Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

Clerk of the House: The 13th order, resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 176, An Act to provide for the Conservation, Protection and Preservation of the Heritage of Ontario.

ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre had the floor when we were last discussing this bill.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I had some opportunity to look at the legislation in more detail during the course of the break between 5 o’clock and now. It simply leads me to reiterate my request to the minister that he put this legislation out into standing committee and that he delay the passage into third reading until January so that a great number of heritage groups can look at the legislation and can comment on it.

I haven’t even had the chance to read through in its entirety a very interesting report called “Our Heritage.” This is a report of the mayor’s committee on our heritage submitted to Ottawa city council by the heritage committee there under the chairmanship of R. A. J. Phillips. Mr. Phillips is now the director general or the chairman of Heritage Canada, which is the federal counterpart to the Ontario Heritage Foundation.

I would bring to the minister’s attention that Capital for Canadians, a group in Ottawa -- also, as it happens, under the chairmanship of Mr. Phillips -- has prepared a very interesting report as well. It is not just about the subjects contained here, but also provides an overview of some of the methods that are used in other jurisdictions; not only in preventing the destruction of heritage buildings, but also in providing economic means to compensate owners of heritage buildings from their loss of development rights or from the extra costs of preserving or conserving or rehabilitating heritage buildings, which, as I was saying before the break, is a very real problem for them.

I’ve also had the chance to look through parts but not all of the final report of the Ministry of the Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs on the programme for conservation of buildings for historic or architectural value in Ontario, a report which came out about a year and a half or two years ago. Again, without being able to read through the whole thing in the time which was available, I find that there are some significant departures in the minister’s programme from what was recommended in this particular committee that was working for the ministry in consultation with a large number of groups interested in Ontario’s heritage and its history. That consultation took place as a result of the preliminary report on the programme of conservation of buildings of historic and architectural value.

Let me come now, Mr. Speaker, to some of the real weaknesses that I think exist in this bill. They are sufficient, in fact, that the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) and myself are almost tempted to suggest that we actually oppose the bill. We’ve decided that we will support it, that on balance there are more good things in it than bad things, but there are some very serious weaknesses in it.

The report to the government suggested there should be a power of designation to historic buildings at both the provincial level and at the municipal level. It suggested in the case of the province that the minister or whoever did the designation would designate buildings that were of outstanding historical or architectural significance for the province as a whole. A building such as the St. Lawrence Market here in Toronto presumably would fit under that category and maybe the Ottawa Teachers’ College. On the other hand, a building like the Jamieson House in Renfrew, over which there were questions in the Legislature recently because it was threatened by demolition for the Ministry of Transportation and Communications project, would be considered to be of local significance.

The recommendation was that buildings of more local architectural or historic significance would be designated at the local level by the local municipality. What the ministry has done in this bill, however, has been to omit the powers of designation at the provincial level in all their important aspects. I would draw the minister’s attention to the bill. I assume that he is aware of the weakness in the bill, but at least I’d like to draw his attention to it.

Under the powers that relate to designation in part VI of the bill, section 52, the minister has got the power to designate a property to be of archaeological or historical significance. Once that designation takes place, it is then open to the minister, in fact, to actually refuse any alteration or any demolition in the property that is so designated.

So far so good; but what I would draw the minister’s attention to is this, that in the definitions of section 47 in part VI, a property which can be designated by the minister means “real property but does not include buildings or structures other than ruins, burial mounds, petroglyphs and earthworks.”

I think it is a serious weakness in the bill. I think the minister will agree that Ontario’s history is contained in more than ruins, burial mounds, petroglyphs and earthworks and that it is really quite irrational for a minister to have a power of designation on an historic building after it has been put into ruins, but not to be able to designate it before it becomes ruins.

I would suspect that the ministry had in mind the feeling either that it wanted to weaken this legislation overall or that in a positive sense it felt that the municipality should have the first role to play in the designation of historic buildings. With that we don’t really disagree. But there is no reserve power given to the ministry to step in in the case of a threat to structures which are of outstanding historic or architectural significance to the province as a whole.

The minister simply can’t step in at that point, apart from using the power or the funds of the Ontario Heritage Foundation to actually expropriate or purchase the property. In some cases, of course, the demolition may have taken place before the Heritage Foundation can get itself into gear.

It seems to us, Mr. Speaker, that the minister, as the person in government responsible for heritage, should have the power to designate where he considers a property to be of outstanding provincial significance and should therefore be able to step in in cases where a local municipality refuses to accept its responsibility or is simply unaware of it. The ministry should be there, both because certain properties are too outstanding to lose and also because some municipalities are going to refuse to accept the responsibilities that the ministry is trying to give them in this particular bill.

It seems to us that the ministerial power to designate is needed for a second reason, Mr. Speaker, and that’s this: As we sat during the break, wondering about the powers of delay that are provided for municipalities when a demolition threatens an historic or a heritage building, we asked ourselves what one does if the owner is intransigent and won’t talk with the municipality to find other means of preserving heritage. What does one do? Mr. Speaker, we grappled with this one, suggesting that maybe the municipality should just have a final and binding order to refuse demolition permits. Finally, it seemed to us that what made the most sense would be this --

I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker, there are other people speaking here. Do you wish to listen to them?

Mr. Speaker: I just hear the general background noise. Would the member continue, please?

Mr. Cassidy: All right. I just thought there was some competition, and it was a bit difficult.

Mr. Speaker, a municipality has the power to delay a demolition by 180 days, and no more. We think that the minister should be able to step in and designate a property where it is of outstanding historic or architectural significance in the province, and that if the demolition request continues, the minister, as the political agent responsible for heritage, should then have the power after the review procedure that is laid out here to absolutely refuse the demolition.

We don’t think that irreplaceable properties of outstanding significance should be under the threat that exists right here. So for that reason as well we believe that there should be a provincial power to the minister to designate properties so that he can back up a municipality when the municipality has come to the end of its tether and simply can do no more.

I have an example for the ministry. I mentioned the Rideau Convent in Ottawa before. If the ministry had come in and had been satisfied, on the advice of the advisory board or of the review board or whatever, that this was a property of outstanding architectural significance in the province, which it was, then the ministry could have said that as far as the oldest part of this convent is concerned, it would refuse the demolition. Then from that point forward negotiations could have been undertaken with the owners of the property in order to ensure that they could redevelop the rest of the property while preserving the areas of the greatest historical significance. But that power was lacking and the Rideau Convent is now a matter of drawing and photographs and models. It is physically no more.

Mr. Speaker, the next thing that worries us is the fact that a municipality which seeks to block alterations of an historic building which has been designated has ample powers; in fact, it can ultimately refuse completely. A municipality which seeks to block demolition can do so for 180 days. That is the kind of period used in other jurisdictions in order to permit the Heritage Foundation, the municipality, various private groups, service clubs and the owner himself to try and work out how to save that building. However, where a property has been designated and the owner applies for a demolition permit, the municipality can short-circuit this whole process by simply agreeing to the demolition permit.

I would urge the minister that it is again rather irrational to instruct, as the legislation does, a municipality to repeal its designation bylaw on a building which has been demolished after the demolition permit has been granted, and then, in fact, to open up a procedure by which the de-designation is subject to an appeal process and a hearing before the Conservation Review Board, but not to allow any of that kind of an appeal process where a municipal council decides for various reasons that it will grant demolition of a property that people thought was protected because it was designated as a heritage property.

We would recommend, and I hope that the minister will seriously consider it, that where a municipality proposes to permit demolition of a heritage property which has been designated, that that decision be advertised in the local press for 30 days, and that if there are any objections that the objections then be heard before the Conservation Review Board. In other words, we recommend that the same process be gone through as would have been gone through if the municipality had sought to repeal the historic or heritage designation of that particular property, and I am glad to see the minister is making a note about that.

We have misgivings about the anomaly that exists between the powers of municipalities over alterations and their ultimate lack of power over demolitions. But where a municipality suddenly decides to play ball with the property owner, we don’t think that the public should be left in left field with no other recourse when they can see a piece of their heritage, which had been designated quite possibly after a set of hearings, suddenly going down the drain.

Mr. Speaker, the National Trust in England is at arm’s length from the government. It’s a private, non-profit body which performs many of the same functions as the Ontario Heritage Foundation, but it is not a Crown corporation and it does not have to accept instructions from whatever ministry is responsible for heritage preservation. It accepts donations; it makes money from the half-crowns that people pay to go in to see buildings and so on. But it also has the powers to expropriate.

It doesn’t make sense to us that a municipality be granted powers to expropriate under this particular Act, but that the Ontario Heritage Foundation does not have those same powers, particularly when, unlike the National Trust in England, the Heritage Foundation is clearly an emanation of government, because the minister makes the policy, and any actions of the Heritage Foundation will be taken with the approval of the ministry or not at all. I must say that I personally miss the creation of some kind of historic advisory board to help the ministry in its choice of properties to designate. And I wonder if that shouldn’t be considered in the course of the bill.

The final thing that I’d like to say, Mr. Speaker, is this: that while a good deal is done at the municipal level in this particular bill, the basic economic problems of an owner of a heritage property are not really confronted. There are a number of techniques that have been used, or developed, or proposed, in Ontario and other jurisdictions, in order to permit the transfer of development rights from an historic property to other properties in the vicinity. The minister, I know, has seen proposals to this effect. It seems to me that they are quite well founded and ought to be looked at very carefully.

In very simple terms what it means is that the development rights on a property which is designated as a heritage property can be sold or can be transferred by the owner to another property, say, within the same block, within the same neighbourhood, within the same area, within the same city; it’s even been proposed within the whole province, although we would not accept that.

Let’s face it. It costs money in foregone development revenues to preserve a heritage building. The conservation of older property may also be quite costly and this is not fully compensated for, despite the fact that attitudes toward heritage property are changing and it becomes a kind of fashionable thing to have one’s office or one’s home in a building which is designated for heritage. It seems to me that permission to transfer development rights should have been put into this bill and applied to municipalities so that they had a clear authority so to do.

Secondly, the municipal powers of expropriation of a heritage building should have been extended in order to allow them to do, by compulsory purchase, those things they can do by agreement. I have particularly in mind the question of easements or the question of the preservation of architectural frontages, which can be done by means of an agreement with an owner. When that agreement is not forthcoming, it seems to me that at least it’s worth considering that a municipality have the power to acquire the right to preserve the frontage or to acquire whatever easements are necessary for heritage purposes by expropriation in order to reduce the mounts that would have to be paid by the municipality in order to see to the preservation of that particular heritage building.

Well, those are the major points I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the minister again to inform the House of the intentions of the government as far as the Ontario Heritage Foundation itself is concerned; and I would ask him as strongly as I can to agree to put this bill into committee, to agree to give it a bit of time so that the hearings are held in mid-January, rather than this week, and then to see that the bill is passed later in the month of January rather than being rammed through this Legislature in this final week.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other hon. members wish to speak to this bill? The member for St. George.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Speaker, I regret I have not had the opportunity to study this legislation to the degree I should have liked. One of the problems which faced the city of Toronto was that they had a local historical board which designated properties. They really didn’t dare to designate them publicly, because the opportunities for the city to protect such buildings were so minimal.

I wonder if the minister really believes that the power to expropriate is really meaningful in a city such as the capital city of this province. I would like to say that if we reviewed the buildings which the city considered to rank in priority, shall we say, we would find that the buildings would be virtually prohibitive for the city to acquire without funding being made available for that purpose.

Perhaps I need not allude to Osgoode Hall or to St. James’ Cathedral, but there are a good many buildings held by banks and other such bodies which are considered by the city to have priority for purposes of preservation and conservation.

We wrestled with that problem some time ago in trying to determine how we could protect the properties, particularly if a good many of them should come on the market at the same time. There is a need, it seems to me, for funding to be available to enable a municipality to take advantage of the powers of expropriation, because there’s no point in having an opportunity to defer if the deferral is not long enough to permit a municipality to plan for this kind of expenditure.

I would hope, too, that under section 28 it would be open to a municipality, for example, to designate an historical board which has been in existence for a number of years to constitute the local architectural conservation advisory committee for the purposes of this legislation, and not to impose upon a city such as Toronto the requirement to either vary, break the continuity of or appoint a new and competing authority within the municipality. I would hope there could be an amendment by the minister which would effect this purpose.

I am afraid I also have to be parochial, if you like, Mr. Speaker, about the fact that again we have here in this legislation exemption from taxation for the foundation itself. I have always opposed and shall continue to oppose provision whereby the province takes upon itself the power to exempt from municipal taxation when it doesn’t provide grants in lieu thereof. This has gone too far. It cannot be permitted to continue. It is totally inequitable so far as the municipalities are concerned. It is certainly inequitable when the municipality at the same time, has the best intent in the world -- there is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, at this point in time the city of Toronto has the best intent in the world -- to preserve and to conserve those properties, including structures, which, in the opinion of the historical board, are worth preserving.

I’d like to point out that one of the tragedies in the last few years in the city of Toronto was the very real attempt of the city to preserve what was known as Macdonald House on Sherbourne St., otherwise known as the Tree House. We used every possible means at our command to obtain assistance from the province for the purpose of obtaining that property, either provincially or municipally, because not only did it have some historic significance, but it was one of two properties of similar architecture in the city of Toronto. The province could not see it within its means to support the city in that attempt. The city could not afford the costs of that acquisition and that building has now been lost and became, in fact, a parking lot for the German club on Sherbourne St.

This, I think, points out the difficulties of municipalities, given the pious platitude of the right of expropriation without a fund to which they can look to carry through that particular expropriation. We might see, for instance, the bank -- I can’t remember its name --

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): The Bank of Montreal at Yonge and Front?

Mrs. Campbell: On Yonge and Front, that’s one, but there’s also one which is protected -- not on Victoria St. -- it was an old Barclay’s Bank or something of that kind, which is the one building which still has RCMP officers. I don’t know what the significance of that is. But if several of these came on the market at the same time, the city would be placed in the invidious position of having perhaps to choose, in priority, when it would like to have the opportunity to preserve all of these buildings.

There are, of course, privately-owned buildings in the city which the city has wanted to be able to acquire. Not only did they lack the funding for capital purposes, but the historical board did not have the funds, if the buildings were acquired, to renovate them, to preserve them, to conserve them, and, therefore, that was something which faced the municipality at the same time.

It may be, Mr. Speaker, that because of the very inadequate review which I have made of this statute I have missed something there, but I could not locate anything which gave comfort to a municipality in finding the funding to assist it in that sort of restoration and that sort of conservation.

We have to remember that the historical board in Toronto has vested in it all of the powers and all of the responsibilities and they are engaged in trying to preserve the house in High Park, the William Lyon Mackenzie house, the marine museum and so on. These carry ongoing costs. They are engaged in trying to obtain acquisitions of purely historical value for the various functions that they now have. I do not feel, subject to what the minister may say, that there is adequate assistance given to a municipality to carry out all of these functions. I would invite the minister, if he would, to indicate where such funding is provided and, if it is not, how he proposes that a municipality will be able to function.

Unlike the member for Ottawa Centre, I don’t feel the problem with the municipalities today is a lack of desire to conserve or preserve. It is the lack of funding, and particularly where they have to establish, very sadly, priorities, because they haven’t local funding; nor can they function in a deficit financial position. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): I would like to enter this debate briefly --

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): We want the member for High Park to stay. We are taking the party line. Will he please stay if we applaud loudly?

Mr. Shulman: I would like to address the minister, as I am one of the two people in this House who had any personal dealings with the Ontario Heritage Foundation, the precursor of the group that the minister has coming up now. A more inept group I have never had the pleasure of dealing with in my life.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Tell the member for Ottawa Centre to get over here.

Mr. Shulman: I must say the member for Bellwoods (Mr. Yaremko) had perhaps a better experience -- I would like to get the attention of the minister, because he should profit by this.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Will the member for Ottawa Centre take his seat, please?

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): He has had his chance.

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): It is great to have such influence.

Mr. Shulman: It was some mystery to me, Mr. Speaker, why the Heritage Foundation hadn’t grown, because they had everything going for them. They had the opportunity to give wealthy people huge deductions in their income tax, and we have had at least one example of that in this House. They could take art objects and hold them as well as buildings, land and other things, in trust for the people of Ontario. They were able to give a tax advantage that no one else could give. If someone wanted to give a donation to the art gallery or the Royal Ontario Museum they could deduct only up to 20 per cent from their income, but if one gave to the Ontario Heritage Foundation, one could deduct up to 100 per cent from one’s income -- a tremendous advantage.

So when I had my own personal little experience with them I thought: “Well, isn’t that nice.” It was very lovely. I gave them a little cart -- Chinese cart, I think it was -- and everything went through smoothly, with no problems. As a result of that I thought I would like to look at their annual report. As you recall, Mr. Speaker --

Hon. Mr. Auld: I am all ears.

Mr. Shulman: Well, give me half an ear.

Mr. Deans: The minister is going to have to be all ears, listening to two people at the same time.

Mr. Shulman: I asked to see their annual report, which of course the Act said they had to bring in every year. It turned out there was no annual report; they had just been too busy for five years to bring out the annual report. The minister may recall I called him -- or was it his predecessor? -- and asked what happened to the annual report of the Ontario Heritage Foundation. The minister said they hadn’t got around to it for the last five years, but that he would get them all out in a hurry. That was very nice; within two weeks I had five annual reports. I appreciate that. That was very good of them to go to work and do them. The fact that it was in the Act and they had to put it out hadn’t affected them in the slightest.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you of an experience of a friend of mine who had an absolutely ridiculous experience with the Ontario Heritage Foundation. This is why this Act is going to be a failure, because the group from the Ontario Heritage Foundation are neither knowledgeable in their field nor are they aggressive. Unless the government is going to have both, unless it is going to upgrade the personnel it is going to appoint, it might as well not bother.

An hon. member: Starting with the minister.

Mr. Shulman: I’m going to tell you a story because it’s interesting, Mr. Speaker. A doctor in this city, whom I know reasonably well, wanted to make a donation of art which the Royal Ontario Museum was desirous of having. In order to get the full tax donation he decided to donate it through the Ontario Heritage Foundation. I’m not sure what the details of the art were. I believe it was a diversity of art objects actually which the museum had seen and said it wanted.

In any case, he had two evaluations. I believe one evaluation was $40,000 and the other was $60,000 for this collection of art objects.

He called the Heritage Foundation and said: “The museum would like this. I would like to give it through you. Could we make the arrangements?” The Heritage Foundation said: “Fine, no problem. We’ll get two evaluations.”

They called one art dealer in Toronto. He came up and I believe he said the valuation was $55,000. They called a second art dealer and this is where everything started to go awry. The second art dealer said: “Who was the first art dealer who was up here?” It turned out, unfortunately, the first art dealer was a rival of the second art dealer and anything the first dealer said the second dealer didn’t approve of. As soon as the second dealer, who has a shop on Church St., found out who the first man had been, he decided that whatever he saw was going to be no good. The material was brought out for him to observe and he looked at it and said: “Oh, that’s terrible stuff. It has no value whatsoever.” He sent in an evaluation to the Heritage Foundation, I believe, of $8,000.

The people at the Heritage Foundation didn’t know what to do, so they sort of sat on it for a few months. I think four months went by and the donor was becoming a little irritated because of this absolute silence from them. Finally, he phoned up and said: “Do you want it or don’t you want it?” He was becoming quite put off. He couldn’t give it directly to the museum because he had already given in excess of 20 per cent of his total income that year to charity.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): A very, very generous doctor friend of the member’s.

Mr. Shulman: I have a number of generous friends. The Liberal Party would be surprised.

Mr. Deans: If he got 75 per cent back on the first $100, he would give it to the NDP.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I thought he was getting a larger share than that.

Mr. Shulman: In any case, the Heritage Foundation, after some lengthy delay -- I believe it was five months -- finally flew some chap up from New York. He took a look at this work and he said: “About $8,000 would be right,” and he flew back down to New York. This doctor fellow said to me at the time: “I think they’re crazy down there.” He proceeded to sell this collection of art to a dealer for $35,000 cash.

All very well. The doctor ended up with $35,000 in cash; the museum didn’t get its collection of art; the second art dealer had his revenge on the first art dealer; and the Heritage Foundation ended up without the collection.

This, in sum and substance, is why the Heritage Foundation, which has had a tremendous advantage up to now but is about to lose it -- and I’ll go into that in a minute -- has been able to collect such a very small amount. They should have tremendous amounts in their collection by now, instead of which they’ve got a pittance, a few objects; and all because this story went far and wide through the art world.

People said: “Well they’re not really very aggressive and they’re not very knowledgeable, when there was a cash offer on hand which they were aware of.” They worried, they hedged and they hesitated. They never said no; they never said anything. They just waited, so they didn’t get it.

That’s the situation np until now. What’s going to happen now? Mr. Faulkner down in Ottawa has a new bill on the floor of the House right now which is going to take away the advantage of the Heritage Foundation. Starting Jan. 5 or 6, they aren’t going to have this tremendous 100 per cent advantage any more, because every public art gallery and every public museum in this country is going to be able to give that same 100 per cent deduction. I’m willing to predict to the government that a year from now, after they have been merrily in business with the wonderful new Act, but without the advantage they’ve had up to now, they will have brought in next to nothing and government is going to waste its money on them.

The only thing they are going to get from here on in they are going to have to buy with our money, because they are just too tough to deal with and they are just not anxious enough to have the art objects. They wait too long; they pussyfoot around and they irritate the people who are trying to give them things. So why should anyone give them things? Starting in just a few weeks we don’t have to go to the Ontario Heritage Foundation; people can call up the Windsor Art Gallery, the Royal Ontario Museum, the Toronto Art Gallery --

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Thunder Bay Historical Museum.

Mr. Shulman: -- or the Thunder Bay Historical Museum. I’m going to make a prediction: Unless the minister changes the personnel there completely, or at least lights a firecracker under them by bringing in some more aggressive personnel, this is all going to amount to nothing.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The new chairman is a great firecracker.

Mr. Shulman: The new chairman? We had to find him a job so that he could get Mr. Benoit in here, but those things happen.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Both ways they lost.

Mr. Shulman: If the minister expects aggression from Bert Lawrence! He’s a lovely guy, but the minister is not going to get it. He’s a sweet, lovely fellow; and he’ll go and sit down there with Larry Ryan and they’ll have coffee together and they’ll sympathize with each other and it will be beautiful.

Mr. Martel: They could even cut sugar cane.

Mr. Shulman: But we are not going to get any art objects for the people of Ontario, because neither of them is very aggressive. They’re lovely people. I like them both and I would have them both in my home, let me say that. Sweet, lovely gentlemen, gems; but not for the Ontario Heritage Foundation, because starting now they will have to compete and they are going to have to compete with different foundations and different museums and different art galleries right across Canada; and they don’t have the gumption down there to do it and they are not doing it. This foundation is going to be a failure and that’s why.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other hon. members wish to speak to this bill? If not the hon. minister.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I just want to say, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Yes, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I want to have an opportunity to express a view on the bill.

Mr. Stokes: He is not a donor, he is a collector.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Right, and I’m not even going to recount to you, Mr. Speaker, the experiences of a farmer friend of mine.

Mr. Martel: He tried to give a cow away.

Mr. Deans: No, he tried to get rid of a live bull.

Mr. Foulds: He tried to donate an historic farm.

Mr. Stokes: He doesn’t give or collect, he just spreads.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But I do want to say that I wish the minister great food fortune with the newly reconstituted and revivified council. My particular interest deals with historic buildings and I would trust that the many groups that have come to the fore in communities across this province in attempts to save the historic buildings are going to have much more assistance than they have had in the past.

I would say that the very establishment of the Ontario Heritage Foundation -- what now, seven years ago; quite a long time really -- was quite an attractive concept when we first heard about it from John Robarts. Many of the people who are interested in the preservation, of the pre-Confederation buildings particularly and other buildings, thought finally something was going to happen; at the behest of the government of Ontario there was going to be some money. Well there wasn’t then, but there is going to be now. There is going to be some initiative to come to the assistance of those groups of people at the local level who have often suffered the most severe embarrassments in their attempts to save buildings of historic significance.

Naturally they tend to attempt at least to ally architects and others to support their concepts that the buildings have architectural significance. But sometimes that is not always possible. Sometimes they are simply dealing with an old building that is still functional, that is still at least architecturally sound, if not of architectural significance -- and they tell me there is a difference. In fact they are trying to save the local municipality, the governments at all levels, money by keeping the wrecker’s ball away from the destruction of these buildings which have been built at government expense in the past.

Mr. Foulds: A very carefully modulated phrase.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I thought perhaps the member would appreciate it, in his sensitivity.

Mr. Deans: What did he do at the weekend?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I was quite interested to read in the Simcoe Reformer, a paper that I’m sure you read frequently, about the attempts of the local community organization to save the jail and courthouse facility down there. There has been no attempt on the part of the government to be of any great assistance. I would presume that unless something is done, those people -- in the name of efficiency; the replacement of old buildings with new -- are going to have their way once again.

In the community of Preston, now called Cambridge, when we talk about the preservation of historic symbols and names, of significance surely is a great, old limestone schoolhouse. The committee is working for the preservation of that building. I haven’t heard of the Ontario Heritage Foundation giving any kind of assistance.

One of the things that surely is going to be necessary is to have some experts who are going to be able to assess the values of buildings, not simply for their residual qualities as public buildings -- to put in offices for the time being and so on -- but to come to the assistance of groups of local citizens. Over the last decade, we have seen some of our best old buildings -- not all of them with historical significance -- being torn down for parking lots and finally for the erection of something at the behest of the Minister of Government Services; probably a liquor store, or something of real value and utility such as that.

So I hope that all of the objets d’art that the government can possibly buy from the doctor’s friends will be looked after, and we will have storerooms full of these objects of great value, as I’m sure they will contribute.

I sense that the real value and the real mission of the Heritage Foundation is, in fact, to deal with our own heritage. I would trust that the initiative will be there -- whomever the chairman may be, whether he is a nice guy or not -- and that there will be funds there, and instructions that as a matter of policy they are to come, at least with professional advice if not the financial assistance, to the aid of these innumerable citizens’ groups which feel some of the best architecture, some of the finest old buildings with substantial utility remaining, are being lost to us in the fulfillment of the concepts which I believe have been taught by this ministry or its predecessors over the last 25 years, that really, big is best and new is better.

I think the minister, coming from Brockville as he does, with his antecedents in Wellington county, would have as much appreciation for those old limestone buildings as anyone. I hope he can convey to the members of the Ontario Heritage Foundation that this House is prepared to support them when they take the initiative, and spend the money to preserve our Ontario heritage in the manner that I have most ineptly described it to members tonight.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other hon. members wish to speak to this bill? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the comments of the members opposite. First of all, let me say that I do apologize that the bill was printed and available only on Friday. Although I must be honest and say that I had hoped to have it in the House a little earlier, but not a great deal earlier, for the very good reason that the advice that I have had -- both from my staff and the groups that we have talked to -- has been to the effect that we didn’t want the bill sitting on the order paper for months because this might encourage people to tear down structures, which they might otherwise not do.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Two weeks though, surely.

Mr. Cassidy: Two weeks would have been reasonable.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is the conspiratorial theory of government.

Mr. Cassidy: Two weeks would have been reasonable when the minister has been waiting for three years.

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Oh, shut up. Let him finish.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I just came back from the Soo, and the Minister of Transportation and Communications is on the ropes there.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I was going to inform the Ottawa member, who couldn’t hear because of other discussion. I’ll be delighted to sit down until he finishes.

There is some concern. There are one or two situations I am aware of in the province that are of some urgency. But I certainly will not attempt to ask the House to go into committee this evening; although members might look at section 30, which indicates the situation where demolition permits might be issued in a short time.

I’m particularly delighted, Mr. Speaker, that all the members who have spoken have been in favour of the bill in principle. As I detect the thread, it’s really that we should be doing even more.

I do think this is landmark legislation in the sense that it is the first time it has been done to this extent in this country. Quebec has a somewhat different approach. Other jurisdictions elsewhere, with more experience, have done various things that have been effective. I think, without a doubt, we will have amendments, perhaps neat year. There are some things we are still looking at that we have not yet been able to resolve in either a legal or a policy sense.

If I may, I’d like to deal with one or two of the points raised earlier by some of the hon. members opposite.

First of all, the hon. member for Kitchener was curious about the role and status of the chairman. I can simply tell him that it is not envisaged at this point in time that it will be a full-time responsibility. Whether or not the chairman and the members of the board will be compensated on a per diem basis, by an annual stipend or by some combination, I really don’t know.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): How much money is he getting?

Hon. Mr. Auld: That, as the Act sets out, is a decision for the cabinet on the recommendation of the Management Board.

There is a provision in the Act for restoration as such, rather than simply acquisition or preservation by both the province and the municipality.

There was a question from the hon. member for Port Arthur about the definition of “heritage,” which is not defined in the bill. My dictionary says that heritage is what is or may be inherited; and in a simple form it is history. If one looks at the bill and the organization that supports it, the four committees in the foundation, there is one that deals with buildings of architectural and/or historical value; one that deals with history, which is, in effect, the old Archaeological and Historical Sites Board plaque programme; one which deals with archaeology per se, which we have never dealt with except in a very peripheral way under the other board; and one which deals with the fund of the foundation.

It’s a very difficult thing to put down any hard and fast rule as to what is an historical structure or an architecturally important structure. To some degree, it is subjective, and that’s why we propose to have people on the board with competence and expertise in these fields.

The hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Good) raised the matter of compensation for designation or a loss of business where a property is designated as an archaeological site. There is provision in the bill for loss of business compensation to the owner for loss to him of the income he would have received from that property if it is designated for a period of up to 180 days, as set out in the Act, for investigation as an archaeologically important site.

Mr. Sargent: How much money is he getting there?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Well, I just happen to have the answer for that. I am sure the hon. member is most familiar with the estimates of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities for 1974-1975.

Mr. Sargent: Is the minister?

Hon. Mr. Auld: There is an item of $1 million this year for the Ontario Heritage Foundation, which of course will go to the new organization. Of course I can’t tell the House what sums will be available next year, but in my optimism I would assume it would not be less and I hope it might be a bit more.

Mr. Sargent: How much?

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): $10 million.

Hon. Mr. Auld: $1 million.

Mr. Bounsall: $1 million.

Mr. Sargent: How much is Bert Lawrence getting?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Some part of that.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor, and it’s second reading.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I mentioned that the salaries of the chairman and the other members of the board have not yet been established.

Mr. Martel: That should be worth ten grand.

Hon. Mr. Auld: The hon. member for Thunder Bay had concern about the designation or acquisition of the structures in unorganized parts of the province. At the present time Bill 102, I think, is setting up another kind of a municipality which is not mentioned in this legislation.

Mr. Martel: That garbage bill!

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): It will never see daylight that one.

Hon. Mr. Auld: It may well be that if Bill 102 passes, we will include that; but there is still the situation of other structures which are a long way from 30 people.

Mr. Martel: That is not a bill; it is a disaster.

Hon. Mr. Auld: At the present time the Ministry of Natural Resources has the authority to acquire and to establish historical parks. I would say that is one device that might be used to acquire some of the structures that the hon. member mentioned, if they were found to be of priority at the time. Another method might be for the foundation itself to acquire them. Another thing that would come to mind is that if in fact they are on Crown land, they are probably owned by the Crown at the moment -- it would require a little investigating to find out about that.

Mr. Sargent: What a waste of time.

Hon. Mr. Auld: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman) spoke in favour of the bill. I would simply say to him that this legislation will provide a very much enlarged opportunity for municipalities to acquire and maintain structures, or to control structures which they consider to be of importance in their own community. There is provision for provincial financial support for locally important structures in, I believe, section 10 of the bill.

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre mentioned one matter which I must say I can’t give him an answer on at the moment. That was the question of what happens when a building has been designated, and the municipality changes its mind, decides to withdraw the designation and then issues a demolition permit. I will attempt to have a little further information about that for him when we get to the next stage.

The hon. member for St. George has brought up the question of who the city of Toronto might appoint to the local architectural conservation advisory committee. I would simply say to her that the city can appoint anybody it wants to the committee -- an existing group or an entirely new group or a combination thereof.

On the question of municipal taxation, I would assume that any municipality which designated a building which was going to be used for public purposes would not tax it, at any rate. The provision that interests this House, I would think, would be that which indicates that the foundation, when it is acquiring a building, is only exempt from taxation when that building is not leased or when it is leased to a non-profit organization. The past pattern of the foundation and the buildings that it has acquired and the policy which we propose to follow in the future is that buildings will be acquired and will be used. Whenever possible -- and hopefully the whole time -- they will be leased to someone so there will be income coming in to look after the maintenance of those buildings.

Mr. Sargent: Why doesn’t the minister dump the whole bill and save a million dollars?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I don’t have to mention to the hon. members of this House that the purpose of the exercise is not to acquire a lot of buildings and have them vacant with caretakers. It is to preserve them and still have them used so that we can afford to acquire and to preserve a great many, without a great continuing drain on the public purse.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Standing committee, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: So ordered. Which committee will that be?

Hon. Mr. Auld: The committee of the whole House.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think that has been agreed.

Mr. Shulman: He has already ordered standing committee.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): He didn’t carry it yet.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I thought I implied, when we were discussing the question of when it would next be dealt with by the House, that I would prefer that it be dealt with by the committee of the whole House to go in detail into the matters that have been brought up -- also having in mind the question of time.

Mr. Speaker: So ordered.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just wonder whether the minister would consider some of the points made on this side of the House and put the bill into standing committee, I would have hoped, in January. If he refuses to do that, then would he give it one day later this week so a few of us can get on the telephone and tell groups in Toronto and Ottawa -- if they can get out of Ottawa in the snow -- to come down if they wish to make representations about the bill?

As the fellow who is the protector of this House, Mr. Speaker, can I just say how frustrating it is to have the Legislature and the legislative process abused by the way the minister is going ahead right now? I would ask for your support --

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): The member is abusing. He is the one who is abusing the process.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The destination of the bill --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The destination of the bill is at the discretion of the minister; it’s quite clear in the orders. He has indicated the committee of the whole House, and that’s where it is.

Mr. Cassidy: Standing committee, Mr. Speaker.

Agreed to.

MOTORIZED SNOW VEHICLES ACT

Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves second reading of Bill 161, the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, 1974.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lambton.

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Welcome back.

Mr. Henderson: I thought I’d better get up before the Leader of the Opposition got down to Lambton in about three weeks --

Mr. Breithaupt: It’s the only chance the member for Lambton will ever get.

Mr. Henderson: -- to ride on one of these snowmobiles that we’re going to have down there, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a great portion of the riding I represent is good snowmobile country; and I have several people concerned about this bill. There are two or three sections in it that I am concerned about. There’s one in particular that I feel is very important and that should be in effect immediately. This is the one whereby we relieve the property owners of any liability in case of an accident. But now I go to some other sections of the bill that I am more concerned about, Mr. Speaker. In the riding I represent I have 21 municipalities. In the total of these 21 municipalities, there are three municipalities that have a bylaw passed under the old bill. Now, under section 6, subsections (5) and (6), it means these other 18 municipalities that don’t have a bylaw at the moment will have to pass bylaws before they can let their own people use their own roads.

In view of this I will let the House know that I do intend to introduce an amendment to subsection (5) of section 6, when we get into committee. It will go something of this nature: “Where the operation of a motorized mow vehicle -- ”

Mr. Sargent: Is the member for or against the bill?

Mr. Henderson: I’m for portions of the bill and I’m opposed to portions of it.

Mr. Foulds: The member should support the bill as he amends it.

Mr. Henderson: I will be introducing these amendments, Mr. Speaker, when we go into committee.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: This is second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Sargent: He is hanging on.

Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker: “Where the operation of a motorized snow vehicle is not prohibited on a highway -- ”

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member is out of order.

Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, it would appear that the hon. members --

Mr. Speaker: He may refer to any matter he wishes if it’s on the principle of the bill. I presume he is.

Mr. Henderson: It is certainly on the principle of the bill, and it’s for the good of the people of this province. But it would appear that the hon. members are not interested in the people of this province.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We haven’t passed the bill; how can he put an amendment?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, the amendment that I --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member is discussing the principle of the bill.

Mr. Breithaupt: Show us next week.

Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, the amendment that I propose to introduce in the committee of the whole House --

Mr. Breithaupt: Wait until committee.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Henderson: -- will be: “Where the operation of a motorized snow vehicle is not prohibited on a highway under the jurisdiction of a county, district, metropolitan or regional municipality by bylaw passed under subsection (2), the council of such a municipality may pass bylaws -- ”

Mr. Sargent: I thought he was on the drainage committee, not the snowmobile committee.

Mr. Henderson: -- “prohibiting the operation of a motorized snow vehicle along or across such highways or any part thereof.”

I also intend to introduce an amendment to section 6, subsection (6), for unorganized territories. This will be for the area that the hon. members over there don’t appear to be interested in: “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may pass regulations regulating, governing and prohibiting the operation of motorized snow vehicles upon the serviced roadways in territories without municipal organization.”

Mr. Speaker, those are both very important both to the people --

Mr. Foulds: Too bad he didn’t do that at the appropriate stage of debate.

Mr. Henderson: -- to the people who want the control over the snowmobiles and to the people who want to use these trails.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He was in caucus when this matter was raised.

Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, as I say again, it would appear the hon. members of the opposition are not interested in the welfare of the people of this province, or they would be interested in my recommendations and what I plan on introducing.

Mr. Foulds: We are interested in the rules and procedures.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member has the right to the floor.

Mr. Sargent: He doesn’t even know what snow is.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Sargent: Come to the snow country.

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Has the member for Grey-Bruce got any up there?

Mr. Sargent: Lots of it. We’re selling it.

Mr. Henderson: Another portion of the Act that does concern me, Mr. Speaker -- I don’t have amendments to it, but it is --

Mr. Sargent: That isn’t the drainage committee!

Mr. Henderson: If it were the drainage committee, I can assure the member that it would be in pretty good shape and it wouldn’t require amendments, Mr. Speaker. The committee would have brought in a report that was acceptable to the populace of this province.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Foulds: Is he showing no confidence in his government?

An hon. member: He’s in trouble.

Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, another section of this Act -- and I can look at two or three sections -- section 14, subsection (1). Under that I take it that it gives a conservation officer the same authority as a police officer. This does concern me, Mr. Speaker, and I would like the minister to take that into consideration when we get to those sections.

Still further in the bill, as I mentioned earlier, section 19 does relieve the farmers and the property owners of this province of liability and responsibility, and I think that that legislation should be in effect as of today. I would be disappointed if there was any --

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): I thought we saw the last of the drainage committee.

Mr. Henderson: Section 22 also concerns me, Mr. Speaker, and if the minister doesn’t have an amendment at the time of the committee for section 22, I will certainly bring in an amendment. It appears very unfair to me, Mr. Speaker, on Jan. 15 that the hon. Leader of the Opposition would have to get my consent to drive his snowmobile over my farm when he comes down to Lambton.

Mr. Shulman: That seems unfair.

Mr. Henderson: I will gladly welcome him out and I will give him authority to go over it.

Mr. Foulds: Can he run over the members for Lambton while he’s on the farm?

Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister and the opposition to consider the amendments I have brought forth tonight. Otherwise I am in favour of the bill with those amendments.

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

Mr. Sargent: Now you will hear some sense, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Now we’ll hear some real words of wisdom.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Well, that’s a large statement.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Essex-Kent has the floor.

Mr. Ruston: I would explain, Mr. Speaker, that while the member for Lambton got up to make some points, I would have thought that the chairman of the committee, the member for Durham (Mr. Carruthers) would probably have said something along that line, since he is on the side of the government and was the chairman of the committee and these are their recommendations --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Where is the chairman?

Mr. Reid: He hasn’t even shown up for the bill.

Mr. Henderson: Is the member for Rainy River on the committee?

Mr. Ruston: So I don’t know. Maybe it is a powerhouse of the backbenchers -- or the weight of the back bench --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A lot of weight there.

Mr. Ruston: The member for Lambton has a lot of weight in some regards, I have heard -- not just physically, in other ways. So maybe he is telling the Minister of Transportation and Communications a thing or two by his recent remarks.

Mr. Foulds: He is after the minister’s job.

Mr. Ruston: I am sure that this bill is the result of a lot of study by the select committee on motorized snow vehicles and all-terrain vehicles, and in that year and a half of public meetings and so forth throughout the Province of Ontario and in about 35 towns and cities, we got quite a consensus of what people were thinking.

Probably the necessity for this bill and the necessity for the select committee was really because the government made one awful mistake in the first place by putting a licence on a snowmobile to go on the highway, while the company that manufactured them said it never intended them to be in competition with automobiles. I think probably the mistake could be traced back to there; that was where some of the problems first started, because the family that invented the snowmobile in Canada -- Bombardier -- told us while we were in Quebec touring their factory and watching their snowmobiles being made, that they never really intended them to be in competition with the automobile, because they knew that there wasn’t a chance for a rider on a snowmobile matched against an automobile.

Of course, the Province of Quebec, it being a province that looks ahead, could see what was going on, and it did see that snowmobiles were put in a place that they could use. They had hundreds of miles of properly serviced trails. I recall being outside of Quebec City one time; we were out on --

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): Bit different to Essex county, isn’t it?

Mr. Ruston: -- one of the trails and while we were there two people drove in. They had left Montreal 2½ days previously and had come all the way on snowmobile trails from Montreal to Quebec and bunked on the way through. So they were years ahead of the Province of Ontario, no doubt, in the snowmobile business.

I suppose we could say that maybe part of the reason was that snowmobiles were first instigated and first manufactured in Quebec --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Progressive Liberal government.

Mr. Ruston: -- but there certainly were a lot of them sold in Ontario at the same time and especially in the snowbelt of Ontario. Of course, in our own area we don’t always have that much snow. I recall at one of the select committee meetings, and I suppose some of the other members also would recall, that some of them said: “Well, we’re glad to get a heavy frost so we can get out and get on them with even a heavy frost.” In our area it is sometimes difficult to use them, although I will say there are a lot of snowmobiles in Essex and Kent counties --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: There’s a lot of money down there.

Mr. Ruston: -- and we are thankful that they are there, too. If members recall, we had the brunt of a heavy storm only two weeks ago prior to election day when the 401 from Chatham to Windsor was pretty well plugged up with traffic. We’re not sure how many hundreds were stopped, but 40 or 50 snowmobilers came out and started hauling people from their cars into public places, schools and municipal halls and legions, 401 police stations and service centres.

We’re very thankful that they did have snowmobiles available although there was one other means of transportation that did get through. One of my boys and another young lad took a four-wheel-drive vehicle and found that they could get through the whole night to haul people into places to stay for shelter.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, has got some flaws in it. I have two or three sections that I’m concerned with and I propose about three amendments that I will be bringing in when the bill comes into the committee of the whole House.

One of the amendments has to do with what the member for Lambton mentioned, and that was concern with section 6, subsection (5), where it says: “No person shall drive a motorized snow vehicle upon a serviced roadway within a local municipality except when permitted by bylaws passed by the council of the municipality having jurisdiction over the highway.”

Then, in section 26 where it says that part comes into force on Feb. 1, 1975 -- that would be a physical impossibility for municipalities that wished to pass a bylaw allowing the people to go on the serviced part of the road because it wouldn’t give them time to pass these by-laws. So I will be having an amendment for that section.

Another place where I think we should consider an amendment is section 14(1) where you need a licence to operate snow vehicles. The interpretation of this, from what I can gather, is you cannot even operate a snow vehicle on your own property. During all the many meetings that we had while on the select committee, one of the points I raised a number of times with members of the committee and some legal people, and also at one or two meetings, was my concern about the right of the police to come into private property when they’re not asked to come in. If I want to have a snowmobile on my private property and my child wants to drive it, I don’t think it should be any responsibility of the state to come in and tell me whether I should be able to drive that on my own property.

Mr. Sargent: Good for you.

Mr. Ruston: There is one other thing and that concerns driving licences. I’m speaking now under section 14(1). There is another section I’m concerned about and that is with the permit issuing for snowmobiles. We discussed that a great deal in the committee and I, too, mentioned the question of whether it was necessary to have a permit on a snowmobile for use restricted to the person’s own property. You might buy a truck or an automobile or a four-wheel-drive vehicle that you could license for the road, but if you were going to use it strictly on your own private property you would not need a licence for it.

Mr. Sargent: Right.

Mr. Ruston: That’s another area which we should be considering.

It was mentioned a number of times that we should have an initial registration of a snowmobile. In other words, when it was sold it would be up to the dealer. That is, of course, in the bill. He must have them registered within six days.

On the first sale the vehicle should be registered; in other words, that would be for statistical purposes. When the sale is transferred to another person, we would then have a kind of a guide. We would have a kind of control and at least know where these vehicles were and how many there were in the province. With the serial number and so forth registered, it would also be helpful if any of these vehicles were stolen. I don’t necessarily argue with the initial registration, but I argue with the point of whether it should be necessary to put a new licence on them every year if one is going to use them on his own property. That’s the other area I’m concerned with.

Section 6 is rather confusing. We have had some conversation with some legal people and I’m still a little confused on it. Maybe I’ll interpret it myself and if it’s wrong, then it will be up to legal people to advise the minister when he replies as to whether my interpretation was right. Sometimes you get so many legal people writing things up that they can confuse the issue so much that a layman just doesn’t know where he’s at, Mr. Speaker.

I take it from section 6, subsection (5), that anyone can drive a motorized snow vehicle upon a highway but not on the serviced portion. In the township I live in now, we do not have a bylaw regulating snowmobiles at all. They just run free. The township has never had that much of a problem, so it never passed any bylaws. I would take it that one can still run a snowmobile in our township without any bylaw except on a serviced roadway and it would be up to the township then to say whether or not it is going to allow them on the serviced roadway. That’s my interpretation of section 6, subsection (5).

Probably the first thing that caused most of the problems and public reaction to snowmobiling, in my opinion, would be the noise of the machines. When they first came out they were much noisier than they have been in the last year or two of production. I think the manufacturers realized there was resentment to the noise of them.

Then the federal government brought in standards as to the noise factor and a limitation of the noise that they can make. I understand that is 82 decibels now at 50 ft. That is not too bad, but the problem is the amount of snowmobiles that are being used of the older makes whose noise level is much higher. Of course, it’s higher, I suppose, as acceleration goes.

Someone called me the other night and said a snowmobile was going by his house at 2 o’clock in the morning and he couldn’t sleep. He says when the cars go by they don’t hear them. They may have been older snowmobiles and they may have not had proper mufflers on them. This Act has in it that they must have similar mufflers to what they come with in the manufacture. They can’t have straight pipes and so forth, the same as automobiles under the Acts governing automobile noise.

Another thing that was of concern in many of the meetings was the identification of these vehicles. As you will notice in the Act, Mr. Speaker, they are recommending that large numbers be placed on the cowling on each side. There is some concern as to how they will be made up. The responsibility is in the Act that they shall have them and be covered under the regulations. I think that is under section 2, subsection (7). There is the question as to whether they will be supplied by the ministry. We assumed when we were making up a report that these would be supplied by the ministry with the registration.

Another area in our report was serviced roadways and in the bill we have now considered serviced roadways plus shoulder. A shoulder, in my opinion of course, would be that part that is next to the travelled portion, and I suppose that there isn’t always room for them to get by. I can recall when we were coming back from Parry Sound and the snow was blowing and we were on a bus. We were coming down Highway 69, if I remember correctly, and two snowmobilers were going along in the same direction as we were. With the snow flying over the snowbanks it was very dangerous and I thought it would have made terrible headlines if this bus carrying the select committee on snowmobiles were to hit one of those snowmobilers.

It was kind of a treacherous day for a snowmobile to be out on the travelled portion of a highway. I suppose on that road it’s hard to find any other place to go on, because some of the roads weren’t that wide that a snowmobiler could go back through the ditches or on the bank over past the ploughed section.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That Highway 69 is narrow even in the spring.

Mr. Ruston: Another thing that was of great concern to many people -- and this wasn’t just farm people, it was people living in towns, villages and all over -- was the trespassing problem. It’s so easy to operate a snowmobile and they are a great machine for getting around in snow, and there’s just nothing to stop one going anywhere provided there is snow. The damage that some people did in going on other people’s properties or close to their homes and so forth, was one of the main objections that we heard in most of our meetings -- trespassing on private properties, either in built-up areas or of course in the rural areas, where farmers had wheat and so forth.

We didn’t get any real solid facts as to the damage done to wheat crops because of snowmobiling. We had different reports. There was one student from the University of Western Ontario making a study on it. We had some reports from people in the United States studying it. There are so many variables involved in that, depending on the depth of the snow. One can run over a wheat field and if there was two or three feet of snow on it I’m sure there wouldn’t be much damage, unless maybe in the springtime, at the spring thaw; if it’s packed that much, of course, the ice would stay longer and perhaps that would cause some damage.

So it’s been of great concern to many people, and since we don’t have as many fences now as we did 30 or 40 years ago it’s very easy to get out on these fields, a wheat field especially; it’s smooth and if there are only three, four or five inches of snow it’s pretty easy to skip across there. This was one of the main problems that we had with trespassing. That, of course, is covered in the bill.

The liability of a trespasser was a major concern, especially since the Supreme Court ruling on the case in northern Ontario, in a mining area -- an old mining road or something. There was a large steel post up and this snowmobiler hit it. The Supreme Court ruled against the mining company, or whoever it was -- yes, I think it was the mining company which owned the property.

Mr. Stokes: Kerr Addison.

Mr. Ruston: Is that it? Of course, if a snowmobile owner is asked by the OPP -- as I was mentioning a few minutes ago -- to come out in an emergency and help them, and take people into homes and so forth, that is another matter.

I recall just a couple of weeks ago where one of the service stations furnished gas and oil for all these snowmobilers while they were hauling people in. He was wondering if there was any compensation he could receive for this. I said, “Well, I don’t think we have any funds in any particular area set aside for such things. I think most of the people who do it do it out of the goodness of their hearts, to help their fellow men.” I think that is just a thing that one does for his fellow man and I think that we have to accept that.

The only thing is that when that road is in bad shape and not good for automobiles, a snowmobiler can come out, but then, of course, he is restricted from it the next day or two days later when it has been improved. Sometimes there is a resentment that when they want him in an emergency they allow him to come out and then when the roads are good they don’t need him and they don’t want him any more.

The announcement of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development of his plans to go ahead with trails is certainly a step in the right direction. As I mentioned before, it probably should have been done many years ago to avoid the necessity of maybe pushing them off the roads.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Too little too late.

Mr. Ruston: In southwestern Ontario the trail situation is going to be a very touchy problem. I don’t know just how you can prepare trails in Essex and Kent counties -- and probably Lambton and Huron -- because our snow doesn’t always stay as long in some places down there. It would be quite difficult. However, if there are trails available within 100 or 125 miles, we do have a number of people who go up north of London and different places from our area to go to areas where they have commercial trails. Some of them go into commercial areas now, and maybe the people in the snowbelt accept this.

We have many editorials in the paper saying we have to have legislation, but the one thing you are never going to legislate -- I don’t think we can ever do it here -- is to keep people off soft ice. I think maybe the government can put signs up in places where they use it a lot, but in areas where people can just go on to ice, where there is ample opportunity to go onto lakes from all areas, I don’t know that we can ever legislate that. We heard a number of times in our committee from one of the members that you can’t legislate common sense.

Of course, we realize that is something that is the responsibility of people driving them. We had some serious, sad accidents down in our own area. Just last year two or three people were lost in the river there -- a small river, too -- but I don’t know whether we can ever control that with these machines. They are so adaptable for getting around that it is almost a physical impossibility to control them completely.

Our statistics show that many of the accidents that we’ve had have been on municipal roads, not necessarily on provincial highways. A number of them were caused by a parked car or something parked on the shoulder of the road where the lights maybe weren’t bright enough on the snow vehicle to pick out the car if it was sitting there maybe for a day or two, with snow around it and no lights on it. We have found that a number of fatalities were caused by cars parked on the shoulder of the road. So I suppose that is the reason that the ministry, in adding on to our report, included “shoulder of the road” as a serviced part of the road, to keep them off highways, provincial roads and secondary roads.

To give you an idea of how far ahead the Province of Quebec was in this, Mr. Speaker, we have here a map that was made up two years ago of the many miles of snowmobile trails that they had. Some of them went through golf courses and places like that. We were down there, we went on some of the trails and drove some of the vehicles that they use for servicing them and smoothing them and so forth, and it certainly showed that could be done if it was properly planned and looked after. This was shared, of course, by a number of snowmobile clubs in co-operation with the province in doing that. Of course, that is similar to what the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development stated in his statement with regard to funds from this province that would also be shared.

Another thing, Mr. Speaker, is speed limits. You will notice that in our report we suggested 15 mph in 30-mph zones and 30 mph in higher-speed zones and highways, but regulations will govern the speed limits on public trails and so forth, according to conditions or the type of trail.

The problem in relation to the speed, and why we discussed it considerably, was the control of snow vehicles, especially on ice or a hard-packed snow surface. Some of them couldn’t stop all that quickly or you couldn’t steer them too well because of the runners; it depends on the type of runners they have, because some of the more expensive ones steer better because of their gripping ability on the ice. The thinking behind the speed limit being lower, of course, is that it would give the operators much more control of them.

Insurance is another thing. There was some difference of opinion, if you had a policy on your car and no-fault insurance, and if you were driving somebody else’s snowmobile, as to whether your own car policy would cover it. You will notice in the final report, Mr. Speaker, that we suggested the possibility of a special snow vehicle insurance policy being set up. We had quite a lot of discussion about that but we didn’t really come up with anything other than that recommendation.

I think that pretty well covers my general points, Mr. Speaker, and we will be discussing a number of them further in the committee of the whole.

You know, there’s something about a snowmobile. I haven’t ridden them an awful lot but I’ve driven them in a number of areas; our family has one and I use it out in our own area. It certainly has got a lot more excitement to it. I recall we were up in the Schreiber area in the riding of the member for Thunder Bay and we went through some pretty hilly areas. Speed wasn’t the key thing there; it was handling your machine without having one of the skis hit the tree while you were turning and so on.

There certainly is a great deal of excitement and daring in running one of these machines. After all, I think that’s what got so many people interested in them. You are sitting right out there and, I suppose, as the fellow says, “It’s like riding in a horse and buggy without any horse in front of you.” That’s what got the machines out, I think; and the sport gets a lot of people out in the winter time when otherwise they might be going to Florida or some place else.

Another thing of concern is the age of people who should drive these vehicles. We had recommendations for all ages. I think the lowest age was suggested by someone who thought a person seven or eight years old could be capable of running a snowmobile. Well, there probably are some, Mr. Speaker, but you will notice in the report and in the bill that the minimum age is 14 years to cross a road on a snowmobile, 16 to use it on a road, 14 on a crossroad and 12 on public trails.

I saw an editorial in the Windsor Star the other day objecting to this recommendation that people 12 years of age be allowed to run a snowmobile on a public trail, but if they are properly trained and can pass a test, and if they are not on highways and so on, I think it shouldn’t be too much of a problem. In fact, if they were trained to operate them and showed proof by taking a test, it might be better than the present situation, where they can run them even at the age of 14 or 16. Some people can be trained properly for driving at a younger age, so I think it’s not a serious problem as far as I can see. I think that’s all I have to say right now, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. W. Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, I’ll be very brief in my remarks. Initially, I would like to congratulate the select committee on snowmobiling. They have done an excellent job, and it has been pretty well received by the snowmobilers in my area. They say they are the third largest organized club in the Province of Ontario in the town of Aurora, and they approve it in principle except for the section that my colleague, the hon. member for Lambton, spoke about -- sections 6(5) and 6(6). They would like to see that reversed. He has proposed an amendment, and I will certainly support that amendment when it is presented.

Mr. Martel: Oh, oh! The minister is going to have opposition mounting.

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): There is going to be a division here.

Mr. W. Hodgson: The hon. member for Essex-Kent spoke of a delay in the passage of this bill. I don’t think that we can afford to delay the passage of this bill for any great length of time. It should be done, and it is urgent that section 19 be passed immediately to give the property owner protection from liability.

There is another part that I have had some comment on, and that is the part about having to have a registration or a licence to operate a snowmobile on one’s own property. People feel they are being discriminated against. They don’t have to have a licence on their truck or ear when they take it out on their own property or farm. They can run that without a licence, and they can operate a tractor without a licence. They feel that in a good many cases where, in the winter, a snowmobile is part of the farm operation, and they don’t see why they should be licensed unless they take it on to the public highway.

There is another section on which I would like the minister’s comments. I’m sure it is not the intention of this section and that he will clarify it. Section 16(3) provides that if a person is stuck in a ditch with a snowmobile he can tow it out with another snowmobile, but if it’s broken down he can’t tow it home. Now, I don’t think this is the intention of the legislation. The minister, I’m sure, will explain it to us.

Those are the comments, Mr. Speaker, that I have to make. People in Ontario are expecting us to pass legislation on snowmobiles. As I say, it’s been well received in my area, but the biggest comment and the most opposition I get to the bill is on section 6(5) and 6(6). Thank you very much.

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

Mr. Stokes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I find it almost incredible, Mr. Speaker, that of seven members of the --

Mr. Eaton: They’re all down in the justice committee.

Mr. Stokes: No, they’re not. Don’t hand me that garbage.

Mr. Ferrier: Where is the member for Durham?

Mr. Stokes: Of seven members of the select committee for snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles from the Conservative Party, not one is here to engage in the debate tonight. And from the comments of the hon. member for Lambton, I’m wondering whether they even talk to their colleagues about what went on at that select committee.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. D. A. Evans (Simcoe Centre): Where were the members of the NDP when the committee on natural resources was meeting? Not one was there when the final bill was passed.

Mr. Ferrier: Let the member for Simcoe Centre take it up and speak against it too.

Mr. Stokes: I find it very difficult to believe that there was any discussion over there at all about this piece of legislation. It was my understanding that before a piece of legislation like this was brought into the House it was given some kind of discussion in the Conservative caucus. It’s quite obvious from the comments of the hon. member for Lambton that that wasn’t the case at all.

Mr. Ferrier: The Minister of Transportation and Communications must have laid a heavy hand on them.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member is wrong.

Mr. Stokes: Okay, I’m wrong. I’ve been wrong before. I will say, though, that I think it’s a credit to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development that he saw fit to be here tonight for the discussion of this particular piece of legislation.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’m here most nights. The member knows that.

An hon. member: Take a bow.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, he can take a bow.

I see $150,000 in the supplementary estimates that were tabled this afternoon --

Mr. Martel: That’s to pay for the bill.

Mr. Stokes: -- for grants to snowmobile trail clubs, municipalities and conservation authorities. As the spokesman for the Liberal Party, the member for Essex-Kent stated, one of the problems that arose more frequently than any other in our discussions with interested groups throughout the province was their anxiety over a sufficient number of trails. As a result of the trail symposium that was held a year ago last June by a former minister of the Crown, I think it is safe to say that people throughout the province who were interested in the development of a trail system, whether it be for horseback riding, whether it be for cross-country skiing or whether it be for bird watching, made it quite clear that they felt that they were entitled to some kind of outdoor trail system where the conflicts that inevitably arise as a result of multiple use of Crown land were kept to a minimum. I think one of the other things that people spoke about was the fact that they weren’t getting anything for the $10 registration fee that is in vogue at the present time.

As I recall, at last count there were something like 250,000 registered vehicles in the province, and no doubt since those figures were made available to us there has been an increase in them. At $10 a throw it is quite obvious that the fair amount of return is going directly into the coffers of the province and nothing of any consequence is returned to the snowmobiler by way of trail-making assistance, trail grooming and things of that nature.

This is a token gesture that has been brought in by the minister responsible for resources development inasmuch as they have only allocated $150,000 for the balance of this fiscal year.

Mr. Martel: Gas tax.

Mr. Stokes: I see the minister looking at his supplementary estimates book. Obviously he didn’t know it was in there. It is $150,000.

Mr. Ferrier: Can’t the provincial secretary discuss anything in his policy secretariat?

Mr. Stokes: Well, I see him looking at it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I was looking for something else.

Mr. Stokes: Yes. I am a lip reader. I can see these things.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Does the member see these things.

Mr. Stokes: The point I am trying to make is that with the economic benefits that accrue to the province as a result of the snowmobile industry -- in fact, the entire country -- if the minister takes the trouble to read the presentation that was made to the select committee on snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles by the Ontario Snowmobile Dealers’ Association, he will appreciate the amount of jobs that the manufacture of snowmobiles entail. The dealerships, the servicing by way of parts, the economic spill-off and the ripple effect that the snowmobile industry are all-pervasive right across the province.

As a matter of fact, I think they made reference in their presentation to us that to the extent that we had a balance of payments in the automotive industry with the United States, the greatest proportion of that was due to our ability to manufacture, market and export snowmobiles. By far the greatest amount of our favourable trade balance could be attributed to the snowmobile industry in Canada.

What I am saying then is if the government is going to pass a piece of legislation which effectively bans people from the highway systems in the Province of Ontario -- and it’s a concept that I agree with -- then in those areas where the road structure is the responsibility of a local municipality, they should be given the right and the responsibility under this piece of legislation to enact a local bylaw that will allow them to operate on certain arteries within a municipality at least to the extent that they are allowed to get out into this trail system, or on to Crown land, where they are usually operated.

I think the government is going to have to get into the trail business to a much greater extent than was envisaged by the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. The $150,000 that has been mentioned to date doesn’t even begin to build a trail structure, particularly in those areas of the province where there is a minimal amount of Crown land and where they either have to be restricted to their own property, or they have to enter into an agreement with farmers for the use of private lands and, where possible, use provincial parks or land under the supervision of conservation authorities.

So this is one time when I don’t have to be parochial and speak out on behalf of the north in particular, and that is with regard to the provision of adequate trails and the grooming of same. I think it’s quite accurate to say that in the series of meetings we held across the province, particularly in southern Ontario -- in those areas south of the French River -- it was quite obvious to all of us on that committee that the prime concern of snowmobilers in southern Ontario was a place to get out and to roam and enjoy an outdoor experience with safety -- to provide them with an alternative to mixing with other vehicular traffic.

My colleague and friend, the member for Essex-Kent, is perfectly right. When the Ontario Snowmobile Dealers’ Association came before us they said: “This vehicle was, in ever sense, a snow vehicle. It was meant and designed to travel on snow. It was never meant to travel on roads.” Of course, I’m not going to trot out the accident statistics that are available. We know the number of deaths that have resulted from the mixing of snow vehicles with other vehicular traffic on provincial county, township and municipal roads. I think that the evidence is all in and it just is not in anybody’s interest to have a combination -- in spite of what snowmobilers as individuals might tell you. With increased automobile and truck traffic, it’s just not realistic to mix snowmobiles with other vehicular traffic, especially where we don’t have controls out on the main highway.

I hope very, very sincerely, Mr. Speaker, that before this legislation is enacted that every municipality right across the province will have had an opportunity to take a real good look at it and see the philosophy behind it. It is based almost totally upon the recommendations of the select committee on snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles. I hope they will take a look at it and see what we were trying to accomplish to at least bring down to a minimum, if not totally eliminate, most of the serious accidents and fatalities that have occurred as a result of the misuse of these snow machines.

Of course, the only way they’re going to do it is by taking a look at their own local situation. That’s why we recommend that bylaws be enacted by the municipality, which is in a better position to know what the local situation is, rather than invoking all-encompassing standardized regulations that have to be enforced by somebody down here in Queen’s Park. We don’t think that’s realistic.

We think the onus and the responsibility should be placed on the shoulders of each individual municipality, via the town council, to see the way the snowmobile community is acting in that community. If they are acting in a responsible way, and they appear to be driving in a safe way, then it can be made possible, by municipal and local bylaws, to allow for their use on certain roads, certain corridors that will let them out into the trail system or out into areas where it is much safer for them to operate.

Of course, in municipalities such as Metropolitan Toronto and in the city of Thunder Bay, where they have banned them altogether, I think there should be the kind of co-operation with responsible snowmobile people that is necessary to allow them certain corridors, where possible, to get out to these trails -- a network of trails that, hopefully, we will have in any place in the province where they are needed.

In principle I agree with the provisions of this bill. I have some amendments that I would like to address myself to on clause by clause, but by and large I see the necessity of bringing in this kind of legislation to control, to regulate what I consider to be a very serious situation with regard to snowmobiling in the Province of Ontario at the present time.

I want to make a plea for a particular group in the Province of Ontario, that I think the government has neglected by way of legislation. There is nothing in this bill at all that pays any attention to a recommendation we made to exempt certain people in certain areas of the province from the provisions of this Act. And I’m talking about the native people.

I want to put on the record, Mr. Speaker, a very thoughtful presentation that was made to us by the president of the Union of Ontario Indians during one of the hearings that was held in the city of Thunder Bay while we were going back and forth across the province to listen to what serious groups and individuals had to say about the safe operation and regulation of snowmobiles right across the province. I want to quote in part, Mr. Speaker, from that brief.

“You are probably aware that more and more motorized snow vehicles are playing a very important part in the economic and social development of the native people of northern Ontario and in particular the far north.

“There was a time when the modes of travel was dog-team in the wintertime and canoe in the summertime. This, of course, is now past. We are now mobilized by motorized travel. I speak of motorized snow vehicles, tractor trains and outboard motors in the summertime.

“It is also understandable that the government of Ontario must impose certain rules to control safety and pollution caused by these snow vehicles. However, it should be pointed out that these safety measures or any measures taken must be flexible enough so that they will not interfere with the economic and social development of the native people in the north.

“Any rule applicable in southern Ontario should not necessarily be applicable in northern Ontario. The cost of installing safety devices should be greatly considered as these costs will create and cause much hardship among the native people of the north. Restrictions such as licences, licence plates, insurance, operator’s permits, age of operator and transportation of firearms should be considered very carefully as they relate to the Indian people in northern Ontario, as these will have drastic effects on the economy of every settlement and reserve in northern Ontario.

“Certain restrictions will also be detrimental to the native providers and trappers in their daily work. Registration of snow vehicles should be done by the dealer at the time of sale and without cost to native people. Trespassing, speed limits and hours of operation do not at this time seem to be of great importance in the far north. Due to the fact that there are very little private land holdings and no highways, enforcement and control of such restrictions would be all but impossible in the north.

“In view of the foregoing, the following points are brought forward for your consideration when making your recommendations to the provincial government -- ”

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: All that is going to be done in the regulations, not in the Act; all in the regulations.

Mr. Deans: Too much is.

Mr. Stokes: The minister said “all”; I just want to make sure that he covers all the bases.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Those particular points will be in the regulations that deal with the far north and native people.

Mr. Breithaupt: Too much is done by regulation.

Mr. Stokes: Well I won’t bother reading any further if the minister knows what’s in this brief and can assure me that it will be covered by the regulations.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We are aware of those concerns, Mr. Speaker; those concerns have been looked at very carefully and will be handled more effectively by the regulations that will be able to be brought into effect to exempt certain areas of the province from some of the things that are included in this legislation, rather than put them right into the legislation.

Mr. Stokes: The minister is suggesting that I really shouldn’t be talking about anything that isn’t covered by the bill. I thought we were talking about the principle of the bill and I thought it was quite appropriate to talk about things that should be in the Act and are going to be in the regulations.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, if I can use that term. I do not in any way want to inhibit the hon. member. I just thought I would pass that along to him. He is certainly free to talk about anything in this field.

Mr. Ferrier: Well what is the minister interfering for?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I wouldn’t interfere with him for all the world.

Mr. Ferrier: The minister is trying to steamroller his way, over my colleague, just the way he steamrollered the bill through his own caucus.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I just want him to know that we have been listening and paying attention.

Mr. Martel: The minister will have his day in court.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I would never do that.

Mr. Ferrier: He is laying heavy on him these days.

Mr. Stokes: I really don’t know whether I should continue reading this or not, when the minister seems to think he can anticipate what I am going to say.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No one can do that.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Leader of the Opposition in his seat? What was he doing over the weekend?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Stokes: If the minister wants to stand up in his place and tell me in detail what is going to be covered by regulation, fine and dandy, I won’t take the trouble to --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Ferrier: He has lots of support from the Tories in the back benches.

Mr. Martel: Give it to him.

Mr. Stokes: The brief goes on: “Registration of snow vehicles should be done by the dealer.”

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That’s in the Act.

Mr. Stokes: Then it says:

“Safety of the operator, including his qualifications and equipment, and of passengers carried on or towed by the vehicle:

“If the term qualification is used to include operator’s licence, the committee should consider very carefully the effects such controls would have on the native people of the far north. Operators’ licences should not be required by Indians as this will create hardships to the Indian people in the far north.

“Many of the people would not be able to pass operators’ examinations due to the fact that they have not had ample opportunity to learn the regulations. Consideration should also be given if Indians are required to pass operators’ examinations conducted in English.”

If all of this is going to be waived in terms of native people, fine and dandy, I won’t go into it in any great detail; but there is one assurance I want from the minister. He is going to find extreme difficulty in defining the word “native.”

If the minister is going to say a native is a person within the meaning of the Indian Act, he is going to restrict it to those people who are designated as status Indians, those who have a number, those who are in receipt of treaty money regardless of where they may live across the province. If he is going to do it by way of a line of demarcation, say, everything north of the north line of the Canadian National Railways, he is going to include in this legislation a lot of treaty Indians south of that line.

I have had some discussion, very briefly, with members of the ministry. They were a little bit disappointed that in our recommendations we didn’t set out in much greater detail how we thought native people should be exempt from the terms of this legislation. When the minister interrupted me, that’s why I was a little bit put off, because I really don’t know how he is going to accomplish this in order to satisfy the objectives of the so-called native people in the Province of Ontario.

If he is saying a native person is anyone who lives above the 51st parallel or a native person is someone who lives above the north line of the Canadian National Railways, or if he is going to say every person who is a status person, regardless of where they live in the Province of Ontario, then that would include people in Brantford --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Right. That is Brant. I am Brantford.

Mr. Stokes: -- down on the Six Nations reserve. I am wondering when he says that is all going to be covered by regulation, whether the minister has given this the --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Reserves aren’t covered by this.

Mr. Stokes: I can’t hear the minister.

Mr. Breithaupt: Reserves aren’t covered by this statute.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to be accused of interrupting, but I think the hon. member should know that the reservations as such are not covered by this legislation. The reservations are regulated and controlled by the federal government, and rightly and properly so. Provincial statutes such as this will not be enforced on the reservations, so that the member’s concerns for those areas, other than the far north where the reservations are, are in part not really of that major concern. They are to a degree, but we will not be having this statute enforced on the reservations.

Mr. Stokes: Okay. The minister is well aware and well acquainted with reserves in his particular area where he has got the Batchawana reserve and where he has got the Garden River reserve. But I can show him many, many communities in the far north where Indians have lived for decades, and they are not on reserves.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We recognize that.

Mr. Stokes: I want to know about those people living in those areas, although they are not living on a reserve -- one could call them Crown-land squatters at the present time because their status is under question and up in the air. I think they should enjoy exemption under this Act by way of regulation in much the same way as those who do enjoy reserve status. I just hope that when the minister is drafting the regulations that perhaps he’ll take the trouble to sit down with some of us who know what the situation is in the far north, because he could say that everybody who lives on a reserve is exempt and he could disqualify half of the native people in the north just by using those criteria.

I am hoping that when he gets sitting down to draft the regulations, if he hasn’t already done so, that he’ll take the trouble to consult. If he doesn’t want to consult with me, he can consult with the president of the Union of Ontario Indians. He can consult with the president of Treaty No. 9, our good friend Andy Rickard, who the minister knows, Bill Sault and Peter Kelly, who is the spokesman for all of the reserves under Treaty No. 3. The minister knows the Robertson Superior treaty group that he is so acquainted with down around the Soo and up around the north shore of Lake Superior. If the minister is going to provide them with the kind of exemption that I think is necessary in order to accomplish what we both agree is something worthwhile, I hope he will take them into his confidence, bring them in and have a chat with them, before he drafts his regulations, so that he doesn’t have to come back and do it all over again at a later date.

There are a good many things I want to get into in more detail when we discuss this clause by clause, Mr. Speaker; if I were to dwell on them now it would only be repetitions. I simply want to indicate to the House, and particularly to the member for Lambton, that we had considerable dialogue with the Ontario Snowmobile Federation, which is the federation that speaks for not all of the clubs in the Province of Ontario but a good many of the clubs. They heartily endorse this situation and this piece of legislation. They do have some minor reservations about it, but I am assured by them that by and large they think this is a good piece of legislation and that it should be supported by everybody, including the snowmobile fraternity right across the province.

Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to say a few words on this bill.

First of all, I would like to compliment the snowmobile committee on their work. I had the opportunity of sitting in on one of their meetings in London, when I guess better than 50 per cent of the crowd were snowmobilers from my riding, and I am sure they provided some good input to the committee, because the snowmobile clubs in our area certainly have been very responsible.

I would like to comment on the situation as far as the Indian reserves are concerned. I was approached by the vice-president of the Union of Ontario Indians, who comes from my riding. He requested that the reserves be exempt as far as this legislation is concerned -- and I think the minister has indicated that the legislation will not apply on the reserves -- but he agreed that Indians taking their snowmobiles off the reserve should have the legislation applied to them the same as anyone else.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Eaton: I would like to comment on the letters of permission referred to in the bill. I think this is in a way necessary. I know that the people in this province who have farm property certainly have looked forward to some protection as far as liability is concerned. I believe this protection is in the Act. However, I would draw the minister’s attention to one problem which I feel is related to the letters of permission.

In many cases, snowmobile clubs in southwestern Ontario have gone as a club and got permission to go across farms. I think it’s impractical to ask a farmer to sign a letter of permission for every snowmobiler in that club and to expect each one to carry a letter to go across his property. I think that if a club gets permission that should be sufficient for the membership in that club and there should not be a requirement for a letter for each individual.

It was brought up in discussion at a meeting on Sunday that the conservation officer could be stopping persons on each farm and asking them for a letter of permission. I don’t feel that is necessary. I feel it should be a case that if a farmer complains, then the legislation is enforced.

I have allowed people to go across the back of my own farm which is part of a trail. I don’t have a snowmobile myself, but people sometimes come out to my place and wish to go through my place to get onto this trail; they also cross the property of neighbours who don’t mind them being there because they are part of the group that uses it. This person might come out to my place once in a year, so it would be impractical for him to go around to all the neighbours that day and ask them for a letter of permission.

I certainly feel the minister should be bringing in an amendment so that the letter is required only if that property owner requests it, or someone acting on that property owner’s behalf.

I would also like to bring up the matter of the use of the roads. I certainly stand opposed to the snowmobiles operating on any provincial highway. I would tend to agree somewhat with the legislation as it is, but I have some grave misgivings about the way it’s brought in.

I think that in municipalities like those in my riding, where there are small villages, people have to get out from the small village onto the trails that are there. It’s going to be a case of municipal officials sitting down and designating this street or that street or another street to get out to the trail; and sure enough, they will have missed this street or they’ve missed another one.

I think it should be operating in the reverse. There should be permission for them to use the roads in a municipality, except for provincial highways, and the municipality should lay down a ruling as to the roads they cannot go on. The municipality is in a position to know the busy roads, the roads that could be dangerous.

I can think of many instances in our area where they have developed some fine trails. The only way they can get from one trail to another is along a concession road. They can’t go in the ditches -- as has been suggested in some cases along these concession roads -- because the ditches are deep and impassable. Therefore, snowmobile operators should have the opportunity to use these roads. I think to be practical and to make it convenient for the municipalities -- and really to give the option to the municipalities -- the choice should be the municipality’s as to what roads snowmobiles cannot travel on.

I would just like to say a word or two on the trails, since the trails programme was referred to although it really doesn’t come under this bill. I think consideration should be given to allowing grants to clubs which operate trails which are partially on public land and partially on private land. Those trails shouldn’t necessarily become public the minute a grant is given to operate part of that trail. In many instances, the farmers have given permission to those clubs alone to operate there. Not only that, the traffic on those trails, if opened up to the general public, would be such that the trails would be of little use, at least in my area.

Those are just a few comments. I hope the minister will give them some consideration. I would say that I will support the amendment made by the hon. member for Lambton to put the onus on the municipality to control which roads will not be used by snowmobilers.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Perth.

Mr. H. Edighoffer (Perth): Mr. Speaker, in speaking on Bill 161, I guess the first comment I would have to make is that I enjoyed the opportunity of serving on the committee. I had the opportunity to travel on snowmobiles on roads and in fields, on groomed and non-groomed trails.

I must say that I think the committee was very objective in its recommendations, because they certainly realized that we in Ontario do have a fair amount of snow and that these vehicles should be allowed for recreation as well as for being used as service vehicles.

I must say we had one disappointment. The committee had to make a decision whether they wanted to leave the legislation as it was, which the Conservative backbenchers are stating they wanted; that is the same way as the previous legislation had been formed. But we did try to get permission -- and particularly the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Gilbertson); he was most interested in getting over to Norway, where of course snowmobiles are completely banned. However, he didn’t have enough drag with the chairman. We weren’t able to get to Norway --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Shame, shame.

Mr. Edighoffer: -- to see how the people were affected by not being able to use snowmobiles.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): They didn’t have the right chairman.

Mr. Edighoffer: That’s right. We didn’t have the right chairman.

Mr. Ruston: If we’d had the hon. member for Lambton we would have made it.

Mr. Foulds: No, no; he would have had the members down in Florida studying all-terrain vehicles.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The member for Port Arthur had a pretty good time overseas.

Mr. Foulds: I didn’t go.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: He shouldn’t have signed the report then.

Mr. Speaker: Order, the hon. member for Perth has the opportunity to speak.

Mr. Edighoffer: Mr. Speaker, we --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. members please give the member an opportunity to speak?

Mr. Edighoffer: Mr. Speaker, we did have an opportunity to speak to many snowmobilers and I believe that one question that was asked at many of the hearings throughout the province showed they seemed to be very concerned as to whether or not the members of the committee were owners of snowmobiles. I have to say that not too many members of the committee did own snowmobiles, but of course they --

Mr. Foulds: They all do now.

Mr. Edighoffer: -- all had ample opportunity to find out how they operated.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member for Welland South (Mr. Haggerty) doesn’t use one.

Mr. Edighoffer: I am not certain whether he does or not.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I bet the member’s bottom dollar he hasn’t, and I can tell him why.

Mr. Foulds: How about the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea)?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: He has got a horse.

An hon. member: Or the member for Perth?

Mr. Edighoffer: I want to reiterate what has been said by some of the speakers here this evening, that OSDA, Ontario Snowmobile Dealers’ Association, definitely stated in their brief that these machines were not designed for use on the roads. I tried at many of the meetings to ask specifically those making presentations whether they felt that they should be used on the roads, and in many, many instances the people said that they were not designed for use on highways.

I think that one of the basic changes in the legislation -- and I wonder about this basic change -- is in section 6(5), particularly, which states that “no person shall drive a motorized snow vehicle upon a serviced roadway within a local municipality,” and so on and so forth. When I look at the whole section, I think I almost have to say that it sort of reminds me of a dog’s breakfast.

I note that there are several sections which have been picked up out of the old Act and placed at the top of that particular section. It would probably appear to many people on reading the section that snowmobiles may be driven on highways, as has been allowed in the past. They have to go down to subsection (5) to see that basically this section, which I presume will become law on Feb. 1, states that they shall not.

Also in section 6(5), I am wondering if that particular section covers a regional municipality road, because you have to go up to section 6(1) to read the definition of “local municipality.” I am just not clear on whether that covers a regional municipality road or not.

As I say, I think it is somewhat confusing. I would feel that subsection (5), particularly, should be up nearer the top of the section. I think it would be much clearer.

I might just say a word about the registration fee. This seemed to be one of the questions that came before the committee 100 per cent of the time. I see there is no mention of what the registration fee will be. It will be left up to regulations, and I presume that the Lieutenant Governor in Council will decide that it will be $8; in fact, she might even decide to lower it to $5, but I guess time will tell.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: She might even change her mind.

Mr. Edighoffer: Another thing I wanted to say about section 6(5) is that I wonder if municipalities will really be able to pass bylaws by Feb. 1. I think it might be rather difficult, and I feel that this might have to be changed because of the late introduction of the legislation and, of course, the new councils which are coming into effect the first of the year.

Then we go on to section 8. I think this is a good section, because there are people in this province who do not have a licence to drive a car on a highway and, of course, couldn’t drive a snowmobile along the side of a highway. I think this is a welcome addition.

The other part of section 8 where they lower the age limit is certainly fitting for snowmobiling, because it can only be done with more education and I’m sure a training programme starting at an early age will be helpful to snowmobiling in general.

Section 14 concerns me a bit because on the third line it states: “Every driver must carry a licence with him at all times.” I am just wondering if this means that a young boy or a girl, on the family property, would have to carry a permit at all times, which I don’t think would be right, particularly when they’re on their own property.

To go on a little farther, to section 18, I see that the new legislation states: “The vehicle shall bear a national safety mark.” This refers to all new machines. In other words, this is controlling the quality of design, I suppose, of all new machines.

The committee did recommend that a certificate of mechanical fitness should accompany the resale of any motorized snow vehicle, and I would suggest that the minister again take a look at this to see if it would be possible to add something to this effect in this section, because I think this would protect the purchaser, financially as well as from the safety aspect, when purchasing a used snowmobile.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, that is really all I have to say. We have a number of amendments in committee. I know the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs has given this thorough study and has made some excellent recommendations as well. I believe that is really all that I have to say at the moment.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Stormont.

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): Mr. Speaker, I realize the hour is late but I would just like to make a few brief comments on the bill.

First of all, coming from a riding that is experiencing a 10 in. snowfall and has one of the largest snowmobile clubs in Ontario, the Seaway Valley Snowmobile Club, I would like to say that this bill has been well received in the riding of Stormont. I support the introduction of the bill and I would also support most of the provisions of the bill.

I do have some reservations about the age limits that are proposed. I would especially suggest to the minister that we have a very well developed training for these people between 12 and 16. I would be very dubious about allowing parents of people like this to have the prime responsibility for educating these people. I would hope the government would develop programmes, possibly in conjunction with schools or with the clubs, specifically designed for the people under 16, if we’re going to allow those people to ride snowmobiles. I hope the exam itself would not be a farce or a formality, but something very practical, very meaningful, with a strong emphasis on safety for those under the age of 16.

Like my colleague from Thunder Bay, we in Stormont would welcome far more assistance in the realm of snowmobile trails, especially for people who live just on the verge of excellent terrain for snowmobiles but have trouble getting out of the city unless they buy a trailer and so forth. I would suggest to the minister that, if possible, trails could be developed leading from the city to already established trail areas, again in conjunction with the clubs. I think the snowmobile people would really appreciate that.

I would like to make one final brief comment, Mr. Speaker. Coming from eastern Ontario, if there are to be signs and regulations issued we would ask that the regulations be made in English et en français aussi, parce que nous avons beaucoup de motoneigists dans l’est d’Ontario. I think, as a courtesy to these people, we should try to make the signs bilingual, the regulations bilingual and the examinations bilingual in the eastern counties and, where applicable, in the northern counties. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. G. E. Smith (Simcoe East): Mr. Speaker, I’d like to make a few comments on this bill. I support the principle of the bill; however, there are some grey areas that affect my part of the country and I think they need to be clarified.

As you are no doubt aware, sir, a great deal of the snowmobiling is done on lakes in my area, both inland lakes and navigable lakes. It seems to me that perhaps there should be some clarification by the minister, when he responds, as to whether section 6(2) does apply to an inland lake, a non-navigable waterway, in a municipality.

I suppose the same thing would apply in my area too with regards to Lake Simcoe and Lake Couchiching, which are a navigable waterway. Does the municipality on the shoreline have the right to require the hours of operation or implement any other regulations governing the operation of the snow machines?

I have talked to some people, and they seem to think that subsection 2 does cover the operation of snowmobiles on the waterways. It seems to me if we go ahead and implement this bill as it is written, and if we don’t take into consideration the amendment that was proposed by the hon. member for Lambton, we will be prohibiting the use of all the lakes for snowmobiling unless the municipality passes a bylaw. Along Lake Simcoe, or in some of the inland lakes where the shoreline lies within several municipalities, there is going to be a real jurisdictional dispute.

My local paper does editorialize, but not for this particular reason, and says that we should reverse the procedure and permit them to operate in the municipalities unless the municipality passes a bylaw. I think this is worthy of consideration by the minister and the hon. members, particularly in many of the municipalities, such as I have, where there are going to be real jurisdictional disputes.

It will not be possible for the municipalities to draft and pass the bylaw by Feb. 1, as was mentioned by several members, and it seems to me this is another reason why we should reverse the procedure that is mentioned in the bill and leave the prohibitions to the municipalities rather than have them legislate the permission. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. member for York Centre’s remarks be at some length?

Mr. Deacon: No, not very long, but do you want me to move the adjournment of the debate?

Mr. Speaker: If you are not going to finish in about a minute and a half, I suggest you move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Deacon moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, before the motion to adjourn the House, there was some comment earlier from the House leader that it might be possible to complete the items before the House if there was a decision to sit on Wednesday. Possibly the policy secretary could get us the information so that perhaps at the opening of the House tomorrow afternoon we might get some idea as to whether we would proceed with the normal sittings of the House on Thursday and Friday morning or whether Wednesday sittings are still contemplated by the government House leader.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I will make sure the House leader is advised of this request.

Hon. Mr. Grossman moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:30 o’clock, p.m.