The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

MINISTRY OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Auld moves second reading of Bill 109, An Act to amend the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act, 1971.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Mr. Speaker, I would have thought perhaps the minister, putting this forth at the present time with a committee meeting downstairs and the education critics being there dealing with a similar bill, would wait until that committee got through first. There might be some major amendments he wants to bring forward from that committee meeting downstairs.

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that on second reading we’re dealing with principle. We’re dealing with Bill 109 and Bill 108; the two bills, as the hon. member knows, are parallel. There will be a number of amendments; as a matter of fact there are already to Bill 108. There are no amendments to Bill 109 because Bill 109 is the one that has the provision for the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act apply to the -- I can tell the hon. member if he’ll listen to me rather than asking his friend.

Mr. Haggerty: He’s my adviser.

Hon. Mr. Auld: The member is in desperate straits.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): No wonder he is so ill-advised.

Hon. Mr. Auld: After hearing his comments this afternoon about postage, the member is in desperate straits.

Bill 109 really is housekeeping. Bill 108, in principle, parallels Bill 100, and as I say I now have a number of amendments to be presented when we get to committee of the whole House. I would hope we might get second reading, approval in principle, to which I understand everybody has already basically agreed.

Mr. Deans: Is that it?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: I think in general terms people do agree with what the minister’s proposing here. It wouldn’t be his intention to take this bill into committee, I don’t imagine; so he might, if he would, give us a clear indication, which isn’t contained in the explanatory note, of exactly what the bill does.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I don’t know, Mr. Speaker, that I can paraphrase the explanatory notes.

Mr. Deans: No, I wouldn’t want the minister to paraphrase it. Why doesn’t he expand his thoughts on it somewhat? We have lots of time.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I’d rather expand when we get to Bill 108 because I’ve got a little expansion I could do there

Mr. Deans: Yes, but it really ought to have been dealt with in the other way. Bill 108 should have been dealt with before Bill 109.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I suppose so if one is thinking metric. It really doesn’t make a great deal of difference. I hope the --

Mr. Deans: The fact of the matter is Bill 109 by itself is of no value because Bill 108 is the substance. Why doesn’t he just tell us that? The substance of what’s going to occur is contained in Bill 108 and Bill 109 simply puts it into force.

Hon. Mr. Auld: That’s right.

Mr. Deans: Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister wish to make an opening statement?

Mr. Deans: No, he’s finished. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

Mr. Deans: That is, of course, subject to the passing of Bill 108, which is in some doubt at the moment considering we outnumber the Tories.

COLLEGES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Hon. Mr. Auld moves second reading of Bill 108, An Act respecting Collective Bargaining for Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr. Speaker, I was certainly pleased to see this legislation brought forward to place the faculties of these Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology in the same position as any faculty should be. I haven’t the notes I prepared for Bill 100, but since this bill is very much patterned after that I would like to make one or two comments I feel are important in this case.

First of all, there is the whole question of involuntary participation. We want to be sure it is not set out in such a way to discourage voluntary participation. By saying that if they work to rule it constitutes a strike, in effect we start toward assignment of voluntary work. It’s not the good spirit we should be developing in the relationships between faculty and administrative staff.

Another point I wanted to bring forward was the matter of the appointment of the commission. In the appointment of the commission, I think there should be the opportunity for each party to have a right of veto over a panel of appointees that the government proposes, in the same way a jury panel is selected. In this way, we could be sure the commission members have the confidence of both parties. I think that this is essential in order to be sure that the Colleges Relations Commission is not set up in the traditional way. In an arbitration board you have one representing one side and one representing the other side, and in effect the decision then rests upon the chairman. Every member of the College Relations Commission should have the confidence of both parties. That is one of the principles of the jury system we all believe in. I think that would work well in these appointments.

I notice that it is also suggested the commission have its chairman and vice-chairman designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. I would suggest that if we do appoint the commission in the manner I have suggested, that they -- like a jury -- would have the right to select their own chairman and vice-chairman from among their number. When it comes to the terms of office, I think it is a good idea to have the rotation system suggested here. The members would be appointed for a term of one, two or three years, so about one-third retire each year.

However, I think it’s important that, as we have done in some other commissions appointed by the province, no appointee may hold office for more than two complete terms; or maybe two terms plus one year, or two terms plus two years. As the minister knows, we have had problems with boards of governors of these colleges in that some people just stay there practically as a lifetime career. The ministry did bring in a system whereby it’s a maximum, I think, of eight years.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Three terms.

Mr. Deacon: Three terms. That is three terms of how many years?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Originally three, for a total of nine years.

Mr. Deacon: A total of nine. I think it is the same principle here. Terms of three years, or a total of nine years, might work all right here. But I would hate to see this going on indefinitely with a commission, because I think it is important to have the change that comes with one-third new appointments every year; and also the fact that some of them really are new appointments.

Those are the main points that I raise in a cursory look at this bill. On the whole, it certainly does bring the element of fact-finding into play, which is so important. It starts to ensure that there is less delay and less procrastination in getting at negotiations, which I think is also important. The idea of the selector, where we have final offer selection, is a process that is provided for here and one which I think is going to come into increasing favour on both sides as it emphasizes reason. On the whole, we certainly support the measure the government has taken in this bill.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Having studied this bill at some considerable length I want to tell you that we’re not too unhappy with it, Mr. Speaker. It depends a lot on the objectivity of the College Relations Commission. If that commission is established and set up in such a way, and if it follows the proper procedures in the gathering of information and the monitoring of negotiations and final bargaining positions, the actual contracts that occur within the province, then it can be very useful. The one thing that has to be guarded against in any established group is that it draw any bias into its statements to the various parties. We have to be sure the College Relations Commission does fully understand the reasons certain negotiated positions are arrived at, not only that they are arrived at but what went on prior to arriving at these positions.

What I’m saying is that during negotiations there are any number of points which come up for purposes of discussion. Quite frequently, in one set of negotiations one particular factor, or two or three factors, are weighted more heavily than others. It may be the decision of one particular group to offset an item in favour of one particular aspect of the negotiations and not place emphasis on another part. When the commission is reporting, it has to be careful that it weighs up the reasons why certain matters have been emphasized by certain boards or by certain negotiating committees, that it not jump to the conclusion that because a particular point was not emphasized in one set of negotiations, that point is not of some major importance in another set and that just simply the outcome of the negotiations doesn’t necessarily reflect the conditions surrounding the negotiations as they took place.

I think we have to make sure that whatever terms of reference or whatever general feeling that we give to this commission, that it appreciate it’s not just simply good enough to look at the final agreements and to compile statistics with regard to them, which might well show that certain monetary or non-monetary items appear to have been of prime concern, but rather that it look seriously at the entire negotiation that took place to determine whether something which may well have been of some major importance in the beginning has been let go in favour of something which turned out to be more important in the end. I hope I’m making sense to the minister. Perhaps it isn’t as easy on the floor in the Legislature, but I don’t think that simply statistics alone necessarily tell the story of the negotiation process.

I think it works very well, and I’m pleased the minister and the government have seen fit to provide for a fairly wide range of opportunities for the settlement of the dispute, and that the minister has seen fit to say to both parties, in the event that one of the available non-strike avenues is working, the opportunity to go on strike is there. But I hope, along with the minister and I think with most people in the House, that the majority of people in community colleges would never have to use it; that they would be sufficiently sensitive, both on the part of the Council of Regents and the board of governors and on the part of the employees’ representatives, to the educational requirements of the province that both parties would be eager from day one to find solutions.

There is another party in all of these negotiations, and I think this is something we all have to understand about negotiations in education at this point in the Province of Ontario. The other party to all negotiations, though it doesn’t sit at the negotiating table, is the government. While the employers’ representatives might well want to settle, they may find, because of the restrictions placed on them as the result of the grant structures, that they are not able to come to a satisfactory agreement. So I think the government should pay particular heed to the patterns that are developing within the various community college structures. I think the government and the ministry, without influencing directly, or indirectly for that matter, should pay particular heed to the patterns developing so they can gauge their grant structure in accordance with what will bring about satisfactory settlements. I think that’s really where it’s all at.

The community colleges in themselves really don’t have the necessary private or independent financing to be able to set up their own standards for negotiation purposes. I think what we’ve seen and what we’ll likely see at some point -- I’m guessing and I hope I’m wrong -- is a situation in community colleges, as we’ve seen fringes of it from time to time, not unlike what we saw on education just a year or 1½ years ago, where the negotiation process was somehow diverted because of the indirect influence that was placed at the table by a party that didn’t really sit at the table, and that was the government.

So I think what we have to do, in addition to the College Relations Commission making representation to the parties involved about the general state of negotiations within its particular sphere of influence, is to have the commission making representation to the government. And the government shouldn’t be using that for the purpose of changing the Act or in any way restricting the process, but should be using it to try to monitor whether or not the dollars that have to be available for the ongoing continuing education level are made available through whatever the grant structure is to be. Because I think if it’s going to fail at all, and I hope it doesn’t, it’s more likely to fail in that area than in any other.

I’m also kind of intrigued by the suggestion that the opportunity is there for application by an employee organization to the OLRB for certification. I think that’s an excellent move. I think the sooner we regularize the negotiation process and certification process in the. Province of Ontario within one general framework, the more likely we are to have achieved some kind of equilibrium in the negotiations, no matter in what sector they take place. I don’t think we need separate out one class or one sector of employee from another. I think that employees in the Province of Ontario who have negotiation rights, collective bargaining rights, require basically the same kinds of freedoms and, out of necessity, the same kinds of restriction as all other employees who have collective bargaining rights. While some people might think because their job is a little different, because they wear a white shirt rather than a blue one or because they never get dirty, somehow or other they have a different view or a different status and therefore require some special kind of negotiation procedure, my guess is that in the long run negotiation works better if there is an overall umbrella of regulation which governs everyone and everyone understands it.

Hon. Mr. Auld: The member is on both sides tonight; he has both colours.

Mr. Deans: I have both colours but that’s an act of my wife; it’s nothing to do with me. She buys the stuff; I wear it. I didn’t tell Norm Webster that, by the way; but it doesn’t matter, he doesn’t read the Hansard anyway.

I think that is important. I think if the government is going to have, if it is going to be somewhat enlightened about the negotiation process -- I want to speak as someone who has been involved in it for a long time, although I hadn’t really intended to talk on the bill, as members can well guess -- because as someone who has been involved in it for a long time, it seems to me the broader the scope the better chance there is for a settlement, rather than the reverse, as has been practised by the government until now when it tended to narrow the scope.

I have a feeling that in negotiation the best possible law is the law which allows collective bargaining to take place in all matters which affect employer-employee relations and that nothing be ruled out in terms of sitting down at the bargaining table and discussing them. That doesn’t mean there will ever be an agreement on it. It doesn’t mean it will be something which will ultimately end up in the collective bargaining agreement; but I think that as employees sit down at the bargaining table, if they have a sense of frustration about either their place of work, the conditions which surround that place of work, the way in which their personal lives are affected by the rules and regulations of that place of work or if they are somehow concerned about their future -- the future of the job they do or their future as they go on to retirement -- they don’t do the kind of work and they don’t produce to the same level they ought to and they are capable of producing.

I have always felt, contrary to the arguments which have been put across the floor to me, that we should begin by understanding that collective bargaining goes on every day of the week and in by far the majority of collective bargaining situations there is a resolution of the problems. The commonly held figure is 96 per cent -- and I’m not sure if that is accurate today -- in 96 per cent of all collective bargaining negotiations which take place, a settlement is arrived at.

If we recognize that in the private sector there is very little if any restriction placed on the matters which can be raised at the negotiating table, I think we’ve got to learn something from that. While the system isn’t perfect -- but again, what is perfect? -- it allows the employee and the employer to raise matters which if not raised could cause a considerable amount of discord and disruption.

It may not be obvious. We may not see people walking around with placards over their shoulders. We may not even notice that they are not producing to their maximum. But if they are going in there, day after day, and if they are either upset because of the conditions under which they work; worried about the fact that their wages aren’t keeping pace with inflation; concerned about ceilings imposed by the government; worried about the inability to negotiate on superannuation; concerned about their tenure or their right to continuation of employment and they are unable to talk about these things, for whatever reason, their productivity, no matter how we measure it -- and we don’t always measure productivity in the number of widgets produced -- their productivity, the enthusiasm they display in the classroom or the lecture room, is diminished. I really do urge the minister in whatever responsibilities he ever has in collective bargaining -- and it applies to this bill as it does to any other -- that he try, at least for a period of time, to open it as wide as it can be opened. I suspect, and I think I’m probably right, having done it, that he’ll find, once given the opportunity and once having got over the newness of it and sorted out all of the nuances and problems that develop, the system will work infinitely better than it worked previously. When I say that I support this kind of legislation, I really do support it. I’m not just saying it and sort of mouthing it across the floor to the minister.

I happen to think if we are going to create a better kind of environment in the work place then it is going to require perhaps three changes in attitude. It’s going to require a change in attitude of the employees. I think it is fair to say that employees are going to have to recognize that not everything they want to achieve can always be achieved at one time. I think, generally speaking, that is the case.

Secondly, employers have to realize that this government, notwithstanding its antipathy toward collective bargaining, isn’t going to eliminate collective bargaining in the Province of Ontario; that in fact it’s going to strengthen it, it believes in it, and feels it is worthwhile.

I think if the government makes a check, and I’m sure it has already, it will find, almost without question, employers would rather be engaged in a collective bargaining process than trying to operate without any employee organization representing employees. That has been said to me many times and I think it probably is true almost across the board.

The third thing is that there has to be a general sense that the government, in establishing whatever power it has in terms of money, in terms of the provision of the funds to carry on the job, is going to make sure that the money is available in sufficient quantity but only in sufficient quantity, to be able to ensure that all of the normal requirements of the employee in his place of work or her place of work are met.

I think if the government does those things and if it establishes once and for all that there is going to be collective bargaining in the Province of Ontario, that it is going to be open, that the scope of it is going to be as wide as it can possibly be, that it will be unrestricted, and that the fact-finding commission will be doing not only a job of statistical compilation but will be doing a job of ensuring that the background that provides the necessary information for the statistics is also made available, then I think this kind of legislation can be really worthwhile. I think the government will probably find in the long haul that it will have fewer problems -- and there haven’t been many -- in collective bargaining, whether it be in colleges, whether it be in education, as is being discussed downstairs, or whether it be in the general civil service or even outside in the private sector.

I think the government should take the lead. The government has a responsibility to take the lead. It shouldn’t wait until there is another crisis and other legislation is brought forward as a result of some conflict arising. I think the government should take the lead and provide the kind of leadership in ensuring that collective bargaining can take place. If that’s done, then I don’t see that we’ll have any more problems in this province, given that there are always minor disruptions.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments concerning Bill 108 and express my concern that the hon. minister has introduced the bill at this time for second reading. Unfortunately, quite a few of the members of the social development committee who are dealing with the companion legislation to this, Bill 100, are now in the social development committee attempting to resolve the differences of opinion concerning Bill 100. The differences are substantial. Representation there is being made by all of the boards of education involved, plus the various affiliates of the teachers’ federation. Naturally this doesn’t deal with teachers’ federations but it deals with the community college teachers, and the principles in here are fairly well the same as those that are in the companion legislation. Quite a few amendments are being proposed down there and, Mr. Speaker, I think the minister should have waited until those amendments had gone through the social development committee and then, where possible, incorporated them in his bill.

Mr. Speaker, one of the areas of concern both in Bill 100 and now in Bill 108 is the area of cocurricular and extracurricular activities. You will note, Mr. Speaker, that that has been changed in the reprinted version of Bill 100. It has been eliminated as such; its interpretation comes under the functioning of a school or schools, or school programmes, so you have exactly the same thing in there.

How the minister can come along and legislate that one cannot withdraw services that are voluntarily given, I don’t know. If they are voluntary, Mr. Speaker, then the individual should have the right to withdraw his services at any time. By inserting this clause in here, the minister is going to find that any teacher on the community college level volunteering now to participate in extracurricular activities is going to hesitate to take part in them, because once you get yourself involved you can no longer sort of withdraw from participating in those extracurricular activities.

Mr. Speaker, I really wish that the minister hadn’t brought this bill up for second reading at this time, but had waited until the social development committee had completed its resolution of Bill 100, so that any suggestions and changes that were made in there that were proposed to this bill could have been implemented or introduced by the minister.

There are many other areas of concern, Mr. Speaker. These areas of concern will be brought up when the bill comes up for reading through the committee of the whole House.

I am very much disturbed that the minister is not sending this bill through standing committee in the same fashion that Bill 100 is going through it now. By bringing it into the committee of the whole House, Mr. Speaker, the minister is preventing the contribution of many members who have had the opportunity of working on Bill 100 in the social development committee. When this bill does come in, Mr. Speaker, you can rest assured that many of the members from the downstairs committee are going to come right in here and this bill is not going to have as easy-going a time as the minister anticipated.

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

Mr. Deans: The minister is going to change that, isn’t he?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, first of all, perhaps I should have said at the outset that I have a number of amendments already which stem from the discussions that have taken place in the social development committee study of Bill 100. I intend to introduce those, as I think I mentioned briefly, when we get to committee of the whole House stage.

The specific question that the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville mentioned concerning extracurricular activities has been sorted out. I should say that I have had two meetings with the committee of the Civil Service Association that dealt with the draft of the bill, and I think it is accurate to say that we have resolved all but perhaps two or three major policy questions -- one having to do with supervised ballots; a couple of other things like that -- which are basic principles.

I don’t propose that we bring this bill to committee of the whole House until they have substantially completed the work that is going on downstairs. Because while this is not exactly the same situation, as all hon. members realize, there are a number of parallel situations, and perhaps, depending on what the House leader is deciding, we might be able to deal in committee with certain parts which have been agreed upon in the standing committee on Bill 100. Depending on the timing and so on, I wouldn’t propose to complete the bill until such time as Bill 100 has been completed.

The hon. member for York Centre was talking about the work-to-rule question and that, too, is one which we have resolved by removing that section. Without getting into detail, we have sorted that out to our agreement and that of the Civil Service Association.

Perhaps the two matters of principle that have been raised this evening are ones I should comment on. One is the makeup of the commission. I think it’s fair to say that there is still some disagreement on the part of perhaps some members of the Council of Regents as far as the colleges are concerned, and some members of the bargaining unit. There is still a feeling that the structure should be sort of three partisans from one side, three partisans from the other side and an independent chairman. Of course, the whole purpose of Bill 100 and Bill 108 is to take a new approach -- and I think it is possible in a province of seven million people -- to finding half a dozen people, or whatever number, who are not directly partisan as far as the education process is concerned, as far as the administration of that education process is concerned and as far as the financial support of the people who are in the system is concerned.

I really believe this kind of an approach can work if we can find a group of people who are looking at the broad picture.

Mr. Deacon: What about the jury panel selection approach?

Hon. Mr. Auld: This may well be a way to do it. And, of course, I think the question of tenure is very important. It’s in some ways a bit like the Ombudsman. You have got to give some kind of security so that people can be reasonably independent.

Mr. Deacon: I am not thinking about once they have been appointed and they are there. I am thinking about the selection, to be sure that we do have people who are agreeable to both parties.

Hon. Mr. Auld: We are dealing, as far as the colleges are concerned, with two bargaining units, the support staff and the academic staff, so we are probably talking of no more than two negotiations a year.

The commission envisaged in Bill 100 deals with 200-odd school boards, and it will be busy the whole time. I would think that it may well be that we would have the same people, or at least almost all the same people perhaps, on that commission, because as far as the colleges are concerned I would think that would be a very small part of their work.

As far as the Ontario Labour Relations Board is concerned and the comments of the hon. member for Wentworth, I think I know what he was getting at, but as far as we are concerned the whole approach in Bill 108 is that the community college staff, those in the bargaining unit, whose positions are negotiable, are employees of the Council of Regents and of the boards and are not civil servants. They are not subject now to the provisions of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

Mr. Deans: Although they are subject --

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think I know what he was leading to, and he can discuss that with my friend the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Winkler), who deals with the civil service, because I think we are talking about different things.

Mr. Deans: Yes; they are, of course, subject to the budgetary policies of the government.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Oh yes, and I think that --

Mr. Deans: That is what I mean, they sit at the bargaining table, but one of the parties that is really involved isn’t there.

Hon. Mr. Auld: No, that party is right in here. I don’t think we can ever have a position where any group can supersede the judgement of this Legislature in terms of money.

Mr. Deans: I agree; that is why I was eager that there be some kind of mechanism whereby the ministry would monitor what was happening.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the dialogue might wait until the committee of the whole.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I would hope that, through the commission, there will be that kind of continuous monitoring in terms of comparison. In fact I think that’s set out in part VII.

Mr. Deans: In section 27, but not only statistical information, because that doesn’t tell the whole story.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think there’s a proposed amendment for section 27, as a matter of fact, to take out something that was rather --

Mr. Deans: I am sorry; section 57.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps these details might be clarified more satisfactorily in committee of the whole House.

Hon. Mr. Auld: There are a number of amendments that have been discussed downstairs and some that we have worked out ourselves. When we get to committee I think there should be general agreement.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: I understand this bill is to be referred to committee of the whole House and it is so directed.

ONTARIO TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves second reading of Bill 105, An Act to amend the Ontario Transportation Development Corp. Act, 1973.

Mr. Speaker: Is there an opening statement by the minister?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, if I can repeat what I have said earlier on this, in order that the newly created Urban Transportation Development Corp. can assume the activities and projects currently carried on by the Ontario Transportation Development Corp., it is necessary that the powers be provided to the Ontario corporation to allow it to dispose of its assets and liabilities and for the Ontario government to receive securities from a company called the Urban Transportation Development Corp.

This latter company has been created under the Canada Corporations Act. The amendment being proposed would allow the OTDC to transfer almost of its current property to the UTDC, whose ownership, like the OTDC, is restricted to provincial and federal governments. These steps are considered desirable to allow other governments, such as Alberta, to purchase equity in the corporation. It is also necessary to ensure the establishment of a nationally based corporation.

With the authorities provided by this amendment, the transfer of assets and liabilities from the OTDC to UTDC can proceed. The Urban Transportation Development Corp. will be then in a position to complete negotiations for the sale of shares to the governments of other provinces and the government of Canada.

You will recall, sir, that Mr. Gillespie proposed to invest in this corporation and sent a proposal to all provincial governments early in December in which we had agreed that OTDC would become the nucleus of this national corporation. Since that time, a number of further discussions have taken place and this amendment in the corporation’s status is necessary to accommodate such other government involvement.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York-Forest Hill.

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): Mr. Speaker, I wish I had a copy of the statement the minister has just read, because all I have had to go by was the explanatory note in the bill.

There were those of us who felt back in June, 1973, when the OTDC Act was passed, that the Act was redundant and unnecessary. There were those of us who were prescient enough to think that the whole concept was overblown; that all the trademarks, all the inventions, all the rights and all the euphoric splendour that was conjured up before us -- that all these things weren’t going to happen. We didn’t believe the picture that the minister painted for us at that time was realistic.

We didn’t believe that we had the world by the handle of the slot machine and that all we had to do was pull and the jackpot was going to fall into our aprons. We didn’t believe that because we had world rights we were going to sell in South America, Central America, black Africa, Asia and all over the place. We felt at that time that about the only reason the Ontario Transportation Development Corp. was set up was for the purpose of creating jobs for some backbenchers and some people who were underemployed and that it wasn’t going to create a great deal else.

We weren’t far wrong, Mr. Speaker, because in the final analysis even the kiddy-car ride that the minister proposed at the exhibition came a cropper and now it’s restored to pasture land, which the CNE has been for some time.

Now, roughly two years later, the minister proposes to bring in an Act in which he wants permission to transfer assets from the Ontario Transportation Development Corp. to other corporations, provincial or federal, to other provinces of Canada or to Her Majesty in right of Ontario or to Her Majesty in right of any other provinces in Canada or of Canada itself.

What I want to know is what assets and what liabilities are there? I would imagine there are more liabilities than there are assets right now although the minister assured us in so many places and particularly at the time of the estimates that there were hardly any liabilities at all; that everything had been paid off, there was nothing outstanding, and he was going to cash in on all the technological advances made by Krauss-Maffei. He also announced in the House those great ventures into the future he was going to make with the expenditure of another $6-odd million; he was going to have a prototype train and eventually, by and by, everything was going to be hunky-dory.

If that is so, if the minister intends to work himself out of this morass because the Krauss-Maffei company has had the rug pulled out from under it and the Ontario Transportation Development Corp. is going to go it alone and develop this intermediate transportation system on its own and it’s going to become a viable system, why does he want to dispossess or divest himself of these assets? Does he simply want to divest himself of some of the assets? Is it merely a matter of selling some interest to Mr. Gillespie or some interest to the government of Alberta or some interest to some other government?

If he is merely thinking of selling some interest to some other government, why hasn’t this problem come up before? I have been under the impression the minister had these rights under the existing Act, the Ontario Transportation Development Corp. Act, and he could allow other governments to come in and buy a piece of the action under the present setup. Why does he seek a new company?

I would simply like to see, with the present state of affairs -- everything pretty well winding down and the future very much in a fog -- whether or not he is going to have a viable system in a few years, discounting or forgetting about the election for the moment. It would simply be a matter that if he winds up with nothing more than he has now he’s no worse off than he is now; if he winds up with something the minister, whether it’s he or his successor in office, can have the assets and dispose of them, deal with them, fool around with them, trade with them, sell them, dispose of them, divest himself of them, sell off half of them or do whatever he wants with them as he pleases.

Why should it be necessary now to set up this state of affairs under Bill 105? I’m not really satisfied with the minister’s explanation, unless I missed something in his rapid reading of his statement as to why it is necessary to go through this rigmarole now; any more than I was satisfied at the time he established the OTDC in the first instance. I would like the minister to satisfy us as to why he’s doing this in the light of the circumstances unfolding over the past five or six months. Three or four months ago he made the announcement in the House of what he was going to do, including the expenditures of $6 million to proceed with the technology he feels he has salvaged from the Krauss-Maffei experience, having regard for the fact the company is not proceeding with the intracity situation but is proceeding with the intercity intermediate capacity system. OTDC is going it alone and there’s been no progress made that has been announced up to now to lead us to believe a great breakthrough has been made or that any great progress has been made.

What is the necessity for this at this particular time? Why doesn’t the minister wait to see what develops? At the present time let the present company handle the state of affairs as it is. Or let the minister and his department handle it and let it go at that, rather than setting up a new monstrosity of some kind, which again he may have to unlimber, disconnect or dismantle a year or two or three from now. Why does the government always hastily run into assembling big monstrosities and big pieces of machinery that the ministry finds, to its embarrassment, it has to disassemble later on, that it has to take apart? Wouldn’t it be better to see to it that the ministry has something to do business with before it rushes into these things?

The minister would be doing us a great favour if he would satisfy us as to the real reason for doing this. Why it is necessary, in handling the assets and the liabilities of the company as it stands now, to set up the situation that the minister seeks in Bill 105? My colleagues and I are not satisfied this bill is at all necessary under the circumstances, for the reasons that I have indicated.

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

Mr. Deans: It would seem rather foolish to take part if the minister is prepared to reply to the questions that have been asked, since they seem to be the questions that ought to have been asked.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member should first recognize one very important factor. The Urban Transportation Development Corp. already is, in fact, a corporation under the Canada Corporations Act. lit has been formed and is presently there. I regret the hon. member was not privy to my statement, because the statement that I made is exactly the same statement I gave on first reading of this bill. No change at all. He would have had the opportunity to have read that statement at the time I moved first reading of the bill, which is some time back. I can’t understand why he wouldn’t have been familiar with that.

First of all, let’s touch upon why we are forming the new company. The new company, as I have said already, has been formed. I think it goes without saying there is a tremendous amount of value to be had in allowing the company to become Urban Transportation Development Corp., so that it will allow other jurisdictions to come into this company, without this being Ontario Transportation Development Corp. I don’t have to go into those details for the hon. member. I am sure he is well aware there will be much more ease, I think, in accepting this corporation in other jurisdictions in Canada by having it less Ontario oriented.

We have the Province of Alberta, which has already indicated they wish to be a part. We have the government of Canada, though Mr. Gillespie and others, Mr. Danson for example, stating they feel there is a lot of value in forming an Urban Transportation Development Corp. We have had discussions with both of these gentlemen and they both are on record as having said they will participate in an Urban Transportation Development Corp.; so that we will, in fact, have a national corporation, and not simply one province, with the other jurisdictions taking part in conjunction with that province.

We understand the Quebec government has been reviewing its position with respect to participation, and we anticipate that they will in fact be participating in this corporation. Other provinces have indicated a general interest in participation, but further negotiation will be necessary before anything firm can be stated with them.

Our view is that if we can take this present existing company, UTDC, and transfer to it the assets and the liabilities of the present OTDC, these other jurisdictions can become involved and can do so in a very active way.

The hon. member asked about the assets that are available. There is cash available. The designs for the light rapid transit systems, the buses, the contracts for both buses and LRT, the technology related to the intermediate capacity transit system; these assets will be exchanged for shares at full value.

We have already had the shares evaluated and a price set on them. To the best of my knowledge it is a price that is acceptable to those jurisdictions which would like to take part in the corporation. The other governments interested in taking part in this corporation have indicated they would rather participate with a federally chartered company as opposed to one that is only chartered in the Province of Ontario.

I think it is only fair, Mr. Speaker, that I draw to the hon. member’s attention that if he will check the OTDC as it now exists he will find there are no -- and I repeat no -- members of the Legislature who serve on the OTDC, none. He referred to jobs for backbenchers; there are no members of this Legislature at all involved in the Ontario Transportation Development Corp.

Regarding the money we have said will be expended in continuing with the experiment that was terminated by the West German government, I said at the very time of the termination of the contract with Krauss-Maffei we would continue in an effort to develop the particular technology so that it might be applicable to an urban transit system. I have also said that should we ever reach the point where we feel the technology does not have an application, we would terminate that particular programme. Nothing has changed in that at all. The Ontario Transportation Development Corp. knows full well that that’s the situation under which it operates at the present time.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member -- and I understand his reasons -- continually tries to give the impression that the Ontario Transportation Development Corp. has no purpose in being other than the development of a magnetic levitation system. That is not correct at all. I suspect the hon. member well knows that. That was one part of an overall transit programme announced by the Premier (Mr. Davis) some years ago. It involved all kinds of aspects of development of transportation, not the least of which was the funding programme this government has gone into.

We are not committed to one particular mode for the development of magnetic levitation. We are committed, and will continue to be committed, to the development of transit systems of any kind that will solve the transportation problems that exist today in our major urban municipalities and in some of the smaller municipalities as well.

So, Mr. Speaker, the new company is being formed for the reasons that I have outlined to you, specifically in order to have other jurisdictions become involved. They have asked that this particular corporation be a federally chartered company. We think that’s a reasonable request and that’s the reason for the bill being before the House today. I repeat again, the Urban Transportation Development Corp. already is a company that is chartered under the Canada Corporations Act.

One of the other points that I should make to the House is that the Ontario Transportation Development Corp., for example, has prepared the specifications for the double-decker cars for which we will be calling tenders for our GO Transit system. To say that we are specifically involved in one particular mode is just not correct, it is not correct. I cannot say any more emphatically than I have said here in the House, and I have said publicly elsewhere, that to try to say that the Ontario Transportation Development Corp., or for that matter the Urban Transportation Development Corp., is limited to one specific mode is just not factually correct.

We are interested in one thing and one thing only, and that is to develop all types of varieties of transit systems that can be applied to our urban communities, both large and small, that will meet the needs of the various communities for transit purposes.

Mr. Givens: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister in what other ways these other jurisdictions that he’s mentioned -- the other provinces, and particularly the federal government, which has not indicated any national urban transportation policy as yet that I have been able to ascertain -- have manifested their interests in this Urban Transit Development Corp.? Are there any provisional, temporary or permanent directors of any kind? Have they put in an application for any share capital of a provisional nature? In what other way have they manifested their interest other than this prefatory or offhand way of saying, “We think that we will be interested”? Have they given any concrete manifestation of their interest by putting up one of their ministers or one of their principal people as a director in the company? Do they have any status in this particular company at all?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the federal government certainly has indicated its interest. I have been in a number of discussions involving the Hon. Mr. Gillespie who is keenly interested in seeing this developed. I think as the hon. member knows, the federal government has invested a considerable amount of money in the development of the linear induction motor, for example, which is being developed, and quite successfully, by Spar here in the Toronto area.

I couldn’t agree more with the hon. member when he says that the federal government has developed no urban transportation development system. The federal government hasn’t developed a transportation system of any kind, urban or otherwise, in this country. I think he’s probably referring -- and I appreciate his giving me the opportunity to comment on it -- to the national transportation policy presented in the House of Commons not too long ago by Mr. Marchand.

What the federal government has done is provide three industrial development grants to the OTDC. It has provided funding for this and it is very interested in the development of urban transit facilities in Canada. The federal people want it to be a national corporation and we agree -- it should be a national corporation, involving as many of the provinces as possible, taking part in the development of these systems which will apply not only to Metropolitan Toronto but Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Montreal, Halifax and the other major cities of the country.

We really believe we have been the catalyst in the development of interest in transit development in this country. We respect and we appreciate the interest of the federal government and the other provincial jurisdictions. The formation of this company will give them an opportunity to take part under the terms they feel are important and that is, that it be a federally incorporated company.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 105, An Act to amend the Ontario Transportation Development Corp. Act, 1973.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves second reading of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

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

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker, with regard to Bill 127, we certainly have no objections to it. I think I should read into the record the explanatory note because there are some people interested in it who may want to refer to it at some time. I imagine it would be helpful in a number of cases if that was put on the record for most bills. This is quite brief, so I’ll read it.

“All motor vehicles other than school buses are prohibited from bearing the words ‘school bus.’ Further changes to section 120 of the Act are to the effect that municipalities are given the authority to designate school bus loading zones within which zones school bus drivers are prohibited from actuating red flashing lights. The driver is also prohibited from stopping the bus for purposes of loading or unloading across from a designated zone. Power is given to the Lieutenant Governor in Council to pass regulations in respect of signs, markings, etc., of the designated zones.”

That, Mr. Speaker, of course, is a new part of this bill; the other is they still are not allowed to put lights on where there is a traffic light. That’s really all there is in this bill, Mr. Speaker.

I assume when the roads are properly signed for these loading zones the oncoming traffic and so forth will be aware of this. It might be a little difficult for a short time but with the proper signing I would hope it would work satisfactorily. It would be up to the municipalities to put in the loading zones and designate the areas of the loading zones.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Thank you. I think there has been a sufficient amount of discussion on the whole matter of school bus safety in this House over the last four or five years. I don’t propose to spend a great deal of time reiterating what many of us have said previously. The member for Windsor-Walkerville has spoken on it a number of times, as have other people.

I think one of the questions I have with regard to it is this: We see a number of what are ostensibly school buses used for general transportation purposes. Quite frequently school buses are rented and used for transporting other than school children on extended trips. I’m curious to know what effect all of the legislation has, including this legislation. It says:

“No motor vehicle, other than a school bus, shall bear the words ‘Do Not Pass When Signals Flashing’ or the words ‘School Bus.’”

That restricts anyone from using a bus like that for general purposes but it doesn’t restrict the owner of that bus from using it for other than school bus purposes.

I didn’t get an opportunity, I must confess, as this isn’t an area that I have the responsibility for, to cross-reference section 1(2)(1c), which is deemed to be interpretation, with subsection 1a which it is intended to interpret for. I am curious to know what is meant by saying:

“For the purposes of subsection 1a, a motor vehicle shall be deemed to be a bus if it is or has in the past been operated under the authority of a permit issued in pursuant to section 6 for which a bus fee was paid.”

At what point in the Act does it state that if a permit was paid for but has since expired the bus is no longer operative under this section?

What I’m thinking about is that there are a great number of school buses sold for purposes of groups who use them to transport children on Sundays and Saturdays and other times to other parts of the province. What this says is, “if it is or has been in the past operated under the authority of a permit issued pursuant to section 6.” It’s quite conceivable that there are buses on the road which have been in the past operated pursuant to a permit issued under the authority of section 6 but are no longer used for nor are they within the ambit of any permit, if the minister follows what I’m saying. I would like to be assured that the Act itself takes care of that particular problem, if it is indeed a problem.

The reason I raise this, to be quite frank, is that all too often in this House we take things for granted. We ought not to. Quite frequently, time doesn’t allow the opportunity to review all of the Act that goes along with the amendment. To read it literally means that bus need only have been at one point a school bus which operated under the authority of a licence. It then for some reason or other seems to comply with the provisions of subsection 1a; I wouldn’t imagine that that is what the minister intends. I certainly do hope that that isn’t what the Act implies. But one never can tell, so I ask it of the minister just so that we can be sure.

I am also curious to know, while I am on this topic of school buses, what the response has been with regard to the Act which we passed some time ago and which is complementary to what we have before us. It dealt with the colour of buses. I wonder whether subsection 1c in any way allows for a bus which does not comply with the colour regulations as we passed them to continue in operation as a school bus simply by virtue of its having at one point been authorized or licensed tinder the Act. I’m not sure about that section.

I just do wish now that I had had more time to look at it. The bill has been before us for some time, since June 26, but like everybody else we have a lot of other things to do. I didn’t intend to talk on it. I’d like the minister to cross-reference it for me since I can’t do it by myself, and tell me whether or not that section in any way negates any of the sections that we passed, or weakens any of the sections that we passed some months ago that related directly to school buses and which gave a certain amount of uniformity to them across the Province of Ontario.

The whole matter of the signal light, the stopping, the safe transportation of children, has always seemed to me -- and I realize there is a cost factor involved and I realize there is a certain amount of aggravation and time -- but it has always seemed to me that the only way to be sure that small children in particular get across the road safely is not to rely on the mechanical devices of a school bus, but rather for the driver to see them from one side to the other.

I appreciate that that may be something that may be out of our jurisdiction at this point -- not outside our jurisdiction but it may be something we may not deal with tonight. But I don’t care how many flashing lights you put in and I don’t care how carefully you mark the bus -- how large the letters or how carefully you write them on and how beautiful it looks -- the problem is simply that, kids being what they are and drivers being as they are and generally speaking it is carelessness rather than intentional in both cases, you come across any number of accidents.

I think at some stage in life we’re going to have to change the whole system. I think that school buses should have to stop in an area adjacent to, or should drop children off on, the side that they are supposed to be on. Alternatively they should transport them across the road safely to make sure that they get to where they are going. You can’t account for the carefree attitude of kids, Mr. Speaker, and when they do things, it’s always too late. There is a great hue and cry all the time.

I’ll tell you something else that bothers me while I’m on the topic, Mr. Speaker. I’m never terribly impressed by the mechanical safety -- at least, the outward appearance -- of many of the buses that pull into the back parking lot here at Queen’s Park, transporting children from all parts of the province to visit us here in this marvellous chamber filled with members of the Legislature. I often feel as I look at them that the tires could stand a bit more tread and I really wonder at times about the safety procedures used in checking out these vehicles. I had complaints, as the minister can probably recall, some months ago, maybe ranging up to eight or nine months or maybe even a year ago, about the general standard of safety which goes hand in hand with what we’re doing, because it is all related to the safety of the children, and the procedures used in determining the mechanical fitness of the vehicles.

I wonder if the minister could take a moment, since we have some time tonight, to address himself to that aspect of school bus, safety. He might take a moment to tell us just exactly how careful the ministry is in checking the safety certificates against the safety checks and how many inspectors he has across the province who carry out the function of spot checks on school bus fleets and how carefully they inspect them.

The reason I ask it of the minister is because I know in my own area there are two or three school bus operators. The drivers take the buses home with them and keep them there all weekend and they do this throughout the school year which is the time we’re primarily concerned about. I’ve often wondered how the minister’s inspector ever manages to catch those buses in the spot checks. I’ve wondered just how many of those buses are even actually spot- checked given that probably half of the fleet -- and in all three cases, it’s a substantial number -- given that half of that total, which will run into a number of hundred, aren’t even on the premises of the owner for days on end. I would just like to know a bit about the background of it.

Mr. Speaker: The Chair would concede that the points raised by the hon. member are very interesting --

Mr. Deans: Are interesting, yes, I thought so myself.

Mr. Speaker: -- but they do not apply to the principle of the bill. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments on the bill, ask the minister a few questions and maybe put forth a few suggestions for the minister’s consideration.

In the first instance, I wanted to ask if the buses that are used today in transporting students to daycare centres or to nursery schools -- quite often they use just a mini-van or a glorified camper with additional seats, or they even use station wagons, vehicles that quite often carry a wooden sign on the top, “School Bus” -- are in a category that would fall under the ambit of the bill that we are now discussing? If they are, I think that some of the requirements of those buses, those mini-buses, so to speak, should be quite similar to those of the larger-size buses.

I also want to ask if the minister has considered identifying school buses as to the latest date of inspection so that the parents and/or the students riding the buses know that the vehicle has been inspected recently and is a safe vehicle in which to ride. My thought is maybe to have an annual vehicle inspection plate that could be fastened on so that the parents would know that the vehicle has been inspected and is safe within a reasonable period of time.

I know that simply because a vehicle is inspected today it doesn’t prevent something happening to it tomorrow on the road, and there could be quite a serious accident. But we in Essex county who have had quite a few unfortunate experiences with school buses are probably a little more concerned with the safety of the school bus than are maybe other areas of the province that have not had those experiences. In fact, less than two weeks ago, a young girl stepping from a bus was struck on the highway and killed. I can’t necessarily blame the driver of the bus for this, but it certainly indicates that there is something wrong somewhere when such incidents still occur.

Another suggestion I would make to the minister is, is there any merit in requiring a dome light, somewhat similar to what we have on police vehicles? Those lights that either rotate or blink on and off quite rapidly and use a high-intensity light bulb are extremely noticeable, visible and attract attention very quickly. When one sees the flasher on a police car one has no difficulty identifying that vehicle. I don’t know what type of colour we would use for a dome light or some light that would have a little stronger bulb in it than is presently on school buses blinking at the back end. I know they now have lights at the back end, but if this dome light was on the centre and high enough so that drivers two or three vehicles behind the bus could actually see the bus, their vision wouldn’t necessarily be obscured by the vehicles in front of them.

I wanted to bring these various items to the attention of the minister and I hope he can reply to them.

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

Mr. Deans: I was right on the point.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, the bill before you is really just amending the original Act that we presented earlier this year on two specific points. Number one is the creation of the school bus loading zone that the member for Essex-Kent referred to. What we have determined is that as a result of requiring the buses to flash their lights when loading or unloading students regardless of what the speed limit may be and regardless of where they may be, we recognize that we were creating a rather severe problem in certain parts of the province -- in particular, in the areas of larger schools. There might be 10 to 15 buses in front of that school either to unload or, perhaps more to the point, load students after school. You could conceivably have buses sitting in front of this particular school for half or three-quarters of an hour. Under the law, as we had originally introduced it, these buses would have been required to have their school bus lights flashing, which would have necessitated and required by law that all traffic coming in either direction would have been required to stop.

I think you can appreciate that we would have been creating a rather unacceptable situation, in particular in many of the urban areas -- for that matter, in some of the suburban areas as well. So what we are doing here is saying to the particular municipalities, “If you have such a problem in your community and you recognize and identify that problem, we are hereby giving you permissive legislation that you can designate a school bus loading zone. You can put up the proper signs, which will allow all of these buses, whatever the number may be, to park in that zone and not be required to have their lights on for that time.”

It does require them to be on the curb side immediately adjacent to the school so that there is no possibility, we would hope no possibility, of an inadvertent accident taking place. They would be coming from the school directly on to the bus, and vice versa.

I think a good example that all of you are very familiar with is the Royal Ontario Museum here in Toronto. You see many numbers of buses stopped out there waiting for youngsters who are taking a tour. Under the old Act as we had it, they would have been required to keep their school bus lights flashing and the traffic tie-up on Avenue Rd. would have been something to behold. You could have been out and watched that with a great show of interest. So we think we have solved that particular problem. It is permissive for the municipalities in this area.

The other pertinent section is the wording as it relates to the colour of the buses, and the hon. member for Wentworth has referred specifically to section 1c of the Act. It actually strengthens the section that we had in the former Act, and what it says --

Mr. Deans: Would the minister read 1a for me? Does he have 1a?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I am sorry -- 1a? What we are saying, and perhaps the definition of a school bus is really what the member is looking for, is it?

Mr. Deans: Yes, I will tell the minister why I want him to read it -- I can’t find it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: All right.

Mr. Deans: I wanted to find out the purpose of section 1a. Now would he read 1a to us?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Right, I will read all of 1a. It says: “No bus, other than a school bus, shall be painted chrome yellow.” But what we discovered was that if a bus had been used as a school bus, then as we have defined a school bus, a company or a person could sell a bus that had been used for a school bus to a private individual, who, in turn, then changes the design of the bus and turns it into a camper or whatever it may be. Although it was not designed as a school bus, it would still have chrome yellow and black markings on it.

What we felt we should do, and what we are proposing to do in this legislation, is to change the Act to say that any vehicle that has ever been a school bus cannot retain those colours of chrome yellow. So that if a bus in fact were sold to someone after it had lived out its years as a school bus, and an individual purchased it for some other purpose -- a camper or whatever it may be -- that person could not operate that vehicle; in fact, could not get it registered. When he came into the office to have it registered, our records would show that it had been a school bus, and that person would not have it registered until such time as he had changed the colour of that bus from chrome yellow to whatever colour he wanted to paint it.

That is in order to protect that colour as a school bus colour. I think that section strengthens our desire to have chrome yellow as a school bus colour, and it would require that only a bus that is a school bus would have these particular colours. I am sure the member is aware we have vehicles with these colours on them, running people back and forth to construction jobs. We want to eliminate that particular feature.

Mr. Deans: What about the use of school buses for other than school bus purposes?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, a school bus can be used for other purposes provided the school bus sign is covered and the lights are not used; they cannot have a sign on it saying it is a school bus.

We don’t feel we should prevent the school bus operators, who have large investments in their fleets, from using these buses for charter purposes and what have you, but they must cover up the signs that say a particular bus is a school bus and must not use the lights as a school bus uses them during those times.

Mr. Deans: Is it permissible to call it a school bus if it is bringing some children from Port Perry, say, to Toronto? I drive on the highway almost every day and I pass school buses --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes.

Mr. Deans: They have a piece of masking tape diagonally through the school bus sign, and that is supposed to tell use that’s no longer a school bus. Is that adequate? Is that all that’s required?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Well, let me answer that question in two ways. First of all, if a school bus is being used to transport school children from Port Perry to Toronto, or any other community to Toronto, then in fact it is a school bus and it is transporting children for the purpose of education or whatever it may be. Therefore, it is a school bus.

Mr. Deans: Do all the rights of that Act still pertain to that bus?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, that’s correct. However, if the school bus has the sign covered -- and I am not suggesting that x-ing out is adequate; we feel that the school bus sign must be totally covered -- it can then be operated for charter purposes and not be required to abide by the requirements of the school bus section.

Mr. Deans: Will the minister permit one other question and it won’t have to go to committee?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes.

Mr. Deans: Can the minister tell me whether it is necessary for a school bus to be painted yellow?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not. Well, I want to qualify that too, because if it is in fact a school bus, by the definition of the Act it must be painted chrome yellow. However, a bus that is not painted this colour can be used for the purposes of transporting school children, but it is not a school bus within the meaning of the Act. I give as a good example the TTC buses here in Metropolitan Toronto that are used for transporting children to and from school. These buses can be used; however, they are not equipped with the flashing lights, they are not yellow in colour, they don’t necessarily have the school bus signs on them and therefore they are not classed as school buses within the meaning of the Act. So yes, a bus painted in a colour other than chrome yellow can be used to transport children.

Mr. B. Newman: How about the station wagons and vans that are used to transport students, especially nursery school children and retarded children?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: One of the things that we have said in the definition of a school bus is that it must be one that carries 10 passengers or more. That’s the first requirement for it to be defined as a school bus. We recognize that station wagons and small vans are being used in various areas of the province for transporting children, in some cases on feeder lines to regular school buses and in others directly to the school.

We have said that if such vehicles carry fewer than 10 passengers, they do not come within the definition of the Act as a school bus. However, they are required to have the school bus sign on them for the purpose only of identification.

Mr. Deans: Well, I am sorry. I have another question. Given the nature of the Act, is it then possible for all school bus operators to paint their buses red and pink and then transport school children, without having the provisions of this Act enforced at all? What the minister is saying to me is that a bus need not be yellow. If it isn’t yellow, it doesn’t have to have the signals but it can still transport school children; therefore, the school bus operator, in order not to have to comply with the Act, need only paint his bus blue. He can still transport children, enter into contracts with school board and use his bus for multiple purposes.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That’s correct.

Mr. Deans: Well, what has been accomplished if that is all he needs to do to avoid the Act? What the minister has done on the one hand is he has said that school buses need special protection, and the reason isn’t because they are school buses, it is because they transport kids back and forth from their home to the school. If, on the other hand, the minister is telling me that if the bus isn’t yellow it can still be used to transport kids back and forth but it no longer has the protection of the Act, the school bus operator can then say, “Okay, fine. I’m no longer a school bus operator. I’m a general-purpose bus operator. I have buses for the purpose of transporting people and children, being people, are entitled to ride on my bus. I’m going to enter into a contract with the school board and I’m going to truck those kids back and forth.” But the provisions of this Act aren’t in effect.

Is that really the situation?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is really the situation. The hon. member is absolutely correct.

Mr. Deans: Is it really?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: There’s no question about it that if the school bus operators --

Mr. Deans: I don’t believe it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- decide these buses are going to be other than chrome yellow and do not wish to put the specific safety features on them as required under the Act as we define a school bus, the hon. member is absolutely right. The only protection or area of -- I’m looking for the right word. The only area we can find which would prevent this sort of thing from happening would be if a school board contracting with the particular bus company will allow this sort of thing to happen, then, yes, it can happen under the Act. There’s no question about that.

Mr. Deans: It happens every day in the city of Hamilton.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It happens every day in the city of Toronto.

Mr. Deans: Therefore, the Act we’ve passed -- I may sound dumbfounded and I am. I didn’t believe it. I thought the minister was going to tell me somewhere in the Act there was something which said that couldn’t occur. We passed that bill some months ago -- a year ago, I believe it was, or thereabouts.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Six months.

Mr. Deans: Six months ago we passed that bill and I honestly thought we had added some factor of safety; that we had guaranteed that school buses would be properly marked; that they would have proper safety equipment; that they would be properly checked. I hope none of the operators ever read or hear of it -- I can’t believe we wouldn’t have gone the extra step.

Surely, we were better off initially to have a bus which, in the case of the city of Hamilton, was red and yellow or red and cream or whatever one wants to call that horrible colour, and which had “School Bus” written on it -- so that at least was a safety factor -- than to have a situation where a bus operator, if he finds he can do better in the general purpose field, can use his bus and paint it any colour at all.

What I’m thinking about is this -- if he paints his bus yellow, he can use it only for school; if he doesn’t paint his bus yellow, he can use it for whatever the devil he likes, including school children.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That’s not correct.

Mr. Deans: That is right.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Chair would like to draw to the attention of the hon. member that if the bill is not going to committee we will be a little tolerant on some of the debate on second reading because we are straying from the principle as outlined in the bill. I will be guided by the members of the Legislature as to whether the bill will be going to committee. If so, we should terminate the debate; if not, we will carry on.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I think I understand the situation but I think it would be preferable if we could go to committee and get this straightened out; we could have a little more rapport across the House and it would be a little easier.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection, certainly, to going into committee on it. I wonder if perhaps I might be able to clarify the concerns in the members’ minds and I recognize them as being real concerns.

Let’s go back to the original definition of what we’re talking about. When we say a school bus -- I’ll read the definition, in this section, school bus means:

“A bus used for the transportation of children to and from school that (a) bears on the rear thereof the words ‘Do Not Pass When Signals Flashing’; (b) is equipped with two red signal lights on the rear thereof and two red signal lights on the front thereof and (c) is painted chrome yellow with black lettering and trim as required by the regulations.”

We go to 1(a) “No bus other than a school bus shall be painted chrome yellow.” The bill does not have any bearing on the equipment. The definition only applies for the purposes of the stopping law. Let’s be very clear on that.

I want to clear up one particular point that I think the hon. member for Wentworth perhaps did not understand -- and I don’t like to use that word -- or he did not hear what I said earlier; and that is, a bus that is not painted chrome yellow with black trim can be used to transport school children to and from school. As I said before -- and he has indicated it happens in Hamilton -- it happens here in Toronto and I am sure it is happening in other jurisdictions. What we are saying is that in order that the school bus stopping law will apply to motorists who are travelling on the highway the bus must be as defined in the Act; and as I have read, it must have the flashing lights front and rear and the right colours and signs and this sort of thing. If it does not have these, then the school bus stopping law would not apply; it’s as simple as that.

I am not suggesting that we could not go further. We certainly could. We could require that all buses transporting children in the Province of Ontario to and from school must be chrome yellow with black trim, the lights flashing front and rear -- that could be required. However, with the greatest of respect, I suggest that we would be creating a tremendous hardship on certain boards of education and certain municipalities; and the cost factor would be extreme.

Here in Metropolitan Toronto, which is an excellent example, the separate school board does not own a bus. They contract their busing to the TTC. I think it is reasonable to assume that the TTC would not go out and paint X number of their buses chrome yellow and black for the sole purpose of moving children to and from school during the school year. We felt that this Act, imperfect as it may be -- and I’m not suggesting that it covers all of the particular points the hon. member has raised -- it at least gives some meat to the stopping law as it applies to those school buses and the many thousands of school buses on our highways in Ontario today that do, in fact, have the chrome yellow and black trim and do have the flashing lights.

I would suggest to the hon. member for Wentworth, as valid as his point is, that we are not going to see school bus operators who presently have the chrome yellow and black buses going out and painting them blue, pink, red, or whatever the colour --

Mr. Deans: No, no.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- in order to avoid the requirements of this Act, which they basically agree with.

Mr. Deans: Yes, but if I may make one final point, the one thing we may see is that as they purchase new vehicles, as they replace existing vehicles, then in order to ensure they can be used for general purpose, as they had been up to the time the Act passed, they may shy away from that one colour. I know of one --

Mr. Speaker: May I ask the hon. minister if this bill is going to committee?

Mr. Deans: No, it isn’t actually. We were only trying to solve. --

Mr. Ruston: It is now.

Mr. Deans: Is it going to committee?

Mr. Speaker: We can’t have it both ways.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I would hope it would not go to committee if we can resolve it here.

Mr. Deans: No, I don’t intend that it should go to committee. I raise it with the minister -- this is one of those things he doesn’t appreciate -- because I hadn’t realized that the situation that I described was, in fact, in effect.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Which is correct.

Mr. Deans: I am going to worry about it a bit now.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I would just make one final comment. That is, first of all, the fact that the bus is chrome yellow and black does not prohibit the operator from using that bus for purposes other than the transporting of children to and from school. It can, in fact, be used for charter purposes and for other purposes during the off season, or even during the school year, providing those signs aren’t up.

Mr. Deans: And the fact that it is blue doesn’t stop it from transporting children.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That is correct.

Mr. Deans: They don’t have the protection of the bill, that’s all.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It does not have the protection of the bill, that is correct; no question about that.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 127, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

MINERAL EMBLEM ACT

Hon. Mr. Bernier moves second reading of Bill 117, the Mineral Emblem Act, 1975.

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, before we get into the debate, I have a background historical review of this particular stone. I think I would like to put it on the record for the benefit of future generations, and indeed the members of the Legislature at the present time.

The purpose of this Act is to establish the amethyst as the mineral emblem of Ontario. The amethyst is the purple variety of quartz and the term “amethyst” is both the scientific and popular name for the mineral.

Only British Columbia, of all the other provinces, has a Mineral Emblem Act. In 1968, that province established jade as its mineral emblem. As a matter of general information, a number of provinces, including Ontario, have Floral Emblem Acts and Saskatchewan passed a Bird Emblem Act in 1965.

If Ontario develops a visual symbol for amethyst, as we have with the trillium, the visual symbol will be registered under the federal Trade Marks Act, and thereupon the use of the visual symbol will belong exclusively to the Province of Ontario.

I had my staff do some background studies of this particular stone, Mr. Speaker, and I would just like to put it on the record for the benefit of those who may be interested in doing some further research.

For more than 4,500 years of recorded history, the amethyst has been regarded as a gemstone of distinctive beauty and quiet elegance. Admirably suited to fine jewellery design, the colour of the amethyst ranges from the lightest tinge of spring violet to the early lilac, to primrose and to a deep velvety purple mixed with some red. The lustre and transparency of this natural stone, coupled with its hardness -- No. 7 -- and eternal newness, have been enhanced since ancient times by working, cutting, and finally by setting in rings, cameos, bracelets, necklaces, ornaments and engravings -- indeed all sorts of jewellery and accessories for men and women.

In ancient Egypt, Rome and Greece, where it was considered to have supernatural powers as well as rare beauty, the amethyst rivalled the diamond in value and was worn by kings, queens and pharaohs, and by popes, bishops, priests and people of wealth. It is also one of the 12 stones representing the 12 tribes of Israel on the sacred breastplate of judgement, the symbol of divine glory first worn by Aaron and subsequently by every high priest in Jerusalem.

I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the Bible and Exodus, chapter 28, beginning verse 17:

“And thou shalt set in it settings of stones, even four rows of stones: the first row shall be of sardius, a topaz, and a carbuncle: this shall be the first row. And the second row shall be an emerald, a sapphire, and a diamond. And the third row a ligure, an agate, and an amethyst. And the fourth row a beryl, an onyx and a jasper: they shall be set in gold in their inclosings.

“And the stones shall be with the names of the children of Israel, 12, according to their names, like the engravings of a signet; every one with his name shall they be according to the 12 tribes.”

The amethyst is also included among the 12 founding nations of Jerusalem, as recorded in St. John, chapter 21, verses 19 to 20. “Joseph and Mary solemnized their marriage with a ring set by amethyst.” That is from the reference library taken from the book, “Gems and Jewellery Today,” by Marcus Baerwald and Tom Mahoney, published by Marcel Rodd and Co. of New York and Toronto.

Throughout history, the amethyst has been used by people of many different countries, churches and religions, never having been symbolic of a dogma or ideology except beauty. Indeed, it is regarded as an international stone of unity rather than division.

Primitive man held the amethyst in high esteem and gave it divine attributes. A thing of such beauty was considered miraculous and endowed with magic powers. It evolved that the priest or ruler of the tribe claimed these attributes. The princes then began adorning themselves with amethyst and other gemstones.

Their examples were followed by the heads of neighbouring tribes, until finally adorning oneself with precious stones, especially in a crown or headpiece, became a custom that still endures today.

Nor is the modem male immune to the charm and the fascination of gemstones, Mr. Speaker. Witness the adventure and delights of hunters known as rock hounds.

The amethyst is a stone of many personalities. It is often sold as Madeira or Spanish topaz after being treated with heat, its colour changing to citrine yellow. How curious that after gaining an exotic reputation at so many royal courts, the amethyst is regarded today as a gemstone with the greatest amount of beauty for the least amount of money -- especially in Ontario -- one of the reasons being that it never wears out.

Jewellery and engravings of amethyst buried with the Egyptian pharaohs have been recently dug up as attractive as they were 4,000 years ago.

Mr. Speaker, the belief still exists that a ring, or amulet of amethyst gives persons wearing it wisdom, love, sincerity, confidence and safety. The presence of amethyst on the body is also believed to control evil thoughts and quicken the intellect. It protects soldiers, aids hunters, and is extensively worn by sailors, businessmen, lawyers and medical men, especially on the third finger of the left hand. The time is somewhat passed when it was considered effective against headache, toothache, gout, poison and the plague.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): That’s what I need.

Mr. Deans: It might take the place of medicare for all we know.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The amethyst governs the zodiacal houses of Pisces. According to some, St. Valentine is said to have worn an amethyst ring engraved with a cupid. And the amethyst is said to have been created by God on the sixth day.

The name amethyst derives from the Greek word “amethystos,” literally meaning non-intoxicating, a theory that had its source in the Greek tragedy of Bacchus, the god of wine, and Diana, patron goddess and protectress of maidens. After drinking considerable wine, Bacchus became infatuated with a beautiful maiden, who resisted his advances by escaping to Diana. Bacchus threatened to set his tigers on the maiden.

Mr. Deans: Where is the author of this?

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): He is swinging from the chandelier.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: To protect her, Diana transformed her into a statue of transparent stone. In remorse, Bacchus poured wine over the stone changing it to amethyst, and vowed that he who wore a setting of the stone would thereafter be immune to drunkenness.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): I will tell you something, there is someone who doesn’t know his Greek myths very well.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yet for all its rarity, variety and popularity, the amethyst may be found in beautiful clusters in northern Ontario near old mine diggings, and in exposed veins upon rivers and streams near Thunder Bay, or simply purchased by the pound -- pick it up yourself -- it’s about 35 cents, of course, depending on the quality. Oldtimers of this region also know the amethyst by other names, such as Indian stone, rainstone, glass rock, quartz, wonder stone and the signal stone.

Among the local native people there are sketchy, fragmented, but richly romantic stories about amethyst in their history, stories obviously handed down from generations ago: Amethyst was formed from the tears of a little Indian girl who became lost while hunting blueberries.

Mr. Lewis: That’s a nice legend.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Another: Amethyst is made of the first raindrops of the flood that covered the earth.

Amethyst was used by medicine men, or rainmakers, dipping one hand in water and then beckoning with the other towards the sky when rain was wanted. The amethyst stone was considered the eyes of a good spirit and was carried in a leather pouch as a charm or lookout against evil.

Today, however, the local native people give the stone no supernatural attributes -- nothing but the most casual remark about it being the February birthstone -- and consider it simply as a part of their heritage, however vague. Some collect it for sale to tourists. Children play with it, unmindful of its history, yet somehow fascinated by its colour and transparency, its beauty. Now and then an especially beautiful specimen will be placed on a shelf or window ledge where it indeed brings good luck because it brings pleasure.

Mr. Worton: Let’s pass it before someone claims it.

Mr. Deans: It would be a shame to let that go to waste.

Mr. Gaunt: The member didn’t realize it went back to the flood.

Mr. Deans: No, I didn’t realize it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: When my colleague, the member for Thunder Bay, first told us back in 1967 that he would like to see the amethyst adopted as the official mineral of the Province of Ontario, I didn’t realize that he had done so much research. He told us about the value of the amethyst in terms of its history and the mythology that went with it, and how he was going to spend the next eight years trying to get the government to adopt it. When he finally succeeded after a lot of effort, he was so pleased.

I didn’t realize that it had such a history. I really did think he was trying to do something to improve the economy of northern Ontario.

Mr. Gaunt: The member didn’t realize it went back to the flood.

Mr. Deans: No, I really didn’t realize it went back to the flood and the time of Noah.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): We should have used the minister’s gemstone -- fool’s gold.

Mr. Deans: I’ve got to say, if my colleague from Thunder Bay were here, he probably wouldn’t claim to have been the major spokesman; but I think it fair to claim it on his behalf because it is true. There is no one in the Province of Ontario, in this House at least, who has devoted more time, who has spent more of his own personal finances and who has promoted the use of the amethyst to the extent the member for Thunder Bay has.

The minister may want to claim that he thought of it first or he may want to say that the member for Thunder Bay did not in fact devote the time and effort we think he did, but I’m pretty sure that history would record, if it is recorded, that it was primarily due to his initiative that this mineral was adopted by the province. The one thing that aggravated me about the adoption, the day on which the bill was introduced, was that the minister was so partisan that he couldn’t lean across the House in an action of friendliness and acknowledge the effort put forward by my colleague.

We are happy, of course, to adopt the amethyst as the official mineral of the Province of Ontario. We don’t for a moment suggest that other people haven’t had an interest in it or that other people haven’t done a lot of work. But I think the least the minister could have done on the day that he made his statement was acknowledge that the member for Thunder Bay had spent a long time and a lot of effort and considerable personal resource in promoting it and that he had had an effect on the government in reaching the decision that it finally reached.

Mr. Speaker: Any further comments on the bill? The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: If I may respond briefly, certainly we welcome the tremendous support the member for Thunder Bay has given the adoption of the amethyst. I would also point out to the hon. member that the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) was also involved.

Mr. Deans: I’m not suggesting there weren’t others involved.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I did a little research, Mr. Speaker, prior to coming into the House. I checked the records of the ministry and my own personal records. I happen to have been elected to this Legislature, sir, on Sept. 25, 1966. One of the first things I talked about and one of the first things I felt at that time was that if I ever was in a position I would try to have a mineral emblem named for this province. I also committed myself to having a bird named on behalf of this province, but I haven’t succeeded in that part as yet.

I want to recognize today the tremendous support I have received from the faculties of geology in the various universities of this province. Prior to making this decision, we canvassed all those professors and asked them for their suggestions as to what would be a suitable mineral emblem for this province. The response came back, torn between two, sodalite and amethyst. Thinking that the trillium is not common to northern Ontario, it was obvious if we wanted to recognize that great part of the province of Ontario the amethyst should be one of those stones that should be recognized.

I am particularly pleased with my own cabinet colleagues who adopted this with such enthusiasm; and I am pleased that all political parties have joined us tonight in supporting this particular bill. It will certainly be an historical one, one that future generations will look to, as I said earlier with a lot of pride, recognizing that we have done a remarkable thing in recognizing the mineral qualities of this province.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 117, The Mineral Emblem Act.

PUBLIC LANDS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bernier moves second reading of Bill 128, An Act to amend the Public Lands Act.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. minister have an opening statement?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to point out that the purpose of this bill is three-fold.

Firstly, it will eliminate a conflict between section 30 and section 51 of the Act. At present, section 30 provides for the posting of signs prohibiting, controlling or governing the use of any public lands including a road under the jurisdiction of my ministry. Section 51, which is in Part II of the Act, provides that any person may exercise the public right of passage on a road except as provided in Part II. The amendment will remove the word “part” and substitute the word “Act” so that the posting of any sign under section 30 will not conflict with the public right of passage given under section 51.

Secondly, the bill will bring the language of subsection 2 of section 56 in line with the language now used in the Highway Traffic Act. Subsection 2 of section 58 provides that in certain circumstances a private forest road may be opened to the public and used by vehicles registered under the Highway Traffic Act. As a result of the amendment to the Highway Traffic Act in 1974, the use of the concept of registration was done away with and instead the Highway Traffic Act now speaks of the issuance of a permit and the validation of such permit.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill will strike out the habendum in the letters patent which granted part of lot 5 in concession 2 of the township of Carson, in the district of Sudbury, to the Roman Catholic episcopal corporation of the diocese of Sault Ste. Marie on Aug. 18, 1911. Those letters patent restrict the use of the land granted the diocese to church purposes. The land is no longer used by the church for church purposes and the church wishes to sell the land for residential purposes. As a result of a petition to my ministry by the church, the amendment will permit the use of land other than for church purposes.

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

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As usual, I’m a little confused by the amendment presented here tonight and I have a dichotomy of reasons for getting up to speak on this bill.

Coming from northern Ontario and realizing and understanding the reasons for the roads, usually for forestry purposes and sometimes mineral purposes, I see the roads in northern Ontario serving a two-fold purpose. One, of course, is to serve as extraction roads so that the mineral or forestry reserves can be extracted for the economic benefit of the people of northern Ontario hopefully -- which doesn’t always happen -- certainly for the people of Ontario as a whole. The second is to provide access for those who wish to hunt and fish down those particular public roads.

I wonder if the minister can do me the favour tonight of delineating what purpose these roads serve and why they should do so. I say this to you, Mr. Speaker, because while I have pressed and continue to press for roads between Atikokan and Ignace, for instance -- which I think is a road which is particular]y necessary to the health and vitality of both those towns -- I see the opening of many of these forestry or mineral roads to be to the ultimate detriment of northwestern Ontario in particular and, I would suspect, northeastern Ontario as well. Once these roads go in they provide opportunities for every hunter and fisherman to fish out the lakes they give access to and to hunt out completely the deer, moose, partridge and whatever wild game, bear and so on, that are available down those forestry roads.

Now that would be fine and good if we did that only for the people that reside in northern Ontario, either northeastern or northwestern, but the sad fact of the matter -- and I am sure the minister would agree with me, coming from that particular area of the province -- is that in most cases, more often than seldom, the people who go down those roads to take advantage of the fishing and the hunting are American tourists who leave very little in the province. They come down those trails or roads with their four-wheel vehicles and their camper trailers and leave very little in the country other than their fishing and hunting vehicles.

I have been very concerned recently, Mr. Speaker, about the plans of the various forestry industries in my particular riding that are building roads to extract timber resources. I am even more concerned about those same companies or other companies that are going to do the same thing in the minister’s riding, because the minister’s, riding is even farther north and farther west than mine. He knows as well as I do that the people who are going to go down those roads in great numbers are not necessarily the local people who have the chance and the advantage of taking part and trying their luck at the fish and game resources, but in many respects they are the American tourists.

I see them daily in my riding, Mr. Speaker. They come up with their camper trailers, pulling trailers with 12- or 14-foot boats behind them; they have small motors right on the boats and they have their mopeds, bicycles or motorcycles. I worked on the border, so I know that they do this.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Reid: They come over and they know when these roads are going to be open before the local residents do.

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Oh, the member is against tourism.

Mr. Reid: Just a minute.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The member is against tourism, is he?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Reid: No, I am against the kind of cheap pork-and-beaner tourist who comes into our part of the country and doesn’t spend a bloody cent. He brings his gas, his food, his bait, his booze and everything else. The only thing he buys -- and sometimes he doesn’t do that -- is a fishing licence and a hunting licence. That’s the only money they spend when they get there.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Reid: I can tell the Minister of Government Services, who apparently is in favour of that kind of tourism, that I worked for customs and immigration for three years when I went to university. One of the responsibilities I had when I worked there was the fact that every six months or so they would ask us to take a reading or survey of the kind of money these tourists spent in Ontario when they were there.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, and I want to say this through you to the Minister of Government Services, that what those kinds of people spent in Canada was the cost of a fishing licence or sometimes a hunting licence, and that was it. They brought their food, they brought their gas, they brought their clothing and they brought their bait, although you can’t bring live bait into Ontario.

I can tell you -- and this sticks in my mind, Mr. Speaker -- five of them were going back to the United States. I won’t say what state they come from, because a lot of them are very generous people. I went out with my little sticker in my hand -- it was a federal thing -- and I said, “Could you tell me -- I am doing this on behalf of the federal government -- what did you spend in northwestern Ontario while you were here fishing?” They said, “Well, we spent $30.” I said, “How long were you here?” There were five of them. They said, “Two weeks.” I said, “You must have spent more than $30 in two weeks.” They said, “No, we bought our fishing licences and very little else. We brought our own booze, we brought our own beer, we brought our own food, we brought our own gas.”

Mr. D. W. Ewen (Wentworth North): What about women?

Mr. Reid: We don’t charge in northwestern Ontario. The minister of natural disasters can say to me, “Maybe we are not charging enough.” Well, we aren’t charging enough.

What bothers me is that every time we put a road into somewhere in northwestern Ontario -- and I am not afraid to say this -- we destroy part of northwestern Ontario and we destroy part of the environment that people live in northwestern Ontario for. Those people who live up there are not afraid to take the hardships and undergo those problems to get into these lakes to go hunting or fishing. Once we put a road in there, our American friends -- and we have to compliment them I suppose on their initiative and everything else -- are in there. Between the locals and particularly the American tourists that lake will be fished out and that area will be hunted out as soon as we do that.

I am not exactly sure what the intent of this Act is. I am not even going to deal with the third part. It seems to me that the minister is saying in this bill that we are going to put up signs and we are going to say that this can be done and that can be done. I realize the position the minister is in because he is under fantastic pressure from the local people to do this and to allow them in there. I sympathize with him. But I say to him, and I say to him very personally because we both come from adjoining ridings, the minister has to realize that every road that goes in is ruining the very country that both he and I love. We are ruining it, and if we keep allowing this to go on, we are in trouble.

Mr. Speaker, I phoned the local office of the Ministry of Natural Resources two or three weeks ago. I said, “I have heard rumours that you are going to put a road into this lake and into that lake.” What that is going to do, Mr. Speaker -- and perhaps it doesn’t mean much to you, coming from southern Ontario -- is it’s going to give access to at least a dozen lakes west and east of Fort Frances. It’s going to destroy probably a dozen tourist camps that depend on fly-in business or wilderness operations.

Perhaps in the long-run context of everything else they are not important. They don’t own those lakes. They have no right to them any more than anybody else. What’s going to happen is simply that they are going to be fished out and hunted out and the local residents are not going to have anywhere to go.

The local residents will get into those lakes and will get into those areas to hunt and fish, whereas American tourists coming up with camper trailers and everything else aren’t going to make the effort because they don’t have the time and they don’t have the resources. For the local people, that is their private preserve and will remain so for many years.

Maybe I have the wrong idea about the bill the minister is presenting. I hope so. But, regardless of what’s in this bill, I know that the policy of the ministry is that if a forest industry particularly, such as O-M, Dryden Paper or whatever, cuts a road into some area, it should be available to local people. As soon as we make it available to the local people, we make it available to the tourists who have the time, the energy and the money to come up and exploit those particular roads. We are destroying what we have up there and if we continue to allow this to happen, we are not going to have anything left and the advantage of living in northwestern Ontario, for many of us, is going to go down the drain.

There are those who will say to the minister, “If that road is open, it should be available to us.” They are short-sighted people because if we make it available to somebody who lives in Fort Frances or Dryden or Ignace or Atikokan, we are also making it available to the guy from Minneapolis. Chicago, Duluth. Wherever they are I think in the long run it’s in the best interests of all of us, particularly those of us who live in northwestern Ontario -- and probably northeastern Ontario, too -- for the minister to say. “All right. We are going to say these are closed forestry roads.” That’s the first argument. The minister shook his head. I don’t know if that’s a yes or no.

The second argument is for safety’s sake. I have been on those roads; most of them are forestry roads and those forestry trucks come barrelling down those roads at 40 or 50 miles an hour -- sometimes less but usually they are paid either by the hour or by the load and in either case they are in a hurry. We have been very lucky that nobody has been killed lately on those particular roads but I say to the minister he has an opportunity to stand up here and now and -- I hope I am wrong, maybe I interpreted this bill wrongly. Did I interpret this bill wrongly?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No.

Mr. Reid: I didn’t. I am worried about it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It is to straighten out a conflict in the Act; it is housekeeping.

Mr. Reid: Yes, I realize it’s a housekeeping type of proposition but I want to make my sentiments known. I know it won’t affect this bill but I want to make a point with the minister regardless of whether or not I am on the principle of the bill.

I think the sentiment in northwestern Ontario in particular has swung to the point where they would rather preserve what they have and keep everybody out except those who are local, who know how to get in there and who know how to take advantage, rather than opening up all these roads to anybody who wants to go in and take advantage of them. I hope he would take that into consideration.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Thank you. I don’t have to repeat what was said -- I couldn’t --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Well said.

Mr. Deans: I want the minister to tell me something about section 3. I don’t pretend to understand how the letters patent are applied but I wondered about the appropriateness of them being in this bill.

I would have thought that any request to alter the conditions attached to letters patent would have required public notice prior to the change being made. And this would have been similar in nature to a private bill -- similar, I am not saying the same -- as opposed to a public bill and that a change to letters patent, which effectively changes the conditions attached to them, would have required some form of public notice to those people who are in the area immediately adjacent to or surrounding the lands in question.

This would not be unlike the question of a rezoning where lands designated, in this case by letters patent but quite easily they might have been designated by a zoning bylaw, would have required to have had some kind of participation from those residents who abut the properties or whose own lands are in the immediate vicinity of those properties. Could the minister tell me about that, so that I don’t --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I just want to interrupt because the member might not be aware that it was his party’s own member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) who prevailed upon me on a number of occasions to come forward with this amendment. It was felt that this was the cheapest and the most efficient and the easiest way to assist the church in that particular area.

Mr. Deans: Having said that I support it, now let me ask the minister, nevertheless -- because he’s my colleague I love him, but it doesn’t mean he’s right --

Mr. Reid: Can we quote the member on that?

Mr. Deans: Yes, of course. I want the minister to tell me -- because when one does things they’ve got to be done properly. I’m just curious; I’m quite prepared to let it pass, but I’d like to know if this is the proper procedure for the changing of conditions attached to letters patent as they apply to original conditions on land use.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Do any other hon. members wish to speak to this? All right, the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I did question my legal people when this was brought in in this particular form. I questioned them on the very point that the hon. member for Wentworth brings forward.

I was told at that time that this was an acceptable way of changing the letters patent. I’m not a lawyer myself, and I accepted their legal advice and that is the way we’ve come, again, to facilitate the church in their request, strongly supported by a number of members of this Legislature.

Mr. Deans: Would the minister permit me to ask one final question? My concern about it is this: What opportunities are available to citizens, who may have one or another view about the change, to make known their particular views? Was there a process that was followed prior to this having come before the ministry? How does that process work? I may have a group in Hamilton who own a piece of property for which letters patent are applied, and they may want to change the conditions.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I was informed that there was a public discussion within the diocese itself and, of course, they strongly supported it. I would just point out to the member that this particular property was for religious purposes --

Mr. Deans: I understand.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- and it has been transferred to residential purpose. So there’s not that great a conflict. I don’t think that we would enter into a similar situation where a citizen came forward who had a piece of property and wanted it changed because of certain conditions into the letters patent. I think that would go the route of a private bill; that’s the way it should go. But in this particular case where the church was involved and the diocese requested this change, then we acquiesced to their request.

Mr. Deans: Pretend I wasn’t here.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister respond --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I would just like to respond, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: I don’t want us to get into a debate on this.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I just want to respond to the hon. member for Rainy River. What he brings forward is quite correct. I think he has done it very well and explained the situation to the House as it exists in northwestern Ontario.

Certainly I’m very cognizant of the changes that have occurred in the last eight or 10 years. I can remember coming to the Legislature eight or 10 years ago, when roads and roads and roads was all they wanted in northwestern Ontario. “Give us a road anywhere. Give us a road.”

That has changed, as the member has pointed out. We’re very cognizant of this particular change and the problems it brings: the pressures on new lakes that may be more sensitive to pressure than the larger lakes. In fact, we’re looking at a proposal now -- in some districts we enforce it more rigorously than in other areas -- where we retain a 400-ft reserve around many of the lakes and stop paper companies from moving down and punching holes through to these smaller lakes to give access to a number of people who put additional pressures on these lakes. This is an area we’re moving in on.

I would say to the hon. member that the roads we developed -- which of course will be affected by this particular amendment and it’s just a housekeeping amendment -- are mainly involved with the extraction of the forest resources and mineral resources. We also require a certain amount of access roads and connections for forest management. If we’re going to regenerate those areas then we have to have access. Also, of course, forest protection is something that necessitates a tremendous amount of forest access roads.

But we’re very much aware of the pressures and problems, as the member has pointed out, that are created by “pork-and-beaners” -- I don’t know if that is the correct description for many of these people.

I would point out to the hon. member that we are moving in this direction with our Crown land camping control programme. It’s an experiment and it’s in its second year. In that particular experiment we are at least controlling off-highway camping by recreational vehicles. We hope we will gain a tremendous amount of knowledge from this experiment which, as I say, is now in its second year.

In fact, we have a number of university students who will be doing surveys on these particular people who are going to the various designated camping sites in northwestern Ontario. I think if the member is alert, he will notice that there have been new signs placed in that particular area. This is in response to a public meeting that we held in Kenora after last year’s experiment. I don’t think we were as successful last year as we would have liked to have been, because many of our staff were tied up fighting forest fires, and we did not put the real thrust into our Crown land camping programme that we should have been able to do. This year things are different and we are moving ahead more aggressively.

Even the designated areas that we are developing are clearly marked on the highway, as are the private camping areas and the provincial parks. We have some very attractive brochures and stickers, and we will be coming out with radio and television programmes for that particular area to direct the public to these camping areas, thereby taking the pressure off some of the backwood access roads to which the member refers.

Certainly I agree with much that he has said; it is something that is not easy to deal with when such a large area is involved and when you are dealing with such a large number of people who now have some really sophisticated camping equipment -- four-wheel-drives, motorcycles, you name it; they move throughout the northwest into the various areas and sometimes it is very hard to believe they would even get there.

I would just like to point out to the hon. member that on Saturday last I happened to be in Fort Frances for the very popular “Fun in the Sun” festivities, and I made a point of flying down the newly developed Dryden-Fort Frances access. I counted about four or five recreational vehicles on that particular road, and it must be 40 or 45 miles long, perhaps longer. It struck me that perhaps there weren’t as many on that particular road as I would have expected, because certainly that opens up a tremendous area for wilderness recreation and fishing activities.

Certainly we are cognizant of the situation, and it is something which we will be dealing with. In fact, as recently as last week, I had the privilege of meeting with the Northwestern Ontario Air Carriers’ Association. They are concerned with this particular thrust which has been going on the last couple of years, because it does remove from them the wilderness aspect and the remoteness of many of the lakes which they fly into. We hope to develop some type of a programme that will maintain for future generations much of the area that is in a remote state now. This particular bill involves merely housekeeping amendments, Mr. Speaker; it will bring it in line with other sections of the Act and with other Acts.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, before you put the motion for second reading, I wonder if I could ask the minister for a point of clarification. I appreciate what he said, but I wonder if he or his ministry officials have given any consideration at least to moderate their policy regarding any forestry road built by a forest-extraction company, such as Dryden Paper, OM or whatever. Right now, the ministry’s policy is that if this road is built, then it becomes a public road that anybody in the public, including our friends from the south, can go down. The minister shakes his head, but once a forestry road is built for forestry-extraction purposes, as I understand it, it is designated so that hunters and fishermen, wherever they come from, can use that. Is the minister contemplating a change in his policy so that if these roads are put into some areas which the ministry might consider wilderness areas, they will be open only to the forestry or mining extraction industries and closed off to hunters and fishermen, whether they come from south of the border or otherwise?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, the policy and the thrust we’ve been adhering to over the past number of years is that where public funds are expended on a forest access road of course, the public is entitled to use that particular road.

I would say to the hon. member the Dryden Paper Co. and the Ontario-Minnesota Pulp and Paper Co. up to now have been very generous with the use of their roads built solely by their own funds. There are other paper mills in this province which build forest access roads into their timber limits and block them off and do not allow the public to use those particular roads. They are strictly for forest access and rightly so; the company can do so because there are no public funds expended on those particular roads.

The situation in northwestern Ontario, in the member’s area and mine, is the companies have not taken that very dogged attitude. They’ve opened up the roads; at least the ones they’re not using for current forestry operations. It may well be that we’ll have to have a greater consultative mechanism with the management of those timber limits and particularly on the construction of access roads. I agree with the member -- it’s an area we should be looking into in greater depth.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order before you put the motion. For my own conscience’s sake, I want to say that while I’m prepared to see the bill pass as it is, because this is late in the session and because the opportunity to bring in a new bill is not available, I wouldn’t want it to be an established precedent that we passed a bill which contained a clause in it which did not relate to the Act that is on the face of the bill. As I say, I don’t want to hold the bill up but I do want to make it clear that this ought not to occur in this way.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated there was a very special circumstance in this case.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 128, An Act to amend the Public Lands Act.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House, I would say to the members present that we will be prepared to deal with any items left on the order paper tomorrow.

Mr. Deans: What is the House leader calling first, please?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: First? That’s a question I really can’t answer this evening.

Mr. Deans: Can he tell us tomorrow morning?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I can tell the member in the morning. I will commit myself now to calling the resolution standing in the name of the Treasurer, government notice of motion No. 5 and then the balance. That will be followed by one of the departments left in regard to the estimates before the House. I shall endeavour not to call, of course, a department or a policy field which is involved in a committee outside of the House because we haven’t finished with Health. I don’t think members would want me to call that department for conclusion.

There are a number of others including Natural Resources, Treasury, Education -- which, of course, cannot be called -- and Energy. It will be one of those and I will inform members well in advance of the conclusion of the bills.

Mr. Deans: Can I ask one question? What has become of the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of the Drainage Act?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Of which?

Mr. Deans: The Drainage Act.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I haven’t called that. We may call that tomorrow.

Mr. Deans: We are going to proceed with it?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, I said anything that remains on the order paper.

Mr. Deans: I wasn’t sure, because it was adjourned and I didn’t know whether the House leader was intending to go ahead with it.

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

Motion agreed to.

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