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

May 12, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L062 - Thu 12 May 1988 / Jeu 12 mai 1988

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

EAST/CENTRAL ONTARIO RECREATIONAL TRAILS COMMISSION ACT

SPEED LIMITS IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

EAST/CENTRAL ONTARIO RECREATIONAL TRAILS COMMISSION ACT

SPEED LIMITS IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

GALT BRANCH 121, ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION

DRUG BENEFITS

HANOVER INDUSTRIAL FAIR

ONTARIO HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN

HOSPITAL FUNDING

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

CARABRAM

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

GOODYEAR CANADA INC.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH REORGANIZATION

POLICE WEEK

RESPONSES

GOODYEAR CANADA INC.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH REORGANIZATION

GOODYEAR CANADA INC.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH REORGANIZATION

POLICE WEEK

ORAL QUESTIONS

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

HOSPITAL FUNDING

TABLING OF INFORMATION

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

TABLING OF INFORMATION

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

FUNERAL SERVICES

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROJECT

PENSION FUNDS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

FILM DISTRIBUTION

PROPOSED RELOCATION OF ONTARIO HYDRO ADMINISTRATIVE CENTRE

TAX INCREASES

CANADA PENSION PLAN BORROWING

MINISTRY OF HEALTH REORGANIZATION

PETITIONS

CUSTODY OF CHILDREN

TAX INCREASES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

PRIMROCK MINING AND EXPLORATION LIMITED ACT

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10 am.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

EAST/CENTRAL ONTARIO RECREATIONAL TRAILS COMMISSION ACT

Mr. Pollock moved second reading of Bill 67,

An Act to establish the East/Central Ontario Recreational Trails Commission.

The Deputy Speaker: The member has up to 20 minutes to make his presentation, of which he may retain any portion for the windup.

Mr. Pollock: I want to leave a few minutes for the wrapup.

I am pleased to actually have a chance to debate this bill. It is basically designed along the same lines as the Niagara Parks Commission or the St. Lawrence Parks Commission. It appoints a local group to actually look after this abandoned railroad line, assuming and presuming, of course, that it will have public ownership.

For the benefit of those people who do not know just exactly where this abandoned railroad line is, it runs from Picton right through to Lake St. Peter. That is known as the Marmora subdivision. It is actually broken into two divisions, the north and the south. What I am dealing with here this morning is basically the northern portion of that subdivision and a small portion of the south subdivision.

My bill actually relates to the little hamlet of Glen Ross, where it starts. At that particular point is where the old railroad crossed the Trent Canal. There is a swing bridge there. Let’s face it, it has not swung in many a year and it would be unrealistic to think the government or anybody is going to maintain a swing bridge for recreation equipment or vehicles.

I start at that particular point, and from there for the first five or six miles, this abandoned railroad line runs through reasonably good farm land. Then it comes to a place the locals would know as the old rock, or Rawdon station. Actually, the railroad line runs out on to Flat Rock, and from there, through the northern part of Rawdon township and through Marmora township and Madoc, it runs through class 5 or 6 farm land with maybe the odd pocket of class 4 farm land. When it gets into Tudor township, and from there back through Bancroft to Lake St. Peter, it is actually in the Canadian Shield or the Laurentian Shield and the land is extremely rough.

If this were a recreation trail, I am sure that snowmobiles would use it and it would provide access to some people to get to their property. It would be used for horseback riding, for skiing and for snowmobiles. Actually, the sled dogs are trained on this abandoned railroad line for the big sled-dog competition that they have each year in Marmora.

Back in 1985, the then Minister of Tourism and Recreation, the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins), commissioned a study which cost $30,000. It recommends that this abandoned railroad line be taken over for public ownership.

This study addresses quite a few things. Of course, it relates some of the history of the abandoned railroad line. It also mentions costs and the revenue that would be gained from this abandoned line as a recreation trail. Also, it relates to the cost to maintain the trail. I question that a little bit because I think the revenues it is going to gain, and also the cost to maintain it, are exaggerated a little bit.

It also mentions certain safety concerns that would have to be addressed. This railroad crosses over a lot of township and county roads. It crosses Highway 7 and criss-crosses back and forth over Highway 62 four times. In one particular place where it crosses Highway 62 it is extremely dangerous. That would have to be addressed.

I might also mention that there is another subdivision that crosses the Marmora subdivision at a place called Anson, and this is known as the Corbyville subdivision, which runs all the way from Corbyville right through to Peterborough.

I know there is a controversy in one way. Most local farmers want that abandoned railroad to go back to the local land owners. But if you move a little way from the railroad land, you get an opinion from people that they figure the snow-mobilers might better be riding on that abandoned railroad line than riding on private property, so there is a controversy there.

I might mention that I have told the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and some of the land owners about the Corbyville subdivision, that I am quite willing and agree that that particular subdivision should go back to the local land owners, because I think it is a little unrealistic to think every abandoned railroad in this province can be used as a recreation trail. The cost of keeping them up and maintaining them would be excessive.

I would like to compliment the government on the ads it had on television last winter in regard to safety. There was an ad that came on television, and it showed two snowmobilers talking. One was suggesting it was time to head down the trail home. The other fellow says, “Yeah, that’s right, but I know a shortcut.” Then it shows them riding off into the night, and then their obituary notices start appearing on the screen. One person who was watching that said, “That ad would certainly make you think.”

I am mentioning this because I had two snowmobilers go through the ice last winter in my riding alone, and if we can provide a recreation trail for these people to ride on rather than be out there on the rivers and lakes, and in some way prevent loss of life, even if we save one life it is worth it to have those trails out there.

One thing as far as a recreation trail is concerned is liability insurance. Once the ownership of that particular abandoned railway line is transferred to, say, a recreational trails commission, people will expect it to be maintained in that particular manner. As I mentioned, if there is a washout and somebody is hurt on that trail, there could be a chance of a liability suit.

But in other cases -- I mentioned that case of snowmobilers going through the ice, and there was a case about a month ago where an all-terrain vehicle with a chap on it ran into a tree and, once again, he lost his life -- I do not know how you can actually justify a liability suit in those cases. You cannot go out and sue the lake; you cannot go out and sue the tree. We have trees on our county roads, our township roads and our provincial highways. I really do not know how there would be any more liability on a recreation trail than there would be on an ordinary road.

I would like to mention, too, that I have a lot of support from municipalities in my riding, especially those that this abandoned railway line goes through. I would like to read into the record the names of these municipalities. They include the township of Rawdon; the township of Bangor, Wicklow and McClure; Sidney township; Faraday, Monteagle, Dungannon, Marmora and Lake township; and the village of Bancroft. I have also had endorsement from the villages of Stirling, Marmora and Madoc, the town of Parry Sound and the chamber of commerce of Parry Sound.

Even in this particular report there are a lot of snowmobile clubs and horseback-riding clubs that recommend that this abandoned railway line be a recreation trail.

To inform members of what has taken place in other jurisdictions, I will just give out some statistics. There are 125 rails-to-trails in the United States. Twenty-seven states are involved. Many more are in the planning stages. In Britain, 20 railways are being converted. Part of the old logging line in British Columbia has also been converted to a recreation trail. Elroy-Sparta Trail in Wisconsin, which stretches 32 miles, is the United States’ oldest rails-to-trails, and along that particular railroad line, campgrounds, bed-and-breakfast inns, restaurants and bicycle repair shops have sprung up.

There are over 50,000 vacationers a year, which brings in over $1 million in revenue from that particular recreation trail. The longest trail in the United States is the Luce Trail in Minnesota. It is 104 miles long.

Last year was the first time the United States federal government gave money to convert abandoned rails into trails. Last year it gave $75,000 for this particular project. The state of Massachusetts leads all other states in funding rails-to-trails, with $3 million directly earmarked for the purchase of abandoned railroad lines. The province of Nova Scotia is actively pursuing the development of abandoned railroad lines, and one stretches from Liverpool to Dartmouth. Nova Scotia has already purchased the land from Canadian National Railways.

A lot of people believe the provincial government should be the owner of this abandoned railroad line because it reaps the sales tax from snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles. They also reap the gas tax from the gas these machines use and sales tax from, certainly, different things. I might mention, too, that in this study they recommended that there be a restaurant at both ends of this particular abandoned railroad line. This study, I should inform the House, deals basically with that portion from Marmora to Lake St. Peter.

I say that they recommend a restaurant at each end, but there are restaurants in Marmora, there are restaurants part-way back -- the Log Cabin Inn -- and also in Bancroft, in Maynooth and at the Algonquin Lodge right at the far end of this abandoned railroad line, so I question whether they really need any more restaurants at this time.

I certainly would like to pay tribute to my staff, Graham Loughton and Ruth Martin, for the research they have done in getting this information. Also, there is a lady in my riding who has distributed a tremendous lot of petitions around through the riding. I have had the pleasure of presenting them to the Legislature. There were over 1,200 names on those petitions in support of this abandoned railroad line becoming a recreational trail.

I would ask all members of this assembly to join with me in supporting this bill. Let us hope that eventually we can get some constructive manner in which we can deal with these abandoned railroad lines. In a case where these particular railroad lines go through rough terrain, I think it just stands to reason that they should be recreational trials.

With that, I would reserve the rest of my time until after I hear the comments from some of my fellow members.

Mr. McGuigan: I wish to commend the member for Hastings-Peterborough for the work he has done in the preparation of this bill and, in addition, for the attention he has given to his constituents, especially concerning the rail line called the Marmora line.

The government has no quarrel with the concept of acquiring abandoned rail lines for recreational or other purposes. Indeed, I think it has a great deal of merit. My reason for withholding support is that the government believes that a commission is an expensive method of dealing with this exercise, and it would also commit the government to a very expensive venture, not only in this case but in many others.

As well, I believe we have the machinery in place already for acquiring land for the crown on a priority and need basis. The framework within the Ministry of Natural Resources is very capable of acquiring and managing crown land. In fact, as most members know, almost 87.7 per cent of the land in this province is owned by the ministry on behalf of the crown. We have the surveyors, the lawyers and the field staff to carry out the responsibilities, and they have the expertise. We do not believe, therefore, that it is advisable to create an extra body for this purpose.

There are situations where the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) might want to acquire lands, and even abandoned rail lines, because of their significance as part of a desirable wetland, or as part of a Carolinian forest in southern Ontario, or as an area of significant and scientific interest, perhaps even as part of a provincial park. But I do not think the minister is interested, because we have such competition for funds to purchase lands that we do not consider it to be a priority. This is not to say we do not consider the recreational component as one without significance. It has, but it does not have priority at the present time.

The minister is not prepared to acquire lands that carry very serious and costly liabilities strictly for recreational purposes. Such liabilities could be the cost of fencing in a situation where the perimeters stretch almost to infinity; that is, in relation to the enclosed area. Maintenance of these fences is a big problem.

There is weed control, bridge repair -- the member has mentioned we would not be expected to repair the swing bridge but I assume there are other bridges along the line -- trail maintenance, drainage costs, erosion control, road crossings, litter and garbage, noise control and supporting facilities such as washrooms and, of course, law and order. As well, the government would not wish to cover the expense of a commission when we believe the system is in place and working well already.

The member for Hastings-Peterborough will be pleased to learn that we think abandoned railway lines could at some time be put to use for purposes such as he has suggested in his bill. However, we do not wish to give the perception that we see all railway lines as significant parcels for purchase. Instead, we choose to identify the merits of each within our criteria, assess the available funding and secure the taxpayer of the province from unnecessary expense.

If we deem a stretch of rail significant for natural, recreational or conservation uses, we then must determine if the funds are available for the purchase. Of course, if a stretch has a very high significance, we will look harder for those moneys. We must have a development and long-term management plan in place and it must be acceptable to the government. We do not wish to burden the district staff of the Ministry of National Resources or the taxpayers with a piece of land we cannot develop or manage because of the budget.

Therefore, we would rather see a municipality or user group be involved in a co-operative way. We would hope they would come up with a well-thought-out and sufficiently funded plan of action. If such a plan were presented to the Ministry of Natural Resources and other government agencies, we would certainly give all due consideration to holding the deed to a piece of abandoned rail line for use by such a group. In fact, I encourage the ministry to listen and consider. Such a group could sell shares in a corporation, just as golf clubs or curling clubs sell shares to their user-members.

The members might think that is putting an onus or burden on the recreation people, but if they just stop to think of the thousands of dollars a good snow machine or an all-terrain vehicle costs, or the trucks and trailers they use to pull these machines around, they will realize that they are very costly and they already have a lot of money in it. It would seem reasonable to me that they would be willing to pay for their use. Tourist operators and municipalities could be interested in the recreational benefits and the subsequent economic benefits.

It is very easy, regardless of where one sits in this House, to suggest to the government what appears to be a legitimate enterprise. The problem is that more money has to be spent and that means more raised by taxes or cut from another program. Seldom does anyone hear from any side of the House where we should cut to accommodate needs.

As parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources, I am often called upon by the minister to meet with delegates from conservation authorities who come to Queen’s Park in an effort to advance their particular projects. The projects most often have merit, but do not rank sufficiently high on a priority scale to receive funding at the time. There is simply not enough money. With conservation matters, we are obliged to give priority to those that hinge upon matters of risk to human life or risk to property, and as a result, recreational projects receive a smaller share of the available dollars.

The ministry stands ready to listen to any proposal, including the one offered by the member for Hastings-Peterborough. We are looking for significant lands that are supported by a group that proposes to develop and manage them in a way that meets with the interests of the Ministry of Natural Resources, but we must be assured we will not be left to take over the liabilities in the event of a default.

If funds are available and if these conditions are met, the Ministry of Natural Resources is willing to participate in a case-by-case, specific situation. This is consistent with the acquisition of any land, including abandoned rail lines.

I wish to make it clear that we do not condemn the bill, as it is well prepared by the thoughtful and honourable member for Hastings-Peterborough. Therefore, I want to close by saying that this bill is expensive and establishes a precedent and a perception that the government cannot afford. I ask all members to recognize these facts and give support to our position by defeating the motion.

Mr. Farnan: I rise to speak in support of the concept of recreational trails in general and of the bill brought forward by the member for Hastings-Peterborough in particular.

This is a concept and an issue that is close to my heart. Indeed, since my arrival at Queen’s Park as the member for Cambridge, I have promoted the idea of converting abandoned railway lines into recreational corridors and linear parkways. I have written to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil) on this matter. I have made the minister aware of the potential that exists for creating trails along a corridor running between Cambridge and Lynden. I have also raised the issue with the minister during daily question period.

I believe that in Ontario in 1988, and for several years now, we have been faced with a once-in-a-lifetime, perhaps a once-in-a-century opportunity. As the rail system shrinks, abandoned track becomes available, and as it does, we have the potential to convert these valuable rail corridors into public trails for running, walking, bicycling, wildlife conservation and observation, cross-country skiing, horseback riding and other uses.

I do not believe we want to see each and every abandoned line saved for public trails, but the abandonment process should include an evaluation of each of these lines for trails so that potentially excellent trails are not lost for ever.

Let me review some of the characteristics of rail corridors. Let me draw to the members’ attention some of the features that make for outstanding trails -- attributes, I might add, that are present in large measure in the proposed Cambridge-Lynden trail, in the Collingwood-Meaford trail and in the trail we are presently discussing, the rail corridor known as the Marmora subdivision.

For instance, rail corridors are flat or nearly level, and thus are generally usable, even by the elderly, the infirm and those in wheelchairs. Rail corridors traverse every conceivable environment from urban to suburban to rural, including farm land, river valleys, wetlands, industrial areas, residential tracts, forests and lake shores.

Rail corridors also include historically interesting structures such as stations, bridges, tunnels, mills, factories and canals, all of which enhance the trail user’s experience. Rail corridors are often prime wildlife breeding and conservation areas, with remarkable collections of birds, small mammals and plants.

Rail corridors can represent a financial bargain to a community, with the price of a right of way amounting to only a fraction of the comparable cost of assembling a continuous corridor through a crowded and fragmented urban or suburban area. Rail trails represent an excellent way of increasing recreation in built-up areas.

Rail trails are being shown to increase property values of homes nearby, since a significant number of people will pay more to have a walking, running and bicycle trail in the vicinity of their neighbourhood. In fact, in some areas of the United States, real estate advertisements touting the close proximity to trails has caused an increase in the value of homes.

In some rural areas, particularly those hard hit by the impact of railroad abandonments, a rail trail can be a significant stimulus to a local economy, with trail users spending money on food, beverages, camping, hotels, bed and breakfast, bicycle rentals, crafts, souvenirs and gasoline. Indeed, studies in the United States show this to be true also.

However, let me say this: I support the Marmora subdivision trail because in supporting this trail I support the entire concept. Rail companies are abandoning lines in dozens of small communities across the province, and my hope is that not only will this private member’s bill win support, but also that the support for this bill today will signal to the government the value and advantage to our province of promoting and developing a broad network of such trails.

The key question, of course, is the manner of provincial involvement. I have urged the Minister of Tourism and Recreation to take a leadership role. I have urged the minister of the urgency and the necessity to demonstrate a political will that goes beyond simply providing assistance to study the problems of rails-to-trails conversions. Indeed, the member for Hastings-Peterborough has also encouraged more forthright involvement by the minister and his ministry.

For these trail corridors to be developed in a meaningful manner, there must be a commitment to implement a co-ordinated program. Many of these corridors often pass through several municipalities, and this makes co-ordination difficult and the need for a leadership role imperative. In my own area, for example, the rail line runs through Cambridge, North Dumfries, Branchton, South Dumfries and part of the village of Harriston, and ends up at the village of Lynden, thus passing through several communities.

Unfortunately, to date there is no evidence that this government, this ministry or this minister have the political will required to provide leadership and co-ordination. For the members present let me quote, from Hansard, the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. This was in response to my questioning. The minister said this, “This ministry is not involved in owning and operating recreational facilities.”

I ask the minister, what does he consider Ontario Place to be if not a recreational facility? What is the domed stadium if not a recreational facility? Is this government more interested in providing facilities recreation-wise for the urban Metro area, while rural areas and cities away from Toronto are to have second-class recreational investment?

The minister made some rather innocuous comments. He says, for example, in answer again to my questions, “My ministry staff within both the ministry head office and the regional offices are looking very closely at the problem that exists.” Is that not fine? Is that not wonderful? They are looking very closely at the problem. Again, he says: “It is our preference that in some way the different municipalities will co-ordinate this effort.” This is not good enough.

I urge this minister to review his policy. There is very little to commend a mind frame or a mindset that simply says, “We have a policy and our policy does not allow us to be flexible, to be innovative and to meet new opportunities.”

This type of inflexibility represents the type of bureaucratic inability to take advantage of opportunity. Ontario is at a moment of decision. We can give to our children and to generations to come a wonderful recreational facility, but it demands leadership on the part of the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. I hope the minister will review the policies of his ministry and demonstrate the necessary leadership.

It is precisely because these corridors pass through several communities, villages and townships that there exists a need for this provincial leadership, not the leadership of encouraging individual local governments to become involved, because such a policy and directions give no guarantee of final outcome. At best, bits and pieces may be converted. In the most extraordinary circumstances, a continual trail of some significance might be the outcome; but this policy of this government, this direction, gives no guarantee that the best trails and the maximization of the best trails will be held in the public interest.

Indeed, the opposite is true. It is much more likely that we will end up with fragmented recreational facilities, and at worst, because of the lack of total co-operation of all the partners, all the municipalities involved, a precious opportunity will be lost for posterity. If this opportunity is lost for posterity, if this investment in the future recreational facilities for our children and generations to come is lost, it is this government and this ministry that must be held accountable.

Finally, in summing up, I would like to read from a letter of the president of the Grand Valley Trails Association, Betty Schneider, who says:

“It seems imperative that some action be taken immediately to preserve these corridors before they disappear. It seems logical, since these corridors already exist as quasi-public lands, that they be preserved and protected for some future public use. As well as trails, they may serve as future utility corridors. With the widespread distribution of railway lines, any long-range plans would ultimately involve local, regional, provincial and federal governments.

“It seems like a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to restore purpose and vitality to these lands. Let’s not let this national resource slip through our fingers.”

The member for Hastings-Peterborough is to be commended for bringing forward this bill. It deserves support. Support for this bill is support for the entire rails-to-trails concept.

I urge the members to support the rails-to-trails concept, and in so doing to invest in the quality of our recreational future.

Mr. Eves: I would also like to rise in support of the bill introduced by the member for Hastings-Peterborough. The first time this issue was brought to my attention was actually late in 1987 and early in 1988. Although it does not deal with the specific area referred to by the member, I want to point out to the House that the abandoned railway line we are talking about in my riding extends from Georgian Bay right through to the Ottawa area.

I would like to read from a letter sent to me by a constituent of mine, a councillor actually, for the town of Parry Sound, and a lady who is very active in the Parry Sound Chamber of Commerce, Nancy Cunningham. The letter is dated February 2, 1988, and she writes to me:

“Re: the Ottawa-Arnprior-Parry Sound Rail Line. The Parry Sound Area Chamber of Commerce has recently formed a task force to investigate the preservation of the abandoned Ottawa-Arnprior-Parry Sound railway, founded by J. R. Booth. The line, abandoned in 1974, runs some 264 miles from Georgian Bay to Ottawa, and the committee is interested in protecting this historic corridor against its potential loss.

“Portions of the rail line are presently being used as a recreational trail and the possibility of development of the entire line brings endless ideas of opportunity and community benefits to mind.

“Rights of way, such as this one, are a unique resource which should be protected by the government. Once lost, they can never be regained. With the growing importance of tourism in the economy of the country, the input that would be required to retain this corridor and others like it would be repaid many times over in the future.

“At present, the committee is in the information-gathering stage and wishes to inform you of our intentions.”

On behalf of Mrs. Cunningham and others in the area, I did some investigating with respect to the Ministry of Natural Resources and received the following status report from the ministry.

With respect to the area of the rail line in the Georgian Bay area, we were informed that the township of Foley, just south of Parry Sound, was offered that part of the rail line and initially declined, but I am now led to believe the township of Foley has given its consent to go ahead and obtain that portion of the rail line until the provincial government decides what it is going to do.

The Bracebridge district office advised that MNR does not own anything of the line in its area, that CN initially offered the property to the federal, provincial and municipal governments in the area, all of which declined. They are now in the process, unfortunately, of offering some of this property to adjoining land owners. This covers the area from Fern Glen to Algonquin Park.

The Algonquin Park line is owned by Ontario; however, the ministry is of the opinion that nothing can be done in the park until a management plan has been reviewed. All the property is owned by the province; a presentation to the management plan board which governs the park would be required.

In the Whitney-to-Madawaska area, high priority of purchase; MNR was in the process, and planned use for a provincial waterway park.

There has been strong involvement, of course, by the member for Hastings-Peterborough in the Hastings area with respect to the Marmora-Lake St. Peter line, and I understand this is being done on a piecemeal basis. I know that Mrs. Cunningham and her colleagues have also been approaching the federal level of government, asking for a freeze on sales to adjoining land owners, not only until her association can come up with a comprehensive plan but also hoping that Ontario will take some initiative and responsibility in this matter as well.

I am informed by a letter of March 9, 1988, from Mrs. Cunningham, that she has been corresponding with the MPP for Hastings-Peterborough with respect to his private member’s bill, which she supports, and that Foley township has now voted to purchase its

section of the line. She understands that the township of Grattan, which intends to permit private land owners to acquire sections as soon as the township obtains title, is going to be a problem -- that is a stretch of about three miles -- along with a stretch near Carney that is being privately purchased, which are also known private areas.

I wanted to mention some of the background. I am afraid that, although the minister has said this is a good idea and a nice idea, I think he is leaving somewhat mixed signals out there with respect to the recreation community. I am reading from a letter from the minister dated March 21, 1988, to Mrs. Cunningham. He thanks her for her correspondence and indicates that the ministry has acquired the line between Highway 69 and Highway 11, as well as a

section through Algonquin Park. Of course, they always owned the

section through Algonquin Park.

It was pointed out by my colleague the member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan) that not only does this abandoned railway line have some use as a recreational trail, but it also has a use as far as the residents of west Parry Sound are concerned, as the natural site for the location of a natural gas pipeline in the future, so it could serve a dual purpose in that regard.

The minister goes on to state: “We are also acquiring the sections of the line that parallel the new Madawaska waterway park through the townships of Airy, Murchison and Dickens, on the east side of the park. The remaining sections of the line have not been acquired because the government cannot justify the costs of line management, fencing, bridges, right-of-way upgrading and the associated costs unless these are related to existing programs.

However, the ministry is prepared to consider rights of way on a case-by-case basis if local municipalities, interest groups and/or user organizations can present viable proposals to upgrade and manage these corridors. I would support your effort to put a case together for route protection and management.”

I would think those are exactly the types of things that the Minister of Natural Resources should be doing himself. He has infinitely more resources -- pardon the pun on words -- available than do private citizens in Ontario. I think these people have done a great amount of background work. I might also note that in discussing sending out mixed signals, I am quoting here from a booklet from the Ministry of Natural Resources. It has the minister’s name on it and introduces people to recreational trails in Ontario.

Lo and behold, one of the trails described is the Seguin Trail, and it says, “The relative ease in travelling this trail is due to the origin as a bed of the old Arnprior and Parry Sound railway.”

It goes on to describe the history of the route and certainly leaves everyone with the impression, visitors and permanent residents of Ontario alike, that the province has acquired the trail and is maintaining it and doing everything to keep it up to snuff. Obviously, as members can see from looking at the correspondence, the background and the comments made by the government here today, that is not the case, nor is this a brand-new issue.

Going back to November 1987, there was a Meeting of Minds Symposium on Recreational Trails in Ontario, held in Whitchurch-Stouffville, on Wednesday, November 18, 1987, and I am now looking at a letter addressed to the Premier (Mr. Peterson), dated December 10, 1987. It reiterates a resolution that was passed at that meeting:

“That the participants of the Meeting of Minds Symposium on Trails held on November 18, 1987, endorse the concept of use of abandoned railway rights of way for recreational purposes and request that the government of Ontario take immediate action to protect such corridors.

“The resolution was unanimously endorsed by representatives of various trail recreation organizations working in the interests of more than 570,000 residents of the province. We submit that the resolution recognizes the outdoor recreational interests and related businesses and industries of close to two million individuals of all ages.

“We are mindful that not all railway abandonments are suitable for recreational-trail use. However, in our role as the user interests, we believe we can best serve by indicating those corridors having the highest priority and those capable of providing essential linkage and trail systems. At the conclusion of the Meeting of Minds, two resolutions were put forward and both received unanimous endorsement of the trail representatives.”

There is an endless list of groups that supported and attended this symposium and supported this resolution. Suffice it to say that they do represent some two million people in the province of Ontario, the list is practically endless and there are some very -- one would think not necessarily compatible groups, but they all seem to be working together. I would suggest that the Minister of Natural Resources and the government of Ontario should pick up the ball and work with these concerned individuals to provide this very worthwhile enterprise. I support the member’s bill.

Mr. Pelissero: I too would like to commend the member for Hastings-Peterborough for the work he has done in preparation of this particular piece of legislation and would like to spend a few minutes talking about some issues. I think it is important to identify the potential of abandoned railway lines within the province of Ontario.

Currently there are some 1,500 kilometres of railway rights of way that have been abandoned where the applications have been approved, there are another 800 that are under application and awaiting decision from the Canadian Transport Commission, and there is a potential for another 1,800 kilometres of lines that are vulnerable to abandonment. So we are looking at a potential of about 4,100 kilometres of abandoned railway lines.

What this particular member’s bill is asking the province of Ontario to do is to establish a commission. To reinforce some of the comments that were made by the member for Essex-Kent (Mr. McGuigan), there is probably a more cost-effective method of dealing with the situation than establishing a commission and the bureaucracy and sometimes the cost that is associated with that.

In the abandonment of railway lines, certainly there is a process by which the railway lines, the federal government and the provincial and municipal governments determine whether, in fact, the line is of use to them from a communications or transportation point of view or a tourist point of view. Indeed, local governments have taken the initiative in the past to request user groups to come together and put proposals, and those proposals are then brought forward as requests to the provincial government, usually the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation.

A number of private sector corporations, municipalities and public interest groups are expressing an increased interest in these abandoned railway lines as a means of establishing some type of recreational corridor. As an example, the county of Haliburton purchased a 21-mile abandoned Canadian National Railway line, which runs between Kinmount and Haliburton village, in September 1987, for $31,000. The county plans to develop the line into a multi-use, four-season recreational trail in support of the local tourist industry.

The Rideau Valley Heritage Railway Association proposes to assemble a tourist railway, operating steam trains, on 67 miles of former Canadian Pacific and CN track between Kingston and Harrowsmith Falls and Gananoque.

Again, the government funded a feasibility study and the results of that showed a potential major and positive impact on the tourist industry in the economy of eastern Ontario. Victoria county is in the process of developing a feasibility master plan for the acquisition and development of the county’s abandoned railway for a recreational trail.

On February 8, when the member for Hastings-Peterborough tabled his piece of legislation for the Marmora-Lake St. Peter abandoned line, he proposed it be developed as a recreational trail. Indeed, my ministry, the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, for which I serve as a parliamentary assistant, provided a $30,000 planning grant towards this particular project. So I would take some exception to the member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan) when he classifies our treatment, as a government and as a ministry, with respect to second-class citizens living outside of the Metropolitan Toronto area.

Indeed, our support has been there for feasibility studies, for equipment acquisition for different types of programs, not necessarily just the domed stadium.

I am saying, I guess, the means by which the government is proceeding, as it has done in the past, in encouraging local municipalities to take the initiative and really determine their own needs for that abandoned

section of the railway lines, is indeed the best way to proceed on this particular matter.

It is with that in mind that I have to say I am not going to be able to support this particular bill, again not because the concept is a bad one in terms of the Marmora-Lake St. Peter line, but because it asks for the establishment of an East/Central Ontario Recreational Trails Commission. That, by its very nature, leaves an implication that we are going to be going out and purchasing all abandoned railway lines. Again, from the point of view of cost-effectiveness and managing limited resources, we feel that there are other mechanisms for achieving the same end. Certainly we would be willing to work with the member for Hastings-Peterborough to see that particular project come to fruition.

Again, the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, once a project from local municipalities or user groups has been approved, does provide some assistance, either in trail grooming equipment or, in some cases, even the actual acquisition of a particular railway line. It also provides some funds and assistance from an organizational and leadership development point of view, in particular, as well as the feasibility and the planning grants that we identified earlier, which are very important to ensure that a project is, in fact, feasible at all.

Again, I want to commend the member, who has himself recognized that in some cases trying to maintain all the lines, using his own words, would be excessive in terms of a cost point of view. I think the government’s position in terms of judging it on a case-by-case basis is the best way to proceed at this particular time, but again, I want to commend the member for taking the initiative to champion his cause. Unfortunately, I will not be able to support his particular bill.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt for two minutes and 28 seconds.

Mr. Pollock: I will give the member for Nickel Belt one minute off my time, anyway.

Mr. Laughren: I simply want to reinforce the member for Cambridge in his support of the resolution by the member for Hastings-Peterborough, whom I commend for bringing it forward.

I can recall this being an issue several years ago. The former government did absolutely nothing about it, and the people who are now in government were castigating the then government for not proceeding. Now it seems as though all that has happened is that they have changed places in this chamber and changed positions on this matter, because it really is something that would cost the government very little to bring in and would mean a great deal to the people in those communities.

Once again, I commend the member for Hastings-Peterborough for bringing this forward.

Mr. Pollock: I want to mention that I think the member for Essex-Kent is an outstanding member of this assembly, but I do not totally agree with all of his comments. Of course, I do not think anybody here has ever said that we want the government to take over all abandoned railroad lines.

I agree with his concern that there is liability out there, but let’s face it -- people have been snowmobiling on this particular abandoned railroad line that I am talking about ever since the tracks came up in 1985. In fact, they were snowmobiling there long before that. There has been hardly any maintenance done on that. I really do not blame CN Real Estate for trying to get rid of it. That is not its mandate.

He mentioned it should be looked after by the Ministry of Natural Resources. Well, we contacted the Ministry of Natural Resources shortly after the government took office in 1985, and he put it right in the letter that the government was not interested. So what is a person really supposed to do? It is not going to take it over, and yet it should be taken over by the Ministry of Natural Resources. I really cannot figure that one out.

As far as the member for Cambridge is concerned, I appreciate his comments. I thought he brought forth a really legitimate comment in the fact that they seem to have money for Ontario Place, the domed stadium, that sort of thing, but they do not have money once they get away from the Golden Horseshoe. I do not think that is fair. In fact, the former Minister of Tourism and Recreation and the present Minister of Tourism and Recreation voiced loud and clear that the former Tory government had forgotten about eastern Ontario as far as recreation was concerned.

Now the government has a chance to redeem itself and all it has come up with is a feasibility study. I appreciate that, but they have had the feasibility study and the feasibility study recommends that there be public ownership. As I say, what else can one do?

As far as establishing this East/Central Ontario Recreation Trails Commission, it is worded in such a way that it basically takes over this abandoned railroad line. But there are a few spur lines, one running off this abandoned railroad line into Coe Hill, if they thought and felt in their wisdom that they would like to own that section. Basically, this just deals with this particular abandoned railroad line.

As I say, it goes through rough terrain. There are people from the south end of my riding who will hop on a snowmobile, ride back to Bancroft and spend the night there -- this is on a weekend -- at the Sword or the River Bend motor inns and then come back down the next day. They regard that as an outing, a good way to spend the weekend. It certainly helps with unemployment in the Bancroft area, where unemployment is usually a little higher than the norm.

Nobody here has yet said that every last one of these abandoned railroad lines is supposed to be a recreation trail, but there are abandoned lines out there that I firmly believe should be recreation trails.

I compliment the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves) on his efforts to promote the line from Parry Sound to Arnprior and Ottawa.

This liability insurance seems to keep standing out there, but they claim that nobody can actually shift liability insurance. For instance, I have talked to people who have said, “Canadian National knows that there have been snowmobiles riding up and down that track for the last five, 10, 15 or 20 years.” They cannot really excuse themselves from liability for those snowmobiles even though it is a recreation trail. They know they are there.

Yet that has never been an issue with them, to the best of my knowledge. I think one reason they want to get rid of these abandoned railroad lines is that they even pay taxes to the local township. As I say, that is not their mandate. The government will see that there will be all kinds of problems if these abandoned railroad lines start to go back to the local abutting land owners, because the land division courts will not pass it.

Those are just some of the comments I have made. I have run into that situation already where one abutting land owner wanted to actually buy this abandoned railroad line -- not this one, but another one -- and the land division court would not pass it.

SPEED LIMITS IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Miclash moved resolution 26:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that great distances between communities in the north necessitate long periods of highway travel, and recognizing that speed limits in the United States and Manitoba are 90 kilometres per hour, and recognizing the importance of encouraging tourism in northern Ontario from these two areas, and also recognizing that some northern roads have been upgraded but that speed limits have not correspondingly been increased, the government of Ontario should amend current legislation to increase speed limits on secondary highways in northern Ontario from 80 kilometres per hour to 90 kilometres per hour where highway conditions warrant.

Mr. Miclash: This resolution is of great interest to me and to the constituents of the Kenora riding as well as to other residents in northern Ontario. Highway travel has come a long way since 1923 when the speed limit was 25 miles per hour on the province’s 2,976 kilometres of roadways. Today, 5,818,000 Ontarians drive 6,578,000 vehicles on the province’s 132,510 kilometres of roads.

Transportation, particularly through the operation of vehicles on provincial roadways, is one of the linkages that bind communities together. Nowhere is this more important than in northern Ontario, where great distances and sparsely populated areas can make highway travel between communities a long and sometimes lonely experience. There are several reasons why I believe speed limits on secondary and King’s highways in northern Ontario should be raised.

As I have mentioned, the distances in the north can necessitate long periods of travel in unpopulated areas. Time is an important resource for both businesses and private citizens of the north. A 10-kilometre increase in the speed limit would reduce travel times on long distances significantly.

Let me give some examples of distances in my riding. On Highway 105 from Red Lake to Vermilion Bay, we are looking at a total distance of 169 kilometres; from Sioux Lookout to Dinorwic, another secondary highway in my riding, Highway 72, a total distance of 68 kilometres; and from Fort Frances to Kenora, mostly on secondary highways, a total distance of 215 kilometres. All these distances are on secondary highways that are in good shape and will handle a higher rate of speed. These are distances of very sparse population and low traffic volumes.

Increasing the speed limits would also help to promote tourism from Manitoba and the United States, both of which have speed limits of 90 kilometres per hour plus. Tourism, as we know, is a very important generator of economic activity in the north and should be encouraged at every opportunity. Currently, there is discussion in the United States about increasing the speed limits on many of the highways there. This would further increase the disparity between the speed limits in Ontario and those in the states.

I would also like to note that the time savings and encouragement of tourism promoted by a higher speed limit would not occur at the expense of safety or fuel efficiency. Studies in the United States have shown that speed limits of 90 kilometres per hour are both safe and efficient.

Finally, looking at comparative roads in southern Ontario, county roads in Middlesex county, near London, which are similar to our secondary highways in the north, have speed limits of 90 kilometres per hour at this time.

I wonder if I might take this opportunity to familiarize the members of this House with the recent history of highway speed limits in Ontario. Up until February 1976, the speed limit for cars was 112 kilometres per hour and the speed limit for trucks was 96 kilometres per hour on Ontario freeways. In February 1976, limits were lowered depending on the type of road. The following speed limits apply to all vehicles at this time: 100 kilometres per hour for multilane expressways, 90 for two-lane primary highways, 80 for secondary highways and 50 for built-up areas. Of course, we had varying lesser limits for things such as school zones, parks, bridges and construction zones.

Speed limits in Canada were lowered as part of a country-wide campaign to reduce oil consumption in the transportation sector in answer to the world oil crisis in 1973. In response to the Arab oil embargo of 1973, posted speed limits on highways were reduced to conserve scarce fuel supplies.

According to the United States Department of Transportation in its 55-miles-per-hour fact book, the medium energy efficient speed, taking into account wind velocity and engine efficiency factors, is 55 miles per hour or 90 kilometres per hour. A speed limit of 90 kilometres per hour is the speed that best balances engine efficiency, fuel efficiency and driver response times.

A survey of speed limits in other countries indicates that an increase of speed limits on roads in northern Ontario is not at all unreasonable. Speed limits for the following, given in kilometres per hour, are: Austria, 120; Belgium, 120-130; France, 120; Italy, 120 --

Mr. Laughren: Have you seen the roads, Frank?

Mr. Miclash: I will make comment on that in a minute.

-- Switzerland, 130; and United Kingdom, 112.

These figures will show that from a comparative perspective, an increase in 10 kilometres per hour is quite modest and, having travelled some of these countries, I can say from firsthand experience that our provincial secondary highways are in much better shape that those I describe in many of these countries.

On January 1, 1988, the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987, came into effect. Contained in this act are new hours of service regulation that will govern the working hours of commercial truck drivers in Canada. Under the regulations, drivers can drive a maximum of 10 hours per shift and work a maximum of 15 hours per shift. A driver must have eight hours off duty before the beginning of the next shift. Twice a week, the driver is allowed to log 12-hour shifts.

Enforcement of this act will mean that trucking companies and drivers will be under increased time constraints. Increasing the speed limits on some secondary and King’s highways in the province will assist trucking operations to remain cost-efficient while complying with the new regulations.

At this point, I would like to discuss the extent of support for increased speed limits in northern Ontario. The Ministry of Transportation has received requests from the following groups to increase these speed limits: 23 municipalities in northern Ontario; the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association; the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association.

Within the riding of Kenora, I have received support for increased speed limits from all of my municipalities. These include: Dryden, Keewatin, Kenora, Sioux Lookout, Ear Falls, the townships of Jaffray and Melick, the township of Golden, the township of Red Lake, the township of Barclay and the township of Machin.

Might I enter into the record three resolutions from some of these townships.

Adopted by the council of the town of Kenora:

“That this council support the private member’s resolution of Mr. Frank Miclash, MPP Kenora, proposing that speed limits on secondary highways in northern Ontario be increased from 80 kilometres per hour to 90 kilometres per hour.”

The corporation of the township of Ear Falls:

“Whereas speed limits on highways such as the King’s Highway 105 were 90 kilometres per hour prior to the gas crisis and even prior to hard surfacing; and

“Whereas distances between centres in northern Ontario are greater than those in the rest of Ontario; and

“Whereas speed limits of 80 kilometres per hour on highways in northern Ontario relegate us to secondary citizens;

“Therefore,

be it resolved that council of the township of Ear Falls hereby supports the private member’s resolution proposed by Frank Miclash, MPP Kenora, to have speed limits on Highway 105 and other highways in the province of Ontario increased to 90 kilometres per hour; and

“Further, that the Premier and cabinet support this long overdue change to speed limits on certain Ontario highways.”

This is one from the corporation of the town of Keewatin:

“That the municipal council of the town of Keewatin support speed limits on secondary highways in northern Ontario being increased from 80 kilometres per hour to 90 kilometres per hour.”

I have also received support from several independent carriers in my riding who use these highways.

In

summary, I would like to say that constituents in my riding have indicated their overwhelming support of this resolution. A 10-kilometre-per-hour increase in the speed limit on secondary roads and King’s highways would allow residents of northern Ontario to save time and thereby increase both personal and commercial productivity.

I present this resolution because of the long distances between communities in the north, as well as in the hope that raising Ontario’s speed limits to par with Manitoba and the United States will help to promote tourism for these regions.

I think it is important to recognize that speed limits were originally lowered because of the oil crisis in the 1970s. Today we are not faced with this impending oil crisis. While lower speed limits have served their purpose, I see no reason why they cannot be raised modestly.

A survey of speed limits in other countries showed that even if speed limits are increased 10 kilometres per hour, they will still be below almost every speed limit in the countries surveyed. The implication for the trucking industry also supports slightly higher speed limits. Most commercial truck engines are designed to run more efficiently at higher speeds. In addition, the saving of time would offset any higher fuel costs. Further, the new Motor Vehicle Transport Act, with its hours-of-service restrictions, will increase pressure on trucking operations to remain financially viable.

I would like to reserve some time for concluding remarks.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am pleased to address this resolution presented by the member for Kenora. It is quite fascinating to see what the Liberal priority is for highways and for transportation networks in northern Ontario. It has very little to do with improving the highways or improving the transportation links in the north, but instead it is to look at issues like what the speed limit should be on the secondary highways.

I suggest to this Legislature that far too many of our secondary highways in northern Ontario are in such a state that the highway speed limit in fact should not even be 80 kilometres per hour and that they are unsafe at that kind of speed.

We have highways across the north that have had lack of attention from this government, and in terms of improving our highways the only proposal that we can get from a member of the Liberal Party from the north has to do not with improving the quality of them, improving the links, improving our competitiveness in the north, but instead has to do with changing of the speed limits on highways which in fact are in terrible shape generally across northern Ontario.

I think it is interesting to look at the province’s highway construction program for 1987-88. The province has approximately 50 per cent of its highways located in northern Ontario, but certainly it does not spend a proportional share of its funds on improving those highways. I have here the release, from the first day of this month, the highway construction projects for 1987-88 as set out by the Ontario Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton). His program includes five pages of highway programs for southern Ontario and then a page and a half of programs for northern Ontario, of which less than half are actually highway programs.

In fact, the major components of the highway program for northern Ontario include components such as, “In the northwestern region, four new 24-metre platform scales will be constructed at the following locations....” They go on: “An ongoing program to upgrade patrol yard facilities at a cost of $3 million. Contracts for nine new sand-salt storage buildings in northern Ontario.” Then they include, in their highway transport program, remote airport construction programs, the first phase of airport construction at Angling Lake, improvement in air transport. This covers the largest part of this announcement of what is supposed to be the highway construction program in the north.

I have no complaints about improving those air links and the facilities that are in the smaller communities in the north, but there just is a lack of highway initiative going on in northern Ontario. In the most recent budget, the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has committed to the north additional funding of $12 million. That kind of a budget would allow one to construct approximately 12 miles of two-lane highway or six miles of four-lane highway.

In the

summary of provincial highways construction projects 1987-88, the number of kilometres committed to multilane divided highways in southern Ontario is 113 kilometres. In northern Ontario, multilane highway commitment is five kilometres for the year. So we are generous when we say that they can do six to 12 miles of highway. In fact, all they are doing a year is five kilometres, approximately three miles of highway, across northern Ontario.

On the Trans-Canada Highway alone, we are talking about at least 1,000 miles to cover the links to Toronto on Highway 69 and Highway 11 and then to cover the Trans-Canada across northern Ontario. At the kind of expenditure rate this Liberal government is willing to commit to highways in the north, we are looking at a program that is going to take on the order of 150 years. In 150 years from now, we will have a modern highway in northern Ontario. That is the Liberal commitment to what is supposed to be the major transportation link connecting all the provinces of this country, the Trans-Canada Highway.

I would like members of the House to know that this is an issue of importance to everyone in northern Ontario. I get numerous letters on this issue. My most recent riding report was focused on the free-trade issue, but many, many of the comments that came back had to do with: “What is the government doing about highways in the north? Why can’t we get them to act and to start a phased program of construction on the TransCanada Highway?”

As well, many of our secondary highways are still gravel. Many of them have not been upgraded or improved for at least a decade. Until we get some action on both the major links and the secondary highways, we are not going to go anywhere in terms of our competitiveness and in terms of providing a real transportation link across the north.

I would like to read from the latest issue, the May issue, of Northern Ontario Business. It is not too often I want to use Northern Ontario Business as a support for my point of view, but we have here a letter under the Viewpoint column on the opp-editorial page by John Wilson of the Sault Ste. Marie Chamber of Commerce. He has chaired a task force of the Sault Ste. Marie Chamber of Commerce which has looked at developing a case in favour of four-laning of Ontario’s highways in northern Ontario. He says that after much deliberation, the subcommittee has reached the following conclusion:

“We do not want a four-lane highway system across northern Ontario. Our conclusion is based on the following assertions:

“1. We prefer to be the only province in Canada which is not significantly four-laned for the majority of its land mass.

“2. We prefer to have the most primitive highway system in North America.

“3. We like our two-lane highway as it provides more than an adequate barrier to interprovincial trade.

“4. Northern Ontario does not want to be competitive.

“5. Increased tourism and ease of traffic flow are not regional priorities.

“6. Northern industries are not concerned with just-in-time delivery and transportation costs.

“7. Major carriers prefer our narrow, windy, hilly roads with fully wooded rest areas.

“8. Equalization of services as it applies to highways is an invalid argument.

“9. Saultites prefer to drive the longer distance to Toronto via the Michigan interstate system than via our highways.

“10. Ten years is not even remotely enough time for the federal and provincial governments to reach an accord and to establish a game plan and financing regarding a progressive improvement in paved trade links.

“11. Safer transportation routes are a luxury, not a right, of the inhabitants of northern Ontario.”

These are the kinds of arguments that the Liberal cabinet has obviously been using in order to stop the development of four-lane highways in northern Ontario. Obviously this parody of what the government positions are lays out very clearly the business community’s concerns about our lack of highway infrastructure in northern Ontario. I would ask this Liberal government and the other members of the Legislature to question, in fact, what are the priorities of this government when the resolutions that come forward from their members do not address the major concerns of the people of the north.

Transportation links are a major concern. We have the geography. We may have only 10 per cent of the population, but we have something on the order of 75 per cent to 80 per cent of the land mass of the province in northern Ontario. We have to have an efficient, competitive highway system, one that allows us to compete with other areas of North America. Until we have that, the north will not be in the kind of position I and others in the north would like us to be in.

I ask the members to look closely at this resolution and question what the Liberal priority really is today for highways in northern Ontario.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I had not intended to speak on this resolution. The member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) was to have been the speaker, but he has been unavoidably delayed with the House leaders’ meeting. I will make a few comments and, hopefully, there will be time for the member for Nipissing to speak towards 12 o’clock.

I would like to rise and indicate our party’s support for the resolution. I think it makes a lot of sense. I commend the member for Kenora (Mr. Miclash) for bringing the resolution forward and I hope the government will give consideration to his very reasonable request.

I think the key point that should be mentioned is the great distances involved in the north. I have had the opportunity on several occasions to travel both the northern and the southern routes to the provinces in the west, and I might just mention that, leaving my home town of Mount Forest, I could be at the Florida border in less time and with less distance travelled than if I were to head north and go to the Manitoba border. It indicates the vast distances that we have in this great province of Ontario.

Mr. Hampton: It takes less car too; less axles and less springs.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: The member mentions that he has been doing it for some time.

Because we have such vast distances to travel, I feel that if indeed highways are safe and there is no problem with increasing the speed limit because of the safety factor, I would encourage the government to give consideration to increasing the speed limit from 80 to 90 kilometres per hour. Because of the fact that the adjacent states in America have the 90-kilometre speed limit, and I understand Manitoba has as well, I think it would make more sense to these people to have a uniform speed limit.

It would encourage people to obey the traffic laws we have. When speed limits are set too low, when people are in a hurry to move across vast stretches of highway and there is no safety reason that they should not do so, then it makes a bit of a mockery out of keeping in existence the legislation that holds the highway traffic speed limit down too low. I think 10 kilometres an hour is not that great an increase and is certainly reasonable under the circumstances set out by the member for Kenora.

Madam Speaker, I would like to suggest that, hopefully, some time can be set aside for the member for Nipissing to present his case, and I will adjourn now with that understanding.

Mr. Lupusella: I would like to thank my colleague from Kenora.

Interjection.

Mr. Lupusella: It is unfortunate that the member from the New Democratic Party took the opportunity to attack government policies rather than address himself to the content of the resolution. Therefore, l am trying to do just that.

I would like to thank my colleague the member for Kenora for bringing to the attention of the House the improvements my ministry has made in northern highways. I also commend him for his efforts to boost tourism in the north, something I am sure we all favour.

Mr. Hampton: When were you up there?

Mr. Lupusella: I would like to remind the member that I toured all of northern Ontario. I also sympathize with him for the great distances his constituents and visitors to the scenic northwest must travel.

However, the Ministry of Transportation undertook a comprehensive evaluation of all Ontario’s speed limits some 18 months ago, a study sparked by requests from various parties to raise existing limits. I would like to recall what the Minister of Transportation said when presenting the conclusions of that study:

“We know that 1,314 drivers and passengers were killed in motor vehicle accidents in 1975. Speed limits were lowered in 1976 and that figure fell to 1,109. It continued to decline until some 835 fatalities were registered last year.”

The minister concluded, “I believe that is conclusive evidence that together with seatbelt usage, we are on the right track. We also found that despite requests from municipalities and businesses to raise speed limits, the majority of the general public was in favour of maintaining the current rates.”

Those rates to which the minister referred in 1986 are those in effect today, those which my colleague would like to see raised in some areas. If those limits seem on the low side to my friend, there is other ministry research to consider. We have counters in the roadbeds of most Ontario highways to log traffic speed and volumes. They show consistently that the mass of the motoring public drives on an average at about 10 per cent over the posted speed limit. For example, when the speed limit on divided freeways was 70 miles per hour, the average speed of the traffic was 77 to 78 miles per hour.

When it was reduced to 60 miles per hour, traffic speed dropped to 67 or 68 miles per hour. Therefore, there is already a cushion on the high side of the posted limit, a cushion that much of the motoring public takes for granted, despite our increased enforcement.

Our researchers, who study traffic accidents in the minutest detail, point out something often missed by people who argue for a faster average flow of traffic under certain conditions. It is that speed may not necessarily be the cause of the accident, but speed invariably dictates the severity of the accident. Why? Because it is a basic law of physics that the impact goes up by the square of the increased velocity. Therefore, a crash at 90 kilometres per hour is not marginally more severe than one at 80, it is 26 per cent more violent. That is often the difference between a crash that is fatal and that is survivable.

As I said at the outset, I can sympathize with my friend when he refers to the great distances our citizens and visitors have to travel over our northern highways. There are a lot of wide-open spaces. However, speed limits are designed to account for drivers’ reaction time to the unexpected. As my colleague well knows, motor vehicles are not the only users of our northern highways. Moose, deer and occasionally bears cross them, often with little warning. The results for the motorist who is going too fast to stop or to take evasive action can be disastrous. In 1986 in Ontario four persons died in cars after collisions with large animals.

Again, I must say my colleague from Kenora raised a logical question in his resolution and has done so with the best of intentions. However, for all the reasons I have recited, our ministry must maintain that the present speed limits through the entire province are appropriate for the times. In essence, they will remain at 80 kilometres per hour on provincial highways other than the Trans-Canada Highway and the divided freeways.

Mr. Hampton: Madam Speaker, it is with some pleasure that I have an opportunity to speak to this resolution because, as you may know, my constituency is next to that of the member for Kenora and I drive over many of the same highways he drives over. I have to admit, though, that I have not driven over all of the same roads that he has obviously driven over in Switzerland, Austria and whatever. I can only say that some I have driven over in those countries I would hesitate to compare to some of the secondary highways we have in northern Ontario.

I can only conclude that if I tried to drive at the rate he is advocating in terms of Austria and Switzerland, I would literally fly over the highway, flying from bump to bump. But I will leave that for now.

I want to speak to this resolution because it is one which does speak to a serious situation. In northern Ontario, we are separated by some very great distances between communities and we have, as anyone who reads a highway map of Ontario will agree, only secondary highways connecting our communities.

When one is required to travel at 80 kilometres over some of these roads, it does take a great deal of time to travel, let us say, from Fort Frances to Kenora, Kenora to Red Lake, Atikokan to Dryden, or Ignace to Sioux Lookout.

A couple of the of the so-called secondary highways, for example Highway 11, have been designated as 9O-kilometre-per-hour highways. We also have a

section of the Trans-Canada Highway, Highway 17, whereon you are permitted to drive at 90 kilometres per hour.

But I really do have to agree that I think the resolution here misses the main issue. The main issue is that many of these highways simply are not designed for 9O-kilometre-per-hour traffic and would be rather difficult to negotiate at 90 kilometres per hour consistently throughout.

Let me give an example of the kind of situation that many of our communities in northern Ontario face. During the recent Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association convention, I had the opportunity to speak to some of the Ministry of Transportation district officials. I put the question to them, “What are your priorities in the next two years or what do you see as the priorities over the next few years in terms of highway maintenance and highway upgrading?” The response to me was: “We really do have a difficult time with that.

You see, we’re so short of funds that the only things we can do in terms of highway maintenance and highway upgrading are those sections that absolutely need it the most. We recognize that a lot of areas of the highways are in very sad shape, but there is nothing we can do about it. We simply don’t have the money. We can deal with only those sections of the highway that really need it the most.”

I think that is a very sad comment on the situation that does prevail across much of northern Ontario in terms of highways.

While listening to the member for Kenora, I could not help but say to myself, “Gee, you know, the resolution speaks to something that many of us have an interest in, but where is the member for Fort William (Mrs. McLeod), where is the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Kozyra), where is the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine), where is the member for Sudbury (Mr. Campbell) and where is the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay), to speak in support of the member’s resolution?”

Instead, I see the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella), and I think he would admit that he has probably seen most of northern Ontario from an airplane. I have to say that I think we would all have appreciated it if some of the government members who also reside in northern Ontario would at least have been here to lend greater support to the member for Kenora.

I note that the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Brown) has just returned. After abandoning the member for Kenora to the wolves, he has returned. He must have been outside watching the monitor.

There are a couple of things which those northern members of the government could have learned if they had been here.

First of all, there is an incredible anomaly here. How is the government or anyone else going to determine which highways are worthy of the 9O-kilometre-per-hour speed zone and which highways are not? I can imagine, if we lobbied very hard, the highway from Kenora to Fort Frances would be designated as a 90-kilometre zone. Both the member for Kenora and I would agree with that. We would both enjoy that.

But what happens with the new highway between Atikokan and Dryden? What happens there? Indeed, what happens to that part of Highway 17 that runs from Ignace to Kenora?

Mr. Wildman: Is it a secondary highway?

Mr. Hampton: It is a primary highway. But here is the anomaly. I have heard tourists who are returning to the United States stop in Fort Frances and say, “Now is that a corduroy road or is it a corduroy road?”

Here we would have people travelling over supposedly secondary highways at 90 kilometres an hour where the member and I would both agree that the Trans-Canada Highway from Ignace to Kenora is, indeed, a corduroy road.

Mr. Miclash: I travel at 90 all the time.

Mr. Hampton: I can only say to the member for Kenora, if he travels that highway at 90 all the time he had better invest in a new set of springs.

Interjection.

Mr. Wildman: That’s right. The member for Kenora has an airplane.

Mr. Hampton: Yes, the member for Kenora does have an airplane. I think that should also be noted.

I wonder if the same thing applies to the member for Kenora that applied to the former member for Kenora. While he was a cabinet minister, he used to fly over the highways. Then when he was reduced to the opposition and he started to complain about the conditions of the highways, one of his constituents was quick to retort: “Aha, Leo; they took away your plane, eh?” I wonder if this is the case with the present member for Kenora.

I want to point out these anomalies. The fact of the matter is that well over half of the secondary highways are barely fit for travel at 80 kilometres per hour. I would admit, and I think the member for Kenora and I could agree on the fact, that a couple of highways should perhaps have the 90-kilometre-per-hour designation.

The real problem is that two or three, at least, of these highways are in such desperate shape that what the member for Kenora really should be speaking to is condemning the Minister of Transportation for not allocating enough of his budget to the proper maintenance of highways across northern Ontario. That is what the resolution should speak to. If we had that kind of resolution, I can assure the member for Kenora that he would have unanimous support from all of the members on the opposition side of the House.

Mr. Miclash: Read the last part of the resolution.

Mr. Hampton: The member for Kenora asks that I read the last part of the resolution. He says again, “where highway conditions warrant;” and that is exactly the anomaly we get ourselves into.

The member for Kenora and I know that virtually every municipality across northwestern Ontario has sent to the government various resolutions, whether through municipal councils or through the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association, asking first of all for an upgrading of the highway, and asking as well for the upgrading of speed limits.

This is what I call half-handed government. They pay attention to the one resolution, hoping that those municipalities will not notice that the second resolution is being ignored. That is the crucial part of this debate; that is the absolutely crucial part of this debate.

If the government were to allocate the sums that are deserved and the sums that are necessary for the upgrading and proper maintenance of these roads, we could have 90-kilometre-per-hour zones throughout northwestern Ontario and indeed throughout a lot of northern Ontario --

Mr. Wildman: Even 100 kilometres.

Mr. Hampton: -- and even 100-kilometre zones; which brings me to another anomaly here.

The member for Kenora well knows that as soon as we cross the border into Manitoba the speed limit on many of the highways, not just the Trans-Canada, not just the primary highway, but on many of the highways is actually 100 kilometres per hour over the same sort of topography that we have in the area of Kenora and Rainy River. The highways are maintained such that people can travel over them.

So I want to say to the member for Kenora, I have substantial agreement with this resolution, but the other part of the resolution that is so important is missing.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Order.

Would any other honourable member wish to participate in the debate? The member for Nipissing.

Mr. Harris: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and congratulations on the pronunciation of my riding.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words on this resolution, and I thank members from all parties for accommodating me, in my being late coming out of the House leaders’ meeting, by letting me have the opportunity to speak. I thank my colleague the member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson), who did say a couple of words on behalf of our caucus but was kind enough to save me the time to speak a little bit from the perspective of those of us who live in northern Ontario.

I want to say, first of all, that I agree with the intent and the principle of the resolution that is brought forward by the member and indicate that I will be supporting the resolution. I would like to talk about some of those reasons for which I want to agree with some of the things the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton) said, his comments on the quality of our highways in northern Ontario and the deterioration they have gone through over the last three years.

[Laughter]

Mr. Harris: I had to have a little smile there.

It may have been four years. Listen, we went through some very depressing times, a severe recession and depression in there, and most northerners understood that things were squeezed a little bit for a couple of years and the government was not able to do all that it wanted to do. But they really do not understand that situation now, particularly in the last three years, with the fourth budget of the Treasurer.

With the amount of money that Brian Mulroney’s and Michael Wilson’s fiscal policy has allowed to roar into Ontario and put into the Treasury of this province, we do not understand why we can no longer get our share up in northern Ontario. So I concur that highway conditions are a problem.

But let me also, before I get into the main text -- I may run out of time before I do that, but some of the little snippets of information I am proffering, I hope, will be beneficial as members, I know, are reflecting, deciding and waiting until I have spoken before they decide how they are going to vote on this resolution. Let me also congratulate the former member for Sudbury, Jim Gordon, who took a very strong initiative on this issue, brought forward resolutions and petitions, circulated a resolution to all municipalities in northern Ontario and received overwhelming support for a desire, on those highways that warrant it, to see the speed limit increased.

I think it makes sense. If we are talking tourism, tourists cannot understand, when they come from the United States, when you are coming from the west, where you can go 90 or 100 kilometres an hour -- even when you come along Highway 17-11, if it is designated an interprovincial highway it is always at least 90 -- and yet many of the roads and secondary highways in northern Ontario are of better quality than some of those roads.

So that is kind of an artificial designation. The government says, “This highway connects with the highway east-west, so therefore it will automatically be 90,” regardless of condition; and yet many of our secondary roads in better condition are not deemed that way.

I want to say where I take exception with the comments from the member for Rainy River. He indicated that it would be a horrendous problem, I guess, for the Ministry of Transportation to determine which ones are in good enough condition. They do that all the time. When you are looking at secondary highways now that go through municipalities or go through Indian reservations or go through townships, the amount of consultation that goes on in setting the speed limits is very extensive. I found the Ministry of Transportation pretty good, when a road deteriorates, at reducing the speed limit on those roads and on those secondary highways, so I do not think that is a problem at all.

Why l am in favour of this resolution is that we in general are making a statement that the secondary highways in northern Ontario should be good enough that you can go 90 kilometres an hour, and I think if this resolution passes today we are making that kind of statement. Now, there will be exceptions. As I say, when we go through reservations we have to respect that situation and their wishes and the amount of traffic that crosses the highway there; and when we go through townships, when we go through those areas.

We are not saying that it is 90 everywhere. We are saying that, as a general principle, it should be 90 kilometres an hour. Then, as required because of built-up areas, it would be appropriately reduced, the same as it is, quite frankly, now. There may be some places where 80 is appropriate through built-up areas, and if highway conditions deteriorate or do not permit, maybe it should be 70. I will tell members, there are some secondary highways in northern Ontario that should be 70 kilometres an hour, not the automatic 80.

But this says that, in principle, it will be 90 and then be adjusted down as conditions dictate, and I do not see anything wrong with that. That is making a statement that says we should be constructing highways in northern Ontario as well as we do in the south, that is all. I do not think anybody would disagree with that.

When we talk tourism, when we talk trucking routes, when we talk about whether a trucker, a hauler is going to use a southern route or a northern route, these things are considerations: the road quality, the speed at which he can travel. Nobody in northern Ontario is saying: “Would you please let us drive at a dangerous speed? Could we go real, real fast through this area or across this road that is dangerous?” We are not asking that. We are saying that we think the quality of roads and secondary highways that we have in northern Ontario should be such that 90 kilometres an hour is a safe speed to travel at.

Now, the parliamentary assistant talked about animals, he talked about moose and he talked about these things. There are some areas in northern Ontario which, during times of the year, are areas where there are a lot of deer or moose crossing; we know that. There are warning signs up. One can reduce the speed during those seasons.

Maybe the parliamentary assistant was well trained in the party he came from; I do not know, I am sorry. He has absolutely no understanding of what life is like in northern Ontario, of the great distances there are between communities, of driving on a highway for perhaps an hour and not seeing another vehicle, not one other vehicle. That is why we have a few more animals on the road than there are in southern Ontario.

What is more dangerous: eighty-five million trucks and vehicles and everything else you have got to negotiate and dodge while you are going 115 or 120 along Highway 401; or the likelihood that -- you are not going to see any cars -- that you might see one deer on the side of the road in this 50-mile stretch?

So give us a break. I mean, when the government puts up a speaker of that calibre with that lack of understanding of northern Ontario, it is embarrassing.

I hope those members who are here will understand that, in my view, this member’s resolution is simply saying that we should have secondary highways in northern Ontario of such quality that we can travel 90 kilometres per hour, This designation may put more pressure on the government to upgrade some highways, I think perhaps it will. It will be embarrassing to a government if It has to say, “Yes, I know this is supposed to be 90, but it is only 80 because the road is no good.” That is very beneficial for us in northern Ontario. It points out those things.

We are conscious of safety. We are conscious of these things in northern Ontario, but those members who do not live there have to understand what it is like in the north. I urge members to support this resolution.

Mr. Brown: I am happy today to stand and indicate to the member for Kenora that I support this resolution, and I commend the member for bringing forth the resolution at this time. He has a riding that is much like mine, a large northern rural riding. I think his is significantly larger, but many of the problems are the same.

He has made a convincing case for this resolution. He pointed out that the history of speed limits in this province, and the speed reduction, is really an issue of conservation which was taken up during the oil crisis of the 1970s. While I fully support conservation, as do all members of this House, I think that if 80 kilometres per hour is a conservation measure, it should be right across the province. It should involve what happens here on Highway 401, where there is a far greater volume of traffic and there is far more potential for energy savings.

In fact, we as northerners consider an increase in speed limit a conservation measure, because it will conserve time, and time is one of the critical factors in northern Ontario.

If I might make a small personal observation about speed limits, I would say that, as a northern member, I drive approximately 1,000 kilometres a month on secondary highways. I would make another assumption: that I drive the speed limit -- that might be questionable -- and I also would make the assumption that perhaps I have an eight-hour working day, which I would also suggest is probably questionable. But doing that, I spend 19 working days per year on secondary highways just driving. Just a 10-kilometre increase in that speed reduces the amount of time that I spend on the highways by two days.

I suggest that that in itself is not a big deal, but we have people in my riding who drive far greater distances as a matter of course.

I have a friend who is a registered nurse at the Manitoulin Health Centre. Using the unlikely assumption that she would drive the speed limit and assuming that she would work a 40-hour week, Lou would save the equivalent of one and a half weeks of time per year just by increasing the speed limit by 10 kilometres per hour. Assuming that she would make an average wage for a registered nurse, I suggest that she would save approximately $1,000 worth of time merely by increasing the speed limit by 10 kilometres.

I say this to point out the fact that not only for my constituents but for the very high-distance drivers, like the courier services, truckers, buses, even home care providers, people who are forced to move throughout our large distances in doing their work, it would boost their efficiency and, therefore, our northern economy.

In the north, when we are talking about distance, we do not talk in kilometres. I do not say my home is 120 miles or 200 kilometres from Elliot Lake; I say it is two and a half hours from Elliot Lake. Obviously, by decreasing the time, we increase our efficiency. It makes our markets more compact. It essentially shrinks the north. It makes us smaller. It helps us overcome our large distances.

I would be the last to suggest that the province increase the speed limit on all northern secondary highways. Some of them just would not be able to have increased speed limits. I am, however, sure that the Ministry of Transportation could have guidelines that would indicate which ones are safe. We have guidelines in the Ministry of Transportation for everything, and I am sure the ministry could develop guidelines for what is safe and what is not.

I also point out to members that the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Northern Development have made a very significant program to improve northern roads. Since this government took power in 1985, spending on northern highways has increased by over 50 per cent. I think that is a significant number, especially in terms of the fact that there is also the question of the industry’s capacity to deal with this increased and unprecedented activity on northern roads.

I believe, however, that the majority of northern secondary highways will in fact accommodate increased speed limits. Northern Ontario is a very large region. It contains over 80 per cent of Ontario’s land area but under 10 per cent of its population. Of that population in the north, 75 per cent live in one of the five major centres. That leaves 2.5 per cent of all Ontarians spread out across this vast area.

In order for us to improve our quality of life, in order for us to compete, in order for us to attract tourists, businesses and industry, we must improve both transportation and communication. We must make realistic assumptions about these old problems and we must use new technologies, such as computers, fax machines, all the communications things we have, to facilitate our competitiveness in the global village. I do not believe an increase in the speed limits on secondary highways is therefore unreasonable. I believe it would be an inexpensive way of improving our quality of life.

I would also make the point that has been made on the other side of the House. There are members who have difficulty understanding how driving on Highway 401, which to northerners looks like a parking lot moving at 120 kilometres an hour, bumper to bumper, is more safe than driving on a northern road on which you will often not see another vehicle except for the odd one with flashing lights on it.

I would therefore suggest that we support this resolution in the interests of improving the northern economy, improving our quality of life and restoring a sense of sanity to Ontario’s speed limits.

Mr. Miclash: First of all, I would like to thank the member for Algoma-Manitoulin and the member for Nipissing for their support. They, too, realize the vast distances and the travel that we in northern Ontario are faced with.

As I mentioned earlier, I do have a great amount of support other than what the member for Rainy River has suggested. There are a lot of people throughout the north who have given me that support, noting the fact of the great distances throughout.

I must bring to the attention of the member that I was talking about highways where the conditions warrant. I think that is a very important part of the resolution. As the member for Algoma-Manitoulin has stated, the Ministry of Transportation should be able to judge these areas where safe travel at this speed would be accommodated.

As we have also mentioned, we are putting money into the roads in northern Ontario, with the increase in the budget of 50 per cent since 1985, and we are looking at improvements. The member from the opposition mentioned the building of highways. We are not talking about money in the budget for the building of highways; we are talking about money in the budget for the improvement of highways. There are two very significant differences there. I would say that the money we are looking at going into northern Ontario is for improving those highways so that we can get more of them up to that standard where 90 kilometres per hour would not be an outrageous speed limit.

I would also like to bring up the fact of the improved quality that we see in our vehicles today. I mentioned earlier about gravel roads, about the speed limits on these gravel roads in years past being 60 miles per hour. I feel that with the quality of the roads we have today and the quality of vehicles we have today, we are not asking for anything outrageous here.

The member for Rainy River mentioned the building of roads in Manitoba, the speed limit in Manitoba being 90 or 100 kilometres per hour. I must remind him that the roads he is talking about are much easier to build across the prairie regions of that province than through the rock cuts of Kenora.

I also would like to mention a former member, Jim Gordon, as the member for Nipissing earlier mentioned. From the north, he too realized the problems that we in the north face with the extended distance and the extended travel times. As I was doing my research, his name did appear. So it is not something that we in the north have just begun to take a look at but something that has gone on for a long time, and I do ask the support of all members in the House for this resolution.

Mr. Speaker: We will now deal with the two items before the House.

EAST/CENTRAL ONTARIO RECREATIONAL TRAILS COMMISSION ACT

The House divided on Mr. Pollock’s motion for second reading of Bill 67,

An Act to establish the East/Central Ontario Recreational Trails Commission, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Ballinger, Bryden, Callahan, Charlton, Cooke, D. R., Cooke, D. S., Cunningham, Daigeler, Elliot, Eves, Farnan, Fawcett, Hampton, Harris, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Laughren, Mahoney, Martel, McCague, McLean, Philip, Pollock, Runciman, South, Sterling, Sullivan, Villleneuve, Wildman.

Nays

Adams, Black, Brown, Carrothers, Epp, Ferraro, Johnston, R. F., Kanter, Lipsett, Lupusella, Mancini, Matrundola, McGuigan, McGuinty, Miclash, Miller, Neumann, Nicholas, Owen, Pelissero, Reycraft, Roberts, Smith, D. W., Velshi, Wilson.

Ayes 30; nays 25.

Bill ordered for the standing committee on resources development.

SPEED LIMITS IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Miclash has moved resolution 26.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 12:12 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

GALT BRANCH 121, ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION

Mr. Farnan: It gives me great pleasure to read into the record of the Ontario provincial Legislature a tribute to Galt Branch 121, Royal Canadian Legion, on the occasion of its 60th anniversary.

The Legion represents the spirit of commitment to one’s fellow man. In times of great crisis, this was reflected in the unselfish acts of young men and women who put their lives on the line to preserve a way of life. That spirit of generosity lives on.

Since 1928, Galt Branch 121 has been faithful to veterans and their families, to the traditions of the Legion through their service bureau, Remembrance Day services and the familiar poppy campaign. Branch 121 has also opened its heart to embrace the entire Cambridge community. It has promoted education by public speaking activities and by bursary and scholarship programs. Charities, minor sports, scout and cadet groups, our community hospital and medical research have all benefited from funds donated by Branch 121.

Gait, and now Cambridge, is a richer community because of the presence of Branch 121 in our midst, and I am confident that in the years ahead it will continue to remain a beacon of sacrifice and a model of generosity for our community. On behalf of all the citizens of Cambridge, I say thank you, Branch 121, and may God ever bless your work.

DRUG BENEFITS

Mr. Villeneuve: Members will know that cystic fibrosis is a disease for which there is no cure. Today in all of Canada perhaps some 500 young people with cystic fibrosis have passed their 18th birthday and, of those, only some 200 are able to work. These courageous young adults will require expensive drugs and, in most cases, financial support.

Members should be shocked to learn that Ontario will not assist adult cystic fibrosis sufferers who attempt to work full-time hours and who want to be productive members of our society.

Luke Labelle is one such courageous 2O-year-old who resides in the riding of Nepean. His mother is a constituent in my riding. Luke is working at two jobs but cannot afford the monthly drug bills of over $1,000 required to keep him alive. The Ministry of Community and Social Services is not able to help and will not help as long as he continues to work.

To date, he has been able to stay alive because the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario has not collected the money he owes them for drugs. This hospital has a $9-million deficit. If this government’s hospital deficit policy is enforced, Luke’s drug supply will be cut off.

The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) knows of this case, and urge him, as well as the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), to resolve this and similar cases. We cannot allow these circumstances and conditions to go on for these sufferers of cystic fibrosis.

HANOVER INDUSTRIAL FAIR

Mr. Daigeler: I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology and the over 70 Ontario business leaders who helped to improve our export opportunities by taking

part in the recent Hanover Industrial Fair.

At a time when the federal and provincial Tories would have us believe that our economic future should be tied even more closely with the United States, it is important to underline and explore aggressively the trading opportunities in the other parts of the world.

As the largest industrial fair in the western world, the Hanover event is not only a showcase for the latest developments in industrial technology but also a unique opportunity for establishing new business contacts and for creating profitable deals with suppliers and purchasers, especially in western Europe.

I am proud to know that this government, through its trade representatives in Frankfurt, is vigorously supporting these contacts and helping Ontario businesses to become even more export-oriented. Competing in a global market is the message of the Premier’s Council on Ontario’s economic future. Participating in the Hanover fair was one way to make this message real, and I am proud to have been associated with it.

ONTARIO HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I rise in recognition of Canada Health Day and remind members that a number of the promises of this Liberal government have not been fulfilled around health policy.

Members will remember, of course, a number of years ago when the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), who is here today, promised that we would be seeing reductions in Ontario health insurance plan premiums and the eventual waiving out of OHIP premiums in a four-year period. The generosity of the taxpayers has, of course, known no bounds, as the Treasurer is saying, but he did make that promise and that commitment in 1984 and 1985. It has since been retracted.

But under OHIP, some members will not know, a very strange situation is occurring, and that concerns diabetics, usually people who have to inject themselves with insulin on a daily basis. If you are on a fixed income, you can receive coverage through OHIP for your payments for your insulin itself, but there is no payment for the syringes that you have to use.

I have been receiving letters in the last little while from members of my constituency who are having to spend $22 a month on syringes which they cannot afford out of their basic pensions, and this government, and this Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) who is sitting here today, have refused to move on this matter now for numbers of months. We do hope that, besides the assistive devices changes which we are waiting for with bated breath, the Ministry of Health will move in this one small matter and make life a little easier for diabetics who are on fixed incomes in Ontario.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Eves: I rise today also to comment on Canada Health Day. This is an annual event designed to promote awareness of health issues by the general public and the health sector. Hospitals across the province celebrate this day by holding special events for the public in which they share information and invite the public to participate in some of the special programs which they offer.

However, this year Ontario hospitals do not have too much to celebrate. Many of the preventive programs they offer, such as nutritional assessments, hearing tests, proper back care instruction and even diabetes education centres, are doomed to extinction in light of the confrontational, inflexible position that this government has taken with respect to hospital funding.

The public does not have much to celebrate, either. If you need heart surgery, be prepared to wait up to a year, if you survive that long. If you need an artificial joint, be prepared to wait up to two years. And, to quote a health professional I talked to, if he had cancer he would leave Ontario to get treatment. For those who finally do manage to get a bed in a hospital, be prepared to enjoy your stay in the hospital corridor.

Our so-called world-class health care system is in serious trouble. We need effective, responsible leadership from the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), the Ministry of Health and the government of Ontario, and we need it now.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) and concerns the failing health of Ontario’s Workers’ Compensation Board system.

The minister is no doubt aware that the high cost associated with the system, coupled with exorbitant assessment rate increases, is taking its toll, and the Workers’ Compensation Board is in danger of expiring. I have serious concerns that the WCB assessment rates, which increase at an alarming rate each year, will drive industries in northern Ontario, farmers trying to maintain their farms and small business operators throughout Ontario out of business.

That is why I have urged the minister on several occasions to use the Huronia Regional Centre in Orillia as a site for a new WCB rehabilitation centre or a regional medical centre to research work-related injuries and rehabilitation problems as well as to provide therapy designed to reintroduce injured workers back Into the workplace gradually. I believe this would go a long way towards reducing the high cost of assessment rates and the other costs associated with injured workers in Ontario.

The ministry should be aware that the owner of a lumber company in my riding indicated to me that the WCB assessment has increased 14.89 per cent in 1985-86, increased a further 13.8 per cent in 1986-87 and rose another 9.87 per cent in 1987-88. The assessment rate for carpet installers and retail workers increased by a similar percentage at this very same mill.

CARABRAM

Mr. Callahan: In the brief time that is left to me I would like to extend an invitation to all of the members of the Legislature, as well as those people who may be watching us on television, to attend a very excellent multicultural event that occurs in Brampton each year. This year it will take place on July 8, 9 and 10. We have 16 pavilions, and if members come along they will have an opportunity to savour the sights, sounds and the enjoyment of visiting 16 different communities without even leaving the lovely and beautiful city of Brampton.

Mr. Brandt: Will you be there?

Mr. Callahan: Of course.

Mr. Brandt: I am not going, then.

Mr. Callahan: Oh, all right. I will convey your apologies.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

GOODYEAR CANADA INC.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am pleased to announce today that Goodyear Canada will be constructing a $320-million radial passenger tire facility in eastern Ontario this year. This plant, which will be located near Napanee, will represent the state of the art in modern radial tire production and is part of this government’s continued efforts to promote province-wide industrial growth.

This initiative is the result of lengthy negotiations between our government and Goodyear and this investment is an important first step in making the Ontario tire industry internationally competitive.

This state-of-the-art eastern Ontario facility will be built in two stages, the first to begin later this year at a cost of $160 million, with production to start in the first quarter of 1990, and the second due for completion in 1994. When it reaches full production following completion of the second phase, the plant will employ 800 workers and produce 20,000 tires daily, using the highest level of technology available.

In addition to providing a direct boost to the eastern Ontario economy in the way of jobs, the plant will provide a number of spinoff benefits as well, including the introduction of advanced radial tire technology, which could result in the attraction of other automotive-related manufacturers to eastern Ontario.

Ontario is providing a $32-million loan to assist the establishment of this facility. The loan, which is repayable over 10 years, reflects our confidence in the ability of Goodyear to deliver a top-quality product. The loan will be interest-free, provided certain performance targets are met, including the completion of the project’s two phases, totalling a minimum of $320 million in capital investment and the creation of 800 jobs in eastern Ontario.

The need for a new direction and new opportunities for Ontario’s tire industry cannot be overstated. Faced with the reality of the loss of two out-of-date tire plants, the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology staff and I have met personally with representatives of the tire industry in Ontario, the United States, Japan and Europe on a regular basis, with the aim of restructuring the industry to meet the needs of a modern and increasingly competitive market. We have worked closely with the industry to identify new opportunities, and the new Goodyear tire plant is an example of both the process we went through and the progress we have made.

In conclusion, this sound and progressive investment reflects both the renewed strength of Ontario’s tire industry in meeting the challenge of the world marketplace and the faith that the government of Ontario has in this industry’s potential as a generator of increased economic development in eastern Ontario.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH REORGANIZATION

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I wish to draw to the attention of the members that, throughout our country, today is recognized as Canada Health Day. Here in Ontario this event is being used as an opportunity by many groups working in health care to show how effectively they can work together to promote health in their communities.

In particular, I would like to acknowledge the efforts of the Ontario Hospital Association, the Ontario Public Health Association and the Association of Local Official Health Agencies This year they have joined forces with members of the public and the major providers of care to host a number of community events all across the province.

Yesterday I had the opportunity to meet with ministry staff to launch the reorganization of the Ministry of Health. Today I am pleased to release details of the restructuring, which has been under development for the past six months. This new structure will improve the delivery of health care and promote innovative community-based services.

As part of our new ministry organization, I have created a new focus for mental health services in the province. A program co-ordinator for mental health has been appointed. The co-ordinator’s role is to ensure that all services related to mental health are brought together and co-ordinated at the management level. The co-ordinator will also serve as a single point of entry for interest and advocacy groups in mental health.

Our intention is to establish a more cohesive framework for our rapidly expanding network of mental health services. We intend to better integrate services provided in psychiatric, general and specialty hospitals and we intend to promote relationships among the more than 400 community programs sponsored by the ministry. Our objective is to help everyone requiring mental health treatment and care to remain in or move back into the community.

One of our more important partners in the provision of mental health services is the Canadian Mental Health Association and its local branches. With us today in the members’ gallery are Howard Richardson, executive director of the Ontario division of the CMHA, and with him are Oscar Johvicas, Brian Davidson, Rena Scheffer and Andrew Wright. I want to thank each of these people for their support in helping us to provide effective mental health care.

To promote the further development of community mental health programs in Ontario, I am announcing today that the budgets of the 23 branches of the Canadian Mental Health Association will be increased by $720,000 annually. These funds will be used by the Canadian Mental Health Association branches for administrative costs such as recruitment of personnel, rental of community facilities and program supervision.

In addition, we will provide a funding increase of $100,000 annually to the Ontario division of CMHA. These funds will be used for grants for special projects, workshops, advertising and the training of branch staff, volunteers and board members.

The ministry has also approved a special grant of $480,000 for the Ontario Mental Health Foundation, to be used for research into the prevention and treatment of mental illness. The projects will be conducted by researchers at universities across the province. Among them will be studies relating to adolescent mental health, sexual abuse, dyslexia and sleeping disorders as well as the effects of maternal stress.

I am also announcing that the Ministry of Health will spend more than $1 million over the next two years on 29 community projects promoting good health for targeted population groups. This is the first round of approved programs in our new health promotion grants program.

Local health units and district health councils are deeply involved in developing many of these projects. The proposals were well thought out and demonstrated a good knowledge of health promotion skills. I want to thank everyone involved in helping us begin this new program on such a successful footing. twill inform the House when the next round of health promotion grants is received.

POLICE WEEK

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I am sure the honourable members are aware that next week is Police Week in Canada, and I would ask them to join me during that period in taking the time to express Ontario’s appreciation to the men and women who serve us so ably.

Since my appointment as Solicitor General, I have become all too familiar with the challenges faced by today’s police officers. Today’s police officers are very special people. They must be, because they work on the cutting edge of a rapidly changing society.

True, technological changes like the computer, for example, have helped police to process all sorts of information rapidly and efficiently. But as surely as the invention of the automobile was followed by car theft, society’s widespread use of computers has been followed by computer crime and the need for new investigative skills.

The social mandate of our police force has changed also and our police officers have had to acquire new skills to match this. They have been devoting extra care and energy to assisting victims of crime. They have been tackling the public’s fear of crime by strengthening their ties with the communities they serve.

The changing nature of Ontario’s population has created a determination to recruit more women and members of minorities.

Social problems like impaired driving have generated enforcement solutions like the Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere program and new emphasis on public education programs.

Time and time again our police forces are challenged with new problems and time and time again they meet those challenges successfully.

I urge honourable members to show their appreciation by giving Police Week their wholehearted support. Our police have earned it.

RESPONSES

Mr. B. Rae: I want to respond to the announcement by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) and my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) will be responding to the announcement by the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan).

GOODYEAR CANADA INC.

Mr. B. Rae: I want to say to the minister that he will know how profoundly disappointed we are that his statement says nothing about guarantees for the workers in the Etobicoke plant. He had an opportunity to do so in his statement. It is clear that by his omitting it from his statement, those guarantees are not there and he will know that is profoundly disappointing to those workers who have given the best years of their lives to the company in Etobicoke.

It is profoundly disappointing to my colleague the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip), who has been asking questions on this matter for sometime, and I think it sets a very bad precedent for the relationship between the government and industry when it comes to job protection and just who is speaking up on behalf of the working families in this province.

With respect to the $32-million interest-free loan, I want to say this: that is a $3-million-a-year gift from the government of Ontario to Goodyear Canada. It was said by a wise philosopher that to govern is to choose, and among all the people in this province who deserve money, among all those causes that are out there that are in desperate need, out of all those hospitals that are looking for additional funds, out of those patients who are on waiting lists for months, and indeed years, this government has chosen to ignore them.

To give to whom? To the poor? To the needy? To the struggling? No, to a company that took $30 million out of Canada just this last year on a special levy, a company that internationally has made hundreds of millions of dollars a year in profits and that last year made over $20 million.

We are all delighted to see the free enterprise system work, but when it is neither enterprising nor genuinely free, surely we are entitled to ask why the government is choosing to give money to Goodyear Canada when it does not have money for hospitals, it does not have money for people who are sick and it does not have money for our education system.

The government has chosen to give money to them; let the judgement of the people be on its back.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH REORGANIZATION

Mr. Reville: Things are getting stranger and stranger in the Ministry of Health. We have an announcement today that there is a reorganization of the Ministry of Health, the details of the restructuring are released today and then the minister goes on to talk for several pages about $1-million worth of funding she has provided for mental health.

Then she talks about a little drop in the bucket for community health, which works out to about $17,000 annually for 29 community groups. She says nothing about which of the assistant deputy ministers has been given a golden handshake. She says nothing about improvements in the development of community health centres or health service organizations.

She is going to award a grant to an Ottawa program to promote dental health among seniors. Obviously that would be a useful program, but she does not say anything about the dental program for seniors that the city of Toronto has been funding now for many years, hoping that the Ministry of Health would finally get involved in the dental health of seniors.

This afternoon, of course, we are going to have a debate about he