MOTORIZED SNOW VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. Snow moved second reading of Bill 84, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.
Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, this bill paves the way for the vehicle registration system which will come into effect on December 1. We are changing from the plate-to-vehicle approach to plate-to-owner. Thus, when a vehicle is sold, the vendor will keep his or her permit and number plate and use them on his or her replacement vehicle. The plates will primarily identify the owner rather than the vehicle although the latter connection will by no means disappear.
Plate-to-owner is the most common system in North America and has a number of advantages. It should eliminate the very difficult situation which arises when a person sells a vehicle and trusts the purchaser to register the change in ownership.
Mr. Stokes: You mean we are not leading the world in this?
Hon. Mr. Snow: Just half the world, Jack.
Today, if the buyer fails to do so, the vendor can be faced with all kinds of problems, particularly parking tickets related to vehicles which he no longer owns.
Related to this change in approach will be the conversion to a staggered renewal system which will spread renewals over the year by the use of the owner's birth date. Vehicle permits validated between December and February next will be for varying periods depending on the owner's month of birth. Thereafter, future renewals will not all come at once.
This change will be accomplished through the regulations. A feature of the better identification of the owner which will be made possible by the new system will be the ability of municipalities to collect parking fines. Where fines are in default the courts will have the power to order that an individual's permit and plates not be revalidated until they have been paid.
Mr. Speaker, that, briefly, is the content and purpose of Bill 84.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on the face of it I think the proposals put forward by the minister have a good deal of merit. We certainly intend to support them. However, I have about five hours' worth of material prepared about the utilization of the highways and the traffic act that controls them, and in launching into that I just want to say to the minister that if this program is as successful as the program for renewing individual driver's licences on a three-year basis on the driver's birthday, then probably this bill has a good deal to commend it indeed.
As a person who occasionally gets a traffic violation ticket myself, although members will be glad to know that my points are practically down to zero and my aim is to get them there, I can understand that many municipalities have a good deal of difficulty in collecting the revenue they would expect from parking fines and things like that. From time to time we read articles in the metropolitan press about people who simply ignore them, carry sheafs of them around or throw them all out and simply scoff at the law. Frankly, I am always somewhat offended at that, and when I am the recipient of any of those little missives, it is very seldom that there is anything unfair on the part of the issuer.
The idea of actually having a plate that is the property of the individual rather than of the car is an interesting one. I understand this has been done in the United Kingdom for many years and that some interesting and attractive plates are sold over there at very high prices because some of the very early plates, issued back in the 1920s and 1930s, seem to have certain attractive features to them.
Over here, where the ministers drive around in cars which have special licence plates on them, I suppose those plates will be registered in the name of the province of Ontario and will not travel with the ministers when they go to their proper reward on the liquor board or the Ontario Racing Commission or wherever it is we decide to place them when the time comes.
So I am quite enthusiastic in my support for the bill, and I have really forgotten the other four hours and 59 minutes of my speech.
Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, not having as many demerit points as my colleague the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, I am always pleased to follow him in a transportation debate. It almost seems to have been a habit in this place during the last few bills.
We will support this bill for a variety of reasons. First of all, it makes sense for the drivers of Ontario. Anything that reduces the mess, the lineups and the confusion that arise in February every year would be welcome. The municipalities will obviously welcome it; the provincial ministry does, so we will support it.
I have just one or two concerns I would like to raise briefly. I will follow the example of brevity set by my colleague, unlike our colleague the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid), who is not interested in brevity.
There is one consequence of the passage of this bill that bothers me a bit, and that is the idea that everybody in Ontario will be paying a uniform fee as a result of this bill. For example, somebody who drives an eight-cylinder model of more than 6.5 litres will see his fees reduced from $80 to $48, and somebody driving a regular eight-cylinder model will have them reduced from $60 to $48. This will benefit the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), of course. The unfortunate consequence of this is that someone who is driving a four-cylinder will see his cost go up from $32 to $48.
This is the government that used to preach to us about the values of conservation. They wanted us to use less energy in the province; they wanted us to resort to smaller cars; they kept talking about depleting resources. Yet a consequence of this bill is that we are rewarding the people who buy the gas guzzlers -- the most inefficient, the largest, most powerful cars on the road -- and we are penalizing the people who are buying the smaller, more economical four-cylinder cars that this government has been telling us we should be driving.
This is the government that tells us to "Preserve it, conserve it," yet with this bill we are rewarding the guzzlers and penalizing the real conservers. As a result of a bill such as this, I wonder if the public is not a little jaded in its attitude towards the government when it talks about conservation.
8:10 p.m.
I want to quote a letter that was sent to the member for Peterborough (Mr. Turner), and circulated to the opposition critics, from a Mrs. Shirley Littlefair, which I thought was kind of interesting.
It says, "Dear John" -- obviously, she is very familiar with the member for Peterborough.
"In Saturday's Toronto Star I read a news item headed, 'Gas Guzzlers May Get Break Under New Licence Plan.' The body of the item says that: 'The Ministry of Transportation is considering charging a uniform $48 for all cars regardless of engine size. Transportation Minister Snow says that he feels this is not unfair because, "With the fuel tax system, the person with the gas guzzler certainly pays the penalty at the gas pump.'"
"That is ridiculous. The owner of the gas guzzler is paying taxes on gas purchased just as a tax on any other purchase. The licence fee has no relation to gas purchases.
"For the past several years, citizens were urged to buy fuel-efficient cars in advertisements paid for with government money and brochures also paid for with tax money. Even spokesmen for the Big Three feel that lowering the licence fee on big cars is unlikely to reverse the trend to purchasing smaller cars, because people purchase smaller cars because they are fuel efficient. Thus the increase is unlikely to assist the manufacturers who are still in the big car business. There are far more purchasers of small and medium cars than large luxury cars.
"This step, if taken, will certainly enrage the many low and medium-income voters who own smaller cars who would then have to pay greatly increased licence fees. If a person can afford to buy an eight-cylinder car with an engine over 6.5 litres, he or she can well afford the licence fee they are currently paying and need no subsidization at the cost of lower-income people.
"Please use your influence to bring these feelings to the attention of the minister concerned."
I think that summarizes rather well the basic feeling of people who do not buy the big cars, that somehow they are being penalized or, as a result of this bill, are subsidizing the big gas guzzlers.
I want to make a second point on this bill. It seems to me that back in 1977 when we had an election campaign, the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier), the present Minister of Northern Affairs, made a big whoop-de-do politically about the fact that in northern Ontario they would reduce the fees to $10. This was a great selling point across northern Ontario: "We care for the motorists of the north. We are not going to make you pay the same rates as those nasty southerners, so it is $10 for everybody."
The member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) remembers that well in the election campaign. I am sure my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) remembers it rather well.
Yet once again, this government fails to "keep the promise." As a result of this bill, the people in the north will be paying more than double what they are currently paying for their licence fees.
The former ratio was five to one. If one took the three categories in southern Ontario and averaged them out, the ratio was five to one. As a result of this bill, that ratio is reduced to two to one. Obviously, motorists around the province are getting shafted, but particularly those in the north, as I am sure my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon can outline. This is another example in a long list of forms of discrimination and shortcomings that the people of the north have had to deal with.
The third and final point I would like to raise is that I hope the minister could clarify exactly how it is intended to implement the validation process whereby this bill will give the power to refuse validation of a permit, which we would support; whether that would be an absolute refusal on the basis of a failure to pay one particular fine, or whether there will be some leeway given. I would appreciate some clarification as to exactly where and how they intend to draw the line.
In summary, we support the bill. We think it is overdue and it will have our full support.
Mr. Stokes: At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the minister that we will support the principle of this bill --
Mr. Rotenberg: But.
Mr. Stokes: -- but the thing that troubles -- for a fellow who, the last time he had anything to say in this House, got himself into a mess of trouble --
Mr. Rotenberg: Not me.
Mr. Stokes: -- and for somebody who is a former deputy chairman of the committee of the whole House, he would do well to remain silent.
Mr. Samis: Especially on Monday night.
Mr. Stokes: At the outset I will say that we will support the principle of this bill but --
Hon. Mr. Snow: What has that got to do with the principle of the bill?
Mr. Stokes: Talking about principles, Mr. Speaker, the minister knows, as I know and all of the 750.000 people in Ontario living north of the French River know, that he is using this bill as a device to even the score between the disenchanted eight million people living south of the French River and the 750,000 people living north of the French River.
I appreciate that the minister could change the registration fees without any reference to this august assembly. He could simply have done it by regulation. In his opening comments, in justifying the introduction of this bill, he mentions the registration.
I have no particular grievance with this particular minister because I happen to think that he is, without a doubt, the most effective and efficient minister of all the 26 ministers over there. Most of the things I bring to his attention he takes seriously. I do not win them all but he reacts in a way that is practical and one that satisfies in large measure. The few exceptions are Highways 527 and 584 and he knows them as well as I do.
The point that I want to make in speaking to this particular bill is this: As my colleague the member for Cornwall mentioned, this ministry and this government decided to change the registration fee to the advantage of residents of northern Ontario because the roads up there are not, generally, of as high quality as the Queen Elizabeth Way, Highway 400 or Highway 401. Nor do we expect them to be; we do not have the same volume of traffic on most northern roads.
Mr. Nixon: There are quite a few roads in the London area that are not up to that stage.
Mr. Stokes: I do not know what things are like in Delhi, Paris or St. George in the riding of the member who interjected. I will allow him to speak for those roads and I will speak for those north of the French River.
We do not expect them to be of as high a quality. But as a result of the high cost of travel in northern Ontario, the distance, and the more numerous road hazards that we are exposed to in the more severe climate in northern Ontario, this government in its wisdom decided that there should be a uniform $10 registration fee for privately owned vehicles utilized on roads north of the French River.
That had some merit, and before the first Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries crisis in 1973 and 1974 it sounded like a reasonable approach, a kind of compromise. I am reluctant to say it was a sop that was thrown at members of northern Ontario because to a person it was appreciated. Now, for some unexplained reason, the minister and his cabinet colleagues have decided to increase the registration fee from $10 to $24, which is pretty close to a 150 per cent increase.
8:20 p.m.
When the $10 registration fee for vehicles operating north of the French River was granted, it was said to be because we had to devise some way of equalizing the cost of motor vehicle fuel in northern Ontario with that in southern Ontario. At that time, before the feds got hold of it, we were dealing with measurements in imperial quantities. Now, for some strange reason, we have the metric system.
What was the situation when the $10 registration fee north of the French River was started? I am sure the minister will remember that the disparity in the cost of gasoline between southern Ontario generally and northern Ontario generally, was between 12 cents and 15 cents per imperial gallon.
This minister, his predecessor and his colleagues, the former member for Cochrane North and the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier), said, "We must find a way of levelling things out." So he devised a way of doing it by instituting the $10 registration fee. We all applauded him for that. We said, "At long last, the people in southern Ontario are coming to realize that there are these disparities between north and south in the cost of operating a motor vehicle." We applauded the minister for that. But what has happened?
With the first OPEC crisis in 1973-74, the cost of a barrel of raw crude went from about $2 a barrel almost immediately to $13 a barrel, and members know what it is now. It ranges anywhere from $29 a barrel to $40 a barrel depending on where one buys it, whether from the OPEC countries, Venezuela, Libya or wherever.
I am sure when the minister flies up north he does not need to stop at a gas pump. He phones ahead and has somebody fill up the government plane or, in many instances, his own private plane with Avgas. He really does not know. But I want to report to the Minister of Transportation and Communications that we were complaining six, seven and eight years ago about the difference in the cost of gasoline between southern Ontario and northern Ontario, a difference of between 12 cents and 15 cents for an imperial gallon, depending on what the service station operator chose to ask for his product.
Now, in metric terms: Last week I had occasion to go out to Scarborough, and needed gas. It was not a self-serve outlet I used but one where, when one pulls up to the gas pump, somebody comes out to fill the tank. He wanted 39.6 cents per litre for regular number two gasoline. If I go to Thunder Bay, where I leave my car before flying down here, I can drive up to a self-serve where I pay 41.2 cents per litre. Members can understand that it costs to transport gasoline the approximately 900 miles between Toronto and Thunder Bay. But the difference between Scarborough and Thunder Bay is 39.6 cents per litre compared to 41.2 cents per litre.
What happens the minute you leave Thunder Bay? I jump in my car and drive 132 miles east to my home town of Schreiber. In Schreiber I pay 48.2 cents per litre. That would not sound too bad if we were talking about imperial gallons, but there are 4.4 litres in every imperial gallon. When the government was playing around with the registration and decided that it should be reduced to $10 for an ordinary vehicle in northern Ontario, the difference in cost per imperial gallon was between 12 cents and 15 cents.
What is it now? It is the difference between 39.6 cents in Scarborough and 48.2 cents in Schreiber, times 4.4 litres. One does not have to be a mathematician to calculate that.
I have a little calculator that beeps on the hour. I can figure out the discrepancy between the cost of gasoline in Scarborough, the city of Thunder Bay, Schreiber, Marathon, Manitouwadge or Pickle Lake for the minister. It is no longer a differential of 12 cents to 15 cents between southern Ontario, generally speaking, and northern Ontario. It is much closer to 45 cents a gallon.
The minister comes from Oakville or nearby. I have had the pleasure of his hospitality on that rambling place right next to the golf course out there. I do not deny him that; I would love to have that kind of lifestyle myself. But if he had to drive the 250 miles from Manitouwadge to Thunder Bay for a medical appointment or, conversely, if he wanted to go east and drive another 250 miles from Manitouwadge to Sault Ste. Marie I wonder if he would do something to even out the discrepancy.
If he happened to live in Pickle Lake and he had a toothache, he would drive 192 miles down Highway 599, then turn east and go 157 miles from Ignace to the city of Thunder Bay where he might get a dentist to look after his toothache.
The minister knows the mileages I am talking about. If he ever was sincere and he wanted to do something to even out the discrepancy in something as essential and as basic as the cost of motor fuel oil, he should have maintained the registration fee. I am not saying he should have left it where it was but he should have maintained that differential. He did not do that.
I do not have to go into the criticism as to why he did not do that; my friend from Cornwall has already done that. But when the government has the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane), the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon), the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) and the member for Kenora, I am wondering what happens in caucus. What happens around the cabinet table whenever the minister brings in a bill like this and has the ministers review the result of legislation such as this for residents of northern Ontario? I wonder just what the thought processes were in bringing in this change in the registration fee.
8:30 p.m.
I am surprised you have allowed me to go on so long, Mr. Speaker, because it is really not even mentioned in this bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): I thought you would tie it in beautifully.
Mr. Stokes: Yes. The registration is mentioned, but the actual amounts are not; that is done by regulation. They could have done that without even bringing in this bill at all, but the fact that he mentions it in his opening remarks is sufficient justification, for me at least, to make the comments I have made.
For a minister such as the Minister of Transportation and Communications, who is so sensitive to the needs of people in northern Ontario for a good transportation network, who is so sensitive to the fact that we have asked him, whenever he embarks on a road upgrading or a road improvement program, not to allocate sufficient funds to build a four-lane highway, as the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk mentioned earlier -- some of my constituents are asking for it; I happen to think it is unrealistic, given these times of restraint, constraint, austerity, whatever you want to call it -- but to pave the shoulders on all those areas where they are expecting improvement --
The Acting Speaker: I trust you will tie this in to Bill 84.
Mr. Stokes: Yes, I intend to get back to that. I did not think you were listening.
Because the minister is so sensitive to those kinds of things, I am wondering what the thinking processes were, what gave him the idea that he was maintaining the status quo when he allowed the registration fee for vehicles operating north of the French River on roads in northern Ontario to jump almost, let us say, 140 per cent.
I think it is a betrayal of the action he took when he sought to correct the imbalances between southern and northern Ontario. He has abandoned them completely now. I would not be so uncharitable as to suggest that it was done a year after an election and perhaps he could correct it a year before another election. I would not suggest that for a minute. But I would like to know, my constituents would like to know and the 750,000 people living north of the French River want to know why he changed his mind.
Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a little bit of issue with the previous speaker. I trust it will not surprise the previous speaker at all, in view of his laudatory comments to the Minister of Transportation and Communications.
I know the present minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the highest proportion of highway funds ever spent in northern Ontario was when the Minister of Transportation and Communications was a northerner, the late John Rhodes, and I believe that for northern members he was a breath of fresh air in that ministry. The present minister has a different view towards roads in northern Ontario.
I can recall asking and complaining over the years about a highway that runs between Sudbury and Timmins, Highway 144. I complained for years that it was two feet narrower than all other standard highways in the province and that it should be made two feet wider. I was pleading with the minister in this chamber one day, and I ended with a rhetorical flourish saying, "Mr. Minister, will you add two feet to that road? and the minister stood up and said, "Width or length?" From that point on I figured there was no hope for the present Minister of Transportation and Communications.
What I found interesting was, when I looked at the principle of the bill and some of the points raised in the explanatory notes, I could not help but tie in each of those explanatory notes with the things that were being done as side issues with the explanatory notes.
For example, I looked at the explanatory note that says: "Permits, except for trailers, will continue to require periodic validation." I said to myself, "What does that have to do with increasing the rates for plates in northern Ontario?" I could not come to any conclusion. I do not know how the minister did that.
I look at my seating plan and I see we have the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves), the member for Sudbury, the member for Nipissing, the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Ramsay), the member for Kenora, the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy), the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), the member for Cochrane North, the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot), all of them government members who told their constituents, "You elect a government member to get things for this riding because you need a member on the government side."
Guess what? Those ridings elected government members and look what they are getting and look where they are getting it. Let us take a look at that.
Mr. Gordon: Lots.
Mr. Laughren: The member for Sudbury said, "Lots." When the people in Sudbury look at what they have received since that member was elected, they are having second thoughts.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Can we get back to Bill 84, please?
Mr. Stokes: The minister started it.
Mr. Laughren: I am only commenting on the minister's opening remarks. These members promise one thing when they are running for election for the government and as soon as they get elected, they hear whispers in their caucus, "You had better shut up and stop talking about northern issues or you will never get in the cabinet." That is exactly the message those members from northern Ontario get.
I can remember the member for Algoma-Manitoulin introducing a bill to standardize gasoline prices across Ontario. What happened? His caucus would not even support him on his bill. He is the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) of the north. He cannot get support from his own caucus for a bill that would bring some sense to gasoline pricing in the province.
Mr. Martel: Gordon was going to nationalize part of Inco.
Mr. Laughren: Let us not talk about the member for Sudbury. He is not in this bill and never will be part of any other bill.
Mr. Martel: Twenty per cent, was it not, Jim?
Mr. Laughren: I am trying to stay with the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I have noticed.
Mr. Laughren: My colleagues keep interjecting. I do believe that when the minister introduces a differential in the pricing for plates between northern Ontario and southern Ontario and uses it as a major election issue, then when he removes that distinction, or part of it, he has an obligation to do that in an election period as well.
But not this government; it lays on the goodies before the election and takes them away after the election. What do the members for northern Ontario say? Absolutely nothing. One of my colleagues said their lips were sealed. It really does appear to be that way.
I see two members from the north in the House this evening. I very much hope they will have the courage to get up and speak on this bill and tell us how they feel about having that differential at least partially removed between northern Ontario and southern Ontario, particularly given the data the member for Lake Nipigon laid before the chamber this evening on the differential in gasoline pricing.
I am glad to see the member for Fort William come into the chamber. I want to know what these members think about that differential in gasoline pricing and the reduced differential in the price of licence plates in the province. I look forward to hearing their comments.
8:40 p.m.
Interjections.
Mr. Lane: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that you are allowing people to speak other than on the principle of the bill. I would like to agree with my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon that there is a need to recognize the cost of travel in northern Ontario as opposed to southern Ontario. For the record, it just so happens that I did bring in a bill to try to equalize the price of gasoline and heating fuel in northern Ontario. My bill was vetoed.
Mr. Laughren: Right, by your own party.
Mr. Lane: But I did get the $10 licence. Okay?
I also agree with my friend the member for Lake Nipigon that our present minister is one of the best ministers we have ever had in Transportation and Communications, but I am somewhat disturbed by the fact that we have increased the licence fee in northern Ontario by about 140 per cent.
I just want to put it on the record so the member for Nickel Belt will know it was my bill that prompted the $10 licence fee in the first place.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise and speak in support of Bill 84 in principle, which provides that the vehicle licence will remain with the person who has the vehicle in his name.
There are some problems that I find with the bill, in particular under section 7. I would like to have the minister tell me in detail what all of these sections mean, because I think we are dealing with a piece of legislation that a great number of the general public will be using day by day, and they may sometimes encounter a police officer who informs them of some infraction under the amendments to the bill.
According to section 7(1), "Subsection 15(1) of the said act is amended by striking out 'sections 7 and 10' in the first line and inserting in lieu thereof 'section 7.'" Section 7(2) goes on, "Subsection 15(2) of the said act is amended by striking out 'sections 7 and 10' in the second line and inserting in lieu thereof 'section 7.'" It goes on for about four or five different sections.
Section 7(5), "Regulations," states that "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations providing for the temporary exemption of vehicles or any class thereof from section 7" -- and we seem to talk quite a bit about section 7 -- "or any provision thereof."
To me this seems to be rather an important section of the bill, which does not really explain what the ministry is trying to do or trying to resolve. We have another section here where the Lieutenant Governor -- that is the cabinet, I guess -- would make a decision as to who will be exempt under the act, and there must be a reason for that. Can the minister explain to me what vehicles we are expecting to exempt under that particular section?
The other matter I am particularly concerned about is the local MTC offices in a number of communities. In particular I am thinking of the ones in the city of Welland. People from Fort Erie, Wainfleet, Port Colborne and other areas have to drive a considerable number of miles or kilometres to get to a licence establishment run by the ministry, particularly for drivers' licences. I suggest to the minister that often in order to obtain a driver's licence a person will go through the normal process of driver education and written examinations --
Hon. Mr. Snow: We are not discussing drivers' licences.
Mr. Haggerty: I know, but we talked about gas, which has nothing to do with the bill either, and it has been going on for quite a while. I am just bringing this to the minister's attention because it is perhaps the only time we will have this opportunity.
There is a problem there when many of these persons would want to get a driver's licence; they will have difficulty getting it too. Sometimes in order to get a driver's licence a person will have to lose a day's wages because MTC offices are not open on Saturdays. They operate to about four o'clock in the afternoon and that is the end of it; they are not open in the evenings. In a sense, they are not open for the convenience of the public at all.
I can cite a case under the new sections of the act where firefighters had to obtain drivers' licences. It cost the city quite a sum of money to send those drivers down there with their equipment. I am talking about taking a fire truck down there across the city. It costs quite a sum of money to send those drivers down there to take the tests. At least in some cases the examiners could go to the municipality and use the rig from a firehall for the test instead of having one man go down for four hours one day and another man the next day. That adds to the administration costs of the local municipality.
It would not hurt to let some of the civil servants work from Tuesday to Saturday so that the office could stay open on Saturdays. They could take Sunday and Monday off instead of Saturday and Sunday. I suggest a little more consideration could be shown to the public.
I want to direct a question to the minister concerning gas. The latest gimmick by the federal government, in which this government also participated, was to encourage home owners to switch from oil to natural gas. Now, with the proposed new rate, the cost of heating a home with natural gas may make home owners feel it would have been more economical to have stayed with oil or to have switched to electricity.
How far is the government going to go with the idea of encouraging motorists to use propane gas to run their vehicles? Will they continue to be exempt from road tax, or is this just another way of getting them to purchase a vehicle at additional cost, only to find, two years down the road, that they will have to pay road tax? Perhaps people in northern Ontario will use propane gas in the hope of reducing the cost of driving in northern Ontario. I think the public deserves to know how long the government plans to provide the road tax exemption to those switching to propane gas.
Mr. Swart: I had not intended to speak on this bill until the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk laid some claim to the right to speak because he had lost some points over a period of time. By the same measurement I think I have as much right as anybody in this House to speak on the bill, although like the member I have received most of them back by this time.
It has already been indicated that our party is generally in support of this bill. As previously mentioned, it will eliminate the lineups we have every year in February. As far as the minister is concerned, the revenue will be evened off and if I compute it correctly his ministry will get more revenue in advance than it does at the present time. According to my computation, the revenue will be coming in during the year so that by the end of the year the ministry will have received the total amount. Previously, that money did not come in until February. So the new system is a financial advantage, at least in the first year.
Like some of my colleagues I want to say something about the proposed change in the fees that will be charged. It seems to me they are contrary to two principles which the government has espoused in recent years, the first of which, as mentioned by my colleagues the members for Lake Nipigon and Nickel Belt, is that the government is again moving away from the policy of assisting the people of the north by lowering the unit charges in recognition of the long distances they have to travel.
Their present licence fee of $10 will be raised to $24. Last year's ad valorem tax also increased the amount of money people in the north will have to pay.
8:50 p.m.
The second area in which he appears to be going contrary to recognized fee-setting policy is with regard to the conservation of energy. When there was a difference of $46 or thereabouts between large automobiles and small automobiles in recognition of the difference in the consumption of gasoline, he did give some recognition to the conservation of energy. Now that has been changed and we are going to pay the same fee regardless of the size of our automobile or the consumption of gasoline.
I am not sure about this and perhaps the minister would like to comment on whether in view of the tremendous increase that he is making in the gasoline tax by using the ad valorem tax, he is going to move over a period of some time to really just a nominal charge for licences. It seems to me that with the increase he made this year on gasoline tax this would have been the time to do it. Perhaps he should have moved all of the licence fees down to the lowest denominator, down to the $34 or $36 for the small car, but instead of that he has taken kind of an average.
The minister knows the bill his government has just brought in regarding municipal licence fees says that municipalities may not charge licence fees over and above what it costs them to administer the licence fees. It seems to me if he is interested in energy conservation, if he is interested in the same principle that he says the municipalities must follow, then he should be setting a licence fee on automobiles at a nominal fee just to cover the cost of issuing that licence. The money he has to raise for the building and the maintenance of roads can be raised out of the gasoline tax. It is certainly high enough now. His ad valorem tax will make up for much more than any loss he has on the licence fees if he had lowered them down to the minimal level.
Mr. Speaker: Will the honourable member get back to Bill 84 please?
Mr. Swart: Yes. Bill 84 really is the framework where we set the licence fees and therefore it seems appropriate to comment on them under this bill, as the others have done.
This is the start of a sort of reversal of the policy of licence fees as a major fund raiser for the government. If the minister made a nominal charge, then perhaps I could support the uniform fee. Even though I come from the southernmost part of this province, I cannot support nor can anybody in this party support the shifting back again towards the uniform fee across the province. They are shifting in that direction and charging the people in the north as much as he does down here in the south.
While there are some items in this bill, some measures in this bill, some clauses which are very commendable in themselves, the minister should get up and say in his reply that he is going to adopt a policy -- because it is not in this bill, as he has already pointed out to me and to many others -- regarding the licence fees, and he should say that the announcement he made about these will be reversed and he is going to use the sensible approach of the lower fees in the north and minimal fees for licences in general in this province.
Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on behalf of the people of northwestern Ontario.
Mr. Cassidy: This is an historic event.
Mr. Hennessy: I beg your pardon?
Mr. Cassidy: Will you vote against the bill?
Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections.
Mr. Hennessy: Thanks a lot. I think I will be over there. I think the people of northwestern Ontario are faced with a very difficult task because, as the other members have mentioned. northwestern Ontario's costs are very high in regard to gas. The distances are quite large. We have quite a lengthy winter.
Mr. Cassidy: Will you vote against the bill?
Mr. Hennessy: I think that raising it up to $24 is a little bit too high. I thought maybe a slight increase would have been satisfactory, but raising it to $24 is difficult. From $10 to $24 is quite a high increase. As has been mentioned, with the high cost of gas, particularly up in the northwestern part of Ontario, up in Lake Nipigon, it is very difficult for people who have to go 100 or 50 or 60 miles to get to a destination.
I would also ask the minister if he would give consideration to rescinding the ban on studded tires in northwestern Ontario. They were a great deal of help to us at the time. There have been no steps taken by the minister to look in that direction. I say with the members from the north, I am not for it. As Big-Mouth Cassidy says, I will vote against the bill.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few comments on Bill 84, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, and I wish to inform the minister I will support the bill. I approve the fact that he and his officials have finally taken up a suggestion, which was made to them back in 1979 by myself, for the use of a staggered system of issuing both licence plates and drivers' licences. The state of Michigan implemented that not too long ago. However, on its implementation, 27 different states in the union were already using the staggered, or birthday, system.
It is nice to see that the minister, with his officials, is stepping into the 20th century. I understand, though, it is not too simple to change after there has been one type of system for a substantial period of time. There are a lot of ramifications with it, and the minister, in a letter to me back in 1980, stated at that time he did not expect it to be accomplished before December 1982. His officials, by getting on it, have been able to accomplish it earlier, because here it is June 1982 and we have just exactly what had been suggested to the ministry approximately three years earlier in February 1979.
Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to comments of the honourable members. First of all, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk -- oh, he has left. One of his comments was in regard to special numbered plates and he suggested they should be available at a high fee. I would like to tell him they will be. We will not have the special numbered plates available immediately, because we do not want to start into that at the same time we are bringing in the new system, but six months later we will be making special numbers available of six digits. There will be quite a wide choice for those who wish to apply for them at that time.
The member for Cornwall talked about the uniform fee. I will say we gave a great deal of thought to this when planning the proposal. I must point out to the members that it is not the responsibility of my ministry or my officials to set the fees for motor vehicle licences. This legislation provides for a fee to be charged. That fee is a budgetary item and was announced by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) in his budget on May 13, as it always has been, certainly as long as I have been here. Any time there was a change in motor vehicle licence fees it was announced in the budget.
9 p.m.
Mr. Stokes: It was a collective decision, though, it is to be hoped.
Hon. Mr. Snow: I do not know what the former Speaker, the member for Lake Nipigon, means by its being a collective decision. Budget decisions are decisions that are announced by the Treasurer on the night of the budget. I will not take any credit for the $10 fee which was announced by the Treasurer in a previous budget. My ministry implemented that fee, which was announced by the Treasurer as part of the budgetary process, as we will implement the fee here.
Mr. Boudria: Does that mean Mickey will vote against the budget?
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Snow: We did ask specifically for a uniform fee for southern Ontario and a uniform fee for northern Ontario for all motor vehicles, automobiles and small trucks.
Mr. Stokes: Why don't you equalize the price of gas?
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Snow: The member knows that I and my ministry have nothing to do with the price of gas, less even than I have to do with the price of licence fees, but we did ask for a uniform fee with this system. It is not reasonable to have a fee for different numbers of cylinders to implement this system when we start charging so much per month.
Also, we asked for a fee that was divisible by 12, because when one goes to get his licence renewal next January or February -- or December if he wants to buy it early -- he will buy his licence plates for a period of from six to 17 months, depending on when his birthday is. It will not be an annual fee. If his birthday is in May, he will be buying a 17-month licence; so it will be very difficult to implement that type of system, charging for a 17-month fee.
The plate will stay with the owner of the vehicle. If he had a six-cylinder vehicle and he traded it in and got a four, he would be asking for a refund. If he traded the four in and got a six, he would be asked to pay extra as he transferred back and forth. Now he will get full value for his licence plate. If he trades his car in May or June, he does not lose the plate that he bought on that car. It does not go with the vehicle and sit around in a used-car lot for the rest of the year or for several months. He has paid for that plate for a year; he takes the plate off his old vehicle, puts it on his new vehicle and he will get his full money's worth on that basis.
We did ask for a uniform fee. I did not set the fee. For northern Ontario it could have been $12; for southern Ontario it could have been $12. It was a decision of the Treasurer to set that fee. He gave us a uniform fee for northern Ontario and a uniform fee for southern Ontario. He gave us a fee that was divisible by 12. Those were the parameters I asked for and they were the ones we were granted.
The member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) made an inquiry as to the validation refusal procedure. From the remarks he made I am not quite sure what his concerns were, but a licence renewal for a vehicle will be refused if there are outstanding parking fines against that vehicle.
At a certain stage, parking fines that are unpaid to the municipality, to the court through the normal process, will be sent to us to be registered against that vehicle. About six to eight weeks ahead of the registration coming due for renewal, a notice will be sent to the owner of the vehicle similar to what is done today with the driver's licence, saying the vehicle is due for renewal on his birthday -- in my case, July 12 of a particular year.
Mr. Stokes: Did you get a horse on your birthday?
Hon. Mr. Snow: A white horse, yes.
The notice will also say whether there are outstanding fines against the vehicle, and if so that these fines must be cleared before you can renew. Those can be cleared in two ways. You can go to the court and pay the fine ahead of time or, when you renew your licence, you can pay at the licence renewal office. In any case, those fines must be paid or your licence will not be renewed.
I say to the member for Lake Nipigon, as I think I have already explained, this is not any kind of a device to even the score with anyone. I have explained how the fees were set. I have explained the needs of our ministry and the fact --
Mr. Stokes: You wanted a neat administrative vehicle, and the north suffers as a result.
Hon. Mr. Snow: I would not say that. Any differential could have been maintained. The southern Ontario fee could have been $36, $48, $60, $72 or $84. In fact, I believe we have one of the lowest fees of any jurisdiction I know.
The member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) talked about Highway 144. I am not quite sure how that got into this bill.
Mr. Martel: Don't call that a highway.
Hon. Mr. Snow: I have to tell the member he must not have driven it lately. It has all been rebuilt, practically, and it has been widened by two feet.
Mr. Martel: It's a goat trail. It's still below standard. It's at least four feet below standard.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Snow: The member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) had some questions regarding a particular section of the bill. The old section 10 of this bill is now incorporated into the new section 7, and, therefore, there are changes in the references from section 10 to section 7.
The new subsection 15(5) wording is not connected in any way with the licensing procedure. It is a housekeeping amendment with regard to the reciprocity agreement in motor vehicle licensing.
The member also asked about the taxing of propane and other alternative automotive fuels. That, of course, is a budgetary item and beyond my control.
The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) made some interesting comments. He thought we were going to get a lot of extra money in our till, or the Treasurer was, through this procedure. I remind him that the fiscal year-end of this government happens to be March 31, not December 31, and the licence fees paid in February were in that particular fiscal year. In fact, there is going to be a slippage of fees and a reduction of revenues in the first year rather than any increase.
The member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy) suggested I go back to studded tires. Much as I respect most of his opinions, I have to tell him I have no intention of suggesting that we ever go back to studded tires.
The member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman) talked about the staggered system for licensing drivers and vehicles which he recommended in 1979. I have to tell him that almost ever since I have been driving a car, and that is quite a number of years, there has been a staggered system for drivers' licences, and he as sure as the devil did not recommend it in 1979. If he did, he was about 30 years too late. Drivers' licences have been staggered for as long as I can remember. I asked my staff when they brought in the staggered renewal of drivers' licences on birthdays, and no one here has been around long enough to remember.
Mr. Ruston: You were snoozing when you should have been listening.
Hon. Mr. Snow: No, I was not. I have been listening very carefully. He suggested that he recommended in 1979 that we go to a staggered system for vehicles. I have to tell him that I have been minister since 1975 and we were working on it long before his suggestion in 1979. It has taken a long time, I have to say; it required a major effort to completely design a new computer system to handle the five million vehicles we have in Ontario. I regret that it has taken as long as it has but, regardless of that, we have it now and thank God.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered for committee of the whole House.
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. Snow moved second reading of Bill 26, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.
9:10 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Snow: I have a brief opening statement. Mr. Speaker. When this bill was given first reading on March 18, I spoke at some length about its principal component, the amendment to the seatbelt law, which would provide for the mandatory use of child restraint devices for small children when travelling in automobiles.
The new federal standards governing child restraints have now received final approval, thereby removing the major impediment to the mandating of their use. In the regulations, children will be divided into three categories: babies up to nine kilograms in infant carriers; from nine to 18 kilograms in child seats; and 18 to 23 kilograms in seatbelts but not shoulder belts.
There will be a number of necessary exemptions. All cars come equipped with seatbelts but not with child restraints; so the requirement that they be used will be basically in the terms of cars owned, leased and customarily used by their parents.
To meet the realities of the situation, we shall phase in the law in each category as I outlined on first reading. I point out, however, that the passing of this legislation should provide parents with the strongest recommendation that they take action to protect their infants as soon as their circumstances permit. It is to be hoped that most parents will act responsibly and not postpone such action until it becomes legally mandatory.
The bill also will increase the penalties for drivers who fail to stop for school buses that are flashing their red signal lights. The fines will be increased from between $20 and $100 to between $100 and $500 for a first offence and from $250 to $1,000 for a subsequent offence.
In terms of equipment. school buses will be required to install stop arms and crossover mirrors.
I trust the members of the House will support these measures to improve the safety of our children.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, we will be supporting the bill in principle, but I have some rather extensive remarks to make about its provisions.
I am sure members will recall that it was private members' legislation from my colleagues that urged the minister to amend the seatbelt legislation so that it would include infants. Certainly we are very glad that has come about. I understand there is an amendment to that section having to do with date of birth and a few things like that, and we will have a chance to talk about it either later this evening or when the bill comes before the committee of the whole House. We are enthusiastic in support of that requirement.
I was interested that the bill permits a further increase in the legal length of the behemoths, if there is such a word, the trucks and trailers on our highways. I often think there is--
Hon. Mr. Snow: There is no increase in the length of trailers.
Mr. Nixon: The overall length?
Hon. Mr. Snow: There is no increase in the overall length. There is an increase in the length of a nonarticulated, straight truck.
Mr. Nixon: As I remember, sitting in the committee on highway safety chaired by Fred Young, it became apparent that there were internal politics being played among provinces and state jurisdictions with the lengths of various trucks.
The argument that was always being put to the minister, who has been here a long time, and to his predecessors, was, "We can have a truck of a certain length in Manitoba and of a certain length in Michigan and, therefore, we have to have it in Ontario."
I can see the value of uniformity in this connection, particularly in interprovincial and provincial-interstate trucking, but I would like the minister to give us some further information about this requirement.
I see he has carefully exempted any additional length that might accrue because of a mirror that sticks out. He seems to have thought of just about everything. Yet just when one thinks that, he comes in once more, in one short session, with two amendments to the Highway Traffic Act. They never seem to be able to get it just right.
One of the matters that concerns me, and it is one that I have brought to his attention previously, has to do with the school bus designation. On page 3 of the bill, clause 5(1)(b) says, "'school bus' means a chrome yellow bus ..." and it goes on from there. Everybody knows that, I suppose, but it leads to certain problems when it is applied rigidly as the minister began to apply it last year.
This is the strawberry season -- believe it or not, this is apropos the bill -- and the government of Canada, with their normal useful initiatives through their employment offices, hire young people to gather other young people to go out and pick strawberries. They usually charter or rent school buses to carry the people out to the strawberry fields. They go out early in the morning to pick up kids who want to go to work, take them out to this strawberry field, see that they are properly looked after and paid and take them home at the end of the day. The school bus is not going from church to school or anywhere else of that nature, but it is chrome yellow.
A couple of my constituents, who are very big strawberry men indeed, decided to get their own young working people and bought buses of their own; they were used school buses. They came right up to the standards of safety, had properly licensed drivers and all the rest, but they were instructed by the minions of the minister that they must not be chrome yellow. So they had to go to the expense of scraping them down, or whatever one does to a school bus, and painting them green or some other colour that would not offend the minister.
They phoned me with what I think is a legitimate complaint. The government of Canada was able to charter chrome yellow buses and nobody seemed to bother them, but the farmers who had a large enough operation to look after their own work force were forced to make the additional expenditure.
The minister and I have had discussions about this. When the minister finally says there is nothing that can be done about it -- I have said it before, and I think it is far enough away from an election to say it again -- I have a lot of confidence in him. He does not just turn to his assistants and say, "Can we do this or not?" My experience is that he tends to make his own decisions and even writes his own letters; which is something one gets very rarely from his colleagues. There is a certain grace and metre to his letters that are obviously his, and the nice part is he tells you yes or no in quite definite terms; which I appreciate, particularly when occasionally it is yes.
I felt I should bring the whole matter of chrome yellow school buses to your attention, Mr. Speaker, knowing of your interest in fairness, equity and strawberries. Otherwise, the bill looks pretty good and we will support it.
Mr. Samis: You have not resigned, I trust, Mr. Speaker.
We on this side will support the bill. Certain parts of it are just common sense amendments, such as the sections dealing with stiffer penalties for drivers failing to stop for a school bus. That is something we welcome over here in the hope that the message will get through to some of those dough-heads who do not yet observe the regulations regarding stopping.
Secondly, with regard to stopping distance, the only point I would make for the benefit of the minister's colleague from Leeds and for the millions of people out there who do not know what 20 metres means, is that it might be worth while to express the distance in feet as well when the publicity is prepared regarding the new regulations. I am sure a lot of people do not have the slightest idea of what distance 20 metres is; the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman) or not, I think it is a fact of life.
9:20 p.m.
The question of crossover mirrors and stop arms is something we discussed last year, especially the stop arm question. I am glad to see the minister has moved on that front. I think it will be a welcome addition, and I hope it will reduce any accidents or injuries as well.
The question of the length of vehicles is something we can accept without any problem. The question of tires etc. is a basic, common sense amendment.
My guess is that the whole focus of the bill, the guts of the bill, to the average person on the street is the section dealing with child restraints in automobiles and the simple fact that this bill will make them mandatory for the people of Ontario. We support the fact that the government is making them mandatory.
I want to pay tribute tonight to my colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden), who could not be here for this debate, because as far back as 1980 she introduced a resolution in this House to make them mandatory. She reintroduced it in 1981.
In 1981, we also had a resolution introduced by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Robinson), which was supported on all sides of the House. It is unfortunate that no action was taken in 1981 on such a resolution, because it was obvious from that debate that it had support from all sides of the House. Unfortunately, the minister decided not to take any action in 1981.
It should be remembered that Ontario is not the first jurisdiction to move in this regard. As far back as 1977, the Legislature in Tennessee pioneered a bill in North America to make them mandatory. I think the experience of that jurisdiction has been highly successful and has influenced other states in the United States to adopt similar legislation.
Here in Canada, the example of Saskatchewan gives us hope in Ontario. It was the first province to introduce mandatory legislation, which it did in 1980. It is interesting to note that it did not wait for all the squabbling going on over federal standards before it introduced its legislation. It saw the need, it did something about it and, fortunately, it has worked out well.
It is also interesting to note that there are some interesting, fairly influential and broadly based groups in the province which have been pressuring for such legislation since well before 1982. In that regard, I refer to the Ontario Safety League, the Ontario Coroners' Association, the Ontario Medical Association, the Consumers' Association of Canada and the Ontario Motor League. They have all come out publicly for such legislation. I am sure they will welcome it, although they are probably a little disappointed it took so long.
There may be some controversy about the whole concept of the phase-in. I would say that in the best of worlds, if everything was the way we wanted it, we probably would have liked to have seen the legislation apply to all children under the age of five this year. Had the government acted on the resolution introduced by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, we could have had that legislation passed quickly and applying to all children in Ontario in 1982. However, that did not happen. The reality of the situation is that we have the bill before us tonight.
Another reality we have to contend with as legislators is that since the debate on the resolution it is unfortunate that economic circumstances in Ontario have deteriorated considerably. We are faced with the reality that half a million people in this province are out of work. Layoffs and shutdowns are becoming a fact of life in every corner of the province. People who are still working are faced with wage freezes, wage controls and, in some cases, even wage cuts. In other cases, and I can say it is increasingly common in my own riding, they are faced with work-sharing just to hold on to their jobs. We have to look at the proposed legislation in the context of the overall economic climate.
This legislation is unique in a sense because it is mandatory. It means people are going to have to spend money. If we look at the average cost of the convertible seat, for example, we are talking about an average of $65 to $70 for one. If we are talking about the infant carrier, I think we are talking about $35 to $40. If one is talking about a family with a couple of children, this involves a not inconsiderable expenditure of money in a rather difficult economic climate.
In the context of those economic factors, we agree with the government that a phase-in is necessary. It may not be the most desirable way of doing it, but it is the most acceptable way in the present context.
It should be said that this is not the only concept of a phase-in. I am sure the minister has been lobbied long and hard by certain people who want this unit-per-car concept. I have given that some consideration. I can see some merit to it but, as a compromise, we are prepared to live with the concept introduced in this bill for phase-in, and we will support the phase-in concept contained in the bill.
I have three concerns about the bill that I would like to bring to the minister's attention briefly. First of all, there has to be a fairly major initiative from the government for a variety of things. One deals with the loaner program. There are a lot of people out there, especially in this economic climate, who will not be able to afford to acquire one immediately, and I think we have a responsibility to them.
I notice that when the government of Saskatchewan introduced their legislation, if I am not mistaken, they funded up to 50 per cent of the cost through their government insurance corporation for the loaner program of the different seats and devices being made available to people.
The approach seemingly being taken in Ontario is that we are going to use the Ontario Safety League as some sort of volunteer umbrella organization. But look at the size of the budget: they have only one person working on it, their budget for this is less than $20,000, and they are being told: "Go out and hustle the money in the private sector if you can. Try to convince people this is a good idea and raise some money for it." I suggest that in the present economic climate, with even major corporations facing all sorts of curtailments, cutbacks, layoffs and closures in some cases, this approach just is not adequate if we want to make this bill meaningful and effective in Ontario.
I pay tribute to the Jaycees and Jaycettes for the program they have initiated in certain communities. I think the one in Kingston is an outstanding volunteer program. But Kingston is not Ontario. How many communities have such a program today? I suspect it is less than 10 per cent. So, in effect, we are using somewhat of a shotgun approach.
I am somewhat concerned, when we have these volunteer programs, about who actually benefits from them. I have a terrible suspicion, which was confirmed at the seminar at the Royal York, that frequently it is the middle class who make the most use of them and the people they are aimed at, the lower-income groups, for a variety of reasons that I acknowledge do not make the best use of them and do not get the maximum benefit from such loaner programs.
I ask the minister whether he would give us some more information on what commitments he is making, especially of a financial nature, to a loaner program. Is he going to leave it totally in the hands of the safety council and the volunteer groups, telling them to fend for themselves in getting the money to acquire them, and then to publicize the program and make it available to different communities around the province?
The second concern I have about the bill deals with the question of public education. I ask the minister whether he would give us some information on how much money his ministry will be spending on a public education program. I specifically refer to the mass media: TV, radio and the newspapers. It is okay to have a film, and I commend the ministry for having a film; it is okay to have pamphlets, and I commend them for having those, because they are useful in their own way; but surely for something of this sort we cannot ignore the mass media, we cannot just rely on films and pamphlets.
I ask the minister whether we are getting any commitment from his ministry, and whether any money has been set aside to use the mass media to publicize the law and the loaner program; to inform people why we are introducing such a law in Ontario and what the benefits are to the general public, especially parents and young families.
It is also important that the ministry involve various sectors of society to make this a successful law. Here I refer to the police. I think some very interesting ideas were used in Saskatchewan and Tennessee to make the police realize there is an educative as well as a regulatory role for them to play in making this law effective.
The hospitals, I think, are very obvious outlets; the Jaycees and Jaycettes and some of the doctors have pointed out just how valuable that source is. I would hope our public health units would be involved in educating people; I would hope the medical profession would see some responsibility and that the ministry would work with them as well as with public libraries, schools and service clubs, because I think they all have to be involved in the whole process of public education.
On the other hand, I do not think we can dump it all on their shoulders. The government has to take some initiative and be prepared to spend some money to show that it is willing to back up the law with some bucks as well as relying on these volunteer groups in the private sector to do their share.
I ask the minister whether in the whole process of public education he could check with the people, the Jaycees or Jaycettes and the various clubs, that have already done this, and possibly some of the other jurisdictions, to see whether there is some way we can more effectively reach the lower income group. Somehow the impression is that they are not the ones who are most conscious of things like this, they are not the ones most likely to use it. Lastly, they are not the ones most likely to take advantage of a specific loaner program. We should determine if there is some way or some new idea that can be used to reach that particular segment of society.
9:30 p.m.
The third and final concern I have deals with the cost factor. These things are not cheap. We are talking an average of $60 to $70 for the basic seat or upwards of $40 for the infant carrier. In the context of what has happened here in the last three or four weeks with the budget, it means for every citizen, every taxpayer of Ontario, an extra $150 to $300 they have to fork out this year.
In the context of the widespread layoffs, the general fears about the future of the economy and everybody's job, and especially in the context that this is a forced purchase -- one does not have to go out and buy a hamburger and pay seven per cent sales tax, there are other options within the budget, but this leaves no options; if you have a child and you want to go out in the car and take the child with you, you have to have this. In view of the extra burdens being placed on people by the budget and by the nature of the fact we are not giving people any option whatsoever -- we are forcing them to go out and buy either the restraints or the carriers -- I would suggest that the minister use his good offices to exempt this item from the provincial retail sales tax.
I think there are arguments to be made for the fact that this is a forced purchase. There is no option, no choice left for the individual. We are legislating this in, and I support that legislation; the least we can do in the present economic climate is to partially reduce the burden by exempting this from sales tax. Beyond that, we will support the legislation.
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my brief remarks this evening by complimenting the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) on his very good presentation, much of which I have heard before but which I was very pleased to hear again, and put so well tonight. I also want to take the opportunity to thank all the members on both sides of the House who have worked much longer than I have to bring this program to a head, to bring in this much needed legislation, to indeed save lives. We of the Legislature, though somewhat belatedly, and we cannot take a lot of burden for that, are saving lives in what we do with this bill tonight.
There is a lot to the bill, and a lot to the issue itself. Because we have the support of all parties, I am pleased that a lot of what I said when I presented private members' legislation last October does not need repeating this evening. I will not take up the time of the House again making the case for child restraints.
Since last I spoke on this subject in the House, however, I have had the opportunity to do a number of seminars about child restraints. I had the opportunity to do some television work on it and also to do some questionnaires through newsletters. One of the most interesting facts that has come to my attention since we talked of it last is an exact profile of a typical accident in which a child is seriously injured or even killed.
Unlike what you may think, it is not a high-speed, reckless chase, devil-may-care, criminal-negligence situation at all. The type of accident where children are most often injured is a general accident. It occurs on a weekday, rather than a weekend. It occurs during daylight hours between 8 a.m. and about 3 p.m. It is on a well-maintained road. I am sure the minister will be pleased that the road is not at fault. The weather is clear or overcast. The pavement is dry. There are none of the usual factors we associate with great danger on the roadway. The accident occurs, as most accidents do, we know from statistics, within a very few miles of the home. It is usually on a routine trip, to the grocery store or to the doctor.
The most susceptible victim is a one-year-old male infant. Statistically, they are hurt more often than any other age category or than the female sex. The child is generally located on the front seat of the vehicle. The child is not restrained. The mother is the driver -- and I will say right now before anyone challenges me, there is no comment in there about anybody's driving abilities. The mother is equally unrestrained in these accident situations. The mother has not been drinking any alcoholic beverage. There are no defects in the car that contribute to the accident.
Mr. Bradley: Alan Robinson does not like lady drivers.
Mr. Robinson: You are supposed to tell me to ignore the interjection, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Nixon: You can't ignore that one.
The Acting Speaker: Ignore the interjections.
Mr. Robinson: Moving right along, having been admonished and absolved of that one, it is very interesting to note that the accident occurs on a very typical, weekday trip, one like those that are conducted hundreds of thousands of times in this country each and every year.
As one becomes more and more aware of the child restraint issue, as I know my friend the member for Cornwall is, and as one looks around every day on every street and every road in this province, one sees children standing on the front seat of the car, or loose in the back of station wagons, and one sees babies nestled in their mother's arms in the front seat. The mother may be restrained, but that will not save the child in an accident. It is all so typical. It is all so commonplace and so everyday in this province, and it is all so fatally dangerous.
Without making the case any further, that is what we are here tonight debating an end to. We are debating an end to something we cannot go back and replace in time. We cannot restore to those parents the 65 children who died between the years 1977 and 1980. We cannot bring back to health the nearly 7,000 children seriously injured in automobile accidents in Ontario during that same period, but through this legislation we can remove 90 per cent of the risks to those children each and every day on our roadways.
The member for Cornwall talked about the advertising program and it is very important. If members have not seen this little brochure, and I realize it is not a definitive piece and I realize it does not cover the full gamut, but as a starting point this is an excellent little brochure produced by the ministry. It talks about all the different kinds of devices, their proper use, their flexibility; it is part of an ongoing education program.
I firmly believe that without education enforcement is going to be impossible. People have to understand why we are doing this. I will be perfectly honest with this House. The questionnaire that I sent Out on part of one of my newsletters recently asked about child restraint and whether or not there was support for child restraint. Those people who wrote back did not complain to me about the safety of their children; they did not say we had no business making their children safe. However, I am disappointed to report that some of them wrote back and said that we had no business deciding whether or not their child would remain healthy or, indeed, whether or not their child would live.
Mr. Martel: That is what they said when we introduced the original legislation.
Mr. Robinson: They are still saying it. it cannot move us off the issue, the facts are too clear. I am glad my friend the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) agrees with me, which I am pleased to report will not be for the first time today. Mind you, it is the first time in a year and a half, but it has happened at least twice today.
Mr. Martel: You are having a good day.
Mr. Breithaupt: It might be your last.
Mr. Robinson: I may never move anything again, may never speak again.
Mr. Martel: There are those who might say it's a bad day.
Mr. Robinson: Whoever said that, I take considerable exception to that remark.
Moving back to the bill, moving right along, and receiving support from the minister who wants me to conclude as quickly as possible, I would draw members' attention to the future. It really is not so much a matter of what we have done to this point, it is really not so much a matter of the people in this House who have worked to bring us to this point, it is a matter of the future and where we go from here.
One of the groups that has taken a considerable step in going somewhere from here is the Council on Road Trauma from Hamilton-Wentworth. They are an affiliated group of medical people, professional educators and media people who are working through a program that they call RISK, which is Restrain Infants-Secure Kids. They realize the risk. I commend their report to the member for Cornwall if he has not had the opportunity to look through it.
In the foreword to the road trauma report it says that, "Road trauma is a disease, which with heart disease and cancer make up the big three killers in our society today." This disease, being road trauma, is the biggest killer of people under 35 years of age. It is the biggest killer, bar none. It is the most common cause of death in children below the age of 15 and accounts for more than the next four causes of mortality combined. It is the number three killer in North America behind heart disease and cancer; that is an amazing fact.
9:40 p.m.
In setting out the objectives of the council, they say will, "act as a forum for the development and promotion of road safety programs directed at preventing road accidents to reduce the effects of crashes and to foster a high standard of first aid and medical care for the victims." That is an all-encompassing objective and one that is very worth while.
The member for Cornwall spoke about the user group directing the program so that it reaches the right people. In Hamilton-Wentworth, they are directing this program at the media, the police, community women, parents' groups, community information services, public libraries, car dealerships, pharmacies, churches, social services, day care centres, car rental agencies, the Hamilton Automobile Club, schools, the Hamilton Safety League and the licensing bureaus -- everywhere the public can come into contact with drivers or where driver education and safety is paramount and becomes a distinct consideration.
The loaner program my friend the member for Cornwall spoke of is very real. It is under way and growing. He makes good suggestions about injecting some provincial funds to get it rolling, to make it worth while and to make it prosper. Anything we do makes the job of legislation easier if we have public awareness and participation on our side.
I close with two thoughts: I do indeed support the concept of exemption from provincial sales tax for these devices. Whatever arguments have been made in this House, and they have been considerable over the past number of weeks, about what members may consider validly or invalidly taxed, I do not think any member truly believes we cannot make a good case for exempting child restraint devices.
Every day at the beginning of our session, the Speaker reads a prayer in which he urges us to use power wisely and well. In my brief time here, I have not seen a better example of using power wisely and well than we are doing with this bill.
Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly on this bill, and particularly to commend the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Robinson) on the leadership he has given with respect to his private bill. I think it has been very influential in bringing this legislation before the House as a government bill. In my time in the House, I have not seen many occasions when private legislation has led to government acceptance or indeed to time spent in the House to have such legislation approved.
Mr. Nixon: Perhaps the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) is one of the few people who had a bill --
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Breithaupt: That was the best of good luck, and I think it was of some help in a particular area under the Family Law Reform Act.
In this circumstance, it is worth while to give credit where it is due. This is a most important theme and one that has concerned a number of members of the House. We are well aware of the statistics and the difficulties that have come before us time after time showing the burden on the health care system and the great grief many families suffer because of the injury and death of infants and young children as a result of automobile accidents.
The member has quite clearly set out many of these particulars and many of us enjoyed the comments that were made at the time during private members' hour. In addition, the marshalling of a group interested in supporting this legislation is something else the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere can be pleased to have taken an interest in and to have had a hand in as this whole theme has developed.
I am delighted to see the ministry has moved in this area and I for one am pleased to support it.
Mr. Riddell: To use the Premier's phraseology--
Mr. Bradley: You can't have it both ways.
Mr. Riddell: I would like to say that the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere made abundantly good sense as did my good colleague the member for Kitchener. If you were a member of the Legislature back in 1973, Mr. Speaker, you will know that a private member's bill was introduced, under the name of Jack Riddell, pertaining to school bus safety. Many accolades have been poured on the minister here this evening and I am going to add to those by saying that the minister has accepted many of the recommendations I made in that private member's bill and he has incorporated safety features in the school buses which simply did not exist previously.
Mr. Nixon: It took him a long time.
Mr. Eakins: You are very influential.
Mr. Riddell: Well, he did it in stages but he got the job done.
There are people throughout Ontario who believe that I am still carrying the safety torch for the young people travelling in our school buses. They continue to write to me expressing concerns about the safety features that are obviously lacking in the school buses, one of which is seatbelts. I am getting many letters all the time from people saying it is time that seatbelts were incorporated in the school buses so that the young people could be restrained. We continue to read about accidents where the young people are thrown out of their seats and half way up the aisle and so on, and some of them are seriously injured.
I am just wondering if the minister has given any consideration to amending the laws whereby seatbelts would have to be incorporated in school buses? Why is it that all this time he has decided not to have seatbelts incorporated in the buses? We have been talking about the restraints for young children riding in cars and I think it would be very difficult to be able to keep a four or five year old child restrained all the time during a long trip. But if, indeed, that can be done, surely the young people travelling in school buses for the half hour or hour they are riding on that bus could also be kept restrained with the use of seatbelts.
I just fail to understand, unless the minister feels that it would be impossible for the bus driver to enforce. But I have run into all kinds of bus drivers who are the boss in their buses and the young people do as they are told. If you get the bus driver enforcing the use of seatbelts, then I do not think there would be the problem that the minister may feel there may be in the use of seatbelts in school buses. Maybe he can respond to that.
There is another thing that concerns me, and it is digressing from the bill a wee bit but it might be somewhat remotely connected. That is, the enforcement of some of the speed limits on the highways.
It really bothers me when one is travelling along Highway 401, doing 114 kilometres an hour, and a big transport pulls up beside you and passes with no problem whatsoever. We are seeing far more of these large transports lying over on their sides on the busy highways at the access roads. It is obviously the speed that is causing them to roll over and I am just wondering if there is not something -- well, I know; maybe it is not dealing specifically with the bill but I think it is a concern that we have to have.
Mr. Boudria: It deals with the Highway Traffic Act.
Mr. Riddell: Certainly it deals with the Highway Traffic Act. It is a concern that we have to have and there has to be more enforcement of the speed limits with these transports. As I say, they are rolling over. You see them on the sides of the roads all the time. Upon inquiring as to why this is, the answer in all cases is speed. There is no way these large transports should be travelling at 120 kilometres an hour. it would be impossible for them to stop in time to avoid an accident. I would like to hear the minister's comment on this, if he agrees with me that there is too much speeding on our highways and too many trucks now being involved in accidents.
9:50 p.m.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few brief remarks. They are really questions of the minister, which I hope he will take time to respond to in his reply. Most members are in favour of the general principle behind the bill, but I have a few questions regarding the child restraint.
First, it has to do with tourists coming into Ontario from other jurisdictions. Perhaps the minister has already addressed this. If so, maybe he could reply briefly and explain how he will address the tourist coming in from another provincial jurisdiction, as in my area. My riding borders on Quebec for 75 miles and people cross the border to go to work and there is a concern on the part of people from other jurisdictions about provisions in the bill or in the regulation to exempt certain people. I know the minister is going to exempt people travelling in a car other than their own, but I want to know if there is any exemption for people who travel in their own car but may not have Ontario licence plates, or something to that effect. The minister could respond to that in his remarks.
I would like to add to the remarks made by my colleague the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) when he talked about school bus safety, especially seatbelts. I see the school bus at my house in the morning, especially on Monday morning when the children leave for school, and it leaves with children still standing in it. I would not have the children do that in my own car, and yet they seem to be doing it in the school bus. They are not tied down in any way. I would like to suggest to the minister that the children in the school bus are probably--
Mr. Piché: Are your children tied down in your own car?
Mr. Boudria: I thought the safety of our children was rather serious.
I would like to suggest to the minister that with children not being buckled down in the school bus, because of the distance from the back of the bus to the front there is probably a far greater impact upon collision than three or four feet inside a car. At least one would assume that the greater distance would probably give greater speed in the ease of a crash. It strikes me as being somewhat unusual, even ironic, that the only person buckled down in the school bus is the driver. He is probably right next to a padded dashboard.
One questions the logic of that. The minister will say that retrofitting all existing school buses with 50 or 60 sets of seatbelts is a very expensive venture. I submit that if we started with the new school buses right away, at some point in the future we would have the problem licked. If we never start we will never resolve this situation. Perhaps he would like to address that.
I note in the bill the minister wants to have stricter penalties for infractions of the law pertaining to vehicles not stopping for a school bus. I have had the experience of a truck not stopping when my four-year-old daughter got off the school bus at our place. It became evident to us that the driver of the school bus recognized the person and proceeded to tell him off in no uncertain terms as to what he thought of the person being so negligent.
I would like to suggest to the minister there might be some way he could legislate that if a school bus driver knows of someone who broke the law, the onus would be on the bus driver to report such an incident. In other words, it would be an offence by the bus driver not to report such an incident when the bus driver has the person's name or the licence plate of a vehicle.
The minister is probably aware that most infractions are probably done by local people in the local area. They are absent minded or they just do not care and they do not stop. On most occasions they are probably quite well known to the bus driver and there is a strong reluctance on the part of the bus driver to report such incidents, especially in rural areas, because after all it is Joe Blow down the street with his little truck going to the grocery store. Perhaps if there were some kind of a legal obligation, if that can be done, on the part of the bus driver to report any such infraction, this would assist in correcting the situation.
I was very fearful, and I still am, of my daughter getting off the school bus every day. It is of great concern to me personally, and I am sure to all members of this Legislature and to all people who have children who get off a school bus, especially the very small ones. Needless to say, a five-year-old does not know to look across the road when getting off a school bus. That is why the school buses are equipped with all the devices they have and the new devices they will now have because of this bill.
Perhaps the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), who is sitting beside the minister could advise him, if there is any way that obligation can be enforced in a stricter way. The police are not equipped to do that. Of course, on a rural country road one cannot expect the local Ontario Provincial Police cruiser to follow the school bus all over the place to see if anyone is breaking the law. Physically it just cannot be done. Perhaps there should be some onus on the part of the school bus driver to report.
I would like to ask a question of the minister on the business of seatbelts in general as they pertain to handicapped drivers. There was an excellent article in one of the newspapers in Ottawa recently about a driver who could not wear a seatbelt, not because of any physical handicap -- well, it depends on what one calls a handicap, I guess. This person's problem, if I can call it that, was that he was not very tall. As a matter of fact, he was so short that if he wore the seatbelt it went right across his face and he could not drive the vehicle. He has now paid hundreds of dollars' worth of fines in Ottawa because the police keep on insisting that he wear the seatbelt, which would be going somewhere across his forehead. That is an absolutely asinine thing with which he has to deal. I do not know the gentleman, but I read about him in, I believe, the Ottawa Citizen. Perhaps the minister could reply.
Mr. Piché: All he needs is a medical letter.
The Acting Speaker: As long as the honourable member ties all his remarks into Bill 26--
Mr. Boudria: I am tying that to the bill. We are discussing seatbelts, safety devices, the Highway Traffic Act and seatbelts for children. I believe that mentioning seatbelts in relation to short people driving motor vehicles is perfectly within the general idea of what this bill is supposed to do, and I wonder if the minister would respond to that.
I heard an interjection from one of the government members that a medical letter could change that. Again, I read in the same newspaper article that a medical letter cannot do anything for this person because he does not suffer a specific handicap. Being rather short is not considered a handicap and, therefore, medical practitioners have not been willing to give him that letter to which the member referred.
I will conclude my remarks on this bill. We are in support of the legislation, as my colleagues have indicated, but I feel some of these questions should be clarified and I invite the minister to see to this at his convenience.
10 p.m.
Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my support and to amplify briefly on one or two comments made by my friend the member for Huron-Middlesex and also by the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).
One of the major manufacturers of school buses is in the Brantford area, Canadian Blue Bird Coach Ltd. I do not believe they are in my riding but across the border in Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. It seems to me very recently I saw figures indicating that the cost of fully equipping a school bus with seatbelts is something under $3,000.
I suggest to the minister that this is a very small price to pay when one thinks of the margin of safety that device could provide for the children riding in the bus. I would expect there to be some degree of opposition in the industry, but I think it is very necessary to provide that safety.
I know this is not addressed specifically in the bill, but I would like to draw to the minister's attention that apparently in certain municipalities the police force is somewhat reluctant to enforce the law on seatbelts. I am sure that across the various municipal jurisdictions there is considerable variance in the enforcement of that law.
I wonder if the minister has any comments on that and whether, with an overwhelming body of statistical evidence now coming forward that seatbelts do save lives, the minister might be prepared to confer with the Attorney General and with the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) to urge municipalities to enforce this law more rigidly so that people, regardless of where they live in the province, are afforded the same measure of compulsion, or encouragement, to comply with that law.
My other point is more by way of a question to the minister regarding section 4 of the bill, which addresses the question of the length of vehicles. I ask this quite innocently, I might say, on a point of information.
When I was in Belgium and France recently I noticed that most transport trucks on the highways were articulated, with usually two or even three trailers. I would think that would be very fuel efficient and, of course, the price of fuel in Europe is considerably higher than we are paying in Canada at present. I wonder if the ministry has looked at ways of encouraging the transportation industry to move in this direction. It seems to me many of the transport trucks we see on our highways are pulling just one trailer.
Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the debate this evening brings back a few memories of 1975 and 1976 when seatbelts were introduced. I would like to speak on behalf of that silent majority, or maybe not so silent, back in those days when a petition was delivered with regard to seatbelts, which claimed that the people out there had some rights and responsibilities to protect themselves.
The Acting Speaker: Will the honourable member just --
Mr. G. I. Miller: I am speaking to the bill, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to reflect for a few moments. While our party has indicated that we support the bill and although I supported the seatbelt legislation, I would like to bring this matter to the attention of the minister.
I remember the late Jack Spence, the great member from Kent-Elgin, standing up in this Legislature and speaking on behalf of his constituents. He indicated that he would never wear a seatbelt. He said, "You can put me in jail if you like." Yet he succeeded in protecting himself from any injury while driving.
I have had considerable experience in driving over 40 years and have always felt safe without a seatbelt. I think it is a matter of driving defensively. The thing I fear most is that I might get sleepy, as we do not have the opportunity of utilizing chauffeurs to do our driving but have to do our own. I would like to make it clear to the members on the government side of the House that I think each individual has some responsibility to take care of himself and his family.
While we say they should have good tires on, I have had people from my own riding say that if the idea of having first-rate equipment on the road is enforced too strongly they may not even be able to get to work. I think that is a consideration we have to be concerned about. We do have to make sure we can make a living for our family, and we do have to take some responsibility in making sure our kids are in the proper position when they are in the car.
I raised a family of four and the only time I was really embarrassed was when I did not come to a full stop at a stop sign. We were taking a little drive on a Sunday afternoon with our kids in the back seat. I rolled around the corner and a cop was behind me. I got a ticket for not coming to a full stop. So I said: "Are you going to give those kids tickets? They were supposed to be keeping an eye on what is going on." They really should have the responsibility. We have to work as a team, Anyway, I think with the exception of that ticket and one for exceeding the speed limit in Hamilton just the other day or a couple years ago, those are the only two tickets I have had.
I just wanted to speak on behalf of the people out there who cannot speak up and who want to protect themselves and do not want to be overregulated.
Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I support the bill although I do not like wearing a seatbelt myself. I believe I have contacted the minister in regard to having seatbelts on school buses before. It seems to me that the minister says there is some federal law that interferes with allowing Ontario to enforce seatbelts in school buses. I feel the minister should work with the federal government, if this is the case, to make sure the changes are made so that seatbelts can be installed in school buses, especially the new buses, as a previous speaker mentioned.
I also feel this is where seatbelts could be of the most benefit, as other members have said, because the children are travelling at high speeds for long distances to school. The danger there is just as great or maybe greater than in an individual automobile. So I would certainly encourage the minister to do whatever he has to do to get seatbelts installed in school buses. A good place to start would be with the new vehicles. If it does take some co-operation with the federal government, I think the minister should make strides to see that it comes about.
Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the honourable members for their comments. I believe the main comment of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) was in regard to vehicle lengths. First of all, I want to make it very plain what we are doing here as far as vehicle lengths are concerned. We are not lengthening the overall length of tractor-trailer units on our highways. We are increasing the length of a straight truck to make it uniform with the other provinces. It is one of the changes we had to make to meet the objectives of the motor vehicle administrators and the nine other ministers of transport who have been working together for more uniform weights, measures and dimensions of vehicles.
We have discussed many times the matter the member mentioned about school buses being yellow. A school bus must be painted chrome yellow. A school bus can be used for other purposes on charter but a bus used by a construction company, a farmer or someone else to haul employees is not a school vehicle being used for school purposes.
I think it would dilute our legislation very much to have a proliferation of vehicles, other than school-purpose vehicles, that are yellow. We all know that a school bus is yellow; so let us keep that colour for school-purpose vehicles, although we do allow the school-purpose vehicle to be used to take a bunch of people to a hockey game, a bingo match or whatever it may be on a charter privilege when such outings are not the main use of the bus.
10:10 p.m.
The member for Cornwall made a number of comments. One was on the use of metric versus imperial measurements, and I think the suggestion was that we publish them in both versions. That is very difficult, because they do not always convert back and forth to each other. For instance, the 21-metre length of a tractor trailer is 68 feet 10 and three quarter inches--
Mr. Nixon: Approximately.
Hon. Mr. Snow: Approximately; not even exactly that, but that is down to the last quarter of an inch. We have metric, and I think we should go with it.
The member made quite a number of comments about how long it took to get this legislation and why it was not passed in 1981. It is just now that the regulations are being passed at the federal level for infant restraints. I know he is going to say that his New Democratic Party friends in Saskatchewan--
Mr. Samis: No, I did not even say it.
Hon. Mr. Snow: In fact, I know the gentleman very well. Mr. Kramer, who was Minister of Highways and Transportation in Saskatchewan, was a very close personal friend of mine over the years. He brought in the legislation, and I know he realized the weaknesses of it, but he said, "To hell with it; I am going to do it anyway." Maybe you can get by with that in a small province; I do not think you can do that in Ontario and I am not prepared to do it.
We will be phasing in the legislation, as the member mentioned, and I think we are phasing it in on a reasonable basis. Naturally, I would like to see every child in a child restraint device tomorrow. But I do not think it is reasonable to do that.
The member mentioned the loaner program. I am not prepared, and I do not have the funds, to get into a loaner program on the basis the member suggests. We are supplying some funding to the Ontario Safety League to coordinate loaner programs. When this legislation is through we will be doing everything we can to encourage it. Different service clubs are getting involved in this, such as church and women's groups. The Zonta Club in my own riding has started a loaner program, I think it is an excellent program for those types of groups to get involved in, many service clubs today are looking for projects they can carry out.
Mr. Samis: But they need help.
Hon. Mr. Snow: They need help and they need encouragement, but I am not going to give them 50 per cent funding as the member suggests.
He talks about a public education program. I will not have $1 million, $5 million or $10 million put into an advertising program, I just do not have that kind of money. We do have the brochures.
Mr. Samis: "Preserve it, conserve it": You can find money for that.
Hon. Mr. Snow: I am not going to answer interjections about what some other ministry may spend. They will spend what they see fit to spend; I have to be responsible for my budget and that is enough.
We will be doing everything we can on an educational basis. We have put out the little brochure, which I think is very good. I thank the honourable members for their comments. We are trying to get those into every doctor's office. We are trying to work through the health units to promote these through the medical profession. We are getting a lot of support, but I just do not have the money for a big educational program. We have produced a film, which the member mentioned.
About the cost factor and sales tax: yes, I would like to have seen a sales tax exemption on these devices. It certainly was considered by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), but he is the man who makes those decisions and we do not have it.
I thank the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere for his strong support of this bill and for his private member's resolution last fall. I think he put that forward very well, and I congratulate him on it.
The member for Huron-Middlesex spoke about two items. He dealt with seatbelts in school buses and truck speeds. First of all, let us talk about the trucks.
The member may not be aware of it, but we have established a commission on truck safety. It was announced and has been under way for several months. Dr. Uffen has been working on it for several months. He has been holding public meetings around the province, looking into a great many matters relating to overall truck safety.
What I really want to find out is whether trucks are unsafe or whether it is a myth; is the member misled in his feeling towards trucks. I drive on the highways just as much as or maybe more than the member, but I do not see some of the things he does. Certainly we have some accidents.
Mr. Nixon: If one sits in the back seat--
Mr. Piché: One thing for sure, it is not a myth.
Hon. Mr. Snow: With all due regard to the member's interjection, I never sit in the back seat of a car and I never will.
Mr. Nixon: Well, Bud Gregory always does. I thought he set the style.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Snow: In other words, to try to clarify this and to look at many safety aspects and possible changes the trucking industry want to make, I did appoint Dr. Robert Uffen as a one-man commission on truck safety. I expect a report with his recommendations by the end of this year. He is the former dean of engineering at Queen's University. He is a very capable man and is doing an excellent job.
A number of members mentioned seatbelts in school buses. This is something I have been wrestling with for a number of years.
First of all, we require seatbelts to be worn where the federal government requires them to be installed. In a school bus the federal government requires a seatbelt to be installed for the driver. I disagree with the member. I think that is the most important position in the bus to have that belt because if there is a minor accident and the bus driver gets thrown out of that seat there is apt to be a much more serious accident if the driver should lose control.
We can separate school buses from general buses, and I cannot imagine seatbelts on TTC buses with the number of people standing on those buses, as the member has seen them here in Toronto. On the other hand, we do allow 30 per cent standees on school buses. One may argue that one should not allow standees on school buses, but if the member would talk to school boards they would be very concerned if we did not allow standees because it allows a bus to pick up the last few students close to the school and saves them an extra trip. I agree it is a dollar-and-cents situation.
The other part is the enforcement. I cannot see putting that onus on a bus driver with 50, 60 or 70 young people in the back of the bus for whom he is responsible. If someone is under 16 years of age, the driver could be charged if that young person is not wearing a seatbelt. I cannot see putting the driver of that bus in a position of being responsible for every one of those children in the back of the bus using their seatbelts.
There is the other problem where the younger children sit three to a seat and the older children sit two to a seat. How does one provide for that? That is a technical problem, I know, but there are so many problems. Really, there is not sufficient evidence that I can find any place to indicate to me that there would be an increase in safety by having seatbelts on school buses.
Mr. Riddell: Well, there could be volunteer parental supervision on the school buses too.
Hon. Mr. Snow: If extra people are going to be put on a bus, if a conductor or two is going to be hired on every bus --
Mr. Riddell: I said volunteer.
Hon. Mr. Snow: If the member can find that many volunteers, he is better than I am.
An hon. member: Common sense has to prevail somewhere along the line. It certainly is not prevailing over there.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
10:20 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Snow: The member for Prescott- Russell had a good question regarding child restraints. Tourists will be exempt, obviously. Cars coming from outside, from the United States, Manitoba or Quebec, will be exempt as will be a number of others -- I do not want to go into them; taxis, for instance.
If one wants to take the lady next door downtown shopping and she has her child with her, one does not have to have a child restraint device in one's car just to give someone a Good Samaritan ride to take the baby to the doctor or something like that. There will be a number of common sense exemptions in the regulations to deal with those situations, which will include the tourists.
As for the member and his newspaper in Ottawa, whatever it is, I do not know where the devil they ever got the idea about the poor, short person. All that person has to do is go to a doctor. I have the wording of the regulation here some place. In any case, where a person seeks an exemption because of his physical or mental condition or whatever; for example as a person who is not disabled at all but has claustrophobia can go to his doctor and get a letter that exempts him from wearing a seatbelt.
A short person could certainly get a letter that would exempt him from wearing a shoulder belt if it could not be done up properly. He could maybe wear a lap belt but get rid of the shoulder belt. All he needs is an exemption letter from his doctor to do that. I wish the newspapers the member talks to would try to be helpful and tell people that, rather than try to mislead them.
The member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) talked about seatbelts on school buses; he thought $3,000 was a low amount. I do not know whether that is the right price or not. There are 10,000 school buses in Ontario. If one took 10,000 times $3,000, that would come out to quite a few dollars. There are some school boards today that have seatbelts on their buses. They can put them on if they wish.
I disagree with the member, though, on his suggestion that we lengthen the trucks and make triple trailers the common thing on our highways. That is something--
Mr. Boudria: Who asked for that?
Hon. Mr. Snow: My colleague the member for Brantford.
We do have double trailers but we limit them to 21 metres in length. We have not allowed triple trailers. It is something Dr. Uffen is looking into. I will be anxious to receive his report. I am certainly not prepared to consider anything beyond that at this time.
I have not answered every member specifically, but I think I have answered every question. There were many duplicates.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered for committee of the whole House.
MOTORIZED SNOW VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. Snow moved second reading of Bill 27, An Act to amend the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act.
Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief opening statement. The major changes in the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act reflect the elimination of the connection between public funding of snowmobile trails and various safety requirements.
"Trail" in future will mean "the whole of any trail established and maintained by a recreational organization for the use of motorized snow vehicles." The rules with regard to age of the operator and licence requirements, which formerly applied only to provincially funded public trails, will apply to trails as more broadly defined.
The requirement that vehicles be licensed and helmets worn is being expanded to apply to all areas except where the vehicle is owned by the land owner; in other words, on his own land.
The issuance of motorized snow vehicle operators' licences is being simplified so that it no longer will be necessary for a person who has completed his training under a recognized instructor to come to the ministry driver examination centre to have the licence validated. This is one more item of regulatory reform which will benefit the public. In other words, the people who operate the snowmobile operators' course for young people will be able fully to validate the licence when they have completed the course.
Basically, these amendments are very much of a housekeeping nature and safety-oriented.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly supporting this. I just want to say in passing how much good the snowmobile organizations have done, in our community and in many others, in setting out trails and instructing people who otherwise might not have an opportunity to learn proper snowmobile practices and in assisting them in getting whatever licences and so on they require.
I presume these associations, under their organization, have been consulted by the minister and have approved as well. We are supporting the bill.
Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, we will support this bill as well, especially the initiative regarding insurance, helmets and the greater flexibility in licence validation.
The one concern we have is the question of the whole process of privatization and the concept of user fees. I ask the minister how the rights of snowmobilers will be protected in northern Ontario where the trails go over crown land and whether there will be some sort of protection for the public from user fees on crown land.
Beyond that, we will support the bill.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a few brief questions on this bill. If I understand it correctly, the minister will be deeming a trail owned by a private club for the use of its members as a trail for the purposes of this bill. Does this mean that in the case of a private club with a trail for the use of its own members, such as a snowmobile club that has a trail for its exclusive use on its own land owned by the club, the members driving snowmobiles in that area would have to wear helmets on trails that are indirectly their own property?
It also would mean they would have to be licensed to operate a motor vehicle on private property. I have some questions on that. Is the intent of the bill to do those things? I do not think anyone is questioning that public trails as we generally know them, or trails operated on certain pieces of private property that are leased or agreed to by a group of people forming a snowmobile club, end up being winter highways. I have no problem with the minister's decision.
My only concern has to do with these specific areas that are purely private property or property owned by a particular club, such as a rod and gun club which also uses its space for the benefit of its members for snowmobiling.
Perhaps the minister could explain further what the legislation does in those cases.
Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I want to make one point. It appears this bill is the direct result of the decision by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) to discontinue the ongoing funding for snowmobile trails. It seems to me unfortunate if we now see a movement to user fees to make up for the costs incurred by snowmobile clubs that are maintaining trails for the general public. As my colleague said, it would be difficult to see how it could be justified that snowmobilers --
Mr. Speaker: I do not think there is anything in that regard in this bill.
Mr. Wildman: It does relate to the bill in the sense that it allows for this kind of thing to happen. It is most unfortunate and it would seem to me we should be ensuring that people who use public trails on public land should not have to pay user fees to private clubs.
Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member that this bill is a direct result of the change in the funding of the trails. It is perhaps partially the outcome of that and the fact that we will now have two kinds of trails, public trails and semi-private trails.
To answer the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), if you own a snowmobile and drive it on your own land, then you do not have to have insurance or wear a helmet; but if you are driving on somebody else's land, club land or a club trail, certainly, as far as I am concerned, you should be wearing a helmet and should be insured because you are not driving on your own property.
There are clubs that make arrangements with a number of land owners to develop a trail, which they maintain for a fee. This makes it a semi-private trail. To provide the safety -- and we have been successful through the clubs, the ministry and the laws, in substantially cutting down on the number of deaths and injuries from snowmobiles -- I do not intend to lose control of that by not having helmet and safety laws, and speed limits, on these semi-public trails.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered for third reading.
The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.