role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

November 10, 1981

32nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

FILM CENSORSHIP AND CLASSIFICATION

VISITOR

INACCURACY IN NEWSPAPER

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

SKILLED WORKER SHORTAGES

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION FARES

ABORIGINAL RIGHTS

HYDRO EXPORTS

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION

CLOSING OF WHITE OAKS VILLAGE

RENTAL CONSTRUCTION LOAN PROGRAM

PETITION

HUMANE HUNTING

INACCURACY IN NEWSPAPER

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

THEATRES AMENDMENT ACT

VICTORIA UNIVERSITY ACT

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TORONTO AREA TRANSIT OPERATING AUTHORITY AMENDMENT ACT

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENT ACT

MOTORIZED SNOW VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

DANGEROUS GOODS TRANSPORTATION ACT

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

FILM CENSORSHIP AND CLASSIFICATION

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I want to make some comments about the Ontario Board of Censors. Today I will be introducing for first reading amendments to the Theatres Act which will substantially modernize the existing legislation.

Members will recall that last June I announced a new system for classifying films and outlined changes in the censor board itself. The new film classification system, which became effective in August, appears to be working very well. The restricted category remains, with admittance limited to adults aged 18 or over. A new category, adult accompaniment, was introduced, and permits people aged 14 or over unsupervised theatre entry; significantly, children under 14 can be admitted if accompanied by an adult. And the general film category was divided into two subcategories, one designated family and the other parental guidance.

The creation of the adult accompaniment classification was an important development that has been popularly acclaimed. It has encouraged the theatres branch in my ministry to designate many more films as adult accompaniment rather than restricted, enabling teenagers to see significant films that were previously prohibited to them. This new category also enables parents to take their children under 14 to these movies if they wish, shifting moral responsibility from government on to the parents, where it properly belongs.

The second development I announced last June was our intention to restructure the film censor board. Members will recall that decisions about film classification and film censorship were being made by a board of five full-time and three part-time members, all of whom were civil servants. I am sure members on both sides of the House shared my discomfort with the notion that civil servants were responsible for reflecting community standards. It seemed to me that if we were to continue with a film censorship board in response to public opinion then we should at least appoint people from the community who could more accurately reflect standards of acceptability.

We are in the process of creating a new board of censors that will have a minimum of 25 part-time members. Seven individuals already have been appointed, and others will be selected in the coming weeks, to reflect Ontario's ethnic, cultural, social and occupational character. We hope this restructuring will make the board more adept at interpreting contemporary and changing community values. I wish to thank members on both sides of this House for their recommendations on appointments and welcome further names for consideration.

The amendments I will be introducing to the Theatres Act will further refine and modernize the board's operations. One revision sets out the censor board's power to designate a film for limited exhibition in a specific place. This should permit the board flexibility to deal with the noncommercial showing of films to special audiences. We hope the revision responds to the recommendations received from the arts community.

The revised act also formalizes an appeal procedure for people who submit films to the board. In the past, the board has reviewed its decisions when requested. That procedure has not been acceptable to either this government or the film industry. The revised act now gives the person submitting a film the right to have the decision reviewed by five board members who did not participate in the original classification or censorship decision.

In this context, I should point out that during the past few months the board has substantially improved its accountability to the film community and the public. Anyone can request, and receive in writing, information from the board on film cuts and the rationale behind them. As well, the board is making available on request its screening procedures and classification criteria.

There are several housekeeping changes in the act, but I do want to draw members' attention to one other significant amendment. Currently, a film distributor is required to submit to the board every copy of a film. Each copy is then stamped and certified. We appreciate that this is a rather unnecessary and costly procedure for both distributors and the theatres branch.

With the amended act, only the first copy of a film will be stamped, and an approval certificate will be issued for all subsequent copies. This will greatly reduce a distributor's transportation costs and enhance the productivity of the theatres branch.

However, all copies of films with eliminations will continue to be stamped by the board. As film censorship is actually a rare occurrence in Ontario and happens far less frequently than press reports would lead one to believe, these exceptions will be a minor processing inconvenience.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding with oral questions, I ask all members of the assembly to join me in welcoming and recognizing in the Speaker's gallery the Honourable Gerald A. Lawrence, Minister of Public Works and minister in charge of administration of the Communications and Information Act, from Nova Scotia.

INACCURACY IN NEWSPAPER

Mr. Smith: I have a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. During my six years here, the Toronto Sun has said many things about me and my party that have been less than flattering.

Some hon. members: But true.

Mr. Smith: True or not, they have been less than flattering. At times they have been hard to take, but I have rarely stood to object to anything written in that paper. But this time they have gone too far.

An

article on page 93 of that newspaper was brought to my attention today. It deals with the member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener) and says, in addition to other things, with regard to the Ontario Housing Corporation "empty nest" problem, "We asked her if she knew what the problem was and she said she didn't," which is surprising, of course, for someone who has the largest number of OHC tenants in Ontario in her riding.

But that is not what is shocking. What is shocking is in the previous paragraph, where it says, "The delegation spoke to Scrivener, a Liberal." Our party draws the line at that, and we feel our privileges have been grievously assaulted in this article.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I am sure the report in question will be corrected.

2:10 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Energy. I am sending over to the minister a list of certain contradictions that have appeared on the subject of Suncor. These are contradictions between himself, in some instances, the Premier (Mr. Davis), Mr. Malcolm Rowan and the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) on some fundamental aspects of the Suncor deal. I ask specifically if the minister will try to clear up these matters for us.

I start with the matter of the financing of the second half of the Suncor purchase. The minister will see there are quotations indicating plainly that the other $325 million "will come from Ontario and the moneys will be obtained here in Ontario." That was the Premier. Then we have: "The financing will be accomplished by tenure notes to Suncor." That was Mr. Rowan. Then we have from the Treasurer: "Ontario will raise the $325 million without borrowing." There are several other quotations, finishing with the Treasurer saying: "Financing of the second $325 million is still up for negotiation. It will not necessarily be by notes at the 17 per cent interest rate" and so on.

Given that the way the government is going to pay for the deal is a fundamental aspect of this purchase, will the minister explain the reason for the confusion on that matter?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to review all the material set out on the sheets the Leader of the Opposition has been kind enough to send over. On page four, I catch an error that I thought I had corrected at the time of my participation in the debate in the House last Tuesday. I refer to the second quotation on page four, which should read, "We have said that we expect a minimum rate of return of about 15 per cent," not that we do not expect it. As it goes on, "We do, of course, anticipate that the return will be higher." The emphasis there was on the fact that it would be a minimum return and there should he something higher.

If the Leader of the Opposition will go back over the material we shared with the House on Tuesday evening as part of that debate -- I do not have it here now -- we did indicate that the second half would be repaid over a period not to exceed 10 years and at a rate yet to be negotiated.

In other words, the very points the Leader of the Opposition makes reference to today are some of those areas now under discussion, dealing as they will with the finalization of the dividend policy which has to be put in place, the rate of return to which he has made reference and the borrowing rate which, as we pointed out in answers given earlier, has to have some relationship to the advantage the province itself has in so far as interest rates are concerned.

If I can summarize, we are at the moment finalizing those repayment details, which will be wrapped up in the finalization as to whether it has to be 10 years or can be some period of time shorter than 10 years, and the finalization of the details of the dividend policy. It was on the basis of this information that I was able to indicate we felt the payment terms would be self-financing.

Mr. Smith: On that point, the minister undoubtedly will agree that if it is to be paid for out of profits, as originally indicated, it brings up the problem of dividends flowing to Sun Company for the remaining three quarters of the shares. If it is to be paid for out of other borrowing instead of profits, it increases the deficit. That is a fairly fundamental issue. I trust the minister will agree.

On the matter of the rate of return. I ask the minister to look at the quotations where the Premier says, "We can expect a rate of return of 15 per cent." Then we have the Treasurer saying: "The potential for receiving dividends still exists. The fact they have not been paid in the past does not mean they will not be paid." The Minister of Energy says, "We expect a minimum rate of about 15 per cent." The Treasurer then says: "I do not know where the 15 per cent came from. I saw it in the press."

Will the minister explain to us the reason for the confusion about what rate of return is expected by the province?

Hon. Mr. Welch: In

summary, I can add little to what I have already said. The minimum is expected to be 15 per cent: it is anticipated that it will be higher. Of the two options which the Leader of the Opposition gave at the beginning of his supplementary, it is the first. We are working on the assumption at this stage, on the basis of the figures I have, that it will be paid from the earnings we will receive, as I have already explained.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, the minister will recall that last Tuesday during the debate I suggested that he should separate the matter of the interim supply motion and establish some sort of working committee to take a look at the relevant facts and figures, keeping in mind those that are confidential. Is this government now prepared to meet that request and provide some forum where this matter can be resolved once and for all?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, in fairness to the honourable member who asked that question, I should point out that on the basis of my examination, and certainly following up with those who have been advising us with respect to these transactions, I have been told, and have no reason to disbelieve the information I am getting, that all the information that does not in itself contravene the agreement of confidentiality is public and has been tabled.

It may well be that in interpreting this information or in further understanding exactly what it does include, some vehicle can be found for its

interpretation, or even some questions on information that is public. I am prepared to review that with the honourable member or anyone.

But I do want to get to the bottom line that, according to my information, all the information that is available has been made available or is public, except, of course, that information which at this stage would contravene the undertaking with respect to confidentiality.

Keeping in mind that even our negotiations are still going on; keeping in mind that the government intends to table the final agreement; keeping in mind also that, to be consistent with the reason for our involvement in the first place -- that is, the Canadianization of this company -- there are still other buyers to be obtained; and keeping in mind the information to which the articles of confidentiality apply, that is all the more reason why at this stage we want to respect that undertaking.

Mr. Smith: Given that so few of the honourable members opposite were in on the deal to begin with -- I gather that there was the Premier, Mr. Rowan and a couple of cabinet ministers, maybe three at most -- can the minister possibly explain how there can be such major confusion even among themselves on matters as basic as how they are going to pay for the stuff and what the rate of return is going to be? How can there be that much confusion among the few of them who were in on this deal to begin with?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I suppose I will start by saying that there was no confusion. I point out to the Leader of the Opposition, with one correction on page four, that we are talking of a minimum rate. I have said in answers on several occasions that some of these details are yet to be worked out --

Mr. Smith: How you pay for it and what your rate of return is?

Hon. Mr. Welch: No. I am speaking of the general parameters. We have talked about the maximum period of time during which the repayments would be made. We have talked about taking advantage of borrowing rates that are unique to the province of Ontario. We are talking about working out a dividend policy, which one would understand would have to be worked out. Ultimately these will be encompassed in the formal agreement and all of them will be tabled.

SKILLED WORKER SHORTAGES

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism. We on this side of the House have been questioning for at least five or six years the shortage of skilled manpower, and the minister himself has made a number of speeches about the importance of high technology, skilled manpower and so on, and about his commitment to the high-technology option for Ontario.

After these many years of arguing and discussing in the House, when the government's main policy seems to be to send raiding parties over to England from time to time to try to recruit people to come here and work, can he explain how it is that a report has now come out about an electronics company called Bayly Engineering in Ajax which estimates that it will require 1,000 skilled technologists and engineers by 1986 but it has to go outside Ontario to hire these people because of shortages of skilled workers in Ontario?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, as we have discussed in the assembly before, from time to time the number of skilled workers needed by firms in a particular field is not available. In those circumstances, as I think the honourable member will recall, that is verified with the Department of Employment and Immigration in Ottawa and with the unions involved, if any; it is ascertained rather definitively that nowhere in Canada are those workers available.

In those circumstances I think it is only reasonable for the firms, rather than not to undertake the work, to get the workers from somewhere else. This is what every other industrialized nation in the world does. The normal rule of thumb is that if we have one skilled worker from outside this country, that provides about seven or eight other semi-skilled jobs. On balance, I think it is a reasonable procedure to follow, given the problem of matching skills to demands.

Mr. Smith: Since the minister has clearly misunderstood the import and the intent of the question, perhaps I can ask it somewhat differently.

Does the minister not understand that the concern is not that the company might be hiring people who are available here but that his government, despite its professed support for the high-technology industries in Ontario, has failed over the past five and six years to produce the skilled manpower required by these various industries for Ontario's industrial survival?

How can he explain his inactivity and lack of success over the past five or six years so that we now are at a point where manpower is the most serious problem of high-technology firms? This one company in particular may have to go for hundreds of people, and perhaps even 1,000, outside this country in the next few years.

If he really cares about this industrial strategy, then how does he account for his failure to produce the people needed by these vital industries?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: When we put the level of the problem into perspective, I think it gives a little better view of it. We have a work force in Ontario in excess of four million people. Each year our selective placement services assist in getting about 1,000 people out of four million.

Mr. Smith: You're keeping a straight face; I'll give you credit for that.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Those are the figures; the member can check them anywhere. We have a mismatch of skills in Ontario of about 1,000 people out of four million people in the work force.

Quite seriously, there is no jurisdiction anywhere that can succeed with 100 per cent accuracy in forecasting its mix of job skills to demands. In the high-technology industries particularly it takes about three or four years to train some of these people; so it means one has to forecast with 100 per cent accuracy what the job skill demands are going to be in 1985, to begin to train them today.

If we look at the experience in any other industrialized jurisdiction and consider that we are in a situation where we need to import 1,000 out of four million, we are far outperforming any other jurisdiction in estimating the demand for job skills and matching them over any given time frame.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister if he can explain why he has not done anything to co-ordinate, for example, the new CAD/CAM centre at Durham College and the Durham Organization for Industrial Training, both of which are existing facilities in the Durham region that could provide the kind of skilled tradespeople that the Bayly Engineering project wants and needs.

Has he tried in any way to co-ordinate the placement and use of those existing facilities and training services to fill those jobs? Or is it because his government had nothing at all to do with that Bayly Engineering job site and they are just deciding to let this one fall by the wayside?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the honourable member knows that latter is not true. I could be wrong, but I think we helped Bayly Engineering in some way or other. The facilities in the member's area -- and Durham College in particular, which is headed up by my former director of trade, a very esteemed and reputable gentleman, Mel Garland -- are very capable and skilled in the kinds of problems mentioned. They have, I think he will agree, a pretty good record of co-operation with industry in that area.

If there is any part of the province that particularly has made an effort, a successful effort for the most part, to match skills to the demands of the industries around that area, it is Durham. Indeed, I hold that up as an example to some other parts of the province.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, given that the minister indicates the reason we have to go outside Ontario to find these people is the necessary lead time and given that we know what our needs are right now, why is it that a company like Linear Technology in Burlington has indicated that the very kind of people it already projects it is going to need are not being trained in our colleges and schools right now?

For example, Doug Barber, who is the vice- president of Linear and who teaches at McMaster University, points out that four out of five of the students who are applying for engineering in these very areas cannot get accepted by our colleges and universities.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, with respect, when the honourable member compares the programs jointly instituted by the Ontario Manpower Commission, through my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie), and by my colleague the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson), he will find those spaces are there.

The success of the programs undertaken in the past few years by this government is literally unmatched by any jurisdiction anywhere. If the member wants the facts on that, he should ask my colleagues; they will give him the details -- it may take all the rest of question period for them to give him all the facts and figures on all the programs being mounted by this government.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour, and I hope he has had time to check up about ITT Aimco, since he did not know about it last Thursday.

Is the minister aware that in early July a Mr. Santos reported an unsafe condition in the work place, namely, that the handle of the scrap basket he was forced to empty was broken off and there was a danger of someone being injured?

Is the minister further aware that the supervision did not take any opportunity to have the condition repaired, despite a second employee reporting the same situation, which is clearly a contravention of

section 16(2)(

c) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which states that every precaution reasonable in the circumstances should be taken for the protection of a worker?

Is the minister also aware that Mr. Santos was sent back into the area to work with that type of condition?

What action does the minister intend to take against ITT Aimco to ensure that it follows the provisions of the act?

Mr. Eakins: Tell him at dinner tonight.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Should I have dinner with him? Goodness gracious! Well, I have done it before. It might be fun again to have dinner or perhaps lunch with him.

Mr. Speaker, the honourable member has written to me about this particular company, and I would have hoped the particular health and safety representative would have been in touch with him by now so that he could understand that a meeting already had been arranged between Mr. Falkowski, Mr. Camara, who is the president of Local 7574, Dr. Robinson, who is an assistant deputy minister and the director of the occupational health and safety division, and Cliff Baskin to try to resolve all outstanding issues.

But let us not leave the impression that there has been inactivity with regard to that plant. It is quite interesting to know that since Bill 70 was proclaimed in October 1979, there have been 12 physical inspections of that work place, there have been 39 orders issued and there have been 85 contraventions of the act; all orders have been complied with except three that are still outstanding and that we are following up on.

Let me assure the member in the House that there is no inactivity with regard to evaluating problems within that company. But clearly it needs more than that. The member will know from experiences we have had in other situations that the kind of thing that helps problems in the work place is to get people talking and to try to resolve issues and work them out. That is what we are doing.

Mr. Martel: I am glad to hear the meeting is under way, because these questions have been pursued since early July and it was only after the issue was raised in the Legislature last week that the meeting the minister talks about was established.

Going back to Mr. Santos, however: Is the minister aware that Mr. Santos, having reported the condition and it not having been repaired, sustained an injury and missed four weeks of work, and that when he asked to go to see the plant nurse after injuring himself, the supervision refused to allow him to see the health nurse?

I want to know how many charges have been laid to date against this company to make them comply with the act.

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I do not know the particular case of Mr. Santos, but I do know that issue will be discussed by the parties at the meeting that is to be held a week Wednesday.

Mr. Martel: Is the minister further aware that, with only approximately 400 employees, this plant had 116 compensable accident claims in 1980, resulting in lost time of 1,108 work days? Is the minister telling me the effects of his intervention to date have curtailed the sorts of problems that exist in that plant? I ask for a second time how many charges he has laid against them.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I do not think I can elaborate any more other than to reiterate that there have been orders issued, there have been some contraventions and there have been requirements that they clean up certain problems within the plant.

The member has raised issues, and the local health and safety director of the trade union has raised issues. In the past, we have found the best way to resolve the problems is to meet and talk about them. Heavens, the member and I might even do that for lunch or dinner one day. Perhaps we can resolve these issues that seem to be causing such a wide gap in the House.

Mr. Martel: I hope the minister is inviting me to lunch next week, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear him say that.

Mr. Martel: You did not, but I was hoping.

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION FARES

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

The minister will be aware that the Toronto Transit Commission is considering another fare increase in addition to the ones in 1979 and 1980. Will the minister explain why the provincial transit subsidy formula allows the TTC to collect more than 70 per cent of its costs from fare boxes in comparison with Montreal, where it is only 46 per cent, and Vancouver, a city of comparable size, where it is 39 per cent?

Can the minister indicate what he is prepared to do to ensure that the increase does not occur and to improve services for the residents of Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I will not attempt to explain why the cost-revenue ratio of the Montreal or Vancouver transit systems is somewhat less than that in Metropolitan Toronto. I think it is quite obvious to everyone that Metropolitan Toronto operates one of the finest transit systems in North America, if not in the world. This transit system is very generously supported by this government and continues to expand to serve the needs of the people of Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Martel: The minister totally failed to answer the question, which was whether he was going to intervene in some way to prevent a further increase in costs.

Since he talked about being so generous, may I ask the minister why he is prepared to subsidize GO Transit at a rate of approximately 50 per cent, while he is prepared to subsidize the TTC at a rate of only 15 or 16 per cent from the provincial Treasury?

Hon. Mr. Snow: In his

preamble, the honourable member said he did not know why I was not prepared to control costs. I think that is somewhat beyond my jurisdiction.

As to the subsidy rate this government pays to the TTC, some years ago we established a cost-revenue ratio forecast for the different classifications of transit systems within the province. We subsidize some 63 or 64 transit systems in Ontario, I believe.

I point out that the TTC system in Metropolitan Toronto gets more than 50 per cent of the total transit operating subsidies that are paid by the province. If one takes into consideration all transit subsidies, including capital and operating subsidies, the Toronto Transit Commission receives approximately 61 per cent or 62 per cent of the total subsidy paid by the province. When one also takes into consideration the type of system it has, I think the subsidies are quite fair.

Mr. Smith: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Could the minister explain why he still insists Toronto be subsidized at a percentage below other large cities in Ontario? Would it not be reasonable at least to bring Toronto closer to the level of subsidy received by the other large cities? There are obviously differences for medium- or small-sized cities but compared with the other large cities in Ontario would it not be better to bring Toronto up to the same level paid for cities of a quarter of a million to half a million persons?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the difference in size, our subsidies range from approximately 15 per cent of operating costs for Metropolitan Toronto to a maximum of 25 per cent of operating costs for a municipality of under 100,000 population. There are three categories in between: 22.5 per cent, 20 per cent and 17.5 per cent. I believe those are the figures. I do not have them in front of me but I think my memory serves me right. When that formula was set up, it was based on the operating performance of the transit systems in those categories.

For instance, we established this funding formula about five years ago. Prior to that the government of Ontario was paying 50 per cent of the operating deficit. We have changed that formula to a percentage of total operating costs. The formula set up with Metropolitan Toronto was established at a price that would approximate 50 per cent of the operating subsidy. Actually we have been doing somewhat better than that. I believe the subsidy paid to Metropolitan Toronto in the last complete year -- of course we do not have the complete figures for 1981 -- was more than 50 per cent of the operating loss of the TTC.

We were paying more than we would have been on the old formula of 50 per cent of the deficit.

Ms. Bryden: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Does the minister not consider he has some responsibility to help the TTC maintain the single fare system instead of reverting to the old zone fare system? That would require working people from the suburbs to pay two or even three fares to get to work in the downtown area where they cannot afford to live on account of the housing and interest rate policies of this government.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard of any discussions or proposals from Metropolitan Toronto to change from the single fare system. If the honourable member has information I do not have --

Mr. Laughren: You haven't heard the mayor.

Ms. Bryden: The mayor was on the air this morning.

Mr. McClellan: You are wrong.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It was not Metro itself. It was Art Eggleton.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have not heard any proposal to do that. As a matter of fact, in 1980 I understand the total operating deficit of the TTC was some $61 million, of which the subsidy of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications was $33.1 million and that left a municipal share of $27.9 million.

2:40 p.m.

ABORIGINAL RIGHTS

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. What response is he undertaking to make on behalf of the ministry and the government as a whole to the decision of the Supreme Court of Ontario regarding Indian hunting and fishing rights? The court ruled that Indians in the province, particularly registered band and treaty Indians, are not governed by the hunting and fishing seasons and catch limits that have been established by the government over the years. It said they are free to hunt and fish whenever they like and wherever they like "as long as the wind blows and the grass grows," I believe the treaty phrase is.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, the case the honourable member refers to is the Queen versus Taylor and Williams, a recently-issued decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal. It dealt with

section 88 of the Indian Act and how that dovetailed into the Game and Fish Act and some of the Ontario regulations under the federal acts. The court came to the conclusion that the terms of the treaty, which included the oral terms recorded in the minutes, preserved the historic right of these Indians to hunt and fish on crown lands and the lands conveyed.

They fall under the exception established by the opening words of

section 88 of the Indian Act.

Section 88 says, "... subject to the terms of any treaty." In other words, they interpreted the wording of the treaty in light of other information which was made available at the time the treaty was being negotiated.

We are uncertain as to the legal consequences of that decision. First of all, it did limit the right of Indians to hunt and fish by treaty on crown lands and not on private lands. That is an important distinction to make, particularly in southern Ontario. It just deals with crown lands and leaves unanswered the issue of occupied crown lands either by land-use permits or other allocation systems under Ontario statute.

The second matter that may not have been altered by the decision was the rights. It is possible to argue the right that was preserved was to hunt and fish for purely personal consumption and not a right to hunt and fish with respect to commercial enterprises. Therefore the decision may not alter the position of this government which was previously taken by my predecessor in communication with the various native peoples' organizations and before this Legislature on numerous occasions.

However, our real concern with the decision is that the court lays down some principles of

interpretation that they will apply in future with respect to these issues. I can quote them very briefly.

The first was, "The honour of the Crown is always involved and no appearance of sharp dealing should be sanctioned." Second, "If there is any ambiguity in the words or phrases used, not only should the words be interpreted against the framers or drafters of such treaties but such language should not be interpreted or construed to the prejudice of the Indians if another construction is reasonably possible." The third was: "If there is evidence arising from judicial notice of the facts of history or otherwise, by conduct or otherwise, as to how the parties understood the terms of the treaty, then such understanding and practise is of assistance in giving content to the term or terms, and this evidence extends to how historically the parties acted under the treaty after its execution."

All of that means there will be new principles and new inferences used by the Court of Appeal of Ontario in terms of interpreting the treaty rights. Because we have some difficulty with these interpretive principles, and because we think the rights that were won by this case were already given by policy direction of the former Minister of Natural Resources, the Honourable James Auld, we do not think there is any problem in asking for a further discussion of this matter by the Supreme Court of Canada. Therefore, we recommended to the Attorney General (Mr.

McMurtry) that leave be sought from the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal this decision, based on our concerns with respect to the principles of

interpretation.

I am unaware of any final decision on this matter by the Attorney General of Ontario. However, I want to reiterate that through understandings reached with the native peoples' organizations, they do already have the right to hunt and fish on crown lands. Second, they do have the right to hunt and fish for personal consumption and the context in which these rights are given are matters that have been discussed in numerous meetings with the treaty organizations over the past six months.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: We gather, then, the minister is advising the Attorney General to seek leave to appeal the ruling. Until some action occurs in that connection, has the minister instructed his conservation officers that registered Indians and treaty Indians have the right to hunt and fish without any proscription whatsoever on crown lands in the province?

Hon. Mr. Pope: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not. My

interpretation of the decision on the specifics of this case, setting aside the rules of

interpretation problems, is that with respect to crown lands and personal consumption nothing much may have changed. Again, I admit that this is a speculative

interpretation.

We believe the treaty organizations and the bands and the native people desire to come to some sort of accommodation with the government vis-â-vis their own conservation ethic and some means of administering that ethic in the context of some of our problems for fish stock and wildlife in the province. We think that under the existing arrangements, the existing policies, we can continue to properly administer the rules of the Game and Fish Act for the benefit of all people of Ontario.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary: Would the minister at least agree to have his officials cease and desist in the laying of charges when there are issues in dispute which the native people wish to negotiate with the minister? For example, when they are fishing in the headland waters between the jutting peninsulas up in the northwest?

Hon. Mr. Pope: The short answer to that is no. I will explain why. In May and June this year, at the request of the native peoples' organizations, we agreed we were receptive to entering into a co-management policy system with the native peoples' organizations in this province. We provided some details of what we hoped to have under this co-management policy, including some joint recognition of the native peoples' organizations and the government of the need for some control in terms of hunting and fishing in different parts of the province, depending on particular problems localized in various lakes and also in specific hunting areas.

We also indicated if there was joint recognition of this problem we could arrive at a consensus on some limits. Those agreements could be implemented through band bylaws which we were prepared to recognize -- the same way they have started to do in New Brunswick and the same way they have done with the federal government in the lands under federal jurisdiction.

We indicated we wanted to work with the native peoples' organizations with respect to the policing of that system, using both their people and ours. We offered all of this on the table. The co-management policy system was subsequently rejected because of existing constitutional discussions that were taking place, and we now look --

Mr. Laughren: Nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Pope: It is not nonsense. The member was not present at the meeting, so he --

Hon. Mr. Pope: -- would not know what was discussed.

We are now looking forward to further discussions with the native peoples' organizations to arrive at a co-management system, but we are not going to forsake our responsibility to the native people and to the rest of the people of Ontario to set quotas, to control hunting and to preserve both the fish and wildlife of the province.

HYDRO EXPORTS

Mr. MacDonald: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. It concerns the proposed cable under Lake Erie through which Ontario Hydro would deliver some 1,000 megawatts of power to General Public Utilities, the owner of the disabled Three Mile Island plant. Does Hydro's approval of this under-lake cable mean this government is committed to entering into long-term contracts to sell electricity to the United States?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been before the Hydro board. I understand within a few days they may well be exchanging some letters that will enable them to take a further step with respect to seeking approval of the National Energy Board.

They are acting at the moment under the general government policy of favouring exports but certainly this project has not yet been submitted to my colleagues. Because of the international characteristics of this arrangement it would not be until such time as after the matter has been before the National Energy Board to satisfy that board.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary: My understanding is that this was considered by the Hydro board a month ago and is now before the cabinet. A commitment was given by the Minister of the Environment on April 22, 1980, when the leader of this party (Mr. Cassidy) asked, "Could we have assurance here and now from the Minister of the Environment that the proposals to export electricity from Nanticoke under Lake Erie will be subjected to the full environmental assessment procedures under Ontario's Environmental Assessment Act?" The minister of the day replied, "The answer to the latter part of the question is yes.

It was always the intent of Ontario Hydro, and they understand it. That should be very thoroughly understood."

2:50 p.m.

Is the minister in a position on behalf of the government, or if he wishes to refer it to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton) he may do so, to give us a firm commitment that this project will be subject to environmental assessment in Ontario in accordance with the firm commitment given by the minister a year and a half ago?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, this matter is not before the cabinet at the moment. Perhaps I should correct the honourable member. It is my understanding it was reviewed by the Hydro board at its October meeting and that further steps will indeed be taken to make the formal application. As part of that application there will be a full inquiry by the National Energy Board into environmental and social impacts. There is certainly no question that all those matters will have to be taken into account at that time. Perhaps the honourable member will understand that this matter has not yet been before my colleagues in cabinet.

Mr. Smith: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since the minister is now obviously trying to suggest we can weasel out of the Environmental Assessment Act by pretending that environmental matters will be dealt with sufficiently under the National Energy Board investigations, would he pay attention to the quotation read by the member for York South? In it the former Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) said the answer to the latter part of the question -- "Will the proposal be subject to full environmental assessment procedures in Ontario's Environmental Assessment Act" -- was yes.

The word of the present minister in this House on June 26 of this year was, and I quote: "My position certainly has not changed from that of my predecessor."

Does the Minister of Energy not recognize that the Americans are already accusing us of being insincere on the subject of acid rain? They accuse us of wanting them to shut down their coal-fired generating stations or install scrubbers so we can then enter their market with cheaper electricity. We have been accused of that by Senator Clarence Brown, an Ohio Republican.

How is it going to look in the United States when we try to make an acid rain argument there if we are prepared to use stations without scrubbers to produce coal-fired electricity and then send it into their market, doing exactly what they say we were intending to do? Will we not look awfully hollow criticizing them for generating electricity without scrubbers?

Does the minister not understand the importance of this matter for the acid rain problem generally on this continent? Will he finally make the Environmental Assessment Act something other than the environmental exemptions act?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I feel the Leader of the Opposition has not been very fair in drawing all sorts of conclusions on the basis of my answer to the member for York South. He knows that Ontario Hydro has voluntarily agreed to the reduction of emissions, which carries with it the installation of scrubbers. How did it ever get into this discussion that we are attempting to avoid that matter? I do not know why he would even suggest that.

I have made it quite clear as far as this project is concerned that all the legal requirements would be met. Indeed, that is part of the whole hearing process, to which I have already made reference.

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the Minister of Energy's previous answers to my leader and to the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), I would like to ask him a question about Suncor. Does the minister agree with the Progressive Conservative member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman) on this matter? That member was quoted as saying the following on Suncor: "With an expenditure of that magnitude the Legislature should be involved as much as possible and as soon as possible in determining whether it was a good acquisition for the province and the justification for it."

If the minister does agree with his fellow caucus member would he indicate to the House whether he is now prepared to provide a more extensive compendium of information in an attempt to justify the expenditure of this $650 million?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday evening last we spent a great deal of time during that debate to explain exactly what had been filed, on the implications of that, and what already was part of the public information system. We spent some time going through it because we accept seriously what the requirements of the rules are. We took some pain to explain all that, made that information available, and explained why certain information relative to certain subject matter might not be available at this time because of the confidentiality of the agreement.

If the honourable member has some specific questions on this deal, and he would like detailed information on that which does not place us in the position of violating the agreement, why does he not put them on the order paper?

Mr. Bradley: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The member for Leeds obviously agrees with the opposition rather than the government in this matter. I will quote his statement again: "I think the members on our side of the House and the powers that be are aware there are concerns among the rank and file about this whole transaction." Also in his statement was this: "There is considerable concern. We are in the dark as much as anyone else about what has been happening. We want to know the details and the justification as much as anybody."

In view of the fact the minister and the cabinet have been unable to convince this member, will he indicate what he is prepared to do to bring his fellow caucus members out of the dark on the Suncor deal?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add anything more to the answers I have given on several occasions on the information which is now available.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour pursuant to the question on the Workmen's Compensation Board to which the minister gave an inadequate answer yesterday. The minister now has the responses of the interested people, the workers who will gain or suffer according to the way the new bill will be drafted. Now he knows they are opposed to several major propositions in the white paper, especially the injured workers whose administration comes under the present act.

Does the minister now agree the proposal is unacceptable to the interested people? Does he not think it is time to scrap the proposed legislation attached to the white paper? Does he not think it is time to introduce immediately a bill which responds to the needs and the interests reflected in the submissions of the people affected?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the member for Downsview would not expect me to avoid reviewing the opinions and comments being made by a great number of people. I am sure he is also aware I have indicated to a number of people who have expressed an interest in coming to talk with me and members of my staff about the white paper and the proposals therein that I would be pleased to meet with them in January. By then I expect our review of the comments and documents submitted will be completed.

If he is suggesting I should ignore all that process, should ignore the two years that have gone on with the green paper and the white paper, and simply accept the point of view of one group and proceed, I am sure he is not serious.

There are many who think the proposals are too generous. I do not happen to agree with that. There are legitimate needs out there not being met. I intend to review the briefs being submitted, to meet with people who have interests in particular areas, and will then discuss the matter with my colleagues and my cabinet.

Mr. Di Santo: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I am glad the minister is so confident in the process when the chairman of the board himself said in

summary that we are unable to administer the act because it is anachronistic. The act is overdue. The minister introduced the white paper in June. Why does it take so long only to get the comments and to make a decision?

Last Saturday if one of the minister's representatives had been outside the House he would have known interested people reject outright the proposal that Professor Weiler and the white paper have been putting forward.

3 p.m.

Why does he not listen? It is the injured workers who are affected. Why does he not bring in a general scheme of insurance which would solve all the problems they want solved?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I know it was a long summer and perhaps the member did not bother writing any letters during the summer, but he will recall there was something called a postal strike this summer and there were numerous groups --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: They should not just pooh- pooh; they should listen. If they try it they will like it.

There were numerous people who asked for extensions, some until the end of October. Perhaps the member does not think I should have granted that, that I should have said: "Never mind, we do not want to hear from you. We know what we want to do and what you have to say is irrelevant." I am not prepared to approach it that way. I am prepared to listen to the views of thoughtful people who have comments and views on situations before this House.

Ms. Copps: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: If the minister is convinced this subject is still under discussion and if input is expected and wanted from all sides, why are the employees of the Workmen's Compensation Board sending out letters which assume the proposals are already a fait accompli? Why is the board actually gearing up towards the imposition and introduction of the white paper?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the member should read that whole letter and the documentation which accompanied it. It did not go out to everyone, by the way, it went out to a selected sample. It is a follow-up study --

Mr. McClellan: Who drew up the list?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The member for Bellwoods and I have talked about the need for some sample studies so my friend should not pretend this is some new issue.

If the member for Hamilton Centre reads the letter, it said that if such legislation were to pass we would need to know certain information and, to assist us with that, would they provide us with this information. Nobody is required to do it. It does not alter their status. If the board was to proceed with this legislation, if the government approved it, they are simply trying to gather some idea of what sort of machinery -- administrative apparatus, costs and so forth -- would be involved. Is it wrong to prepare?

CLOSING OF WHITE OAKS VILLAGE

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services about the closing of White Oaks Village, a residential home in my riding for mentally disturbed children in Ontario. The director of White Oaks has told us some boys now living at the facility still will not be able to cope with living in the community when White Oaks is closed.

Given that White Oaks is the only government-operated facility in the region for these children, and given the director also says he does not think there are 15 new places at the Children's Psychiatric Research Institute in London which would be ready in time to take these children, what is the minister going to do with those children who still require a setting like White Oaks provides? Has he checked to see if the privately owned and operated homes in the region have the places, programs and facilities to accept these children?

Hon. Mr. Drea: First, Mr. Speaker, the 15-bed unit at CPRI in London will be ready before the closing of White Oaks. Second, another 13 of the population there are from the Metro region and approximately 15 additional residential beds will be purchased in existing children's mental health centres here. Some will be handled by a satellite of existing children's mental health centres from the Hamilton area.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I suppose the minister realizes a good staff has been put together to deal with these programs. Now they are going to have to go on the run again looking for new jobs. When is he going to provide some stability to the program for these young people in Ontario, instead of continuing closings and movings?

Hon. Mr. Drea: One of the things we are doing in this province is selective deinstitutionalization. They were being sent to White Oaks, which is down in the member's area when they reside in Toronto, when they reside around Hamilton and when they reside in southwestern Ontario.

The member knows full well the reason for the closing of White Oaks Village because he stood there and listened to it a week ago. I am surprised it took him so long to ask a question. It is a very dilapidated centre that has served its usefulness to the province from the time the province first took it over way back after the war. To bring it up to standard would require about $2 million of public funds and, three or four years down the road, there would still be that deinstitutionalized program.

It has been government policy for some time that children, particularly the emotionally disturbed, should be served as close to their own community as is possible, and that is precisely what we are doing.

Before the member gets active and asks another question, the day-care program of the children's mental health operation at White Oaks is going to continue to be in the member's region. We are not taking away the day-care program, which has been very successful in the region of Haldimand-Norfolk.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear that the day-care program will be intact and that the jobs of these people are going to be protected.

Can the minister tell us what he is doing about the fact that there are 2,000 kids on waiting lists for children's mental health centres across the province? All he is doing at the moment is closing one down. He is not creating any new spaces. Can he tell us what he is doing in that area?

Hon. Mr. Drea: If my friend had listened, he would have heard that there are 15 new treatment beds at CPRI, plus the purchase of another 15.

Mr. Cooke: That is not new. It is one for one.

Hon. Mr. Drea: What does the member mean it is not new? Those are brand-new beds to replace White Oaks.

Mr. Smith: To replace White Oaks. They are not additional.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I want to make it very plain that those are not substitution beds; they are new beds.

As to the question of the waiting list of more than 2,000, this question was asked in my estimates.

Mr. Smith: Addition on the one hand, subtraction on the other. The minister is closing one.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I am trying to inform the Leader of the Opposition. I do not want him going outside the door and saying we are taking away 15 of the existing children's mental health beds. I am adding 15 children's mental health beds in Toronto to replace what was there and 15 new beds in CPRI; that was the question the Liberal member wanted an answer to.

Mr. McClellan: You are starting to figure it out, Frank.

Mr. Martel: It is called replacement, Frank.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cooke: What about new beds? Get back to the question.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I say to the member for Windsor-Riverside, he does not give me orders in here. If he wants to ask a question, let him stand up and do it. The member next to him asked the question, and I will answer him.

In terms of the waiting lists, the children's mental health centres of this province are very carefully examining them to see whether there is a total comprehensive list of 2,000 individuals or whether there is some duplication. They are looking into the waiting lists as a priority, and they are going to report back to the minister. We have some plans in the ensuing fiscal year for additions in the children's mental health field.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has the answer to a previously asked question.

RENTAL CONSTRUCTION LOAN PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) asked a question in relation to the number of housing units that have been started under the various programs of our ministry in this community.

First of all, in terms of municipal nonprofit housing, which is basically Cityhome, since January 1, 1981, 346 units have been completed, of which 63 are rent-geared-to-income. Under construction currently are 876 units, of which 219 will be rent-geared-to-income.

Second, the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company currently has under construction 176 units, of which 138 will be rent-geared-to-income.

Third, under the private nonprofit and co-op, since January 1, 1981, 467 units have been completed, of which 120 are rent-geared-to- income. Currently under construction are 1,577 units, of which 500 are rent-geared-to-income.

Under the Ontario rental construction loan program, approved by the Ontario Municipal Board and still active are 2,562 units, of which 511 will be rent-geared-to-income. Of these, 660 units are currently under construction, 132 of which are legally obligated for rent-geared-to-income.

That indicates to us that a total of 4,102 units are under construction, of which 1,172 will be for rent-geared-to-income.

3:10 p.m.

On that same day the honourable member referred to a waiting list of something like 1,365 households from the welfare group at Metro, I think it was. Our details indicate that on September 30 the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company had 2,270 on the seniors' waiting list plus 547 families, which was 2,817.

On October 30, Cityhome, which provides mainly family accommodations, had 3,650. Now, I want to make it very clear that the figure of 3,650 for Cityhome does not differentiate between those who are on the waiting list for rent-geared-to-income units and those who rent from them on a market rent position.

On October 29, the Ontario Housing Corporation had 608 seniors and 4,710 families, for 5,313.

To the best of our knowledge, those are the complete details, except for one that I think the member should keep clearly in mind. Our experience in the Metro area in the last number of years has shown that the turnover rate for rent-geared-to-income units, whether they are directly within our portfolio or beyond it -- that is, in the co-operatives, the nonprofits, public and private, and the private sector, where we have rent supplement units -- is just under 10 per cent every year. So we are speaking of something more than 3,200 units that become newly available to us for applicants on the various waiting lists here in Metro Toronto.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The question I asked the other day concerned the fact that the minister had misled the House, if I might say so, by giving us incorrect figures. I did not use the word "misled," because I wanted to give him a chance to correct them.

He has not said that his figures were wrong. But they are wrong in terms of the Ontario rental loan construction program, and I wish the minister would admit that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a difference of opinion, obviously, and it is not the for the chair to decide.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: My remark was that 929 units have been given approval. I will agree with the member for Scarborough West that some of those have been cancelled; he is absolutely correct. But I was talking about those that have been applied for. I indicated that there were something like 21,000, and he is absolutely right that a number of them in Toronto have already withdrawn, for one reason or another, because of financial problems.

PETITION

HUMANE HUNTING

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition from 300 of my constituents. It is properly addressed to the Lieutenant Governor, and I want to read the petition:

"We are a group of Canadian people who not only oppose the killing of deer on Navy Island but oppose what we feel is a mismanagement of the natural resources department of our government. What we want is: (1) a more humane way in which to resolve the overpopulation of the deer; (2) an assurance that the government will take quicker action in solving and even looking at the problem of our wildlife to prevent another massacre like this one; and (3) an immediate halt to the action they are presently taking on Navy Island to seek out and exhaust all other alternatives before the hunt resumes."

The petition was prepared by Ellen Davyes, and I want the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) to address himself to the petition.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the two members wish to continue their conversation, I ask them to please do so outside the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

INACCURACY IN NEWSPAPER

Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of personal privilege concerning a report that was published in today's Toronto Sun. This report referred to me, first, as a Liberal --

Some hon. members: Shame!

Mr. T. P. Reid: It should have been "dinosaur."

Hon. Miss Stephenson: "Liberal" and "dinosaur" are the same thing.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Scrivener: Second, it contained a reference from Mr. Saldov to the effect that last night a delegation that visited me was shocked because I was not aware that there was a problem with the Ontario Housing Corporation's "empty nest" policy.

I have to say that being described as a Liberal is, by any standard of mine, an affront. Inasmuch as the riding of St. David has been continuously represented by a Conservative member for 26 years, through eight elections, I consider this allegation to be a gross insult.

I comment that although in the last provincial election a Liberal candidate did try very hard to unseat me, and he spent $72,000, nevertheless he was unsuccessful. St. David is most definitely represented by a Conservative member in this Legislature, and I am proud to be its representative. I thank the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Smith) for drawing this to the attention of the House.

I have to say I am shocked that the delegation that visited me last evening could make a statement to the effect that I was unaware of the problems of the empty nesters in my riding. This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. The women in my riding know full well that I am well aware of their problems and of their burdens. They have demonstrated their awareness quite forcibly, and they did so on March 17.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Two days later they made a mistake.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Scrivener: Finally, I was shocked that the delegation that visited me was composed entirely of frank, forthright, intelligent women, but they permitted a man to be their spokesman. The inaccuracies contained in the report in this morning's paper is certain evidence of how badly they were represented. It is my observation that the women who visited me last evening were entirely capable of making their own presentation, and had they done --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the member for St. David has made her point extremely well, and I am sure the press will take note of the correction.

Mrs. Scrivener: The delegation that visited me last evening was grossly misrepresented --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think you have pointed out --

Mr. J. A. Reed: Sit down!

Mr. T. P. Reid: Throw her out!

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think you have drawn to the attention of the House and the press the inaccuracy of the report, and I am sure it will be dealt with.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

THEATRES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Walker moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Bennett, introduction of Bill 165,

an Act to amend the Theatres Act.

Motion agreed to.

VICTORIA UNIVERSITY ACT

Mr. Williams moved, seconded by Mr. Lane, first reading of Bill Pr35,

An Act respecting Victoria University.

Motion agreed to.

3:20 p.m.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding with orders of the day, I wish to advise all honourable members that pursuant to standing order 28, the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) concerning a definite timetable. This matter will be debated at 10:30 p.m. on Thursday, November 12.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Before the orders of the day, I wish to inform the House that, after a meeting of the House leaders, it has been decided that we will call private member's motion 31, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald), as the first order of business on the afternoon of Monday, November 16.

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE PAPER

Mr. Wells: Also before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answer to question 178 standing on the Notice Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TORONTO AREA TRANSIT OPERATING AUTHORITY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved second reading of Bill 2,

An Act to amend the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority Act.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, on October 30, 1980, I introduced Bill 176,

An Act to amend the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority Act, 1974. This bill died on the Order Paper and was reintroduced as Bill 2 on April 23, 1981.

Members will recall that we felt that it was appropriate, six years after the creation of TATOA, to review and modify legislation governing the authority's activities to reflect experience and changing circumstances.

This bill clarifies the division of roles between the ministry and the authority. The period for which the chairman is appointed in future is being changed from five years to three years to reflect general government policy in this regard. This change will not affect the term of the present incumbent in that position.

A provision is being added to the act to place TATOA and the public vehicle operators with which it is involved in the same position as other holders of operating licences under the Public Vehicles Act with respect to the short-term leasing of large motor coaches. The provision in this respect that was added to the Public Vehicles Act last year did not take into account that TATOA receives its authority to operate public vehicles under special legislation rather than through the holding of an operating licence issued under the Public Vehicles Act. This inconsistency with regard to the necessary leasing of buses will be corrected by this amendment.

Experience has shown that it is appropriate for the authority to concentrate on the operational integration of inter-regional and regional transit systems and for the ministry to be responsible for co-ordination services in response to the planning needs of the municipalities. This division of roles will be clarified by the amended terminology.

While it is recognized that TATOA is constituted to pursue and discharge its special mandate, being the provision of inter-regional commuter services within its defined area of jurisdiction, it is also recognized that it is an instrument of government possessing transportation management and operational skills and infrastructure, which at the discretion of government could be used in areas beyond its mandate to attain government objectives. With the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the amendment will permit the resources of TATOA to be used to discharge a specific strategy beyond its mandate.

The TATOA Act is being modified to be consistent with modifications made to the Highway Traffic Act with respect to the liability of owners of motor vehicles for offences. This will facilitate the control of traffic using TATOA property, especially the use of parking lots.

Finally, I intend to move in committee that

section 4 be amended to delete the proposed

section 6(b), which dealt with the GO Transit trademark. Since Bill 2 was introduced, it has come to our attention that the provision was inappropriate in view of the federal government's jurisdiction over trademarks. The lack of a statutory provision will not inhibit TATOA from continuing to use the GO Transit marking, as it has in the past.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, we will be supporting this legislation. I want to make some brief comments, though, on this legislation.

Not long ago, I had the privilege of listening to the chairman of TATOA speak on an open-line show; I believe it was on a Brampton AM station. Having heard the show and listened to the lack of impartiality on the part of that individual, I almost would like to see his term reduced, possibly to about three weeks from now. I found his comments highly political indeed; and for the minister's benefit, I might favour him with the flavour of several comments made by the chairman at that time.

He certainly was highly critical of the federal government. I would think such criticism coming from an individual like himself, although he may sincerely believe it, would not be conducive to developing the kind of working relationship that we would like to have with the federal government to accomplish many goals we wish to attain, the Urban Transportation Development Corporation funding being one, but more specifically the sharing and utilization of our rail routes to expand, in a very meaningful way, TATOA's scope so that other parts of the province might be better served by it.

I do not know why the minister is reducing the term from five years to three years but I do hope, once this legislation is passed, that the minister might have a little chat with this individual and indicate to him that his responsibilities must be somewhat broader and somewhat larger than that of a political spokesman for the ministry. That indeed is the minister's job. I must digress and say that from time to time he does it quite well, but I, for one, was offended that the current chairman of TATOA would be as blatantly political as he was on that open-line show.

On the subject of the authority, I want to quote

section 2(1)(b), because I believe it is quite relevant to the discussion. It says, "to facilitate the operational integration of surface and subsurface inter-regional transit systems, and surface and subsurface regional transit systems, and to operate, within the area of jurisdiction of the authority on routes where the authority operates an inter-regional transit service, transit services within a regional area at the request of and under an agreement with the council of the regional area or the council of an area municipality within the regional area."

It is not as clear as I would like it to be, but my sense of that is that the ministry, through TATOA, has the right and the privilege, if not the obligation, to serve adequately the commuter on an inter-regional and regional basis. From my perspective, in my part of the world, and in the city of Hamilton to be specific, the commuter is poorly served at present.

It is ironic that the minister can open a new service to Milton, provide three trains a day, I believe, for Georgetown, but Canada's fifth largest city is linked with Toronto in one of the most abysmal fashions that one can possibly imagine. It in no way enhances the development opportunities of the city of Hamilton and our region. Quite frankly, I do not think it is in the long-term best interests of this city as it gets more and more congested.

The minister might contemplate for a moment the ramifications of the continued high-interest policy of the Bank of Canada and what that is going to do for hundreds and hundreds of home owners in Mississauga and Toronto as they contemplate renewing their mortgages at rates the minister and I might consider usurious. Possibly the only way they can keep their homes is to move out to the suburbs and the smaller towns that surround Toronto and continue to commute to Toronto where many people find employment.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Nixon: The minister collects the interest, he does not pay it.

Mr. Cunningham: I believe that to be the case. Nevertheless, hundreds of people might find themselves in a position where they could find lower priced housing than what is available in Toronto, in the minister's own constituency, in Burlington and Hamilton. That would be a far more appealing choice for those individuals if they knew the GO service to which I refer was going to be updated and, particularly in Hamilton, was more regular and more inclined to be adequate to their needs.

Frankly I think the present service in Hamilton is awful. I find it preposterous the government would advocate the expenditure of well over $100 million on the Urban Transportation Development Corporation proposal which will go up and down the mountain. It will go, as our mayor said, "from nowhere to nowhere," at a time when they could be putting those resources into more traditional methods of moving people. I do not mean to denigrate the services that exist to Milton or Georgetown. Those too are probably long overdue. But it is a little difficult for us to explain to people in Hamilton that we have service that is equal to that of Milton and less than that of Georgetown.

The service in Burlington is inadequate at the present time. The member for Burlington South, whom I see in his seat today, will probably talk to the minister privately over some Lions Club dinner and favour him with an explanation as to what can be done in that municipality to make that service more relevant. Already the parking lot in the Burlington system is far too small. It might be a good idea for the minister to contact the member for Burlington South so he might serve as an intermediary with his good friend Murray Buzza who has the property next to the GO station to contemplate the expansion of that facility.

Mr. Kerr: We are expanding.

Mr. Cunningham: They are long overdue. There is a "for sale" sign on it right now. Perhaps the member should hustle out this afternoon and put in his option to purchase.

I believe the mandate for this operation should include encouraging, developing and promoting commuter parking facilities. I mean that quite sincerely. I contacted the minister some time ago about a situation in the constituency of Burlington South in an area which I believe would serve my constituents. Specifically, I refer to the south end of Highway 6 where a commuter parking lot might be developed and might even serve as a bus linkup. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) and I could park our cars there and avail ourselves of that facility.

Clearly there are people who are parking in the area I have just described on a regular basis without the benefit of permission from the local owner. That property might well be acquired and developed as a commuter parking facility. The minister needs only to take a look at the experience of the previous GO station in Burlington to see how regularly that area is used for parking purposes.

I do not know what kind of foresight the people of TATOA had when they chose to tear down the kiosks or shelters that existed there. From my point of view it was a tremendous waste of money. I know they are concerned about vandalism but I feel those kiosks should have been left as a place where commuters, albeit not using the GO train or GO bus, might be able to avail themselves of some protection from the elements, especially in the winter.

If the minister and his staff checked they would find on any work day there would be anywhere from 300 to 500 cars, perhaps even the car belonging to the member for Burlington South, in that parking lot. I believe that kind of thing should be encouraged as we contemplate the increase that is going to take place in the price of petroleum, especially as a result of the ad valorem gas tax.

I support the concept of leasing of vehicles. It makes sense to provide the kind of provision in this legislation that will permit the agency, through the government, to avail itself of vehicles when they determine it to be advantageous.

section 4, possibly the members of the assembly and the public should be afforded a better explanation of what is meant by "a specified strategy beyond its mandate." I do not know what "specified strategy beyond its mandate" is contemplated, but if he has some sort of "specified strategy beyond its mandate" right now, he might afford members of the House and the public some knowledge of what is going on there.

I encourage the minister to contemplate through this agency the continued use and development of commuter parking terminals. As I travel in I find the rush hour backup seems to get larger and more horrendous every month. The public would be well served if parking facilities were established in the access areas along the Queen Elizabeth Way and possibly even along Highway 5 in the future.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I will speak briefly in support of the bill. Coming from eastern Ontario, I do not have the privilege of listening to any Brampton radio station. Sometimes I consider that a blessing, not a loss. The next-door neighbour to the minister and I are probably the two greatest users of rail transport in this House since we are well served by intercity federal transport, one of the few remaining Via Rail services in this province which is popular and widely used in eastern Ontario.

Mr. Wildman: No thanks to Pepin.

Mr. Samis: No thanks to Pepin. Basically, we support the provision of reducing the term to three years. This seems to make eminent good sense. The leasing provision seems to me sensible in providing the authority with greater flexibility.

As to the question of integration and coordination, I hope the minister would give the authority full independence to decide on the priorities, along with the Toronto Transit Commission or other transit systems, and not lay an intermediate capacity transit system on it as he is doing with the Lakeshore line. There it seems a carrot is put in front of their faces and noses and when a study is done no options are given. The mandate is, "It is this or nothing and you do not get your bread."

I hope he would allow the local authorities to decide their priorities and the modes of transport they think best suited for their municipalities. I agree with the member for Wentworth North that there is some vagueness in

section 4 about the "specified strategy beyond its mandate." That needs some clarification by the minister. In total, we support the bill and we will support the amendment as well.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, we are supporting this bill but I have one or two questions I would like the minister to clarify, specifically whether the new lakefront intermediate capacity transit system will come under this authority in any way. It appears we are giving the authority the power to facilitate the operational integration of surface and subsurface inter-regional transit systems. I would like to know if the lakefront ICTS would be integrated at some time with the other transit systems under this authority.

If that is so, I would also like to know if this authority has made any studies of the cost of the lakefront system prior to its publication as part of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program. In that pre-election program, the government promised to pay $90 million of the first $100 million of the cost of such a system, but it appears now it did not have a clear idea of what was being proposed or what the $100 million was going to cover. It seemed it was thrown out as another pre-election goody.

The TTC has now come out with an estimate of what it considers a lakefront system would require -- $170 million. I understand there are also discussions to expand the whole lakefront operation to include stops at some of the urban developments being planned for the lakefront, which could add greatly to the costs. The question is, who will pay those costs? Should it be the transit riders, should it be the province, or should it be the people who are building the housing on the lakefront? Basically, it benefits the latter.

3:40 p.m.

These are some of the questions the minister could perhaps discuss under this bill, and give us some answers to, particularly if this intermediate capacity transit system is likely to be within the realm of the jurisdiction of TATOA.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I just want to know whether the minister had given consideration to the installation of the DeGrassi GO train station in the riding of Riverdale.

Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I just have a few remarks. Needless to say I agree with the principle of the bill, particularly in reducing the term that it provides. As far as my area is concerned, we have a problem resulting from a success story. GO Transit has been very successful, probably more so than anticipated. Ridership has gone up in great numbers in the last couple of years, particularly since the service has been improved to the Burlington- Hamilton area and since the availability of double-decker coaches or cars.

The parking lot to which the honourable member referred at the Fairview station needs to be enlarged. In the meantime, I understand from some of my constituents they are getting parking tickets because they are not parking in a designated park or in a lined part of the parking lot.

I am not sure whether those tickets are being issued by the local constabulary or by some agent of GO Transit or TATOA, but in any event, in view of the fact that expansion is now under way and construction crews are on adjoining sites, I would suggest that no users, particularly with the winter months coming on, be ticketed for parking within a reasonable area within the parking lot. I realize they cannot obstruct traffic, particularly traffic that is moving in and out of the lot during the day.

I would suggest the minister possibly speak to those responsible for issuing tickets and tell them not to do so, and I would also suggest that any people who have been issued tickets up to now not be prosecuted.

One of the complaints I have is that commuters living in Burlington and travelling from Toronto to Burlington or to Hamilton in the evening rarely have an opportunity to sit down because of the popularity and the degree of ridership. Whether that means more rolling stock is required or that the trains be a little longer I leave to the experts. I realize there can only be so many cars in one train, particularly in rapid transit of this kind. But my constituents who ride the trains in the evenings, particularly the two trains that go to Burlington and Hamilton, tell me the trains are very full, overloaded, and many people have to stand for the whole trip.

I know TATOA has plans for a new station in Burlington at or near the new Appleby line cloverleaf. I would suggest it proceeds with those plans as the Appleby line cloverleaf is just about finished. I understand the minister will have a ribbon-cutting ceremony sometime before the end of this year. Therefore, I suggest that the plans on the drawing board for the new station be proceeded with this spring, and that will solve the problems I have been referring to as far as Fairview station is concerned.

There is no question this is a success story. I think it is important that people who use GO Transit be proud of it and that we do not do anything to aggravate them because, after all, they do get up early in the morning.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, this is an opportunity I did not realize was here, perhaps because I was sleeping at the switch a little bit, to raise an issue the member for Burlington South has just been speaking about. That is the value of the two GO trains that run direct from Hamilton to Toronto. I think it is 6:40 a.m. and 7:15 a.m., or something like that, when they leave the CN station downtown in Hamilton.

I must confess those are the only trains I use -- when I use them, which is rarely. But they start filling up very quickly. A fair number of people get on in Hamilton, even at that ungodly early hour, and the last couple of times I used them those trains were totally loaded and there was standing room only by the time they got to Oakville.

One of the questions I have been asked about the traffic on the Queen Elizabeth Way and about the rail transportation from Hamilton to Toronto is why we do not have more trains directly from Hamilton station right to Toronto.

I am not sure what would have to be done about another favorite question because, quite frankly, I have not looked into the connections that might be possible in an integrated system. But I am also often asked why we cannot establish some kind of run right from the centre of the city -- the old T, H and B railway centre, I guess -- and make connections from there right to Toronto?

I have not followed this area very closely, I admit, but to judge from the number of people who have raised it with me and from my own perceptions I have a very strong hunch that if we had some way of running directly from downtown Hamilton through to Toronto by rail we might get an awful lot of those cars off the QEW. And I think that would be a blessing, because it is getting to be one heck of a drive to take on a regular basis between Toronto and Hamilton.

I am not sure what can be done in that area, but I really would like the minister to have his people take a serious look -- I suspect they are already doing it -- at whether or not it is possible to establish more direct runs from Hamilton to Toronto and right from downtown as well. I am sure this is the only way to take an awful lot of traffic off that highway. I think it is desperately needed, and it probably would be beneficial to our own sanity as well if we could have better and easier connections from Hamilton to Toronto on the train instead of having to drive.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Thank you. Does any other honourable member wish to participate in this debate? If not, the honourable minister.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thanks to the honourable members for their comments, many of which, I guess, are not really related in any significant way to this bill but which are certainly pertinent to the overall operation of GO Transit. We probably could have discussed those items in estimates; but we have had the discussion now, so maybe that will save some time in estimates.

The member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) and the other members from Burlington South (Mr. Kerr) and Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) referred to the lakeshore line service and the fact that we have only two trains a day on that line. I would very much like to have more and we have studies under way to see what we can do about getting better service to Hamilton.

The old T, H and B station was mentioned. That is another avenue we have been looking at, but we have not come to any conclusion yet. The funny

part is, though, that at the very same time of day when we have those two daily trains leaving Hamilton for Toronto we also have buses leaving Hamilton for Toronto. There are always seats available on the train coming in. I agree it is different going out. It is the same with the member for Burlington South: his people get all the seats in the morning coming in and the Oakville people have to stand. But they all have an equal chance to fight for their seats on the way home.

But there are more people who leave Hamilton by bus every morning at the same times as the trains leave, and for some reason or other many of the riders certainly do prefer the bus. In fact we had complaints from the Milton and Mississauga area when we implemented the train for which they had been waiting for five years. Some people -- not all by any means -- said they would sooner have the bus and they asked us why we did not keep the buses on. Of course, we cannot run two at the same time.

3:50 p.m.

There was discussion about our commuter parking lot. No one has to convince me of the usefulness of the commuter parking lots. Of course it is not something that comes under GO -- it should not come under GO; it is a ministry program. We started it some two or three years ago. We have about 15 or more commuter lots in service at this time, ranging all the way from Port Hope at the east end out to Highway 6 and Highway 401 in the west, and up Highway 400 toward Barrie.

There is one very large one in Burlington and I believe, if I recall correctly, we are planning to build about seven or eight more in our current program. It is an ongoing program each year to add these commuter parking lots. It is a ministry program and has nothing to do with GO.

We will be extending the Burlington parking lot, as was also mentioned by two or three of the members. We do not have to buy more land; we have quite a large

section of additional land which we will be paving and extending next year or later this year. I guess it is under way.

Section 4 is the contract for services provision beyond the mandate. We have nothing particular in mind for this clause but we felt when we were amending the act the mandate for GO Transit is to supply service within a specified area, basically from the Hamilton-Wentworth region to the Durham region. We feel there may be times or special events or special situations where the ministry would want to contract with GO Transit to carry out some kind of a special service beyond those points. The reason for this

section is basically to have the authority there to do that.

In answer to the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden), the Lakeshore intermediate capacity transit system line is not planned to be part of GO Transit. GO has done no studies and does not propose to be involved in any way in providing a transit service within Metropolitan Toronto. GO Transit's mandate is to provide inter-regional transit, not transit within the city.

The member for Burlington South mentioned the Appleby line station. We have bought the land for the Appleby line station. We have not proceeded to develop it because we feel it should be developed at the time we are able to make other arrangements. At present there are further discussions going on with Canadian National to see if we can get a third or fourth train per morning and evening on that line. When we can get more than the two trains per day the Appleby line station will be developed. I think that answers the questions that were brought forward.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved second reading of Bill 53,

An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, Bill 53 is an amendment to the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act. As I pointed out on first reading, the bill is designed to reduce Ontario's dependence on petroleum by encouraging municipalities to use electrically-powered vehicles for public transportation. Under existing legislation the Minister of Transportation and Communications is authorized to subsidize public transportation at the rate of 75 per cent or capital expenditures and 50 per cent for operating costs, regardless of the fuel source.

This amendment will permit the minister to pay a subsidy of 90 per cent of the capital costs of electrically-powered vehicles and associated equipment that will replace diesel buses. No change is proposed in the subsidies for operating costs or for the capital costs not associated with fuel conservation programs.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, our party will be favouring the government with our support on Bill 53. I am delighted to see the government has decided to increase its commitment to the capital cost for electrically-powered vehicles. I say that mindful of the tremendous surplus we have in hydro capacity in Ontario which I think has had a beneficial effect, although I do not for a moment think overcapacity of approximately 42 per cent or 45 per cent was ever planned.

The House might be interested to know the cost of financing that overcapacity on a daily basis is in excess of $3 million. That is to say, more than $3 million per day is spent on interest alone to subsidize the debt of Ontario Hydro. It is quite a remarkable figure, especially when one contemplates that in Ontario, on our own general debts, we allocate a figure of approximately $5 million per day.

This item of legislation is in the public interest in so far as it could stimulate arid encourage other municipalities that are not currently utilizing electrified systems to involve themselves in that. More specifically I think the minister is probably more aware than I of the municipalities that might be contemplating such systems at the present time. Quite clearly, London, Windsor and, more particularly Ottawa, would be in a position to take advantage of the benefits associated with this act.

I understand we have 50 electrified vehicles in Hamilton now. It would be far cheaper for the grateful taxpayers in Hamilton to see approximately one tenth of the commitment that would be allocated to the proposed Urban Transportation Development Corporation rapid transit system allocated to the electrification of Hamilton's bus system. The rapid system could ultimately cost us at least $140 million, depending on what route change Mr. Kirk Foley and his crew are contemplating at present.

It would serve the people far better than the fixed rail capital-intensive program currently being advocated by the government. It would remove Hamilton from the guinea pig position it will no doubt be subjected to. It would be far more reliable and, most important in these days of high costs and supposed restraint on the part of government, would save us an enormous amount of money. To summarize on that issue, one tenth of that amount of money could take a giant step forward in the city of Hamilton.

We wasted money on Toronto's current Canadian light rail vehicle which was designed by our good friends at the Urban Transportation Development Corporation, the cost of which I understand now runs somewhere in the area of $750,000 per vehicle which is absolutely horrendous.

I saw in the newspaper last week they continue to lack a cowcatcher on the front to prevent vehicles or people from being trapped underneath them. Sadly, someone was caught in one of these vehicles. I hope that individual is recovering. Toronto has 150 electrified vehicles right now and I believe should commit itself to more. This legislation will help in that regard.

For the benefit of the minister, I will send this report over to him in the event he has not seen it. As he contemplates the funding of these vehicles, which I think is in the public interest, he should be mindful of the necessity to evaluate from an alternative point of view every major capital transit project Ontario is endeavouring to become involved in.

The report I am going to send over, Mr. Speaker, is dated August 19, 1980. It is a report to the US Congress by the Comptroller General. The headline says, "Better justification needed for automated people-mover demonstration projects." The US Comptroller General has seen fit to analyse and involve himself in a very meaningful way in the evaluation of each and every project contemplated recently in the United States.

4 p.m.

From my point of view it is a severe indictment of pie-in-the-sky rapid transit systems that are by no means practical or cost-efficient. I believe, quite sadly, the Urban Transportation Development Corporation falls into that category. On page three of his report the Comptroller General says: "Provisions have not been made to obtain data on alternatives. As a result those alternatives might not be compared with people-movers. Data could be developed by conducting studies of these alternatives where they are in operation."

I hope the minister might take a look at the balance of this report. I sincerely feel this item of legislation could go down in history as one of the most meaningful developments in public transit in modern times. It could be the incentive to move the province to encourage municipalities to adopt the most practical alternative available for us in the context of moving people efficiently and sensibly in our urban areas -- that is, through electrically powered vehicles in those municipalities.

I hope the minister has a chance to take a look at that proposal, because I believe the staff in the White House have looked at that report that was made available to Congress. On that basis alone a policy was tabled that has curtailed our mutual friend Mr. Foley's travelling schedule, at least in the United States. On the basis of the report as tabled I believe President Reagan has said, "Enough of this pie-in-the-sky nonsense" that people like Foley are scurrying around advocating at great expense.

It is time to re-evaluate every project as it comes before us and to determine whether it is relevant and also, as I mentioned from page three in that report, whether alternatives have been studied.

I believe, in

summary, that electrically-powered vehicles in our major municipalities can be an alternative, can operate at far greater efficiency and far more economically for our commuters and can, in a very meaningful way, reduce the tremendous financial commitment required in the area of transit. Having gone through the minister's estimates on many occasions with him, I know how hard he has to fight in cabinet to get the moneys he wants to put into transit. I believe quite sincerely the minister has some genuine concerns about transit.

But the tragedy of this whole thing is that we cannot continue to afford to waste money on things like the UTDC of our mutual friend Mr. Foley when such efficient and economical means of public transit are so readily available to us, designed and promoted by the private sector. I say as a Liberal I do not think "private sector" are dirty words, but they seem to be in this cabinet at the present time. Maybe the recent purchase of Suncor has shaken even the minister's commitment in that regard. I do not know. He may want to elaborate on that at another time.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the bill. We will support it because we believe the move is in the best interests of the province, the transit systems and the municipalities. The member for Wentworth has referred frequently to UTDC. Toronto has umpteen problems, if I am not mistaken, with the -- in the popular jargon -- "trolley cars" from UTDC. I think there is a cost-over of $3 million to deal with the problem of noise from these machines.

This bill would benefit primarily the cities of Hamilton and Toronto. It is my understanding that none of the other municipalities in the province use electrified vehicles. If it does assist smaller municipalities, whether Windsor, London, Sudbury or Ottawa -- and Ottawa seems to be the most likely candidate to move into this field -- it obviously is very worth while. I think in Europe it is very common now for municipal transit systems to have a mix like this.

In the past, with our surplus of oil, gas and hydroelectricity, we have assumed these things would be infinite; now that we realize the limitations on those resources, especially the oil situation, this kind of move makes obvious good sense.

I notice, just looking at comparable jurisdictions, that in Quebec they have an interesting subsidy system. Their subsidy is 75 per cent for municipalities that purchase buses made in Quebec but only a 25 per cent subsidy is given to municipalities for buses made outside Quebec. I gather we have two major manufacturers of buses in this province. In terms of buses, that is a policy worth considering.

The final point I would make is in terms of the Urban Transportation Development Corporation. I would hope we would give municipalities the freedom to decide what mode of transport they want. If they do not want to buy the glamorous new technology, then we should let them have that freedom to decide if they think electrified buses make more sense in their particular situation. I hope the ministry would not either pressure them or dangle a whole variety of carrots in front of them to prevent them choosing the other option, which may be less glamorous but may be more effective.

I hope we will allow the local authority to make the final decision and give them real freedom without stacking the deck before they make that decision.

With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I will end.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I want to address myself to Bill 2,

An Act to amend the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): I'm sorry, the honourable members are on to Bill 53.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, this bill presumably will encourage municipalities to buy electric vehicles to replace diesel buses or other forms of transportation they are using. I would imagine the minister has in the back of his mind the hope that some of them will buy the products of the Urban Transportation Development Corporation -- the new streetcars which we are seeing in Toronto, running around a considerable number of routes.

However, I am sure the minister is aware that these streetcars have been causing some complaints. They have been found to produce unacceptable noise and vibrations, which are damaging both businesses and residential properties and disturbing the sleep of residents in my riding. I have had a considerable number of complaints about this. I understand it is not confined to my riding but people in other sections of the city are also making complaints of this sort.

If the ministry wants to encourage a switch to electric vehicles by this higher subsidy, and if it wants to sell its new-design streetcar both to other cities in Ontario and throughout North America, it must --

Hon. Mr. Snow: This bill does not apply to the streetcars at all. It is just not applicable at all to the streetcars.

Ms. Bryden: I am sorry. The minister says it does not provide subsidies for buying electric streetcars. I must have misread it, but I will raise this with the minister on another occasion because I think the UTDC should make good on those Toronto streetcars that are causing these troubles, if it does intend to try to sell them throughout North America.

The Acting Speaker: On a point of order, the honourable member for Wentworth North.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take issue with the minister on his --

The Acting Speaker: Point of order.

Mr. Cunningham: I am expressing it, sir. I do not wish to take issue with the minister with regard to his position on the position taken by my friend the member for Beaches-Woodbine, but I believe the act does refer to the capital costs relating to electrically-powered vehicles. If those vehicles are not powered electrically, I do not know how they are moving, and I really do not feel her comments are at variance with the spirit of the bill.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I did not get on during discussion of Bill 2, but I do want to make a few remarks on Bill 53,

An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act.

I do support the minister's goal in trying to have electrification of transportation systems within municipalities, and perhaps in urban municipalities and regions. I think it is a step in the right direction. I hope by the time the municipalities get into this area, we will have a sufficient supply of electricity. We may be running short if we are going to be exporting all of it to the United States. I think the minister should consider that.

4:10 p.m.

The area I am concerned about -- and I think I brought it to the minister's attention on a number of occasions -- is the study I suggested should be done in the Niagara region. At one time we used to have an electric railroad system there from Port Colborne to Port Dalhousie. It used to cover Welland, Thorold, St. Catharines and Port Dalhousie. It provided exceptionally good service 25 years ago. For some unknown reason we seemed to have a sufficient supply of energy. It appears at that time they said there was no need to continue such a service.

I suppose one could consider the electric streetcar as some form of vehicle. If I am not mistaken, the first railroad vehicle that operated in the Niagara Peninsula from Niagara Falls to Chippawa was a horse-drawn railroad. That goes back a few years. They were considered a vehicle at that time, from the horse-and-buggy days to this type of vehicle.

I suggest to the minister that if he really wants to go overboard providing intermunicipal services, the Niagara region would be a good place to start on electrification of railroads or even the vehicle system for that area. It is time the ministry showed some initiative in that area to bring about a study there. There are a number of abandoned railroad lines, from Fort Erie to Port Colborne and from Welland to St. Catharines, that could be made use of without any expenditure on the part of the provincial government or the ministry.

These railroad lines are in good shape, and instead of lying dormant they should be used. That may even be an area where the minister could start and provide service from Port Colborne to Dunnville and Nanticoke. There might be some further development of people-moving in that area if we had some intercity movement of vehicles, whether it is by electric vehicles or by buses. I suggest there is a need in the Niagara Peninsula. I would even go so far as to say that when one talks about the GO system, it should be extended to the Niagara region to include good communication from one community to another.

I think the minister is aware of what happened a couple of years ago when Greyhound Bus Lines wanted to take over the run from Buffalo to Niagara Falls, St. Catharines and Toronto. There was a reversal by the ministry through the Ontario Highway Transport Board when it suggested Gray Coach Lines should have the right of way to handle the service in this area. In that report it also suggested that bus service should be improved between communities in the Niagara region and Toronto. A number of people living in the Niagara region work in Toronto. I think the ministry will have to find suitable ways and means to move people that way, particularly in the Niagara Peninsula.

I support the bill. I would like to see the minister initiate a study on public transportation within the region. That is one area where the region has failed. We are building a superhighway down there, Highway 406, and I wonder if it is worth the money that is being spent.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Oh, is the member against it?

Mr. Haggerty: I have always been against it and the minister knows that. I expressed that right in his office. There are other ways of moving people within the region. One is by electrification of the existing railroad lines. The other is by intercity buses.

The key point for getting out of the peninsula is St. Catharines. Gray Coach has a good service in that area and so does the Canadian National Railway, or Via Rail. They pick up people in St. Catharines and bring them into Toronto. The problem is getting from the south end of the peninsula to the north end so that they can get on a GO train to get into Toronto; and they need not just one or two runs a day, but perhaps a run every two hours. It is a good point. The minister just threw this to me, and I thought I would throw it back to him, hoping he would catch it. I caught his comment --

Mr. Nixon: Will you two guys quit playing ball.

Mr. Haggerty: Well, let's hope I am one of the Dodger fans then, and I will come out on top.

I suggest to the minister there is a need for a study as it relates to transportation, whether it is electrification of the railroads or the bus services. In a few years we are not going to see many cars making use of Highway 406; people looking for fast ways to move will go by railway and by bus.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in Bill 53 -- although it is the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Amendment Act -- that would allow for the expenditure of funds on air-cushion or all-terrain vehicles powered by gasification of peat in the far north, so anything I might say on this bill would be out of order.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the member for Lake Nipigon for his contribution to the gasification-of-peat vehicle study, which I am sure we will have to start into very soon.

This bill is to implement announced government policy by providing for a special subsidy for municipal transit systems where diesel buses are being replaced by electric trolley coaches. In theory, the bill could provide for a higher subsidy on streetcars than the normal 75 per cent subsidy. That is not part of the announced government policy, which was that the subsidy was for vehicles that would replace diesel buses. In other words, it is for the TTC trolley bus arrangement we see here on Bay Street, and there are some in the city of Hamilton.

We feel there are perhaps half a dozen communities, such as Windsor, London, Ottawa and perhaps Kitchener, where there is a potential on the high density routes for electrification. This would allow us to pay the 90 per cent subsidy rather than 75 per cent for the capital costs involved in that type of installation. It is part of a move to reduce dependence on oil and use electricity, the cleaner fuel, that we have within the province.

The member for Cornwall discussed the policy of Quebec and the policy of split subsidies, depending on where the vehicles were manufactured. We do not agree with that policy. Unfortunately, a number of the buses bought by the province are not manufactured in Ontario. They are made in either Winnipeg or Quebec, although the new articulated bus being developed by General Motors will be manufactured in London, and the Orion bus is being manufactured in Mississauga. Those two buses will be manufactured in the province.

The purchase of the vehicles by a municipal transit system, whether they come from Manitoba or Quebec, and the choice of make of vehicle, are decisions of the local transit authority. I prefer them to stay that way.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

MOTORIZED SNOW VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved second reading of Bill 55,

An Act to amend the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act.

4:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, on May 7, I moved first reading of Bill 55,

An Act to amend the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act.

It will add a

section to require all snowmobile operators to stop when approaching and overtaking a school bus which is stopped and whose red signal lights are flashing. This is similar to the requirements applicable to drivers of other motor vehicles with respect to school buses, as set out in the Highway Traffic Act.

In addition, a

section is being added to the act to require snowmobile drivers to stop when approached by a motorized snow vehicle with flashing red lights operated by a police or conservation officer.

The bill also sets a new and more realistic limit for snowmobiles involved in reporting property damage accidents. Under existing legislation, a snowmobile operator is required to report a collision if more than $100 worth of damage occurs in the accident. This will be raised to $400. I might say that is the same as for other vehicles under the act.

Finally, the bill contains two amendments designed to bring the snowmobile legislation in line with the new Occupiers' Liability Act and the Trespass to Property Act passed in the House last year.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party will be supporting Bill 55. We are pleased to see the realities of the operation of these vehicles are being brought up to a standard that would be in the public interest, in requiring the vehicles are operated in a safer manner. I refer specifically to

section 2, which would require the operator of such a vehicle to stop for school buses. In our view, that makes eminent good sense.

I am not aware whether we have had any tragedies in the past because of a lack of this provision. I certainly hope not. I hope once this legislation receives royal assent and is passed into law, some effort will be made to communicate with the operators of these vehicles in some modest and general way -- possibly through a government advertising program, although I hesitate to encourage the minister -- to advise the operators of these vehicles what the requirements are under the law.

I am not entirely certain it is in the public interest to increase that reporting limit to $400, as advocated under

section 3. Possibly $200 might be a more appropriate level, although I do realize that even a minor collision with such a vehicle could cause damage in the area of $200. It may be in the public interest to have these people report such damage, especially where they might be in a collision with a member of the public or an item of private property. Often that is the case.

Section 4 disturbs me in some regard, as I am mindful of the experience we have had, not only in Metropolitan Toronto but throughout Ontario on the issue of senseless police chases. Certainly, no one in this party would be inclined, as the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) once said, to tie the hands of the law enforcement officers behind their backs in endeavouring to apprehend people who are perceived to be committing an offence. At the same time, we are mindful of the experience that has taken place on our highways, the carnage and the tragedy that have been attendant to some of these senseless chases which, in my view, are in no way in the public interest.

I do not know to what extent these privileges or exemptions from the speed limits for conservation officers and police officers are widely needed. Maybe on a private occasion or some other occasion the minister might indicate to us why he seeks this power through

section 4. I hope, if this

section is carried and the legislation is carried, the experience we have seen on our highways will not be repeated in some way through the operation of these particular vehicles.

Naturally,

section 5 requires support where it would require the operators of these vehicles to respect the red light provision.

Section 6 is something that might be the subject of a clarification or information program to the public. That is the

section pertaining to the occupier's duty of care. If I could digress on that for a moment, speaking to the principle of

section 6, the law has been changed and I think does provide some difficulty for the operators of these vehicles on private property. The distinction is the legal distinction that exists between an invitee and a licensee.

As you might be aware, Mr. Speaker, being a solicitor, this has been the subject of several lengthy court battles. One of these is currently before the Ontario Court of Appeal, and I will therefore not get into the minutiae of that particular case at this moment. But the long and short of it is that operators of these vehicles occasionally find themselves in great danger as a result of the carelessness of the owner, even when that individual is an invitee or a licensee on that property. I want to distinguish that instance from an individual who might be trespassing without the permission of the owner.

Such a casual approach, I suppose, is common to the operation of these vehicles, and I think it is an area of difficulty that every caucus probably went over as we discussed the details of the Petty Trespass Act. Clearly, some operators choose not to ask the permission of the owner to utilize his lands, either with snowmobiles or on foot. There still is an obligation for the owner, I believe, if indeed it is not trespass, to see that his land is safe for the operation of such a vehicle.

One such tragedy occurred not long ago in which an individual was, I think, an invitee on the land of his brother. They were out in the bush behind this fellow's farm. Unfortunately, the second vehicle collided with a barbed-wire fence. Naturally, one can anticipate the ramifications of that for the operator of the vehicle. He was severely injured and could have been decapitated.

Every year we read in the newspapers of the tragedies that occur through improper use of these vehicles. I think a small communication program for the operators of snowmobiles, whether through the press or through a pamphlet developed by the ministry, might possibly be carried out.

The ministry may already have one -- I do not know, because I do not use a snowmobile -- but I think it might be in the public interest to have such a communication program to advise the owners and operators of snowmobiles of their responsibilities under the law and under the revisions being made to this legislation, and to alert them to some of the pitfalls and dangers that exist for an operator, especially on private property.

I yield to the critic from the NDP.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I want to say very briefly that we will support this bill. I think the various provisions make eminent good sense. The stopping provision, I think, is something the public will appreciate. As to the reporting of vehicle accidents, I think we on this side can live with the figure of $400 quite easily, though I have some minor reservations.

Naturally, with all the attention that is being given to the whole question of police chases these days, we hope the police will use this new and added power very responsibly. But I presume that the frequency of this type of chase is rather rare, compared to the chases in Metropolitan Toronto and some other cities