there is a possibility of charges being laid against either the municipality or the farmer. In any event, the information we have at the present time is that there is some decrease in the contamination in the wells and, hopefully, in a matter of time this will clear up, assuming we have found the source.

Mr. O’Neil: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are well over our time now. The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Williams from the select committee appointed to consider Bills 20 and 26 presented to committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee recommends that its proceedings be recorded by Hansard and transcribed for the members of the committee only, during its clause by clause consideration of the bills referred to it, commencing Monday, Dec. 8, 1975.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further reports? Does the hon. member have a report?

DESIGNATION OF WOMEN MEMBERS

Mrs. Bryden: No, Mr. Speaker, I have a matter of personal privilege. I have observed that I and other women members of the House are designated in Hansard according to our marital status which is not done for the male members.

Mr. Cassidy: Good for you.

Interjections.

Mrs. Bryden: I am told by the editorial board that it requires a ruling from the Speaker to permit me to be designated as Ms. if I so wish. I would like to know what body really decides the rules under which Hansard is edited and perhaps this could be corrected.

Mr. Speaker: The Speaker has looked into this matter. It’s not completed yet, of course, because there are certain problems about it, I might say. I’ll give it further thought and get back to the hon. member just as soon as possible.

Mr. Lewis: What problems? What is it about this place?

Mr. Speaker: I could speak to the hon. member privately. Thank you very much.

Mrs. Bryden: May I also ask the Speaker to use his good offices to tell the Canadian National Railways, which issues courtesy passes to all members, that not every member answers to the appellation of Mr.?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege, as well. I would like to indicate there is no way that I would agree to being designated as Ms.

Mr. Lewis: I am sure the minister wouldn’t.

Interjections.

Mr. Lewis: God forbid that the minister be designated as Ms.

Mr. Bullbrook: The minister doesn’t look like a Ms. to me.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

LIQUOR LICENCE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Handleman moved first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Liquor Licence Act, 1975.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the amendment which is introduced is to extend the definition of Ontario wine, and would permit the use of grain alcohol from Ontario sources in the fortification of Ontario wines.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: Order for committee of the whole House.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 7, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, some hon. member -- and quite frankly it escapes me just who it was at this moment, but undoubtedly one of the gentlemen learned in the law; I think it was the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) -- was worried that a mortgage might be put on the town hall. I am informed by the law officers that my interpretation was correct, but so that any doubt be removed, I am going to move a small amendment to the bill.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. McKeough moves that clause (d) of paragraph 50 of subsection 1 of section 354 of the Act as set out in section 1 of the bill be amended by inserting after “mortgage” in the eighth line, “on such land.”

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, this satisfies the concern of this caucus on second reading of the bill. There was no designation as to on what assets the encumbrance would be, and certainly it is only logical that the mortgage should pertain to the lands for which the money had been borrowed. So we agree with that amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 7, as amended, reported.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report one bill with an amendment and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Clerk of the House: The third order, resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 27, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

[3:00]

Mr. Speaker: Just before we enter on the completion of that debate I should notify the House that I have received, according to standing order 27(g), notice from the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) that he was not satisfied with the answer to a question which he asked of the Premier (Mr. Davis) concerning the need for a select committee to investigate the behaviour of Falconbridge. That matter shall be dealt with at the close, 10:30 p.m., tonight.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Speaker: Who was next to speak on the bill which was under consideration?

Mr. Deans: The member for Durham East wanted to speak on the bill but I don’t see him although I am looking desperately. I guess we will have to go without him.

Mr. Speaker: He may have substantially completed his remarks. Does the hon. member for Wentworth wish to continue?

Mr. Deans: I hear him coming. The jingle of bells; here he comes now. He had to unfasten his seatbelt before he could get in.

Mr. Speaker: We will recognize the hon. member when he takes his place.

Mr. Moffatt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not being here when it was my turn. I will be very brief; I want to come to the end of my remarks.

On the last day I was talking about the problems with regard to the seatbelt legislation and the fact that this particular legislation, while no doubt, according to all the statistics we have heard, it does make eminently good sense from a safety point of view, does not do anything to provide for greater safety features in school buses.

I am pleased that the, Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) is in the House because I am sure he would agree that legislation which expects people who have ridden in school buses for 14 years of their life to become avid seatbelt users is a gross mistake. I would plead with the minister that, without delay, legislation be brought to this House to bring in appropriate safety devices in school buses. It is most important that the safety features in school buses be added to this particular kind of legislation if it is going to be effective at all.

I am sure, as well, that the minister would agree that to expect a school bus driver to be responsible for strapping every one of 48 or 60 or 72 passengers into his or her seat in a school bus does not make any sense at all. The only way in which we can get to a safety-conscious era with regard to school buses is to increase the passive restraint systems in school buses.

It seems to me, therefore, we must, make sure that’s what we are aiming at with regard to automotive safety as well. It is not enough to say that once we have passed seatbelt legislation we will have solved the problems of safe packaging of people in automobiles. The whole business of statistics can be distorted and used to prove almost anything.

One of the things I would call to the attention of the minister and the members of this House is that as a result of the passage of this legislation, sometime this year two or three people will be killed. They will be people who would not normally have been wearing seatbelts and, for one reason or another, will not be able to escape an automotive accident as a result of this legislation. I realize that’s the trade-off. It has been proved that there are times when seatbelts are dangerous. I wear seatbelts in my car all the time but somebody is going to be legislated into wearing a seatbelt which, at some time, is going to cause a death. I think maybe the minister should consider that particular little part of the legislation which is important.

It seems to me that what will happen is the kind of thing which has happened in the past. Once we have seatbelts we will forget about the passive restraint system which, I am sure, very soon we must move toward. It is not enough to say, “We have seatbelts, forget about the others.”

I would also like to draw to the minister’s attention that for a number of years, certainly as long as seatbelt legislation has been urged by members of this House and by other people on this continent, there have been commitments to bring in legislation standardizing bumper heights. There have been at least suggestions to make the fastenings inside an automobile -- seat fastenings in general -- of a much more substantial type. Those things have not been done.

There have been urgings to make sure that safety checks become a certain feature of the possession of licences for motor vehicles. In any other business we would deal with safety as a matter of course. Why is it that in dealing with automotive safety, we only deal with it as a matter of second stature after we have had a number of accidents. I plead with the minister that we not walk out of this House having accepted seatbelt legislation and say: “Fine, we have done the job we should have done and everything is fine.” Because the minister knows as well as I do that it is not enough.

If I were asked to vote on this particular bit of legislation, I don’t know just what I would do. I am concerned, and I think a lot of people in this House feel the same way. I would suggest that probably the minister does as well. All of us have very good reasons for saying that this legislation makes eminently good sense. At the same time, we all have misgivings about the entire package. If I were asked to do it on a percentage basis, I would have to say I am right now 48 per cent in favour of the legislation, and 52 per cent opposed. Now I don’t know what you do in that kind of situation.

I suggest that the minister must have those kinds of feelings as well, except that I wonder why he did not make an opening statement on this important bit of legislation. Why have all of the speakers here been defending the legislation and not the minister? Oh I know he is going to close the matter, but I think if this is such landmark legislation, as we will hear in the next six months -- you know it is really the same legislation we have talked about for a number of years, but all of a sudden Ontario is going to have the best seatbelt legislation in the universe or wherever. If that is the case, why is the minister not making an initial statement? I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that the minister has misgivings of one sort or another.

Hon. Mr. Snow: No way.

Mr. Moffatt: No misgivings at all?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Not at all.

Mr. Moffatt: Not one? That’s a wholehearted commitment that he should have put into a speech in the Legislature.

It seems to me, in coming to a conclusion, that one of the things we must do is look at the whole business of making sure this legislation is enforced, and I realize that every speaker has dealt with the enforcement problem.

At the passage of this legislation, let’s not stop the education campaign to get people to use seatbelts just because of the fact that we now compel use of seatbelts. I would much rather see the educational side continually emphasized, not a complete and absolute reliance upon the compulsive nature of the legislation.

I know there are people who are going to refuse to wear seatbelts for a number of reasons; we won’t legislate them into wearing them. Some people will pay the fine, obviously, but let’s not depend on the compulsory nature of the legislation to get the job done. Let’s not rest on our laurels and say: “We have got seatbelt legislation. Therefore automotive travel in this province is safe.”

Also, on one final point, what provision is there for automobiles coming into this province? Are we going to have the kind of ludicrous situation we had with regard to the studded tires? I urge the minister to deal with that particular aspect.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Read the bill.

Mr. Moffatt: I have read the bill. I just don’t see anything in that bill which provides for advertisement of our new standards at the border. I think that’s one of the problems we are going to run into. I don’t happen to represent a constituency which is in a border entry area, but those people in those areas are going to be suffering from the same problems as we have seen before. The great drive to harass the tourists will once again take place, and I don’t happen to think that is the way we should do this.

I think that if this legislation does pass, it should be the type of material we have put into the public press outside this area to make sure that people know before they enter Ontario just what kind of legislation we have with regard to safety.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude at that point.

Mr. B. Newman: Practically everything that could be said concerning this legislation has really been said by previous speakers. In fact the previous speaker, the member for Durham East, raised a point that, living as I do in a border town, is extremely important to me. However, I want at the outset to make mention, as others have, that not everyone agrees with the ministry as far as this legislation is concerned. In fact when the legislation was first introduced into the House, on that weekend I received four telephone calls violently opposing this bit of legislation. Strangely enough, not one of the four calls was actually from my own riding but from the two adjacent ridings, so I could only assume from that the good people who live in the great riding of Windsor-Walkerville were fairly well content with the legislation.

However, I would like to bring to the minister’s attention some of the concerns that have been expressed by way of Letterbox letters. This one is not lengthy. I’ll bring it to the minister’s attention with the idea of showing that not everyone actually agrees with this type of legislation. I’m quoting just one paragraph of a letter appearing in the Windsor paper just recently which says:

“As an adult, law-abiding citizen, I resent being turned into a lawbreaker by such arbitrary, niggling legislation. It not only invades private rights, but it also wastes government time which could be better spent on real problems, such as inflation, pollution, disappearing land and lack of green spaces in our cities.”

I don’t agree with the man, but I thought I would bring this to the attention of the minister to show there are people violently opposed to this legislation.

I support the legislation. I think it was a little late, actually, in being introduced, but now that it has been introduced, the sooner it comes into law the sooner we can have the fatalities on our highways substantially reduced. None of the studies we’ve had throughout jurisdictions which do require seatbelts seem to indicate the frequency of injuries as a result of the individual not having seatbelts or not wearing some type of restraint in the vehicle. In fact, recent statistics that I understand were submitted to the ministry as a result of studies in Toronto, indicate that 35 per cent of those killed in automobile accidents were killed as a result of the vehicle being out of control. What caused the vehicle to go out of control? Was it as a result of it being hit by another vehicle and the passenger or the driver in the vehicle not being restrained after a fashion; not having a seatbelt or not wearing a seatbelt? I think that is an extremely important point that must be studied, or on which statistics must be obtained. If 35 per cent of the deaths in the vehicles are a result of the individuals still being contained or restrained in the seatbelt, then maybe that is a reason why seatbelts may not be as necessary as we have argued during the course of discussing this legislation.

Quite a few of the speakers did mention civil rights, the rights of the individual being interfered with by being forced to wear a seatbelt. I think when we look at overall public safety, then we’ve got to take away some of the rights of the individual for the overall good of the community. The wearing of seatbelts is not necessarily going to eliminate accidents. They may reduce accidents but they won’t eliminate accidents.

One of the things we have to be seriously concerned with is the mechanical fitness of the car. We’ve got to update our inspection procedures. We probably should have a certificate provided to the ministry on the renewal of vehicle licence plates. In that way we would know that the vehicles on the road are mechanically fit at that given time.

[3:15]

We should also look into better driver training. I read just over the weekend a report in the Detroit Free Press which stated that 95 per cent of motorcycle accidents in the State of Michigan were the result of improper training or lack of training on the part of the individual riding the motorbike. The experienced individual knows how to handle it, he has probably gone through some type of training and as a result is not involved in accidents as frequently as those who have had no training whatsoever.

I think another aspect is that if our highways were improved in design, and several of the previous speakers did make mention of this point, maybe some of the accidents could be either reduced or practically eliminated.

I am kind of concerned when I look through the legislation and I find that under the legislation:

“No person shall drive on a highway a motor vehicle in which a seatbelt assembly, required under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Canada, at the time that the vehicle was manufactured or imported into Canada has been improved, modified or rendered partially or wholly inoperative.”

The individual may have to modify it because of his own physical stature, because of the shoulder strap interfering with circulation or bothering the individual at the neck or shoulder; and as a result of this legislation be may be liable to prosecution because he has modified the seatbelt, and yet he is only modifying it for better safety for himself.

I’m also concerned that in the repair of vehicles the individual may not be able to buy the same type of part. For example, if the front seat is badly damaged and has to be completely replaced, he may be replacing it with a model of a year earlier, one that does not have seatbelts contained. As a result, even though he repairs the car there may not be any way of introducing seatbelts into that repaired vehicle. As a result of this legislation, the individual would be liable.

I’m also concerned that only the number of seatbelts that are in the car indicate the number of individuals allowed to ride in that car. For example, there are only three seatbelts in the back seat of a car. What is a man going to do when his family totals seven individuals? Now you can sit one on the other and have the seatbelt around both of them, yes; but according to the legislation there should be one seatbelt for each one of the individuals. I’m concerned about that.

I’m also concerned about the fact that, living as I do on a border city, there’ll be thousands, and maybe I could say millions of vehicles, coming into the Province of Ontario carrying people who may be completely unfamiliar with Ontario laws. I would suggest to the minister that in any information going out through the Ministry of Industry and Tourism and being directed to our neighbours to the south, one of the points stressed be that Ontario has legislation mandating the use of seatbelts, so that our American friends do know that once they cross the border they must be wearing seatbelts. I also think that the minister should have signs on the highway at these various points of entry indicating the fact that seatbelts are compulsory in the Province of Ontario.

Now what does happen to a visitor to our country who has removed the seatbelts from his car because the state in which the car is registered does not require the use of seatbelts and he finds it maybe a little more comfortable driving that car without the seatbelt? I don’t know how he would find it more comfortable. I don’t find the seatbelt interfering with my comfort compared to those times on which I don’t wear the seatbelt, but there are always individuals who may complain that the seatbelt does interfere with their comfort and also their safety.

I’m also concerned in that I’m told there are no children’s seat restraints on the market that are actually recommended. There is none available; I’m told that. In fact I was asked by a doctor to get the name of a seatbelt. I would appreciate the minister giving me the list of them so that I can relate them to the doctor, and he in his turn can buy them for two members of his family whom he would like to have restrained by a seatbelt whenever he takes the family with him. I think likewise that maybe all five of those types of seatbelts should be publicized after a fashion so that those who are seriously interested in protecting the lives of their children have a choice of seatbelt purchases.

One of the constituents who did complain to me by telephone complained that because of his physical stature, the seatbelt restrains him from actually reaching all of the controls. It prevents him from having that same freedom of movement and as a result he claims it is more dangerous for him to be driving that vehicle held back by the seatbelt than to be unbuckled.

I don’t know whether or not it is a legitimate reason; or whether he couldn’t move the whole seat further forward; or whether there couldn’t be some other types of adjustment made but he claims that the seatbelt actually is a hazard to him rather than an asset.

I bring these various points to the minister’s attention. I hope in the course of his reply to the members of the House here, he will take those that he considers salient and likewise reply to me.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I will try to make my remarks reasonably brief in view of the fact that many statistics have been quoted in the debate, and many reports.

I must categorize myself as one who, probably a year ago, was not in favour of compulsory seatbelt use for probably the widely-held reasons manifested in the editorial pages of most newspapers. But following the debate and having read the material available in support of the arguments for seatbelts I must say that I am now a supporter. That conversion in no way compares with the conversion of my good friend from Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Taylor), who, I know, during the earlier months of this year was a strong opponent of seatbelts. I now understand he will vote for this bill as a member of the cabinet, upholding Tory solidarity forever.

Mr. Warner: Solidarity.

Mr. Gaunt: They have whipped him into line.

Mr. Warner: Good union song.

Mr. Samis: Solidarity forever is being personified by the member for Prince Edward-Lennox. I noticed that some of the arguments the member for Prince Edward-Lennox used to sustain his opposition are the same as those being commonly manifested about bureaucracy and interference in private rights. He introduced a slogan I suspect we might hear more of -- creeping collectivism -- to describe a problem facing our society. He somehow equated the seatbelt legislation with being a part of that overall conspiracy. I’m glad to see he has been elevated to the cabinet and is now part of the conspiracy himself.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: How does that fact change your mind?

Mr. Samis: I never used terminology like that.

Mr. Gaunt: A cabinet post does wonders.

Mr. Samis: In the debate I was rather interested to hear the comments made by the member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans). I think he brought up some legitimate questions. I don’t agree with his conclusion but I think some of the questions he brought up were legitimate. We shouldn’t regard seatbelts as to the be all and end all of the problem of traffic fatalities.

We should do much more -- and the member for Yorkview (Mr. Young), I believe, has done an awful lot of work within our own caucus on this -- on the question of design of our cars; the whole concept Detroit seems to have of making cars primarily for style as opposed to safety; the whole question of durability in cars; and the idea that we have to have these huge monstrous gas-guzzlers, V-8s and everything else, whereas smaller cars are obviously more economical. If we’re concerned with speed and safety in that sense, they are safer.

He also brought up for consideration -- it’s a legitimate point, I think -- that if people want to drive these huge cars they should pay far more than they are paying now in taxes and extra fees. If they want to drive a 350-hp car, that’s a privilege they should pay for beyond the purchase price. If we’re going to talk about waste of energy, surely that’s a prime example of it.

I think the member brought up some good points as well about the need for regular inspections because seatbelts obviously have limited value if the car itself is mechanically unsafe and yet is allowed to go on the highways. It’s amazing when, sometimes on the road, you see the number of cars which have only one headlight or no headlights. Even here, within the city limits of Toronto, it’s not a totally uncommon sight.

Mr. Speaker: I must remind the member that this bill deals specifically with seatbelts.

Mr. Samis: That’s what I’m talking about, seatbelts.

Mr. Speaker: Not headlights or horsepower.

Mr. Samis: We are talking about safety in cars and seatbelts as a manifestation of that safety.

I think the question of a probation period should be considered as well. Seatbelts are good but who is driving the car? How well equipped, how well trained are the people who are driving the ears? Giving a 16-year-old full free rein to drive a machine these days without any real probation beyond a temporary licence is something I think we should look into and possibly toughen up. The member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans) suggested a two-year probationary period. I think that has considerable value.

There are obviously other things that could be done in terms of improvement of driving conditions. The Province of Ontario I think has done reasonably well in improving expressway and city driving. I would hope the minister would take into consideration, as the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman) mentioned, tourists coming into this province. Obviously in the Detroit-Windsor area there is a problem. I would hope the people in Quebec, who have no compulsory legislation in this respect, will be duly informed, not just when they cross the border but through some form of advertising, if possible, in conjunction with the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett), covering the change in legislation.

Mr. Bain: He’ll make sure it’s in English.

Mr. Samis: En français aussi, j’espère.

The tourist industry in eastern Ontario is heavily dependent on people from New York state and the Province of Quebec and I think they have a right to know the laws of Ontario are being changed.

The question of compulsion is frequently brought up, Mr. Speaker. I have received some mail, interestingly enough from the riding represented by the member for Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve), who is presently sick, who I understand was one of the leading opponents of this legislation when it was brought up in the government caucus a year ago. The letters bring up the frequent argument of compulsion. I think that has been adequately answered.

The Conservative government has passed bills directed at people who drive mopeds, compelling them to have insurance, licences and soon helmets. We have passed legislation regarding people who drive motorcycles. They have accepted it. They have learned to live with it.

Last year we passed legislation for those who drive Ski-Doos regarding helmets and other safety requirements. They have learned to live with it. The snowmobile clubs have accepted it. It would seem to me that the argument that this is an unwarranted intrusion on the individual’s privacy no longer holds water in view of the previous legislation passed in other areas pertaining to those vehicles.

The simple question boils down to -- and I am sure every speaker has mentioned this -- the fact that it’s been proved in other jurisdictions, namely the United States, Australia, France, through various studies and various statistics, that this legislation would save lives in the event of an accident. I think the member for Wentworth made a very good point; they only save lives in the case of an accident. There is an awful lot that could be done to improve the safety prior to the accident. But there is no question whatsoever that on the actual occasion of an accident there is irrefutable evidence that seatbelts will save lives.

The enforcement issue has been brought up by almost every speaker. I think we are prepared to accept the fact that it is going to be extremely difficult for the police. We have to expect a fair amount of discretion, but I am confident that most people in this province are law-abiding and once the bill becomes law, they will abide by it too.

I do have one objection, Mr. Speaker. It’s not strictly based on the bill, but I noticed in the Premier’s (Mr. Davis) announcement and in the media the bill was introduced along with an accompanying order in council reducing speed limits in the province.

I would like to register my objection to the idea of reducing the speed limit on Highway 401. I think there is a valid argument that could be made out that we need one high-speed, trans-provincial expressway to serve the needs of southwestern and eastern Ontario. For those of us who don’t have ready access to the government here in Toronto; for those of us who may have to deal with commercial and business interests here in Toronto -- and God knows how centralized in Toronto things are in this province -- the 401 provides us with ready access.

A high-speed expressway, I still maintain, is defensible. If they talk in terms of saving energy, then surely the amount of energy wasted on a daily basis on the Don Valley Parkway, on the Gardiner Expressway, right down here in downtown Toronto and in the traffic jams and the influx of cars every day, must outweigh any saving in energy achieved by a reduction of 10 miles per hour in the speed limit.

So, in winding up I would like to say I support the bill on a somewhat lukewarm basis, but the simple fact is it will save lives and on that basis I am glad to support it.

[3:30]

Mr. Sweeney: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to speak on this particular bill because I find myself somewhat in a moral dilemma which has been referred to by other members of this House, even this afternoon.

On the one hand, as has been pointed out, the evidence showing the effectiveness of seatbelts with respect to reducing accidents and deaths, medical costs and material damage, seems overwhelming. But I would draw to the minister’s attention that, as a new member in this House, I have had approximately four to five times the number of phone calls with respect to this particular issue as I have with anything else with which this House has dealt. And every single one of those phone calls has been in opposition to it. I must admit that I haven’t been here long enough to know how to make a judgement on that.

I guess really what I would like to get at it is -- and I have questioned many of my colleagues on this -- there seems to be, on this issue, a very strong emotional feeling among many of our people. Perhaps we are dealing with -- for the first time I don’t know -- a piece of legislation which predicates a large degree of civil disobedience. I am not necessarily suggesting the legislation be withdrawn, but I think we have to take that factor into consideration. Maybe more study needs to be done; maybe more education needs to be done.

With respect to the type of phone calls I received, I would like to pass them on to the minister. A few, as has been mentioned by others, concerned the individual freedom aspect, although I would like to advise the minister that they have been by far the minority of the phone calls I have received. In every other case, the concerns that have been expressed have been genuine concerns, to which I have had some difficulty trying to address myself.

For example, I have had two phone calls from people who have actually been involved in accidents. They had been wearing their seatbelts and were nearly killed. There was one in which the car caught on fire; another in which the car went into the water. They managed to free themselves, but they have sworn that as long as they live they will never wear another seatbelt.

I guess we only have to survive such an experience as that to appreciate what the feeling must be. The fact remains we have had people with that kind of experience.

I also have bad people call me who say they have, I guess it’s an emotional fear, of being restricted when they are moving in a car. They say they have tried to overcome this. They have tried to wear the seatbelt and they just simply can’t do it.

I would perhaps put the question to the minister, and I am not sure how he is going to deal with it; I notice in the legislation it says a person may be exempted if he gets a statement from a doctor giving medical reasons, could a deep-seated, and perhaps proven emotional concern, psychological concern, be accepted as a medical reason? I don’t know how we are going to deal with that but it would appear, at least from the limited number of calls that I have received, that there are some people who are genuinely psychologically affected by this kind of restriction.

I have also received several calls from the parents of small children. As a parent with small children, I have empathy for what these parents are saying. If we are talking in terms of children, from say two to five, two to six, and you are on a long trip with them, it is almost impossible, I will not say impossible but almost impossible, to keep them restricted. They simply have to move around; it is the nature of young children to be active.

I have suggested to the parents, and they say they have experimented in this area, making frequent stops along the way. But it still becomes an extremely difficult situation. I am wondering if the minister could address himself to the kind of direction which would be given to police officers to take that factor into consideration.

I guess what I am referring to, Mr. Speaker, is that we would have parents who are genuinely trying to obey the law, but they reach a human situation which makes it almost impossible for them to do so.

I have also had people call me who say that they now own 1973 or 1974 ears which they have already modified. In most cases it is a matter of having removed the shoulder harness part, rather than the lap belt part. They are quite willing to wear the lap belt, but because of physical size, and in many cases because they happen to be women, they have already made that modification. They weren’t suggesting that they were going to; they said they had already done so. Is there some way we are going to be able to deal with that? Are we going to force those people to go back and make another modification? Once again I realize it’s a difficult situation, but the fact happens to be there.

I guess I am also a little bit confused, and perhaps the minister can respond to this when he makes his remarks, about the way in which the legislation is worded with respect to children from ages two to 16. On the one hand it says that these children are exempted, and then immediately below it says they are not exempted; and then it would seem to suggest that the same kinds of reasons that are given above apply here. I am having difficulty in reading the legislation from that point of view. If, in fact, they are not exempted --

Hon. Mr. Snow: All one has to do is read it.

Mr. Sweeney: I guess what I am asking is, if they aren’t exempted for any other reasons than anyone else is, why was it worded that way? It tends to be confusing.

In closing, I would like to know, is it possible that we can have a probationary period instead of the legislation coming in as a hard and fast rule on whatever the date is? In other words, if we are talking of Jan. 1, can we perhaps have a six-month period during which people will be able to adjust themselves, physically and emotionally and from a legislative enforcement point of view, rather than having the new law come in hard and fast on one date and on the very next day they may be charged? It seems that our people honestly need this kind of adjustment.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: I am sure I don’t have to express to the House how I feel about the legislation.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I thought the member might have changed his mind by now.

Mr. Deans: No, I think my views with regard to the legislation are probably as well-known as anyone else’s at this point. I feel, frankly, that the legislation is not particularly good legislation. I think so because by my standards I think that good legislation is legislation that can be enforced, and I don’t believe this legislation can be enforced.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Why not?

Mr. Deans: I don’t think the police forces can enforce the laws that they currently have to enforce, and I think it is virtually impossible for them to enforce these laws that we are passing today.

I drove on the Queen Elizabeth Way a week ago, on the evening that the bill was first debated, and I looked as I drove along -- in fact I was riding on the passenger side, with my seatbelt done up, of course, and I --

Hon. Mr. Snow: Were you driving on the passenger side?

Mr. Deans: I drove on the highway, I was riding on the passenger side, okay?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I thought you said you were driving?

Mr. Deans: No, it’s okay, I realize that you have a problem hearing, but if you listen carefully you will catch it all.

I looked at every vehicle that we passed and every vehicle that passed us. I couldn’t tell whether they had their seatbelts fastened or not. I couldn’t tell whether they had shoulder harnesses fastened, I couldn’t even tell whether they had shoulder harnesses in the car. By my standards, a law that is unenforceable is not a good law. Having said that, I want to talk about it for a moment.

I want to make it clear that, unlike the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Johnston), I will fasten my seatbelt if and when this becomes law. I will do it because I always obey the law, or at least I always try to obey the law, but I don’t think that I should have to.

I agree fundamentally with the minister’s move on the reduction of speed limits. I think that in general terms, particularly on the highways that I travel, though some of my colleagues feel differently, the reduction in speed limits will be beneficial both from the point of view of accidents and from the point of view of energy conservation. However, I think it is a bit ridiculous that a person can get into an automobile that is unsafe -- an automobile with brakes that are deficient, with ball joints that are worn, with floorboards that are rotted through, with mufflers that allow the fumes to escape into the cab of a car, with tires that are bald or virtually bald -- and by buckling up his seatbelt have complied with the law.

If the minister is going to tell me, as I suspect he is, that all of these things are against the law, then I point out to him that again it is virtually impossible to enforce these things, because I will take him outside now and I will show him any number of cars with all of these things wrong; all of them, every single one of them.

It seems to me we are starting at the wrong end of this whole thing. I think we should begin by making automobiles safe. I think we should have a programme of mandatory inspection in the Province of Ontario to ensure to the greatest extent possible that vehicles that are on the road are in the safest possible mechanical condition.

Beyond that, I think we have to take a look at the drivers of these vehicles. We’ve got to question seriously whether all of the people who currently have licences in the Province of Ontario are competent enough to drive. We have to take a serious look at how we go about trying to ensure a greater degree of competency among people who are travelling our highways, driving automobiles. My colleague the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) was mentioning that I had advocated probationary licences should be issued to first drivers for a two-year period, and I think that’s where we should begin.

I think, first of all, that a person applying for a licence should have to take a proper driver training course. Beyond that, the first licence issued to any person should be for a two-year probationary period. If during that period they are convicted of offences under the Highways Traffic Act the licence ought not to be renewed so that they are simply taken off the road, as much as one can possibly take them off the road; or those whose offences are perhaps of a minimal nature should at least be forced to go back through the whole programme of retraining and shouldn’t be given regular licences during that period.

I think we have to try to enforce the laws that exist. There’s something incongruous about the fact that we talk so much about drinking and driving and everyone points out how it is that many of the accidents are brought about as a result of drinking drivers. Yet if someone wants to open a hotel he has to have a 200-car parking lot before he can get the licence to run the hotel. There’s something a bit strange about that kind of logic.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Who says that?

Mr. Deans: Who says it? The municipalities say it, and that is the law. They are just simply not issuing licences unless there are parking lots for the vehicles. It seems rather ridiculous to be talking on the one hand about trying to make drivers safer and to cut down on drinking and driving, while on the other hand encouraging people to take their car down to the local hotel to imbibe there and to drive home.

I think also that you’ve got to consider that the law, if it’s going to make sense, has to be enforced and applied equally. I think that to the greatest extent possible we must make sure everyone is protected by a law in exactly the same way. This law doesn’t provide for that. It seems this law has decided that some of us are more equal than others.

If you’re too fat, you don’t have to wear a seatbelt. If there’s something wrong with you physically, you don’t have to wear a seatbelt. It would seem to me the very person who might need the seatbelt the most would be the person with the physical disability. But the law allows that they don’t have to wear a seatbelt.

If you happen to be the poor unfortunate who sits in the front, in the middle, you don’t have to wear a shoulder harness, although, if you are on either side in the front, you’ve got to wear your shoulder harness. If there is a collision we protect the driver and the passenger to his extreme right, but the one in the middle doesn’t get protection for some reason. That’s the application of this law. If you sit in the back you don’t have a shoulder restraint. So they’re somehow less equal than the ones who sit in the front on either side.

If you are a child -- and this has been raised by a number of people -- and you ride in a school bus, you don’t have to be strapped in. We all know, or if we don’t know we should know, that most if not all school buses are sitting three to a seat, crowded into school buses. If you don’t see those things it’s because you are not looking. Yet we don’t seem to think it necessary that they should be strapped in. It would seem to me that if there was any place that seatbelts might make sense, then that would be a place, that we ought to have a way to make sure the children are kept securely in their seats.

I just read the other day, for example, of a case where a young child on a school bus had his leg broken by older children. Three or four older children took the child, who I think was six years old and twisted that child’s leg until it broke.

[3:45]

Hon. Mr. Snow: You think a seatbelt would stop that?

Mr. Deans: Now let me suggest that had they been securely seated and fastened in, they couldn’t have been carrying on in the way that they were in that bus I think it makes some sense, if we are going to do it, to begin at the end that will do the most good.

I have looked at the law. As I see it, I don’t think it’s possible to make sure that people will wear them. I think it will become a ploy used by insurance companies to attempt to deny people the rights they have under their insurance premiums. I think the benefits we will see in terms of money saved in health insurance programmes will, at least to a great extent, he lost because of the litigation that will result in trying to ensure that the use or non-use of a seatbelt was not a contributing factor in the accident that occurred.

My colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) read some of the most recent cases into the record two or three days ago. He pointed out there was a great difference in conventional wisdom and in judicial findings in seatbelt cases around the world and there didn’t seem to be any continuity of opinion in that regard. In Canada, I am sure, and in Ontario in particular, the same kind of problems are going to arise. I think we are going to find that the courts will have to devote more time to the determination of whether a person had his seatbelt on, and I don’t think that really makes much sense. When on accident occurs, there will be more time spent by the law officers trying to check to make sure that the person in the car had the belt on than there will be trying to decide who was at fault in the accident, assuming we maintain the normal adversary system that we have.

Just out of interest, let me tell hon. members how the law might be applied. If I were one of those people who tended to disobey the law and I was pulled over by the police officer for an offence, I would immediately open the door of my car and step out.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Undo your belt first.

Mr. Deans: I would immediately open the door of my car and step out. Now, how is that officer then going to prove whether or not I had my seatbelt on?

Mr. Shore: I thought you said you abide by the law?

Mr. Bain: You’re not listening to what he is saying.

Mr. Deans: How is the officer going to tell? Or if I were one of those people, like many of the Liberals, who will not obey the law, then as the officer pulls up behind me I might snap my seatbelt in place simply to try to avoid the implication of the law. How is the officer going to prove that I did it there and then, given that it’s virtually impossible to tell, in terms of the traffic volumes on the Queen Elizabeth Way at least, whether or not a person has his seatbelt done up?

I am going to tell you, Mr. Speaker: I would like to see people wear seatbelts. I am not going to dispute the accident figures quoted by my colleague the member for Yorkview (Mr. Young). I am not going to dispute that throughout the world there have been benefits that flowed from the wearing of seatbelts. What I am going to say is that until such time as the minister can show me how he could possibly enforce this law on seatbelts, given that every car has a different arrangement, then I have to think that this law is an ass. That worries me, because the more we encourage laws to be passed which are virtually unenforceable, the more we encourage people to break laws. I don’t like to encourage people to break laws, and I think that’s where the failure of this whole thing is.

I want to tell the minister one final thing. If he wants seatbelts to be worn, the first thing he should do is insist that the manufacturers manufacture seatbelts in such a way and of such a design that they will be able to be worn with some degree of comfort; they will be adjustable to fit people of varying sizes and they will restrain everyone in the car rather than just the select few, if he believes that.

The second point is that if he thinks seatbelts should be worn then he insist that the manufacturer design the vehicle in such a way that it will not go without them. It’s that simple.

If he does those two things, then he will be able to have a law that will be enforceable and he won’t have people facing long and costly litigation in an attempt to try to prove or disprove that the seatbelt they did or didn’t wear played a part or no part in the injuries they suffered.

Mr. Gaunt: Briefly, I want to make a few comments with respect to this legislation. Most of what can be said has already been said, but it seems to me that some good cases can be advanced with respect to enforcement, as the hon. member for Wentworth has done, or the lack of enforcement under the terms of this bill. A good case can be made for the individual rights that are violated under the terms of this bill. But those things aside, I would have to say that, as far as I am concerned and my party is concerned, we support the legislation.

I do so grudgingly Mr. Speaker, I will have to be honest with you in that respect. I have taken some convincing in this regard, but I find the arguments and the statistics advanced by those who support this legislation are rather compelling. The government has admitted that seatbelt usage would save us $50 million in health costs alone, and about 500 lives. There are various figures put forward in terms of what this legislation will mean cost-wise. I think in some of the debate the figure $300 million has been used, that is, $300 million that the use of seatbelts in the Province of Ontario will save the taxpayers, whether it be in health costs, accident costs or all of the related costs.

I suppose these statistics are hard to determine in terms of accuracy, but I think they are sufficient to indicate there will be a big cost saving in respect to the use of seatbelts and that the other factor, safety, will also be an important item in their use. I think it has been suggested that one has a 50 per cent better chance of escaping death or injury with seatbelts. Certainly, given the statistics which we have as to the accident rates in this province, that becomes a very important statistic as well.

Essentially then, this legislation is being brought forward for two reasons; for economics and for safety. As far as I am concerned, I think both reasons are important. The fact that Australia has now had some experience in this regard indicates that on both counts there is a case to be made for the use of seatbelts. I believe in Australia it has resulted in a 15 per cent to 20 per cent reduction in auto deaths and injuries in the first year.

There is an aspect to this bill which worries me, however, and I want to underline it for the minister, and perhaps he could give it some consideration. It seems to me that one of the things this bill is apt to do is lull ministry people into a sense of false security; to give them the sense that this legislation is the be-all and end-all in terms of safety and in terms of highway accidents. I think this is just a small piece in what I would consider to be, hopefully, an overall programme to reduce injuries and deaths on our highways. It seems to me we could be doing much more than we’re doing in this regard.

The members have mentioned, at various times, the various methods that could be employed in this respect. I, for one, am a supporter of the implementation of the reverse points system, whereby a new driver has to earn his points and not simply be given 15 points on the day he commences driving. It seems to me that if a person is allotted three points on the day he commences driving and he commits a highway traffic offence whereby he loses those points, then he has to cease driving for a year. That’s one thing. There are many other programmes and aspects of this. I believe some have been mentioned by the hon. member for Yorkview (Mr. Young). Other programmes of varying natures have been mentioned. Certainly the drinking driver is another aspect of this entire problem that hasn’t received very much attention and I think it should.

Mr. Foulds: So should the sleepy driver.

Mr. Gaunt: Yes, indeed. Some of the sleeping drivers are also impaired too, I’m sure.

In any case, the use of alcohol on the highway is an important problem and we should be addressing ourselves to it to a greater extent than we are. Statistics for 1974 indicate that out of a total of 336,847 collisions there were 31,277 of those drivers either impaired or had been drinking, which is 9.3 per cent of the total. In terms of fatal collisions, the figures are: Out of 2,208 in 1974, 611 of those fatalities involved a person who was impaired or had been drinking, or a 27.7 per cent total.

It seems to me we’re going to have to look at that area very closely. Almost one-quarter of the night drivers in Canada drink and drive. The driver who is impaired has a 22 times greater chance of being involved in a fatal accident than a sober driver. According to the LeDain commission, 70 per cent of the one-car accidents involve alcohol, or alcohol has been a factor in the accident.

This is really the root of my concern and fear with this legislation; I’m afraid the government will consider it as ultimate legislation in terms of what we can do in terms of highway safety and how we can prevent accidents; and vehicle safety certainly is a big factor. I think we should be moving forward with a many-pronged programme in this respect, of which the seatbelt legislation and the speed limit legislation could be considered as two pieces of that important overall programme.

[4:00]

I would hope the minister would respond by saying this is just the beginning of a programme of highway safety that he has in mind and outline that programme of safety for us and the timetabling of that programme. What does he intend to do in some of these other areas? Has he worked any of that particular legislation out? Does he consider these various areas as priority problem areas? If so, what is he going to do about it? Those are some of the things with which I am concerned and I would hope the minister would give some consideration to them also.

The other matter, having to do with the bill itself, is the matter of young children from two up having to wear seatbelts in motor vehicles. I see that as an almost impossible item to enforce. I don’t see how one can really expect young children to be confined for long periods of time in a motor vehicle because that is just not the nature of the beast. I really think the minister should take another look at that particular section of the bill. I can see trying to enforce it from six or seven on but for young children two, three or four years of age, I think that is going to be very difficult indeed.

Mr. Bain: Mr. Speaker, there have been numerous statistics quoted by those who support the legislation and I don’t wish in any way to cast aspersions on these statistics but I am reminded of a book which was prescribed reading for a university statistics course which I was familiar with. The book -- I am sure it still is required reading -- was entitled “How To Lie with Statistics.” The only source I haven’t heard quoted here to support the bill is divine inspiration. Perhaps when the minister gives his speech he will rectify that and call upon that source as well to support the Act.

Mr. Grande: He left; he went to get it.

Mr. Bain: That will be his source? If people want to wear seatbelts -- as I said earlier I don’t wait to cast aspersions on the statistics which have been quoted -- a good case can be made for wearing seatbelts. Let the government convince people of that case and allow them to make the decision to wear seatbelts.

I have in front of me a small booklet published by the ministry called, “The Human Collision.” I would like to turn to page 10. On page 10 there is one of a series of neat little coloured pictures designed to convince the readers they should wear their seatbelts. The caption to this particular picture reads as follows, “Barrier crashes at various speeds are carried out to determine the effects of a collision on vehicles and on dummies which stimulate human passengers.”

Mr. Foulds: Simulate.

Mr. Bain: I mean “simulate human passengers.” Actually I had intended to stop reading at the point where the caption mentions dummies. I suppose if one was to drive at 50 mph into a barrier that certainly would be an occasion when it would be recommended to wear a seatbelt. Incidentally, the particular picture shows a blue government of Ontario car with an Ontario crest on the side. I would think, with the government wanting to economize, it could find better things to do with its cars than drive them into barriers but that is the government’s choosing.

Also, in another booklet which the Ministry of Transportation and Communications has been kind enough to provide the members with, there is a table on page 6 which deals with fatal traffic collision victims. In this discussion on the necessity for mandatory seatbelt use I automatically assumed fatalities were escalating at an ever-increasing and alarming rate in this province. But in the table, which runs from 1965 to 1974, and fatalities of all types -- driver, passenger, pedestrian, etc. -- have not significantly increased in that time period.

For example, in 1965 there was a fatality rate of 23.7 persons per 100,000; and in 1974 the rate is 21.5 per 100,000. That certainly is not an increase. If you examine all the other figures -- and there are some fluctuations -- but there’s no way that one can say that there is a trend in this province to increased fatalities. So I don’t see why, all of a sudden, the government feels compelled to introduce compulsory seatbelt legislation. Certainly the fatalities are not increasing.

As has been brought out by many members already, if seatbelt legislation is so essential, then why will pupils in school buses not be wearing them? In 1973-1974 alone, there were 575 collisions involving school buses. Needless to say, there is a problem in regard to school buses. If seatbelt legislation is so good, why is it not being applied to school buses? What about other public buses as well?

I notice in the Act that there are some neat loopholes. For example, one of them is that if you happen to have an older vehicle that does not have seatbelts, you do not have to have them. Well, I can see where I’ll be driving my 1964 Ford-Mercury truck for a considerable length of time, because it does not have seatbelts. I wouldn’t want to be responsible for the whole depression of the automobile industry. Older vehicles could become quite an item of sale in the future for people who want to avoid the seatbelt legislation.

There’s another interesting little item in the bill where it says that because of a person’s size or other physical characteristics, they may be exempted from wearing a seatbelt. I personally have always had difficulty keeping my weight down and there have always been tremendous incentives to lose weight. This is one of the first things that I have ever seen that will encourage or give some solace, shall we say, to a person who has a weight problem. At least now, if a person happens to be fat enough, he or she will not have to wear the seatbelt. I may in the future decide not to diet and go on a reverse crash programme -- rather than a crash diet a crash eating programme -- and not wear a seatbelt.

I am purposely making light of this bill. I feel that it is a bad bill. I do not feel it’s enforceable. Anyone who chooses not to wear a seatbelt, anyone who you cannot convince to wear a seatbelt, who chooses not to wear one, when it’s law, will obviously be able to easily flout the law -- as was mentioned by the hon. member for Wentworth.

If someone chooses to flout the law, and the police pull up behind him, he will have ample warning -- with the flashing light, etc. -- to easily do up the seatbelt and avoid any penalty being incurred. It will be impossible for a policeman to determine whether or not a person has the seatbelt done up. Obviously, policemen will not be able to enforce the law; and I don’t even think they’re going to try.

I personally would prefer a system of passive restraints that would allow people to have more protection, in fact, than seatbelts afford. I believe that if the government chose, it could easily make passive restraint systems feasible and those would be far better than the present seatbelts. Needless to say, present seatbelts were not built for comfort and many people resent having to wear them. They see them as an infringement and as a system of regimentation. I’m surprised that the government does not listen to people when they refer to seatbelts as a personal infringement. Nevertheless, the government seems to have given up that approach and has switched from the approach that it had when it was the government previous to the last provincial election.

It’s been mentioned many times that people will obey the law once it is the law. I’m afraid that that just does not happen to be true. People obey laws that they feel are valid laws. I am reminded of the large signs that visually accost us every time we drive along the road, reminding us that there is a $50 fine for littering. People still litter; if they were raised not to litter, they do not litter. If they grew up in a fashion where it means nothing to them to throw garbage along the road, the fine has been no deterrent whatsoever.

In fact, on one occasion I discussed this with a law enforcement officer. I said, “What kind of offence does a person have to commit before you stop him and give him a ticket for littering -- throw out a garbage bag or a piece of wrapper or what?” He said, “They would almost have to dump a complete plastic bag of garbage along the side before we would bother to catch them.” Obviously we do not stop people for littering so the tin cans, the candy wrappers, the chip bags etc., that people throw continue to go out car windows despite the fact that there is a $50 fine and it is illegal to litter. Obviously people do not obey a law that they do not respect.

Another law that the government withdrew after public opposition was when it had the great idea -- and I use the “great” in a pejorative sense -- to have residents buy fishing licences and we know how long the government left that one on the books. It was unrealistic and therefore it had to be withdrawn because people would not obey it.

We’ve had many statistics quoted and one of them that I personally like was one that was mentioned by a member who supports compulsory seatbelt legislation. It was mentioned that only 25 per cent of the people now use their seatbelts, and if it’s a good thing to use a seatbelt -- and I personally would not be averse to using a seatbelt; I have never used one in the past -- but if the government feels deep down that it’s such a good idea to use a seatbelt, then why doesn’t it try and convince people that it is the right course of action for them to take? Let the people make the decision on the basis of the facts that the government gives them.

The only result of this legislation that I can see is that some people will obey it, others will flout it; it will be unenforceable; and the only people to really suffer will be some poor person who did not do up his seatbelt, who is in an accident and the insurance company will use it as an escape clause to try to get oil the hook for paying.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call on the member for Kent-Elgin, I want to inform the House that the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) has served notice that he is dissatisfied with the response given to him by the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) today and will raise the matter on the adjournment of the House this evening at 10:30, pursuant to standing order 27(g).

Mr. Spence: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words. I think the minister has heard from all parties in support of wearing seatbelts. There are odd members in this House who don’t really approve of this legislation, but I must say that I am one who just doesn’t approve of this legislation in general.

I’ve never worn seatbelts and I must say to the minister that on the night this legislation was introduced and it came out in the press, when I got home from the Legislature, I had a large number of telephone calls from constituents asking me not to support this legislation, that it was infringing on the rights of the individual, and actually to keep their children in the back seats with the seatbelt on would be a tremendous task for the mothers and fathers who are on a vacation.

[4:15]

I must say I have never had anyone ask me to support this legislation. I have listened for two afternoons to members of all parties of this House making remarks that seatbelts should be used in order to cut down deaths on the highways and injuries to many people across the province. Also, we have heard that there are statistics which prove that seatbelts are a necessity. I have never had anyone ask me to support this legislation but, of course, I have listened with great interest.

One of the things that concerns me and which I was in favour of was reducing the speeds on our expressways, such as 491 and 402, and on our other roads to 50 mph. I think it is speed --

Mr. Bullbrook: I have driven with him and that is going to be a personal hardship for him.

Mr. Spence: Of course he was correcting me, when he rode with me, all the way home, and I was a better driver when I got to Delaware than I was when I left Toronto.

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s when we used to practise being cabinet ministers. I’d drive half way and he’d sit in the back.

Mr. Ruston: The only thing is, you didn’t have a light in the back to read by.

Mr. Samis: Now you know who your friends are.

Mr. Spence: That’s right. However, after listening for two afternoons to the remarks of the different members, I have changed my mind in general. I wasn’t going to support this but my leader and our party are going to support it and I will support it, too. I hope it will save lives and save injuries on our highways, but my point is that accidents are caused by speed and those who are impaired who drive on our highways and on our county roads across the Province of Ontario.

I hope this seatbelt legislation works out but I would say the people in general are opposed to it. They feel we are infringing on the rights of the individual and it is going to be a nuisance and an inconvenience. My point is that if it will save a life or save any injuries, I am for this legislation. I think the minister has done the right thing in general in reducing the speeds on Highways 401 and 402, and down to 50 mph on our other roads in the Province of Ontario.

I am not going on to discuss other points or rehash other points which the other hon. members have brought to our attention. I know the minister is going to have a difficult time in touching on all the suggestions and all the points which have been brought up by the different members on two afternoons.

With those few remarks, I want to say to the minister I have had a lot of calls and all of them were opposing this seatbelt legislation. But I am going to support it and I hope it does save lives and save injuries on our provincial and county roads in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Bounsall: I rise to support in a general sense this Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, requiring the wearing of seatbelts. Having said that, though, and having thought about this for quite a while I am like my friend, the member for Kent-Elgin, in that all of the contact I have had with the public, with the exception of one letter, has been urging me to speak against the compulsory wearing of seatbelts.

I have had many phone calls. Two or three people from my riding, who have been present in the Legislature in the last couple of weeks, have indicated fairly strongly that they don’t see the necessity of this particular bill. It is an infringement upon their human rights; they should have the right to choose whether or not they are going to be injured or killed in an auto accident. They should be treated as adults and left to their own choice rather than having it foisted upon them.

Those arguments, in that sense, along that line, do not make much sense to me when we have the statistics before us showing the number of fatalities which, taking a guess -- an extrapolation -- would have occurred if seatbelt wearing was not compulsory in the jurisdictions which have compulsory seatbelt wearing. I, too, feel, as do many members of the House, that if lives are going to be saved and injuries drastically decreased this is worth the law we are proposing, that seatbelt wearing be made compulsory.

I have expressed to the minister and to various persons who have talked to me on the bill some of the reservations I have about the bull. According to the bill, any child two years old and over must wear a seatbelt and it is the responsibility of the person in charge of the car to see that they do or he is responsible under the Act. I happen to have a very active four-year-old and a very active six-year-old. On a trip from Windsor to Toronto or the environs of Toronto, which we must take our family on five or six times a year, I cannot see their being strapped happily in the seatbelts which we have in the back seat of the car for that 240- or 250-mile trip. It is going to cause a lot of friction between me and them and yet I am breaking the law unless they are thoroughly and securely strapped in.

With my 11-year-old, it is a different story; she has been a quiet child, one given to reading and so on all her life.

Mr. Speaker: Like her father.

Mr. Bounsall: Pardon? Like her father, yes, that’s right.

Mr. Moffatt: She takes after her mother.

Mr. Bounsall: Even at age two she probably would have submitted to wearing a seatbelt, provided there was an ample stack of reading material beside her on the sent.

I do have real problems, wondering how I am going to get from Windsor to Toronto with my four-year-old and my six-year-old without a great deal of animosity occurring between them and me or my wife or whoever is driving the car without breaking the law.

I don’t know how one gets around this by amendments to this particular Act because the children, too, will benefit by the wearing of seatbelts, should we be involved in an accident. Yet I know the difficulties I am personally going to have with them and which many other people with active children of similar age are going to have. I don’t know what to suggest to the minister by means of improving the bill.

I did cover one point privately with him and that is the point about station wagons which have belts in the back seat. If they put the back seat of the station wagon down and those belts are not available, what happens under the law in that case? The minister replied, and I would imagine that his interpretation is correct or hasn’t changed in this matter, that once the seat is down and those belts are not available then they aren’t available and therefore there is no violation of this particular Act.

If that is the case, what it means in my case is I am a little off the hook because on any long trip we take, the back seat will simply come down and the children will be free to sprawl the full length of the wagon at the back. This, in my opinion, is a more dangerous situation than if they were in the back seat not strapped in, looking at it purely from the point of view of safety and danger to them should we be involved in an accident.

By and large, this is how we have taken our long trips in any event, but this bill has made me consider the safety aspects of how I conduct myself and my family in the car and I am not particularly happy now with that situation.

Turning to another aspect of it, for this law to be effective and for people to respect the law -- which would make the law effective -- this law must be enforced but it must be enforced in a reasonable manner. I can see that if our policemen across the province, either provincial policemen or the police forces in our various municipalities and cities, stop cars solely for the purpose of checking whether the occupants have a seatbelt on. This is going to make the population irritated with the police. I would hope, therefore, that this is not the attitude taken by the police forces around the province and they will not be stopping vehicles specifically for the purpose of checking for seatbelts.

If they are, I hope they make it widely known in the community that henceforth from a certain date on they will be doing this, and that it isn’t done on a sort of hit or miss basis across the province where some communities crack down, unbeknownst to the population. This would cause detrimental feelings between the population and the police. If they’re going to do that, I hope they would announce it quite clearly in their municipality or their city, so people would be clearly forewarned that they could be stopped for that purpose only. That speaks to the reasonable manner in which this bill should be enforced.

On the other hand, if it’s to be effective at all there must be some checking of seatbelts. If the general population feel that they won’t be checked at all as to whether or out they’re wearing seatbelts, then the law will be of little effect. I would be interested in knowing from the minister what sort of contact he’s had or will be having with the police forces around the province in terms of their attitude toward enforcement. Are they going to just brush it off, or in what manner are they going to go about the enforcement? If they simply are going to check for seatbelts as one of the items they check for whenever a car is stopped and that is widely known around the province, again fair enough. But I would hate to see lineups of cars being stopped for the checking of seatbelts only in a community where this has not been announced in advance.

I’ve had several policemen talk to me about the problems which they face in this -- that is the flak they feel they are going to take, making their jobs harder -- if this is one of their added duties. I think we have to take that into consideration and say something to our police forces. It would be interesting, as I say, to hear what the minister has to say about it.

However, all those reservations in my mind aside, I would hope that we would pass this law; that people would in fact take it seriously and start to buckle up. Unlike many people in this Legislature whom I’ve heard speak to the bill, I do not wear a seatbelt under normal circumstances; there is one provided in the car. When it becomes law I will simply commence wearing the seatbelt because I am a law-abiding person and it is the law of Ontario. From a safety aspect --

Hon. Mr. Snow: Start now, it may save your life.

Mr. Bounsall: That’s right, and from a safety aspect it’s certainly a reasonable idea. I would think that those persons whose main argument is its being an infringement on their rights as an individual, will, like myself, after a few weeks have gone by simply get into the habit of putting their seatbelt on. It will eventually be a habit which they acquire the moment they step in the car; within some weeks or a very few months it will simply be second nature to them and they will no longer look upon it as an infringement upon their rights. I would hope that would be the net result of the law.

The one other representation I’ve had made to me is that the mandatory wearing of seatbelts be confined to our major highways only and not apply within the cities or towns or small communities in which people live. I’ve been impressed by the statistics which show how damaging an accident can be at the speed of 15 miles per hour. Because the speed limit in most cities is 30 miles an hour -- and in fact most vehicles are driven at 30 miles an hour -- and again mindful of the fact that most accidents occur within a short driving distance of one’s residence, I would have to say to those persons, looking at the statistics, that that’s where they’re most likely to have an accident. They can be very seriously injured at the normal 25 to 30-mph in-city driving speeds at which they normally travel. It’s just as effective in preventing serious injuries in cities and towns as it is upon the highway. I think that is the answer for those persons.

[4:30]

Again, for those persons, although it may mean buckling in five or six times a day for a lot of people as they take short trips around the community, that is, in effect when they are going to receive their greatest protection in the sense that most accidents occur within a few miles of one’s own residence.

I would say in conclusion that I have some reservations about the bill. I have some sympathy for parents who have small active children and who perhaps don’t own a station wagon as I do. On long trips they are going to have to strap those children in. I don’t see a solution to that but I think we have an obligation to support this bill, as we are faced with statistics which show the decrease in fatalities and the decrease in serious accidents which occur when seatbelts are being worn. This is a first step toward more meaningful safety in cars being produced in this province.

We must give our reasons clearly to our constituents and encourage them to give this wearing of seatbelts a fair trial, to see whether, as I believe, after a few short months it will not be second nature for people to strap themselves into belts. They really won’t notice that they are wearing them.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know whether there can be very much said that hasn’t already been said in connection with Bill 27 pertaining to the mandatory use of seatbelts, as I think all aspects of this legislation, both pro and con, have been thoroughly debated in this House. However, I would like to say that if I was to act in the interests of the people who have expressed their concern to me, I would vote against the legislation.

It is interesting to note that as I travel from my riding to Toronto on Monday mornings I listen to the open line show on CFPL radio.

Mr. Shore: What city is that?

Mr. Riddell: I would think that every two out of three calls which come in on this particular matter would suggest that the people are against the mandatory use of seatbelts because they are not convinced that seatbelts alone will prevent fatalities. I think more people are in favour of lowering the speed limit to 60 miles per hour on highways such as 401, and 50 miles per hour on other highways.

I think it’s rather unfortunate that these two pieces of legislation have come at one and the same time because I have a feeling that lowering the speed limit alone would prevent a lot of the fatalities we are having at the present time. A lot of these statistics we heard about from other countries and other areas which have mandatory use of seatbelts did not indicate what the speed limits are on those particular roads. If the speed limits have been lowered on the roads in places like Australia, maybe this is what has prevented the fatalities and not the use of seatbelts.

There has been considerable discussion on the mandatory use of seatbelts for infants two years of age and up and some people have suggested there should be seatbelts in school buses. I introduced a private member’s bill in 1973 pertaining to school buses and some of the safety features which I felt should be incorporated into some of these buses. I talked to several groups who have made a study about this. They indicated that because of the particular body development of a young child, it’s impossible for that child to stay within the confines of a seatbelt, if there is an accident. He’ll slip out from under the seatbelt or he’ll go over top of the seatbelt but a seatbelt alone will not necessarily retain a child within a seat if there is an accident. This is why they have been a little reluctant to suggest that seatbelts be placed in school buses.

Furthermore, how is one going to keep a young child confined within a seatbelt? Are you going to have several supervisors on that bus to see that that child stays strapped up? We were all children at one time and we know that by the very nature of a child it is very difficult for him to remain in one place for one particular period of time or for any length elf time, and I just bring this matter out. I think it’s going to be very difficult to expect the child to travel for miles and be strapped up. Also as I suggested before, because of the particular body development of a child, a seatbelt in the school bus is not necessarily going to prevent that child from being thrown against the seat ahead of him or being tossed out into the aisle, because he can slip out from under that belt or over top of it very readily.

I am going to support the bill, but I do it rather begrudgingly because, as I’ve already indicated, there have been many more people tell me that they’re not convinced that the mandatory use of seatbelts is going to prevent accidents. They feel it’s an infringement on their rights and they would far rather have preferred to have the reduced speed limit in force for a period of time to see if this alone would prevent the fatalities rather than the use of seatbelts along with the reduced speed limit.

If statistics have indicated, in other countries and other areas where this legislation is enforced, that it does prevent fatalities, then I’m going to find it difficult to vote against the bill. But I am going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in supporting the bill I am doing not so because the people in my riding have suggested I do so but because I have listened to the debates here and I’ve listened to my caucus colleagues and I have studied some of the statistics. If we can prevent some fatalities by the use of seatbelts, then I would find it difficult to vote against the bill. I will support the bill, but I do so with some reservations.

Mr. Germa: I’d like to say a few words on Bill 27, which provides for the mandatory use of seatbelts in Ontario. This particular type of legislation has had a considerably long gestation period. Several ministers in the past have alluded to the fact that they were going to bring in mandatory seatbelt legislation but each and every time they failed to generate enough nerve to bring the bill in, because there is in the public mind a great resistance to this infringement of what some people say is civil liberties.

I, myself, don’t particularly see that my civil liberties will be infringed upon but some people consider the automobile as something more than their house. It is a place of privacy. To some people, the only place that they have any privacy whatsoever is when they are driving their car and they do put a lot of import into this isolation that they can have. You’re never more isolated in this world than when you’re zipping along in your own private automobile with your own private radio and your own private heating system. Even though it’s close beside you, you are absolutely isolated from the rest of the world. That’s why there is a severe resistance out there, and I’m sure the minister is aware of that resistance.

Mr. Speaker, you know that I only get into the city of Sudbury on weekends and during the past two weekends I also have been deluged with calls, as has every other member in this House. The last piece of legislation which generated such severe criticism was when our friend John White was going to put a tax on energy, on fuel oil. I remember that weekend; that was a pretty hectic weekend until he pulled the bill back. I was glad at that time that the public had responded in such a violent manner to force him to do it.

Even though I know that seatbelts are uncomfortable, in this particular instance the overpowering statistical evidence which has been presented here leads me to believe that this type of legislation has to come. Of course, the government cannot escape criticism that it has to enforce mandatory usage legislation because I think it failed in motivating the people of Ontario into taking into consideration the protection of their own persons.

I know that the government did spend -- I think it was $250,000 last year, to try to motivate the people of Ontario into voluntary use of a restraint system but I see that it has very little effect. I think the programme was very badly carried out. One of the expenditures which was made was on this booklet I have in my hand and entitled, “The Human Collision.” It’s a very fancy, high-class, glossy booklet which was not printed in quantity for the three or four million drivers of Ontario to get their hands on. If this kind of information could have been disseminated at a reasonable cost, then the government might not have had the severe resistance it is getting today.

[4:45]

The government failed in not doing the proper educational job, not only last year but even five years ago, when it knew the problem existed. As I say, there were three other ministers who were motivated to speak about compulsory seatbelt usage legislation, but they didn’t do it.

I think there were two events which have brought us to this point in time. One was that, as I understand it, the minister himself had a collision and received a head injury because he was not wearing his seatbelt. I think that personal experience motivated him to take the bull by the horns, as it were, and bring in the legislation despite the criticism. I might say that I spent many hours over the past couple of weekends defending the minister’s position, because he is under attack. The event of his accident is maybe going to change the lifestyle of the people of Ontario.

This legislation is companion legislation to another piece of legislation, the Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which is the federal legislation which provides for manufacturers to put certain restraint systems in automobiles. This came in in the late 1960s. It started with the front seat only; it started with lap belts only. It has now progressed to the degree that we have a shoulder harness; we have lap belts; we have a variety of devices to restrain us.

But I think the second most important reason that this government moved was of the financial burden that automobile accidents are creating. This seems to be the only type of consideration that this government is capable of understanding. There is ample evidence that this government has no concern for human life. I can recite case after case of horrendous events which have happened in the Province of Ontario that this government has been unconcerned about. I can talk about the miners in Elliot Lake who are now dying of silicosis and cancer. We can talk about the asbestos workers in Johns-Manville in Scarborough and up in the Reeves mine. We can talk about the lead smelters in Toronto. These things were all swept under the rug until someone had to expose this government, and of course, now they are making motions --

Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the member would return to the principle of this bill?

[4:45]

Mr. Germa: It is only because of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that -- and the Premier (Mr. Davis) mentioned it in his statement to the House on Nov. 18 -- members will recall when the Premier of the province introduced the bill, he said it costs annually an estimated $90 million in direct OHIP charges alone for medical treatment for the injured. I think that is the prime motivating force which caused this government to move in this direction. The projections are included in this booklet. As I’ve said, it was a good booklet but it was too expensively made to make it available to the public. I’m quoting now from page 18 of “The Human Collision” which says:

“Of all the people now living in Ontario, 12.5 per cent, 962,886 will be killed or injured in a motor vehicle accident within the next 10 years. Over the next 40 years, 32 per cent of the current population will be killed or injured.”

That’s more than 2½ million people. It is this kind of projection which frightens me into supporting the legislation, despite the weaknesses that are inherent in enforcement and certain drawbacks which I don’t know whether they’ve been brought to the minister’s attention or not. I will quote from his own publication, again on page 14 of “The Human Collision” and I would ask the minister to respond to this. It’s under the title, “What About Children?” It says:

“Children who are less than 55 in. tall should not wear shoulder belts since the belt usually rides too high and could injure the child’s neck.”

Despite this recommendation in the government’s own document, there is no provision in the bill for children to be exonerated from wearing the shoulder harness. I would ask the minister how he rationalizes the bill with this statement and the findings, and I’m sure he must have got these findings someplace. How can those two fit together at the same time?

I would say 95 per cent of the complaints I have received are from females and usually the spokesmen on issues are males. The predominant male in the family usually does the phoning and tries to direct the elected members into his way of thinking. But in this particular case, most of my phone calls have been from females whose concerns ranged all the way up to the fear that were they pregnant and restrained by a lap belt it would cause abdominal injury. We know there have been surveys done which indicate to me that they have nothing to fear -- well, less to fear -- from the belt than they have from falling out of the car because statistics have showed us that more pregnant women have died as a result of bouncing out of a car than have been injured by restraint of the lap belt.

I would also like to draw to the minister’s attention, for his response, the results of a survey which was done at the University of Toronto and reported on March 27, 1973. It was a survey done under the direction of Prof. Patrick Foley and three engineering students into the problem or the concern of seatbelts.

The group tested two women -- one representing the smallest five per cent of the female population and the other the average female. They came to the startling conclusion that a person of this dimension, the smallest five per cent of females, would be to some degree a hazard on the highway in the Maverick. They tested about 10 different cars, both foreign and domestic. In the Maverick, with the seat as far forward as possible, the smallest woman reported that her arms and legs were cramped. She could not reach the ignition; she could not reach the parking brake release; she could not reach the windshield wipers; she could not reach the lights; she could not reach the air vents and she could not roll down the windows.

This has to be taken into consideration. Certainly it is the fault of the automobile manufacturer that he has not provided a car in which, if one is restrained, one could roll down the windows. I think that is essential. Has the minister taken this into consideration? Or does he imply that this section dealing with physical disfigurement or size would include a person of very small size? Would a person of this dimension be exempt from the regulation?

The average-sized woman couldn’t find a seat position which was comfortable and still allowed her to reach the controls. The tall man complained that his legs were cramped and his thighs were hitting the steering wheel. There is a lot to be done on research into designing an automobile which can fit in with the seatbelts, so the job is really not done.

Hon. Mr. Snow: You haven’t mentioned seatbelts. Has it anything to do with what you’re reading there?

Mr. Deans: What are you talking about?

Mr. Foulds: How do you know? You just woke up.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: I’m not even sure he’s awake.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The article you’re reading from doesn’t relate to seatbelts. It’s the size of the people and the automobiles.

Mr. Germa: I thought I had done that when I started -- “a survey done at the University of Toronto on March 27, 1973, reported on the use of seatbelts.”

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, you didn’t mention that. I’m sorry.

Mr. Germa: I did. All right, we’ll check Hansard. The headline is “Danger in Shoulder Belts, Study says.”

All of those things I’ve said are in relation to the restraints upon a person and his inability to move around to actuate the various things he has to do in order to drive an automobile. If the shoulder harness is holding him back from starting the windshield wiper how can he start the windshield wiper when he’s tearing down the highway and it starts to rain or some mud comes on the windscreen? Does the minister not see that as a hazard? These are the things I’m trying to get across to the minister. Maybe that bump on his head was more serious than we thought.

Mr. Foulds: No, he’s the same old Jim.

Mr. Germa: A small female, five per cent of the females, restrained in a Maverick car with a shoulder belt in place, could not reach the ignition, parking brake, windshield wipers, lights or air vents, and she could not roll down the windows. There’s something wrong with the design of our automobiles. I recognize that’s out of the minister’s jurisdiction -- it lies in the federal field -- but it has to be taken into consideration when we’re passing legislation which is going to make certain demands upon the people.

This particular article goes on; they did contact the automobile manufacturers and it says here:

“Spokesmen for several automobile manufacturers said their companies do conduct tests but it would be impossible to design cars for everyone. ‘We’d like to handle 100 per cent of the people but it can’t be done,’ said a Ford spokesman. He said 95 per cent of the population can be accommodated.”

There’s at least five per cent of the population, I think, which cannot be accommodated with seatbelts. The minister’s going to have to understand that there is going to be a large number of people who, because of either their size or a physical deficiency, will have to be exonerated from obeying the legislation.

Hon. Mr. Snow: That’s why we have clauses in the bill.

Mr. Germa: I’m asking the minister if a female person, otherwise healthy, of miniature size, being in the smallest five per cent of females, would qualify under that particular clause?

Something else has come to my attention. I think it is going to be many years before this legislation is really accepted. Those of us who are moulded into our ways, after having driven cars for 30 or 40 years without restraint, are always going to feel infringed upon.

I notice from a survey that, in the case of those people who have taken driver instruction courses at the secondary level, part of their course right from the first day they get into the automobile is that that they should have on a seatbelt. It becomes habit to them and apparently there is no problem with those people wearing belts. It is engrained right into them at a very early age, probably 16 or 17. Right from day one, they are instructed to use their seatbelt; in fact, it is required that when they are doing their driver training that they do have their seatbelt on. Once the population evolves so that these are the majority in our society, then I think there will not be too much problem of enforcement. Right now I can see that there is going to be tremendous problems of enforcement unless you put half of the Province of Ontario watching the other half. That’s the only way I think the legislation can be enforced right now.

I am also concerned that the government has said nothing about how insurance companies are going to react to this legislation. I can just visualize the presidents of these insurance companies rubbing their hands in glee because they are going to put in an escape clause in their contracts which would exonerate them from liability if a person were not wearing a seatbelt once this legislation is passed. These guys in the insurance industry take advantage of every loophole you give them and they are going to go into this one.

I know the minister wouldn’t be bringing in this kind of legislation, but he is part of a cabinet and I would like to know if they took this into consideration? According to a press story, an official from one of the insurance companies said that if they get this legislation in, it will cause a slowdown in the rate of increase. What kind of a statement is that? He has already said it is going to increase, regardless of this. There might be a slight slowdown in the rate of increase when we know right now that they are socking it to us as far as automobile insurance rates are concerned.

Mr. Eaton: Sure, as in BC where they lose $125 million.

Mr. Germa: There should be a rollback once this legislation is in.

Mr. Bain: There ought to be refunds.

Mr. Germa: Once this legislation is in, I would hope that some minister of the Crown here would keep track of insurance costs and let us know some statistical evidence to monitor these rising insurance costs which we are convinced are going to be reduced and the government is convinced are going to be reduced as a result of this legislation.

I also think that statistics should be very closely compiled, once this legislation is in effect, to ensure that we do have the facts and figures which will justify a continuance of this legislation. If there is no decided increase or decrease in injuries and in deaths, then there is little purpose to having the legislation. I would hope that the government would keep close statistical track of what is going on.

There is a companion piece of legislation having to do with the reduction of accidents which is the reduction of speed limits. This is not by legislating but by regulation. This particular piece of legislation reducing the speed limits is mostly as a result of the incompetence of this government in not ensuring that we have enough fuel to fuel our cars. This is precisely why they are bringing in the 50-mph or 60-mph legislation as it applies. There is a shortage of fuel and the Premier (Mr. Davis) stated it in his statement to the Legislature when he brought in the legislation.

Northern Ontario is an area seven times larger than the southern part of the province and by restraining us in the northern part of the province to 50 mph we just can’t tolerate or live with that. It is going to take us forever to get any place in northern Ontario.

An hon. member: That’s not part of the bill.

Mr. Germa: I think the minister doesn’t understand the difference. I don’t know if he has ever been to northern Ontario.

[5:00]

Interjections.

Mr. Germa: In the southern part of the province you only have to drive 50 miles and you’re into another city. One of my neighbouring cities is 250 miles to the west and the other 187 miles to the east --

Mr. Bain: And he is in a populated part of the north.

Mr. Germa: -- North Bay and Sault Ste. Marie -- so you see the kind of driving we have to do; and to restrain us to 50 miles an hour on the Trans-Canada Highway is just not with it at all.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Germa: I don’t mind wearing the seatbelt, but I object strenuously to having to sit in that car X number of hours more in order to get some place.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Chair has agreed to limited comment on the speed limit. This is not part of the bill we’re discussing; would you kindly keep your remarks on that aspect to a minimum?

Mr. Germa: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I took that liberty because the Premier included in his statement to the House introducing this legislation a reference to the reduction to 50 mph and he was talking in a general vein about safety on the highway.

I think that’s all I have to say on this legislation, Mr. Speaker. I’ll look forward to the minister’s response on those several issues I’ve raised.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to take part in this debate? The hon. member for Carleton East.

Mrs. Gigantes: I would like to address a few brief remarks, if I could, to the minister, Mr. Speaker. I’m very interested in the information that the member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa) has just presented, because it confirms a lot of my feelings. I don’t know whether I’m a small-sized woman or an average-sized woman in the member for Sudbury’s computation --

Interjections.

Mrs. Gigantes: -- but, I think like a lot of women, I tend to drive a smaller car than most men do. In fact, I think a lot of women tend to drive Volkswagens, and there are a lot of Volkswagens in Ontario.

Mr. Shore: We should get rid of them.

Mrs. Gigantes: And I can tell you that wearing a seatbelt in a Volkswagen is a miserable thing. I cannot back up in my Volkswagen with a seatbelt on, and it’s one of the reasons that I haven’t worn a seatbelt for years.

In this I’m like a lot of parents in Ontario; I’m quite hypocritical. I make my child wear a seatbelt, which the figures of the member for Sudbury indicate may be dangerous for that child, though I think on the whole I would rather risk a neck injury to her than have her go catapulting through the windshield if the car were hit or if it hit something, so I’ve made her wear a seatbelt. She asks me, “Why don’t you wear yours?” And I say, “Well, because.” The fact is when this law comes in, I will wear my seatbelt and I think that I’m like a lot of ordinary Ontario citizens.

I’m pleased to see the general direction of this bill. I agree with the member for Sudbury there are a lot of features about cars this minister needs to take a look at -- and have his colleagues in cabinet take a look at -- with a view to changing the design of cars, and particularly the design of seatbelts, so they don’t become a hazard in a good many cases.

Hazard for five per cent of cases is too much hazard. When design changes can modify that hazard and reduce it, I think it is imperative for the government that is asking people to put those seatbelts on in order to obey Ontario law to take those suggestions very seriously and to ensure that a hazard is not being created when the Ontario government asks people to wear seatbelts.

As I say, I am in favour of the general direction of the bill. I’m convinced by the statistics that have been assembled. I’m particularly convinced by the Australian statistics which have been taken over some period of time. While the later statistics show a smaller decrease in death and injury than the statistics that were gathered in the initial period of testing of seatbelts in Australia, they are still in my mind very significant. For that reason and the concurrent lowering of cost to OHIP in Ontario, and lowering of expense to the public purse and the safety and health of citizens in this province, I agree with the general direction of the bill and I’m pleased to support it.

I plead with the minister to ask his colleagues in cabinet to give serious consideration to enforcing design changes in the cars that are used in Ontario and in the seatbelts that are in those cars so we’d not put a fairly substantial portion of our population in a hazardous position when we require them to wear seatbelts.

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

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to wholeheartedly support the legislation. When I tell the minister why, he may withdraw it, but that’s a quid pro quo that we in this House have to live with. I’m here today simply because of seatbelts. On two occasions my life has been saved on account of seatbelts.

Mr. Bain: He may withdraw it.

Mr. Foulds: I know that will give the minister some pause. We have to live with the minister because of seatbelts; he will have to live with me because of seatbelts.

Mr. Bounsall: I might change my ideas.

Mr. Foulds: And yet in spite of the fact that my life has been saved on two occasions by seatbelts, do I wear them all the time? No. Why? Because like every other human being, I’m slothful at times; I’m thoughtless at times --

An hon. member: No, no.

Mr. Lewis: And you’re certainly self-destructive.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, as my leader says, I have this desire for self-destruction. When I think of the importance of this legislation in terms of all the arguments, we get down to one basic argument, and that is the argument over the saving of lives. On that basis alone, as a democratic socialist I find the importance of human life, the sacredness of human life, to be the most important principle we must consider. It is important, through whatever means possible, for us to preserve and enhance human life.

And so for me, the John Stuart Mill arguments do not hold up that it is an infringement on my right to destroy myself, because the John Stuart Mill philosophy has not held up with this kind of legislation in any other areas. We drive on the right hand side of the highway in this country, not only because it protects the other guy but it protects us too, and in some way that’s an infringement on my John Stuart Mill type of freedoms.

It does not seem to me that human beings have the right to maim themselves; or to cause anguish to the driver in the other car, who may kill a person because that person has not his seatbelt on. It is not our right to cause that other driver that anguish, that he must live with for the rest of his life. It is not our right as an individual to cause the anguish and heartbreak to our families simply because we have this self-destructive impulse.

When I see the savings in hospital costs, the savings in social costs, I must agree with the arguments put forward so lucidly -- it seems so long ago -- by my colleague the member for Yorkview (Mr. Young).

Unlike other members of the Legislature, I have not been flooded with calls on this issue. I still get, on the average, 100 calls a week, as I have had consistently over the last couple of years as a member. But I have had only one call about seatbelts. Admittedly that one call was against seatbelts, but I don’t take that to indicate 100 per cent of those who contacted me about this matter opposing the legislation. I’ve had one call opposing the legislation. When one considers the north and the fact the winters are seven months long, and that the seatbelt legislation will probably cause more inconvenience because of the winter clothing and the tightness and so on; when you consider those things I think that it’s probably indicative of my riding.

So I rise, as I say, to enthusiastically support the legislation. I think what we must consider when we are considering this legislation is that it does cause inconvenience; that’s what it causes -- inconvenience. Many other laws cause inconvenience, but for the betterment of the public good we endorse them and support them.

If I might make one personal reference, I support this legislation enthusiastically and a bit at my peril. Certain terms in the bill could lead to some estrangement between my wife and me. We have two children. One child is one year old and he’s exempt from this legislation. Ironically, he’s happy in his seat in a seatbelt. I have a child, three years old -- who by the way has the distinction of being one of the few one-year-olds to be thrown out of the Legislature. He caused a group of school children to laugh in the gallery some two years ago and the security guards were a little overzealous and removed him.

Mr. Shore: Like father, like son.

Mr. Evans: A chip off the old block.

Mr. Foulds: Yes. After that the Speaker ruled that chuckles were allowed so he could come back in.

Anyway, my three-year-old --

Mr. Lewis: My wife was thrown out of this Legislature once, only because she threw things at two of the cabinet ministers, from the gallery.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Can we return to the principle of the bill?

Mr. Foulds: We can, indeed, Mr. Speaker. My three-year-old, who is a very active child --

Hon. Mr. Bennett: And a socialist.

Mr. Foulds: -- and a socialist and one of the best weapons I had in the campaign. If we ask him what my badge says, he’ll say, “Vote Daddy.”

Anyway, my three-year-old will not wear a seatbelt. He’s just at that age when he is so active he will not wear a seatbelt.

What does that mean? That effectively means that for five days of the week, for seven months of the year when I’m down in the Legislature, my wife cannot get out of the house. She cannot take our two children out. In spite of that very severe limitation, I support this legislation. Let me tell members that’s the most severe limitation I have encountered and envisaged.

I think, if we believe all the arguments we hear from those who oppose this legislation, and will oppose it, it’s going to be a fantastic boost for public transportation in this province. They will be riding on trains or taking aeroplanes because they need to wear seatbelts for only about 20 minutes of a flight. Public transportation is going to get a great boost from the libertarians. I think that’s probably one of the major things going for this legislation.

Lastly, I want to speak on the principle of enforceability.

Mr. Martel: What about the principle of the bill?

Mr. Foulds: Sometimes I know why they feel the way they do about you.

It is my belief this law will not be enforced 100 per cent. I don’t think there’s a law in this province which has been enforced 100 per cent of the time. By and large, it is my belief that the people of Ontario are law-abiding citizens and when we pass the legislation, although some of them will do it grudgingly, they will obey the law. If we get 90 per cent enforcement, that’s not bad; that’s worth it. To me it’s worth it in terms of the human lives and the human heartaches it will save.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Bill 27 because I believe, on balance, it’s in the public interest. Like some others, I have some reservations about the bill and I want to cover one or two of them because they may be areas which we’re going to have to look at in the future.

[5:15]

One of my concerns all along has been the possibility of the insurance industry attempting to evade responsibility in accident cases in which belts were not worn and thereby the law is broken. I understand that one of the states in Australia has passed legislation which prohibits insurance companies from denying liability because of the non-use of seatbelts.

I am told by my colleagues in my own caucus that this should not be a concern, but when I see the insurance industry rather arrogantly saying they can see no rate cut for at least two years regardless of any reductions in accidents, whether through lower speed limits or whatever else we pass in the way of good legislation, I think one can be forgiven for suspecting they may try to cut some of their payout on the basis of the reduction in accidents. Like others, I am concerned about enforcement, hot I don’t think it is reason for denying basically good legislation just because it may be hard to enforce.

I think most Canadians are law-abiding and given the force of law, they will abide by that law. Where they don’t, I feel that as soon as the authorities indicate they do intend to try to enforce the law, then we are on our way to total acceptance. I think the danger may be an attitude from the start on behalf of many people that the law can’t be enforced, so why try; that really is what can lead to disrespect for just about any law that we pass in our country.

I am concerned about how we deal with out-of-province and out-of-country visitors, the third person in the front seat of a vehicle, the extra passenger in a van, some of the cars and the question of modifications; the 1973 model cars, for instance, where the seatbelt is operative but the shoulder harness is inoperative, strapped up on the side of the car and not part of the buzzer system. I think all of these questions, however, can be answered and aren’t reasons for holding up this particular bill.

The other argument I have heard most often, and probably put strongest, is that it is the right of the individual to decide for himself if he should have to wear a seatbelt. I have to say that few arguments could carry more weight with me than the one of individual freedom if I thought this was really what was at stake in this bill. In this case, in my opinion, it is not. I think the broader public concern, the right not to have to accept a higher rate of carnage on our highways; the right not to have to accept higher death tolls and higher injury rates, the resulting misery of families, to say nothing of the financial costs; the right not to have to subject individuals and families of deceased persons to pensions and disability allowances, in many cases inadequate; and the right not to have to pay the increased costs of health care in this province, the filling up of our hospital beds so often with highway accidents -- these are all very much a part of the bill and indicate a collective good rather than the individual whim, which is what I consider the right not to wear a belt to be. I think what is really at stake here is the public interest and the argument just doesn’t carry much weight. I think the individual right in this case is the collective right, in terms of this legislation.

I would like to conclude with the comment that I, and I think all members of my caucus, feel we need a whole package of improvements for the driving public, like lower speed limits, like the safety checks the member for Yorkview (Mr. Young) has raised, like stiffer penalties for the drinking drivers and others. I wish this was part of such a total package, but I think we also realize that democracy, sometimes I think in particular Tory democracy, seems to move and make change awful slowly; but if we have to move a step at a time then I think we should move that step.

I think the evidence, as I understand it, as it has been presented in this House, is that there is a considerable increase in safety, a considerable reduction in death and injuries, with all the attendant miseries that they bring, and a reduction in the social costs through the use of seatbelts. It is for these reasons, even with some of the reservations that we have, that I accept this bill and I am pleased the minister has brought it in.

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

Hon. Mr. Snow: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank all of the members of all three parties who have spoken on this bill, all, basically, with maybe one or two exceptions, in support of the legislation. As we went through the debate, I made a considerable number of notes on the remarks of different members, although I think we all realize many of the items were duplicated.

The member for Yorkview (Mr. Young), in starting out for the New Democratic Party, made some very excellent contributions to the debate, I think. In the eight or nine years I have been a member of this House, I have come to know of his interest in safety measures and the great deal of research and work he has done. I have heard him speak on matters of this type many times.

I was interested in his comments regarding air bags or the passive restraint systems. I have to say that I think these are very much in their infancy. It is my understanding of the Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Act that even if these types of restraint systems are installed, the lap seatbelts are still required. This is something that we will certainly monitor and keep an eye on as research is carried out both by the companies and by the federal government, which is responsible for these areas.

Like any legislation, it is not etched in stone; if, a year from now, five years from now or 10 years from now, this type of device is refined and acceptable and is in enough automobiles -- I doubt if it is in one-tenth of one per cent of the automobiles in Toronto, let alone in Ontario. As I say, this is something that will have to be watched as we go along.

No doubt, as many hon. members have mentioned, there is the possibility of a better type of seatbelt or a more comfortable seatbelt. Personally, I find the new belts in the newer cars quite good. I don’t like the one where there are two belts, with one banging up over the window that you have to bring down to connect it. I know we are going to have trouble enforcing the use of that type of belt because, with few exceptions, people probably will not want to use it; but there can be improvements.

There has been talk by several members -- I know the member for Yorkview mentioned them -- of child-restraining devices. As I understand it, there are four devices approved by the federal government at this time.

Mr. Young: You can’t buy them in Canada. That’s the problem. You will have to get that sorted away. Companies are just not selling them in Canada.

Hon. Mr. Snow: There are four approved, as I understand it, but there are not enough of them currently available on the market to make the mandatory use of them advisable at this time. That’s why, in designing the bill, we made provisions that the requirement of child-restraining devices can be implemented by regulation at a later date.

The hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Reid) quoted a great many statistics, especially statistics of the research carried out at Cornell University. In fact, all the statistics that I have in my research material, some of which I intended to use in summing up this debate, have pretty well been read into the record by one member or another of the House.

The hon. member for Rainy River used some of my thunder, I think, in his remarks about his experience as a pilot. Of course, I have similar experience, and I find it unreasonable to think of getting into an aircraft, whether it be a private aircraft or a commercial aircraft, without using a seatbelt, but yet up until not too many months ago, I very seldom used a seatbelt in an automobile. I’ve never had need for a seatbelt in an airplane, but during my lifetime I’ve been involved in two or three different accidents, a couple of them while going to or coming from the airport.

We talk about children buckling up or having problems with them. My children have flown with me for many years. I’d take my oldest son with me when I’d he going flying when he was two years old and he never objected at all to being buckled up in a seatbelt in an airplane. Someone suggested during the debate that, as 16-year-olds learning to drive get educated to wear belts, we’ll have more people complying with the law. I think the education programme, has to start a long way below 16. With this legislation, I think it will become a standard practice for children to wear belts -- while riding in an automobile, the same as they do while riding in an aircraft.

The matter of civil liberties was mentioned by a great many members during the debate. I think many of the Acts of this Legislature or other legislatures or the government of Canada affect our civil liberties. The Motorized Snow Vehicles Act says that we have to wear a helmet. Motorcycle drivers have to wear a helmet. All these in some way affect our civil liberties. I don’t think the wearing of a seatbelt is any more of an infringement than any other legislation. If we go back to the airplane example again, the law requires one to wear a seatbelt in an aircraft and no one objects to it -- at least I’ve never heard of anyone objecting.

We are having a few objections. I say a few, because many members have mentioned the number of phone calls they have had asking them not to support this legislation. As the minister responsible, and in my own riding, I have had some phone calls, but the majority of the contacts I have had both within my riding and throughout the province have been in favour of both the changes in the speed limit and the seatbelt legislation. I spent an hour today from 1 to 2 on the CBC talk show, Noon Radio or whatever.

Mr. Lewis: Radio Noon.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The Radio Noon programme. I must say I was expecting on this type of phone-in show that I would get people objecting. We were able to deal, I think, with every call but one on the programme. There wasn’t a big line-up of calls at the end of the programme that we hadn’t got to. I think with one exception all the calls that came in that hour programme were in favour of the legislation. One man was bitterly opposed to both the seatbelts and the speed limit and he wanted to be able to do whatever he wanted across the province.

Mr. Lewis: That’s a very selective audience.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I had a phone call from a man in the real estate business, who said that he shouldn’t have to wear a seatbelt because he had to go from one house to another to show them to customers. We’ve had a few like that but basically we have excellent support.

I don’t doubt that in some areas of the province, the more rural areas, probably the reception is somewhat different. Our research has shown that the percentage of people regularly wearing seatbelts in the rural areas is probably more like about 10 per cent whereas for people who drive expressways regularly all the time the tread is as high as 35 per cent.

I think there has been some discussion regarding our education programme. I think the education programme has been successful to a degree; the member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa) said it’s a total failure but I don’t think I can accept that. I think there has been a considerable swing to the use of belts -- perhaps net as much to the actual use of the belt but to people realizing that they should use the belts. Again, as many people have said here and, I think, as thousands of the public have said, when they know they should wear them, all they need is the legislation to be there to say they should and they will.

[5:30]

I think we still have something of a selling job to do; or an educational programme. I am told the federal government is intending to implement an educational programme with TV and radio spots right across Canada, supporting or recommending the use of seatbelts.

In our programme, which has been carried on over the past months, we have a new film just being completed now; it is an educational-type film. I hope we can arrange to show that to the members in the very near future and make copies available for showing at any schools or public meetings or service clubs or anything. I think that even with the legislation we still have to continue to educate the people on the necessity and the safety requirements.

A few of the members have been concerned about out-of-province cars. Of course, any Canadian car comes under the same federal legislation and is required to have the belt installed. Our legislation calls for those people to wear those belts when driving in Ontario. We will have signs installed at the border points advising visitors of the requirement to wear belts in Ontario.

I don’t think it will be necessary for too long because, although I am very proud to say that Ontario is the first jurisdiction in North America to introduce this legislation, I understand, as in many of the areas where Ontario has shown such strong leadership, some of the other provinces are almost ready now to proceed with similar action.

I was interested in one comment from a member who did not participate in the debate. That was the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Good) who said he thought he shouldn’t participate because it might be a conflict of interest.

Mr. Kennedy: That’s the best commendation for it in the whole debate.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I think that’s a pretty good recommendation for the use of seatbelts.

In the legislation we have allowed exemptions on medical grounds. To clarify a point -- I forget which member mentioned it -- I think if a person has a very severe hang-up regarding the wearing of a belt -- or claustrophobia as it might be referred to -- and goes to his doctor and is able to convince the doctor that he has very good reason; and if the doctor or general practitioner or psychiatrist, I guess, would be prepared to issue a medical certificate to the person on those grounds, I think a mental reason for not wearing the belt would qualify under the medical grounds as well as some physical defect or injury might qualify.

Enforcement is a problem that many members have mentioned. I have discussed this with my colleague, the Solicitor General (Mr. MacBeth). I would hope that when this legislation becomes effective on Jan. 1, that the police forces in Ontario would not immediately start a major programme of laying charges or fining people.

I think there should be a phasing-in programme; I would like to think that the police would give warnings and advise people of the benefits of wearing seatbelts, rather than lay charges for, say, at least the first month. One member suggested a six-month phasing-in period -- but I think that is an unreasonably long period. However, both the Solicitor General and I agree, although it comes under his jurisdiction totally and that of the police commission, that this, like some other types of law, should be phased in gradually.

I do think that the vast majority of the people will abide by the legislation. I notice it, even though the member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans) claimed he can’t tell who is wearing a seat belt and who isn’t. I have noticed in driving on the Queen Elizabeth Way this past week or so -- since this legislation has been introduced, has been getting publicity -- that a great many more people are wearing seatbelts than ever did before.

Mr. Deans: The minister noticed that?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I certainly have -- and if the member hasn’t, he should have his eyes checked.

Mr. Deans: Not everyone is chauffeur-driven; and neither are the police.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t know how the member can miss it. With the modem car that has the combination belt, there is no problem to tell --

Mr. Deans: No.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- who is wearing belts and who isn’t. It is very interesting to note the increased number of people who have been wearing the belts just in the last couple of weeks.

There are certainly other safety matters that we are looking at, and we have a couple involved in amendments that we have before the House right now relating to the mechanical fitness safety checks on dump trucks. This is another matter that we are contemplating to try to bring about safer roads and safer traffic conditions. It will be an on-going programme, as we have had for some time, in order to continue to improve driving safety.

A lot of discussions centred on the design of vehicles. As many of the members mentioned, this does not come under provincial legislation. I would not suggest that the Province of Ontario should pass legislation pertaining to the design or construction of vehicles, so that you had to have a separate specification for one province. This rightfully is controlled under the federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Certainly, if we have suggestions to make, we can make them to the federal authorities for consideration. But I am not about to suggest that we start developing our own vehicle construction standards.

Again, relating to the enforcement, in the next few days we are having a conference with the senior OPP staff -- with representatives brought in from the different areas of the province to discuss the enforcement of this legislation and the details of this legislation, as well as other changes in the Highway Traffic Act.

There have been several discussions about seatbelts in school buses. I personally am more concerned about making sure that the driver of a school bus is wearing the belt than I am about the occupants. As someone has already mentioned, unless you’re going to put adult supervisors in every school bus, it would be impossible for the driver of the bus to ensure that all children were wearing them. It certainly is important that the driver wear the belt so that some minor collision would not dislodge him from his seat and perhaps cause the bus to go out of control.

Mr. Deans: It is okay if the kids go rattling around?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Another thing, of course, is that on school buses sometimes as many as 30 per cent of the passengers on the bus will be standing. It is the same on public transit. Again, I suppose if the federal legislation --

Mr. Deans: Why don’t you abolish that?

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- relating to the construction and standards for school buses is changed to require the use of seatbelts in the buses, then of course this legislation will cover it, but as of the present time that is not the case.

Mr. Deans: Why is a child in the back seat of a car more vulnerable than a child in the seat of a school bus?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think everyone has had an opportunity to make his points.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I think we have to be reasonable, and I understand that’s hard for some people, but I just can’t see the enforcement of the use of seatbelts in a school bus situation when we have up to 30 per cent of the capacity of the bus standing.

Mr. Deans: Abolish that. Do away with it. You should make everyone sit. You are talking about safety. For heaven’s sake, be consistent.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It is interesting that although there have been some minor mishaps with school buses we have a terrific record. There have not been any fatalities in the province, to my knowledge.

Mr. Martel: In what? In school buses?

Hon. Mr. Snow: In school buses.

Mr. Martel: There were no fatalities? Last spring there were kids killed --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Martel: You don’t know what you are talking about, as usual. A truck rammed into the side of a school bus carrying children.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I will be glad to look into that, but I don’t think that is the case.

Mr. Martel: They shouldn’t be allowed to stand on a bus.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member has had an opportunity to debate the issue.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Although I haven’t gone through each member’s contribution in detail -- as I said, there was a considerable overlapping -- I think I have replied to most of the comments that have been made by the members. The government is convinced that this legislation will reduce the accident rate or the fatality rate or serious injury rate. I am certainly not going to say it is going to eliminate accidents --

Mr. Kennedy: How about the quality of belts?

Mr. Deans: You had your opportunity. What are you butting in for?

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- because it will not prevent all accidents -- I only wish it were that simple to prevent accidents -- but I think it will reduce the number of serious injuries and it will reduce the number of deaths. It has done so in all other areas where similar legislation has been introduced. I am quite sure there will soon be other provinces that will have similar legislation, although we are establishing a first here with the passing of this bill, in that it will be the first such bill in North America.

I am certainly convinced that this Legislature is taking the right action, and I thank all of those speakers who have contributed to the debate and supported the bill.

[5:45]

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

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

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Young: I called for the committee but I guess you didn’t hear me.

Mr. Speaker: I didn’t.

Mr. Young: There is just one minor amendment that we’re interested in. I mentioned it to the minister and he may be willing to accept it without having to go through committee. It is in connection with the modified seatbelts -- modified to render them less effective -- because we don’t want them to be modified.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I do have an amendment prepared. I’m not so sure that it’s necessary but if the member feels so inclined I would be happy to have the bill go to committee and we’ll make that amendment in committee.

Mr. Speaker: Do we have the consent of the House to redirect this to the committee of the whole House then?

Agreed.

MOTORIZED SNOW VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved second reading of Bill 34, An Act to amend the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

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

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 2, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Sections 1 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 8:

Mr. Moffatt: We went into a number of points with regard to section 8 in the previous dealing with this bill. This particular clause gives the regulations to effect the covering of vehicles for certain specified commodities which are spelled out in the particular bill. I asked the minister at the time if there were going to be certain movements made by his ministry to ensure that the operators of these particular vehicles would not be penalized by this new regulation. At the time, the minister indicated that the regulation was not serious because the number of minutes required to cover a load was in the neighbourhood of two or three.

In the Ministry of Industry and Tourism’s news release of two weeks ago there was a particular mention in that news release that it took 15 minutes to tarp a gravel truck and that that was the average for vehicles travelling the road. In the light of that news release and in the light of the debate which occurred before, I would like to know if the minister has considered some method by which these operators would be able to ensure that their travelling time and working time would not be cut down because of the inclusion of section 8.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further comment on any section of this bill? Shall the bill be reported?

Mr. Renwick: Is there any comment from the minister?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, in reply to that comment: No, I can’t assure the hon. member -- and I never did assure him -- that it wasn’t going to take any time to cover the trucks. One has to realize that it will take a period of time to put the tarp over the truck. There is no doubt there will be a very slightly added cost that must be built into the rates that the trucker will charge for his services because there is going to be a very modest additional cost. One has to weigh that against the benefits of having these loads covered to prevent gravel and sand flying off and damaging people’s automobiles and breaking windshields and all the things that go with it. It will become a part of the cost of operating his business and will have to be taken into consideration just as if the price of tires goes up or the price of gas goes up or anything else. I am not saying there won’t be some added cost to the general public in one way or another to bring in this type of a requirement.

Bill 2 reported.

PUBLIC COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 3, An Act to amend the Public Commercial Vehicles Act.

Mr. Chairman: Any comments by any member on any section of this bill? If so, what section.

Mr. Moffatt: I have an amendment to subsection 3(e) of section 2.

Mr. Chairman: Nothing before that?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have an amendment myself.

Mr. Chairman: To what section?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Subsection 3 of section 6 of the Act on section 2 of the bill.

On section 2:

Hon. Mr. Snow moved that clause (a) of subsection 3 of section 6 of the Act, as set out in subsection 3 of section 2 of the bill, be amended by inserting after “stone” in the second line “asphalt mixes.”

Mr. Chairman: Any comment on the minister’s amendment?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Durham East.

Mr. Moffatt: This particular amendment deals with the responsibilities of the board in determining licences.

Mr. Moffatt moved that clause (c) of subsection 3 of section 2 be amended by adding thereto item (iii) as follows:

“Where there is more than one applicant for a licence of rights, determine as between or amongst the applicants the most equitable distribution as between or amongst them of the licences of rights hereunder.”

An hon. member: It sounds reasonable.

Mr. Moffatt: I am glad it sounds reasonable to someone. What this intricate wording really hopes to do is to make sure that when new F licences are given in any one particular region that there will not be a movement of all the licences to one or two particularly large contractors in a given area.

What we are attempting to do is to make sore that equitable distribution will be the order of the day so that we will be encouraging a large number of people to be involved in this particular industry rather than freezing out the smaller operators.

I had some cause to talk to a number of these people who are small independent businessmen owning one or two trucks. It was pointed out by them that what seems to happen every time there is a change to regionalizing licences in other jurisdictions, is the licences seem to gravitate into the hands of a very few people. What we would like to do by this amendment is to make sure that one of the conditions under which new licences are given is this sort of added rider which will make sore that equitable distribution will be one of the guiding factors in giving out new licences.

Licences are given out on the basis of need, public urgency and so on and it would seem to me that it would be wise for the ministry to protect all the operators presently in the business so that the licences will continue to be of some importance to small operators.

Mr. Ruston: Got another copy of that?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, I know what the hon. member is trying to do and I have exactly the same concerns and the same opinion but I don’t feel it can be done by an amendment to this Act. This is a function of the Highway Transport Board and I just don’t see how you can do this. I suppose it could be done but it really is a function of the board to consider at the public hearings in considering the evidence for the granting of licences. It would certainly be my policy, as I stated, I think, when we were discussing this on second reading, that small operators or the man with one truck who wants to get two should be given consideration before a guy who has 121 trucks gets 122 trucks. I think this can be a policy statement on behalf of the minister but I hate to restrict the board.

Mr. MacDonald: Is the minister’s policy stated explicitly in any part of the Act, namely that there should be an equitable distribution?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t believe it is.

Mr. MacDonald: If I may say a word here in another context altogether, I remember when I happened to be a member of a committee looking into the OMB, the message that came time and time again from people who operate in that kind of quasi-judicial body was, “The Act has to be clear as to what are our orders. If the Act isn’t clear, sometimes we won’t make a decision; we will go back to find out.”

It seems to me if, in this instance, the minister agrees with equitable distribution so that you share it among some of the smaller people instead of squeezing them out, and if he agrees that this phraseology achieves that, you have a statutory directive to the Transport Board within which it can operate. Otherwise, it can either do it or not do it and there is no obligation on it. Do you disagree?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I disagree with your interpretation of the board’s function.

Mr. Moffatt: I, too, sense that the minister has this sort of interest at heart. All we are trying to do is make sure that the guidance for that particular board is in the Act. We are not attempting to limit it. I would suggest that over the supper hour you and your advisers and the legislative draftsmen might work out a wording which would be acceptable.

It seems to me with the provisions of the new regions, which are going to be rather strict and in some cases will require people to have licences in more than one region -- if they live close to a boundary -- we may well run into a situation in which new licences will be very difficult to get I think it will be important that the sense which you and I seem to share be given to this board so it will be able to take that into consideration when making a judgment.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am not sure that this is the legislation under which this should be done. As I think I mentioned before there are some 10,000 licensed trucks in Ontario and they are spread around between 6,000 operators so that’s about an average of 1½ trucks per operator. It’s obviously not --

Mr. MacDonald: There must be a lot of them operating on a half a truck.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Half a load.

Mr. MacDonald: Some of the big operators have scores of trucks.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I guess maybe -- I am advised that legally there is no reason why we cannot put this in but it doesn’t really mean anything because it is still up to the decision of the board to decide what is equitable.

Mr. MacDonald: But give the board some statutory guidance.

Mr. Renwick: Let’s take our chances.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would like to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we leave this until 8 p.m. and I will have some better information.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.