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

June 25, 1987

33rd Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L034 - Thu 25 Jun 1987 / Jeu 25 jun 1987

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

RIDING OF PARRY SOUND

TRANSIT SERVICES

RIDING OF PARRY SOUND

TRANSIT SERVICES

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

POLITICAL ACTIVITY BY CROWN EMPLOYEES

MULTICULTURALISM

PROPOSAL FOR WATERWAY

IRRADIATION OF FOOD

INTERNATIONAL PLOWING MATCH AND FARM MACHINERY SHOW

FISHING LICENCE REVENUES

IDEA CORP.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

MULTICULTURALISM

RESPONSES

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

MULTICULTURALISM

ORAL QUESTIONS

IDEA CORP.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

MULTICULTURALISM

IDEA CORP.

NIAGARA RIVER WATER QUALITY

WATER SUPPLY

IDEA CORP.

LABOUR DISPUTE

INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL

PEC FINANCIAL CORP.

MINING ACCIDENT

MULTICULTURALISM

PETITION

TRANSIT SERVICES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PREPAID FUNERAL SERVICES ACT

FUNERAL SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HAMILTON JEWISH COMMUNAL PROJECTS ACT

PORT STANLEY TERMINAL RAIL INCORPORATED ACT

TOWNSHIP OF CHAPLEAU ACT

CITY OF BARRIE ACT

CITY OF LONDON ACT

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

INSTITUTE OF MUNICIPAL ASSESSORS ACT

ONTARIO INSTITUTE OF THE PURCHASING MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION OF CANADA INC. ACT

WINDSOR YOUTH MARCHING

AND CONCERT BAND ACT

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT

THIRD READING

PENSION BENEFITS ACT (CONTINUED)

INTERIM SUPPLY (CONTINUED)

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

BEES ACT

HEALTH PROTECTION AND PROMOTION AMENDMENT ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

RIDING OF PARRY SOUND

Mr. Eves moved resolution 20:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should designate the entire riding of Parry Sound, specifically the district of Parry Sound, as being part of northern Ontario for the purpose of all government ministries, agencies, boards and commissions.

Mr. Eves: It is with some reluctance, I must say, that I have to be here today in the first place to introduce this private member's resolution. I would have thought that in the last 24 months the Premier (Mr. Peterson), who also twins as the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, would have acquiesced to my requests and the many requests of my constituents and municipal leaders throughout the district and riding of Parry Sound to have done something last month in his budget, where he outlined spending of $35 billion, $8 billion more than the province spent in 1985, when he became the Premier.

I would have thought that if the Premier really had the true interests of northern Ontario at heart and had paid attention to the correspondence and many resolutions he has received from myself and constituents over the last two years, he would have done something about it by now.

I am somewhat regretful that we have to go through this, but we shall proceed, and perhaps out of political embarrassment, if for no other reason, the government of the day will see fit to include the district of Parry Sound in northern Ontario.

First of all, I would like to go over some of the history of the district and riding of Parry Sound and why it finds itself in the particular predicament that it Ends itself in today.

For many years, the district and riding of Parry Sound was spelled as if it was in Never Never Land, so to speak -- not quite northern Ontario and not quite southern Ontario. In 1976, the town of Parry Sound hosted FONOM, the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities, for its annual meeting. Interestingly enough, FONOM had considered Parry Sound to be part of northern Ontario and one of its members for many years.

In late 1976, FONOM passed a resolution requesting the government of the day to include the district of Parry Sound in northern Ontario for the purpose of the Ministry of Northern Affairs, for the specific purpose of municipal grants. For those members who are not aware, municipalities in northern Ontario receive larger municipal grant structures, payments and transfer payments than do municipalities in southern Ontario.

The government of the day and the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier), the Minister of Northern Affairs at the time, acquiesced to the request of the then member, the Honourable Lorne Maeck, and granted that status to the district of Parry Sound. They got what they asked for at that time.

It has been suggested by some members of the government that perhaps the previous government should have done something about including the district of Parry Sound in northern Ontario. Well, the previous government was never asked to include the district of Parry Sound in northern Ontario for the purposes of all ministries.

I might also read another indication of the previous government's commitment to the district of Parry Sound. At the FONOM meeting held in Parry Sound on April 28, 29 and 30, 1977, another resolution was submitted by the town of Parry Sound requesting the government of the day to include the district of Parry Sound in northern Ontario for the purpose of purchasing motor vehicle licences; it made reference to the fact that gasoline prices were higher in northern Ontario than they were in the rest of the province.

I might add that the government of the day acted immediately upon that request and included the district of Parry Sound in northern Ontario for the purposes of motor vehicle licences as well, recognizing the fact that there was a difference. They responded to it, and they responded to it immediately, I might say.

In 1985, 1986 and 1987, the District of Parry Sound Municipal Association, which comprises all 28 organized municipalities in the district of Parry Sound and some seven from the district of Nipissing, unanimously passed resolutions asking that the district of Parry Sound be put into northern Ontario for the purposes of all ministries of the Ontario government.

These resolutions have been forwarded directly to the Premier, to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and to relevant other government ministers upon their passage, both by myself and by the association as well as by other interested municipal politicians. Unfortunately, none of the ministers has seen fit to respond positively to any of these requests, nor has the Premier of the day seen fit to acquiesce or respond positively to any of these requests.

If one goes back to the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) introducing his northern travel grant program -- I believe it was on December 5, 1985 -- I wrote to the minister on December 13, shortly after its introduction, and asked him if he would not include the district of Parry Sound in his northern travel grant program.

The minister responded to me that the program was a new one, that his ministry would have to look at the effects it was going to have and that it was not so much whether or not you were northern in Ontario but the distance, which was 300 kilometres, that made the difference as to whether or not you qualified for the program.

It is interesting to note that just a few months ago the same minister reduced the qualifications for that program to 250 kilometres, yet has still not seen fit to include the district of Parry Sound in the northern travel grant program.

Nor does his ministry consider the district of Parry Sound to be part of northern Ontario for any other purpose, I might add. This would certainly mean increased payments to hospital boards and to hospitals within the district of Parry Sound. More particularly, it would also provide tremendous financial aid to the many constituents, literally hundreds of constituents, who have either written or phoned me over the last two years, complaining that they do not qualify for northern health travel grants because they reside in the district of Parry Sound.

This affects many people, but especially cancer patients who commute weekly -- some monthly, depending upon the stage of illness and their particular problem -- to Princess Margaret Hospital here in Toronto for treatment. These people have to pay their travelling costs out of their own pocket or rely upon local service clubs to pay those for them. Despite the fact that we have made this plea repeatedly to the Minister of Health and to the Premier, we have seen no positive action from either with respect to this program.

Now, some two years later, we have another response from the Minister of Health. He has referred this entire matter to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) so he can co-ordinate an approach by all ministers. It is nice that the only action this government has seen fit to take is to decide two years later that it is going to throw this hot potato to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and maybe he can deal with it at some time in the future. I do not think that is good enough.

The riding of Parry Sound, for those members who are not fully conversant with respect to the riding boundaries, is the district of Parry Sound plus everything in Nipissing district lying north and east of North Bay. We have the peculiar situation that there are some residents of the riding who live in the district of Nipissing portion of the riding who are actually farther south in the province than many residents in the district of Parry Sound, for example, who live on the south shore of Lake Nipissing.

They qualify for northern health travel grants, despite the fact that they live farther south; but the people in the district of Parry Sound who live farther north than they do, do not qualify for northern health travel grants. I suppose only the Minister of Health of the day could explain that sort of convoluted logic as to how you could qualify for a northern health travel grant by living farther south in the province. I do not think it makes much sense, and it certainly causes great hardship to those many constituents.

Another ministry that has a very detrimental effect on the district of Parry Sound in not recognizing the district to be part of northern Ontario is the Ministry of Education. Over the years, the Ministry of Education has sort of come part-way; it now recognizes the district of Parry Sound to be in northern Ontario for the purposes of six of the nine northern Ontario factors. The other school boards in northern Ontario all receive nine additional weighting factors to their grant transfer payments.

The district of Parry Sound boards -- namely, the east and west Parry Sound boards of education -- receive six of the nine. In other words, I guess the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) regards the district of Parry Sound to be two thirds northern Ontario but not quite three thirds. I do not know how you would ever come to that convoluted logic either, but that is the decision which the Ministry of Education has reached.

I have tried to persuade the Minister of Education to also consider the district of Parry Sound to be in northern Ontario for the purposes of all nine weighting factors.

The only response I have had to that correspondence and to those questions is that the Ministry of Education is currently reviewing the factoring and educational funding in its entirety throughout Ontario, so the minister would be totally unwilling and does not see fit to consider this specific request until the entire province is reviewed; he expects that review will not be completed until the fall of 1987, and therefore he can make no such commitment. That is his response. That has been the Premier's response to this problem as well.

To give some idea of the dollars we are talking about here, the east and west Parry Sound boards of education alone each would receive in excess of approximately $200,000 a year more money if they were included in northern Ontario for the purposes of all nine weighting factors for northern Ontario. You can see the big impact it has with respect to the field of education as well as health care.

Those are probably the two ministries that have the biggest impact on not being included in northern Ontario, but there are others as well; for example, the Ministry of Transportation and Communication. We note in the recent budget of the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) how much more money the government plans to spend in northern Ontario. However, the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay) was in North Bay and Sudbury a few weeks ago with grand foofaraw supposedly delivering this government's commitment to four-laning Highways 69 and 11.

Then we found out about a week later, through questions in the House by the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) and the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), that we are not really committing ourselves to four-laning these highways at all. All we are committing ourselves to is to do some studies and planning to look into the practicalities of whether and when we may decide to four-lane either one, both or none of these two highways.

They also made reference to the fact that they were going to spend some of the $26 million supposedly added to the northern affairs budget for highways in northern Ontario to do some of this planning, yet it is very interesting that the highway they are talking about doing the studies on they do not consider to be part of northern Ontario because that particular ministry does not recognize the district of Parry Sound as being part of northern Ontario.

That comes out of the budget of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications; it does not come out of the budget of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. The Ministry of Northern Development and Mines has nothing to say about where this money is spent in the district of Parry Sound. It is somewhat contradictory.

The member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine) is here, I see. He was in attendance at a FONOM meeting in 1986 in the town of Parry Sound, which is where FONOM's annual meeting was. I must say that at that time he was the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and made a commitment that his government would seriously look into putting the district of Parry Sound in northern Ontario for the purposes of all government ministries. Unfortunately, shortly thereafter the member for Cochrane North was no longer the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, and I gather that commitment has been sitting in the Premier's office gathering dust since then.

I have raised this matter directly with the Premier, who is also the Minister of Northern Development and Mines these days, on several occasions. I have raised it by way of questions in the Ontario Legislature. I have raised it by way of members' statements. I have raised it by way of sending him carbon copies and direct letters on all these requests I have made to all these various ministers in the Ontario government over the last two years.

I would like to quote some remarks of the Premier from Hansard from February 12, 1987, in the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. I outlined the dilemma that the district of Parry Sound finds itself in, much the same as I have done here this morning. The Premier's response to me on that occasion was:

"The case you make is a rational one, and I am not going to tell you it is not. It is a question of making some of these lodgements that have to be made along the way.

"With respect to the northern travel situation, I can see that being a real problem. It would be a real problem wherever it was, as you know. Mr. Bernier brought to our attention some problems in the Kenora area. It is a relatively new program. There are some kinks that probably have to be worked out in the situation. Nothing is sacrosanct. My view is that if we are wrong, let us change it.

"If you will allow me, I will go back with renewed vigour to discuss this with my colleagues, particularly the three you bring to my attention."

That is a quote from the Premier, who is also the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Obviously, the Premier does not have much influence in pursuing his renewed vigour with some of his cabinet colleagues, because that was on Thursday, February 12, 1987. Just last month his government and his Treasurer introduced a budget to spend $35 billion in this province.

I would have thought that would have been a very opportune time to decide to take this step, to spend the extra money and include the district of Parry Sound in northern Ontario, but obviously the Premier was not able to influence the Treasurer or his other cabinet colleagues to include the district of Parry Sound in northern Ontario.

I have to wonder whether or not the Premier really has any influence over his government, whether or not he controls his government or whether or not he is really trying and these are just words, so to speak.

I think that at this particular point in my presentation I would like to reserve the remaining minutes that I have for some comments to respond perhaps to other comments that other members may have with respect to the resolution and to wrap up at the end.

The Deputy Speaker: The member is reserving four minutes and five seconds.

Mr. Foulds: I take a good deal of pleasure and delight in rising to speak to this resolution and indicating my support for it. One of the reasons I am supporting this is that the New Democratic Party in the 1970s, when it established its northern council of the party, included Parry Sound, if it wished to join northern Ontario, and it did. As far as I am concerned, anybody who wishes to join northern Ontario can, for a number of reasons.

First, we need the company. We need all the company we can get, because we need to expand the power block of northern Ontario in this Legislature.

Ms. Caplan: How about North York? But then you get Mel Lastman.

Mr. Foulds: Mel Lastman we would exclude. North York is going a little far south. We have our standards and Mel Lastman does not meet them.

Second, we know that Parry Sound is an essential part of northern Ontario. Every time one of us from northern Ontario sets off in a car from Toronto and heads north, we can tell Parry Sound is part of northern Ontario because as soon as we hit Highway 69, what do we get? A measly two lanes, very few passing lanes, probably the worst stretch of busy highway in the province. That obviously needs improving.

Now that we have had 44 years of Conservative government, I know that is not going to fundamentally change, but we just have to try.

Seriously, if I could be personal for a few minutes -- and I always am, anyway -- some of the problems of Parry Sound have come to my attention in the past couple of years because my son, who many of you know is a pretty good competitive swimmer, has won two weeks at a swim camp in the riding of Parry Sound and I have had the pleasure of driving him there.

When we think of the distances and the spread-out nature of the population, we see some of the very same problems we see in rural northern Ontario, such as the need to improve ambulance services and the need to improve fire protection services, particularly in those areas that would be very small communities or unorganized territories. I had correspondence with the member for Parry Sound (Mr.

Eves) because one of my constituents who has a summer cottage in the Parry Sound district pointed out to me a very tragic situation where there was need for emergency ambulance service and it just was not available in that area. It is that kind of thing that needs to be improved in Parry Sound, as it does all through northern Ontario.

Therefore, if the grant structure through the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines for education and health services was available to all the district of Parry Sound, that would help to improve the situation.

The other point I want to make is that Parry Sound is to Ontario very much what northwestern Ontario is to Canada; that is, it is caught between the north and the south. It is sort of the hinge of the province, just as northwestern Ontario is the hinge of the country. Just as everybody in western Canada thinks of northwestern Ontario as part of fat-cat eastern Canada, I suppose Parry Sound is thought of by most northerners as part of fat-cat southern Ontario. Southern Ontario does not include Parry Sound in terms of its design for development and industrial expansion.

I want to take the last few moments of my time this morning to make a plea. I do not think I want this interpreted as a separatist speech, but I have come to the conclusion that it is a mistake, and has been a historical mistake, for northwestern Ontario to be part of this province. If we wanted to have the power that is necessary to get the services we need, it would be much better for northwestern Ontario to be part of Manitoba.

Mr. Wildman: The member just wants to be a cabinet minister in Pawley's government.

Mr. Foulds: No. I have decided to step down from politics, so those ambitions do not pursue me any longer.

Ms. Caplan: Be careful -- they might make you Labour minister.

Mr. Foulds: They would not get into trouble if I were.

If we stop to think of it, northwestern Ontario has a population of about 250,000. That population is about a fifth of the population of Manitoba. If we were moved into Manitoba, we would have a fifth of the seats in the Legislature instead of the measly one twenty-fifth of the seats we have in this Legislature. That power block, along with northern Manitoba, would certainly balance the metropolitan centre of Winnipeg and we would, in fact, get a better government for that region no matter which party was in power.

At the present time, one of the problems that northwestern Ontario faces, frankly, is that for all of the excellent representation it has had over the years from all three parties, it is essentially an underrepresented area, and an area that is ignored by the province because it can afford to be ignored by the province. Any attention that is paid to it is paid in a paternalistic way. In that way, I do not believe the structural problems, economic in particular, that affect the area will be attended to.

It is really important, if we are going to make areas like northwestern Ontario an essential part of Ontario, just as it is really important if we are to make Parry Sound an essential part of the province, that we go beyond this resolution, because at the present time, unfortunately, all that the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines does is tackle the symptoms of the problems rather than the essential problems.

It will, as an initial step, I remind the member for Parry Sound, give more access to some grants and some programs, but if we are to essentially improve the situation in Parry Sound, just as if we are to essentially improve the situation in northwestern Ontario and just as if we are to essentially improve the situation in northern Ontario and make those parts of the province an integral part of the province, we must change the power structure between Queen's Park and those areas, between the south and the north, and to do that, you have to take, if I may say so, socialist action.

That is, you must intervene in the economy to make them an essential part of the economy. That is not a revolutionary idea because governments of all stripes in other jurisdictions have done that to underdeveloped areas in their countries: Austria, Sweden and Japan.

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: That is Liberal action.

Mr. Foulds: It is not Liberal action. Liberal action, if I may say to the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht), is basically well-intentioned but ineffective when it comes to changing the economic structure of a country, a province or a nation, because Liberal action believes that the present economic structure is sound. Frankly, the present economic structure is not sound to develop the underdeveloped regions of our province or of our nation.

What we need is socialist action that makes those an integral part of our economy and that means intervening in the marketplace. The marketplace no longer exists as it did in the 19th century when liberalism had some justification, but liberalism in the 20th century, in economic terms, simply does not work because the economy has moved past that stage.

Therefore, while I support this motion, I agree with the intention and I sympathize with the situation in which the member for Parry Sound finds himself, I do not believe that it will meet the essential developmental and financial needs of Parry Sound, just as I do not believe that the present government or the past Tory government essentially met the needs of northern Ontario or northwestern Ontario to make those part of the economic and social mainstream of our province.

Mr. Ramsay: I appreciate the treatise on socialism and liberalism from the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) and possibly we could enter into a debate later on that, but I would like to address --

Mr. Bernier: That is your former belief.

Mr. Ramsay: The former minister from Kenora and I may be able to enter a debate on conservatism later on, possibly over a pickerel dinner some day.

I would like to address the motion this morning and say to the member for Parry Sound that it is not up to the ministry or the Minister of Northern Development and Mines to make that decision. It is actually up to the cabinet. I would like to assure the member for Parry Sound that this has the highest priority before cabinet right now, because of the Premier's interest in the topic.

As the member will remember, it was the member for Parry Sound who brought this up in estimates. We are giving it active consideration. I would like to note, though, it is a bit unfortunate that this government has been left with all sorts of untidy ends, a lot of loose ends from the previous government.

When the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines was formed -- back in 1977, I believe; the founding minister is in the House and he can correct me if I am wrong -- I would have thought that would have been the time to tidy up these loose ends and make a very firm definition of what is northern Ontario and where should the line be drawn?

At that time, Parry Sound was said to be included in the mandate of this ministry but not for the other ministries. That was a bit of a conundrum that, unfortunately, the previous government had eight or nine years to deal with but failed to do it and left it upon us to do it. Our cabinet will be considering it and will be making a decision very soon.

I can understand why the member for Parry Sound would like to see his district included, as far as the jurisdictional map of northern Ontario is concerned, in regard to all the ministries of the government, because the government of Ontario does treat northern Ontario in a special way because it is an extraordinary place in Ontario. It is extraordinarily beautiful. It has an extraordinary, energetic and ambitious people, but it has the penalty of geography from being away from the major markets. It has other penalties running against it that need extraordinary action, and the government has deemed it wise -- the previous government and this one -- to take that extraordinary action.

I am very proud of the programs that the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines has ongoing and is considering for the future. I understand why the member for Parry Sound would like to see his district included in all the ministries as being a part of northern Ontario.

I would like to say that we brought this question to the northern development councils. The member for Cochrane North, as the member for Parry Sound has said earlier today, is very aware of this problem and feels it should have been considered, and basically took it to northerners, the NDCs, for consideration.

All the councils across the north said yes, they felt it was a good idea to have Parry Sound to be considered as part of northern Ontario. When that was brought before all the chairmen, they also agreed. That, basically, is the opinion before the government. That is a very strong opinion and this government is listening to northerners and will be giving that active consideration.

There certainly will be some advantages if Parry Sound is treated by all ministries as northern Ontario. As the member pointed out, the Ministry of Education does have an extra nine per cent grant to municipalities under 25,000 population that would be a benefit up to about $500,000 to the Parry Sound district. I can see why the member for Parry Sound is fighting for that.

I would like to argue somewhat, though, with the member on the necessary health-travel program. Because the kilometric limitations are 250 now does not mean that every resident in Parry Sound would be eligible. There will have to be a line drawn, obviously, at the 250-kilometre mark to the different access points where medical service is available in southern Ontario, but it would affect some of the constituents of Parry Sound. I can understand again why the minister would want to avail his constituents of this program.

It is a very good program. We got it off the ground last year. We made some improvements to it. We are, as the member said, starting to iron out the kinks, but it is a program that has been very well received, because it is the principle of this government, and especially of this ministry that northerners deserve nothing less than what the people in the south deserve. I think the health travel grant is one very concrete way this government has shown that we believe northerners have and deserve equal access to medical services.

Some of the services we have in Ontario are the best in the world. They tend to be congregated in southern Ontario, and we believe northerners should have access to those good services.

I applaud the member for fighting for his constituents. It is the job of all northern members to do that in this Legislature. I think we all do it for our constituents because we know we do have some disadvantages in the north.

I would like to debate a couple of points that the member for Port Arthur brought up this morning. He was citing that he thought the government, particularly my ministry, was just there to administer Band-Aids to some of these problems.

I believe that since this government took over. it has really tried to turn around the orientation of this ministry to no longer be just a Band-Aid applicator but to be really attacking main and difficult infrastructure problems.

I think foremost of those infrastructure problems, as the member for Port Arthur mentioned, is highways. Ground transportation is vital in order to develop secondary industry. It is all well and good to be able to produce manufactured goods anywhere in this province, but if we cannot get them economically to the market then there is no point in setting up those industries.

We are starting now not only to fund in a much larger way but also to look at those main transportation routes between south and north; hence my announcement the other day that we are starting the planning of the four-laning of Highways 11 and 69.

I am sorry that a lot of the bad-news bearers from the north in the opposition wanted to dump on that and the member for Parry Sound has written articles and columns about that in the Parry Sound press. I am disappointed that he takes good news so poorly --

Mr. Eves: It was recommended by Jim Snow in 1980 and again in 1985, and you guys hacked it up.

Mr. Ramsay: I would like to say to the member that there was not one stick of engineering work on the shelf for the four-laning between Powassan and North Bay. I would invite the member for Parry Sound to talk to the minister and he will confirm that there was not one stick of engineering work done on Highway 11 between Powassan and Huntsville; not one.

Mr. Eves: We are talking about Highway 69 from Waubaushene. You know the difference between the two highways.

Mr. Ramsay: Okay. We are now starting that up anew. That has never happened before. On the four-laning work from Waubaushene north, the engineering work and the multi-year plans are so old that they no longer satisfy the criteria of the Ministry of the Environment. What we are doing now is restarting that engineering so that the engineering will come up to the present-day standards required by the Ministry of the Environment so those multi-year plans can continue. We are starting to do that work so that this planning work will lead to the multi-year plans of construction and continue the work that has gone on.

As a matter of fact, I was extremely disappointed a couple of months ago when I made the inquiry to see what were the multi-year plans for Highway 11. I was extremely depressed to find there were none. The perception had been by the previous government, when construction was continuing through Huntsville and also construction was proceeding south from North Bay, that obviously the government had intended to join the two routes, but there were no plans at all.

There was no intention, regardless of what statements may have been made by former ministers of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications; there was not one stick of engineering work, planning work or prefeasibility work for that Highway 11 construction.

We now have kick-started that, and the people in the North Bay and Parry Sound areas are pleased with that. We are taking the present engineering off the shelf and we are proceeding with that work. That is good news for the north. We have got to get good transportation routes to the north and within the north. Parry Sound district already benefits from our ministry's funding of provincial highways in the Parry Sound area. Many northerners do not realize it is the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines that basically funds the highway construction and MTC is the facilitator in northern Ontario.

The two ministries work together and the two ministries are determined to improve the infrastructure in northern Ontario so that the economy can flourish.

As a matter of fact, this afternoon the member for Cochrane North and I are meeting with the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) to finalize many of these northern projects that we want to see going, that we know are going to be rebuilding the economy of northern Ontario.

I think the message is being presented to northerners, and I think what northerners want is a chance to rebuild their own economy. For the first time, northerners are going to start to take the economy into their own hands and not be dependent upon outsiders just to create the jobs. The entrepreneurial spirit is now starting to build in the north, and we will build a new economy in northern Ontario.

Mr. Pierce: I rise in support of the resolution by the member for Parry Sound to have Parry Sound included as part of the great

section of Ontario called northern Ontario. It is interesting to note that a number of the ministries in the province recognize Parry Sound as being part of northern Ontario. Yet we have other ministries that, for some reason or other, have decided within their own ministries that they are not going to recognize Parry Sound.

For example, we have the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology which recognizes through its programs that Parry Sound is, in fact, part of northern Ontario. It recognizes that in the form of the involvement of the Northern Ontario Development Corp., which is the lending agency for the province and looks after programs in northern Ontario. That is a major program for the development of northern Ontario for secondary-industries growth, tourism and the development of northern Ontario. The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology has recognized that region as being part of northern Ontario.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services recognizes Parry Sound as being part of northern Ontario. Because it is an area for easterners and southerners to use, the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation recognizes Parry Sound as being part of northern Ontario. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food recognizes it as being part of northern Ontario. The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations recognizes it as being part of northern Ontario. The Ministry of Energy recognizes it as being part of northern Ontario, as does the Ministry of Revenue.

The great Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the Premier has said, will study whether Parry Sound should be part of northern Ontario; yet the Ministry of Municipal Affairs recognizes Parry Sound as being part of northern Ontario. The Ministry of Housing recognizes Parry Sound as being part of northern Ontario. The Ministry of Northern Development and Mines recognizes Parry Sound as being part of northern Ontario --

Mr. Ramsey: So what is the problem? What is left?

Mr. Pierce: What is the problem? That is it. What is the problem? What is the problem for the Minister of Health in recognizing Parry Sound as being part of northern Ontario? Had the Minister of Health recognized Parry Sound as being part of northern Ontario, it would have cost his ministry $50,000 last year to have the northern health travel grants available to the residents of Parry Sound. What is the problem with the Minister of Health? It is not only in Parry Sound that we have a problem with the Minister of Health, but in this case it is certainly a blatant exhibition of a minister who is not prepared to accept the responsibility of delivery of health services in northern Ontario.

The Ministry of Northern Development and Mines has an office in Parry Sound. If that is not recognition of Parry Sound as being part of northern Ontario, I do not know what else we could have. The Minister of Education refuses to acknowledge it because it would cost the Ontario government some money to provide additional assistance to the schoolchildren of a northern

section of northern Ontario. That is really the only reason the Minister of Education refuses to acknowledge Parry Sound: because it would make a difference in the weighting factor for the schools to the benefit of the students -- not to anybody else's benefit but to the benefit of the students -- in order to allow them an educational system which will provide the same types of programs available in other regions of Ontario.

The programs of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines are not specific for Parry Sound. The Ministry of Natural Resources has failed to acknowledge that Parry Sound is part of northern Ontario. Why? I ask the member for Timiskaming, the member who is the parliamentary assistant for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, who stood up in the House today and said: "It is not an individual ministry which can dictate or direct whether Parry Sound will be part of northern Ontario; it is a cabinet decision."

I have just named seven, eight or nine different ministries that acknowledge Parry Sound as being part of northern Ontario. Is the member trying to tell us in the House today that those nine ministries do not have any influence on the remaining ministries of this government to recognize Parry Sound? Is he saying the other ministries are powerful enough in that cabinet that they can say, "We are not going to recognize them for any reason whatsoever, and if you want to recognize them that is entirely up to you"?

I have a number of issues I would like to talk about but I know that the member for Kenora would very much like to be part of the debate. I would ask for unanimous consent to reserve the remaining part of my time for the member for Kenora. Agreed?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): You cannot do that.

Mr. Pierce: With unanimous consent, the House can do it.

The Acting Speaker: You can pass it on to your colleagues on the left but you cannot pass it on to another member.

Mr. Pierce: All right, Mr. Speaker, that being the case, if unanimous consent does not represent the strength and the power of the House, then I will continue.

I think the member for Port Arthur said in his comments, for example, that because of his son's involvement in the swimming programs --

The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the member for Rainy River give his allotted time to the member for Kenora?

Agreed to.

Mr. Pierce: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I support the resolution of the member for Parry Sound, and all members of the House are supporting the resolution of the member for Parry Sound. I would expect that when the House recesses today he will go back with --

The Acting Speaker: There will not be too much time left.

Mr. Bernier: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your reconsideration of the member for Rainy River's request.

I stand in my place today and support the member for Parry Sound in his notice of motion number 20 which would bring Parry Sound into northern Ontario. Quite frankly, I was surprised that the member had to put a notice of motion of this magnitude and concern in Orders and Notices. I just took it for granted, after all the years I was in the previous government, that Parry Sound was indeed part of northern Ontario, from my point of view.

In fact, when we brought in the $10 registration for automobiles across northern Ontario, it was the former member for Parry Sound, Lorne Maeck, who prevailed upon the government to change it and have it moved down to Parry Sound.

In 1977 -- I think that is when the major change did take place in this Legislature and across this province -- the government of the day recognized the special and unique nature of northern Ontario by establishing a special ministry, the first regional ministry in the Ontario government's history, in this province's history, the Ministry of Northern Affairs, that would look after those special interests and unique needs of northern Ontario. They did include Parry Sound. We brought in all the programs of the ministry at that particular time.

When we look at the district of Parry Sound from a municipal point of view, it has something like 35 organized municipalities and 47 unorganized communities. That is the way northern Ontario is in the districts. We do not have the county government structure that southern Ontario has, so it is obvious that Parry Sound really does belong to northern Ontario. The terrain, the people, and the thoughts and attitudes of the people of the Parry Sound, are obviously oriented to northern Ontario.

So to hear the member complain and to bring this motion forward and plead with the government to have all ministries consider Parry Sound as part of northern Ontario is a bit of a surprise and a bit of a shock to me.

We heard the member for Timiskaming stand up again today and say it is the highest priority, it is under active consideration, "We are sympathetic, we are concerned, we are going to study it, we are going to review it." I have to tell him the people of northern Ontario are sick and tired of those comments. Two years have gone by, and the government has been saying this.

We have heard it from all the ministers as they traipse across northern Ontario with massive amounts of promises. They never say no to anything in northern Ontario when they are there, but nothing ever happens. It is going to show up at the next election, because the promises that the government has made and the expectations that it has raised among the northerners are really high, but nothing happens. There is no production, there is nothing at the end, so the government is going to have to answer those questions at election time.

As I traipse across northern Ontario, I get the same feeling right across the north: "We are going to review it. We are going to study it. The Premier is in favour of it. Yes, we are going to do it. The cabinet is going to study it." That is gone. It is finished. I have to tell the government it has to move. This is one issue that it could move on and get some credibility, because credibility and integrity are gone from that side of the government.

The Acting Speaker: Your time has expired.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that you are in the chair today because I know that although you are not a northerner, you have an active interest in northern Ontario. You spent a lot of time in North Bay in your former position, and I know have a good understanding of the difficulties we face in northern Ontario.

I stand in support of the resolution. When I was thinking about what position I would take on this private member's resolution, I had to think about how one defines the north, what is northern Ontario. It certainly is not just a geographic location. It is not just north of the French River or north of some other body of water or something like that. It is more than just a geographic location. In fact, if we look at geography and think about the latitude of most of northern Ontario, even the northwest, in many cases we are south of what is mostly considered western Canada. It is not geography or latitude.

How does one define northern Ontario? I think we have to define it in terms of the economic and social structure. Obviously, northern Ontario is a hinterland. It is an area that is not in the centre. It is dependent on an economic centre elsewhere for its growth and for its development. It is an area that is dependent upon resource exploitation, whether it be mining or forestry. It is an area that has very little secondary industry. It has stunted industrial development.

It is an area that is generally very dependent on tourism, and that tourism is not the kind of tourism that one has in a large city or urban centre but rather one that is dependent on the resources again. It tends to be a tourism which benefits from the wilderness experience and from hunting and fishing and getting away from the hustle and bustle of urban life.

It is an area, too, where the transportation and communications links are different. In northern Ontario we no longer have what could be called a network in terms of transportation and communications. There is no longer a grid, but rather it becomes two or three long ribbons holding together very widely spread pockets of population. That makes it very difficult to develop economically and to ensure that there is proper growth spread over the area.

It is also an area that has stunted administrative development. As has been mentioned, northern Ontario tends to have very large areas that have no municipal organization, many communities that have never developed along the lines of southern Ontario municipalities.

When we look at northern Ontario in those terms, certainly Parry Sound fits. All of those things are descriptions of Parry Sound district, and so it makes sense that Parry Sound be part of northern Ontario.

I would like to comment briefly on some of the remarks that have been made about who is doing what for northern Ontario. It has been a little amusing to listen to the members of the government party saying everything is wonderful in northern Ontario since they became the government, and talking about the interest they are taking in the north. Then we hear members of the official opposition saying, "Well, nothing is happening and there are a lot of problems that have been long-standing." They were there before, so it is a lime amusing to hear that kind of argument.

It would be more useful, frankly, to sit down and say: "All right, what is needed in the north? What has been done in the past and why has it not worked? Why have we not changed the stunted, economic development that we have in northern Ontario." The reason it has not changed is because basically the approach has been to change grant formulas. I know this is one of the reasons the member for Parry Sound wants to have his area included in northern Ontario, because there are easier grant formulas in the north.

To improve, and basically to throw money at various problems and see if we can change things or improve the infrastructure is something else that has been argued. In this debate, it has been argued that this government has made a difference in the north because it has taken such an interest in the north. It has expanded and moved ministries into the north and put jobs into the north and it is a good thing, but obviously that does not really change anything.

The suggestion was made that there is a difference in approach, along the lines my colleague the member for Port Arthur was talking about, the need to intervene. I question that. I question whether this government really believes that it should challenge the market forces which have produced the kind of stunted economic development that we face in northern Ontario and have experienced ever since the railways first cut across the Canadian Shield.

Does this government question the fact that economic development decisions should essentially be made by the private sector in boardrooms in Toronto and New York? Does this government question that? Frankly, I doubt it. I do not think so. Does this government believe that economic decisions should be more democratic, that the people those decisions affect should in fact be making those decisions? It has been said that because they have economic development councils set up that is an indication of a more democratic approach to economic decision-making. I think it is useful to have input, but those councils are not making the decisions that matter.

They can talk about whether Parry Sound should be in northern Ontario. They can talk about which highway should be improved or what planning should be done in terms of government spending. But do they actually influence the decisions that are made by Inco and Falconbridge and Great Lakes Forest Products? Not one iota.

Nothing, in that sense. has changed; and it will not change until we have a government that actually believes it should challenge the market forces, and should not just be involved in infrastructure planning but should also be involved in economic planning, that will actually direct investment to ensure we have the economic growth and development in the communities in the north that we need.

Unless we have that, it is not going to benefit Parry Sound a great deal other than being able to take advantage of the Band-Aid approaches, the different grant formulas that the former government and this government continue to use to say they are responding to the particular problems of northern Ontario.

It has been said that one of the examples of this government's different approach is that it is committed to four-laning Highway 69 and Highway 11, which I know have significant importance in Parry Sound. If the government had been honest with the people of northern Ontario, Parry Sound and the rest of the province and said, "We are going to initiate planning and engineering studies and prefeasibility studies," there would not have been any problem. We would have said: "All right; fine. That is what is needed."

Instead, this government said, or at least a representative of this government said, "We are going to four-lane those two highways from southern Ontario to North Bay and to Sudbury." In fact, that is not going to happen for at least 10 to 15 years. If they had said exactly what they planned, then we would know they were interested in the north and being honest with the north. Unfortunately, it appears nothing has changed.

Mr. Eves: It is my pleasure to wrap up and I would like to respond to a couple of comments made, but I want to make sure I get on the record a couple of general comments or feelings.

I note with interest, and I do not doubt for one moment, the member for Timiskaming's sincerity in his active role as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. However, he says it is under active consideration. I just point out to the honourable member that it has been under active consideration by cabinet for the last 24 months.

This is not just a brand-new thing. This is something that the District of Parry Sound Municipal Association passed resolutions on in the fall of 1985, the spring of 1986 and again in the spring of 1987, and brought them to the attention of the various ministries, the Premier and the member's boss, so to speak, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

There was progress made over the years. In 1977, when the Ministry of Northern Affairs was first created, the district of Parry Sound was included for the purposes of that ministry, and over the years my colleague the member for Rainy River has outlined the other ministries that have come on stream one at a time.

When my colleague the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) was the Minister of Education, she saw fit to bring the Ministry of Education part of the way at least -- not as far as we would have liked, but she did bring it part of the way. When my colleague the member for Nipissing was the Minister of Natural Resources, he made a commitment to me that he would consider the district of Parry Sound to be part of northern Ontario for the purposes of his ministry as well. It is too bad that his successor has not followed up on that commitment.

However, this is the whole idea of this resolution here today, to try to spur on some of these cabinet members to some greater heights, so to speak. I just have to go back, though, to the comment of the Premier in February that he would try to pursue this idea with renewed vigour. Either the Premier does not have much influence over the rest of his cabinet colleagues --

Mr. Wildman: Or not much vigour.

Mr. Eves: Or he does not have much vigour or is not truly committed, as exactly said by my friend the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman).

With respect to the District of Parry Sound Municipal Association, all these municipal representatives certainly have made their point felt with respect to where they think the district of Parry Sound should be, and I think properly so, even in the issue of redistribution. When it was proposed that Parry Sound be lumped in with Muskoka, there were more presentations from the district of Parry Sound than any other sectional hearing -- all seven or eight tidings in each one of those sectional hearings put together -- throughout the province.

There were 52 delegations from the district of Parry Sound objecting to being included with Muskoka, because we do not consider ourselves to be part of southern Ontario or part of Muskoka.

I think that some of the comments made by the member for Algoma are quite accurate and correct. I think that for all purposes, the district of Parry Sound is indeed northern Ontario.

I do want to comment, though, on a couple of the comments made by the member for Timiskaming with respect to commitments. I think everybody in this House knows that you cannot four-lane Highway 69 or Highway 11 in one year, two years or three years. All we ask for is a definite commitment -- not a commitment to study, not a commitment to do engineering, but a commitment that those highways will be built within 10 or 15 years and that we are going to do 10 miles a year, 20 miles a year or whatever it is. We want the commitment and we want it now.

No government in its right mind, present or succeeding, would every dare go back on that commitment. I do not know why that commitment cannot be made.

With respect to the Waubaushene portion -- with all due respect to the member for Timiskaming -- the engineering was done on that portion of the highway in the early 1980s. The construction was announced by Jimmy Snow in 1985, and it sat on hold until June 11, when an

article appeared in the Midland newspaper. Some civil servant -- Mr. Dawley, to be exact -- from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications announced that "we are now going to get on with what we should have been doing two years ago."

The same thing can be said of the Callander bypass. It sat there for two years, and no action was taken; now, when we think there might be an election, we are going to start paving the Callander bypass. The same can be said of the Parry Sound bypass, the environmental assessment for which was done three years ago. If there is a true commitment on the part of this government to four-lane the Parry Sound bypass, construction will start tomorrow morning at nine o'clock.

The Acting Speaker: Your time has expired.

Mr. Eves: Next week I would expect that cabinet will announce the inclusion of the district of Parry Sound in northern Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The time allotted for this ballot item has expired.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Miss Stephenson moved resolution 21:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that the council of Metropolitan Toronto called the Sheppard subway line the number one transit priority in the Metropolitan Toronto area, that over 6,000 people travel along the Sheppard-line corridor during peak periods every day, that the growing number of commuters are placing an increased burden on the present infrastructures, that the Network 2011 report was released and carefully studied ever since June 1986, that the costs of construction escalate dramatically with each passing year, and further recognizing that the council of Metropolitan Toronto has voted unanimously for immediate construction, the government of Ontario should allocate funding for construction of the Sheppard subway line on an immediate basis.

Miss Stephenson: It is perhaps appropriate and fitting on this occasion, which may in fact be my final act of participation in what passes for debate in this Legislature, that I have the opportunity to speak to the resolution which relates specifically to the needs and requirements of the community in which I have lived for more than half a century.

Mr. Newman: You are not that old.

Miss Stephenson: I thank the member very much. Flattery will get him everywhere.

Perhaps it is essential that one have such a long sojourn in a community to really understand what has happened to the community and what the community really requires. When I moved to the township of North York in 1930, there were 7,000 people in the entire area. You were not born at that point, Mr. Speaker; that is unfortunate, because you missed a very interesting experience during 1927, 1928 and 1929. However, in 1930, North York had a total population of 7,000 people.

At the end of the Second World War, it was characterized as the fastest-growing community in North America, and it was; it went from 45,000 at that point to somewhat over 200,000 within a period of less than three years.

It is now the third-largest city in Canada, with a population of 560,000. During that time it has maintained, on the whole, a very reasonable developmental program. But that developmental program is certainly dependent upon and sometimes impeded by either the transportation program which is in place or that which is not in place or that which is not being instituted.

I am rising to propose an action that I think will improve significantly the current transportation situation in the city of North York and in Metropolitan Toronto and should help to prevent some future problems related to appropriate development in the city of North York and the transportation of citizens in Metropolitan Toronto. The action, of course, is the immediate undertaking of construction of the proposed Sheppard subway line.

It is perfectly obvious that I am not alone in my support of this venture, since the member for Oriole (Ms. Caplan) has brought at least two petitions at this point from citizens in her area of North York as well as in other areas of North York, and since the mayor has instituted a very active signature-seeking program in order to try to impress upon the provincial government that the people of the city of North York feel very strongly that the Sheppard subway line is a necessity to them.

Members will recall that a number of urban research initiatives have been undertaken over the past decade or so. One of the most recent was Network 2011. This study was completed in 1986, and it analysed the various compelling reasons for the improvement of transit activity throughout Metropolitan Toronto and particularly the Sheppard subway line. It determined that indeed that subway line would be an appropriate response to the long-term travel needs of much of the northern part of Metropolitan Toronto.

As we all know, the northern part of Metropolitan Toronto has been growing at a rate that can only be classified as geometric progression. Rapid transit, while it has not always proved to be the bonanza or the panacea that its strong proponents feel it is, is in the minds of many experts, such as civil engineers and regional planners, one of the important solutions to appropriate development and the appropriate movement of people within a planning area.

Certainly, rapid transit has proved its success in Metropolitan Toronto. Its success has been of such magnitude that it has outgrown its capacity and is now providing some impedance to the expansion of people movement as a result of its lack of capacity to meet all the requirements of most of the people who want to use rapid transit. However, it is important that we understand that rapid transit, such as subways and light rail transit lines, is not the only answer to the transportation question.

I would like the honourable members in this House to understand that I am not proposing that the subway line along Sheppard be carried out to the exclusion of other forms of transportation which must be a part of the transportation planning mechanism in Metropolitan Toronto. It is impossible to consider the city of Toronto or Metropolitan Toronto itself without considering a balanced transit system. That transit system must include such mechanisms as the road system and the GO Transit system, which is essential to the movement of people as well.

All the patterns of transit in Metropolitan Toronto need to be examined in a very comprehensive way in order to monitor and hopefully to meet the future needs of the citizens of this area adequately.

Studies that have been done by demographers demonstrate that regional population and employed labour-force growth up until the year 2011 -- and that, of course, was the reason for the name of the study -- will occur outside Metropolitan Toronto. The growth will not be within the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto but just beyond the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto. However, the employment growth in Metro itself has been projected at an increase of about 100,000 workers within the boundaries of the Metropolitan area in that period of time.

The majority of new trips for those who are travelling in or out to their employment will originate outside Metropolitan Toronto, and there is expected to be a very considerable increase in interregional commuting. Metro's revised regional population and employment projections will exaggerate this trend, I think, and will definitely emphasize the need for better, expanded, balanced transportation systems.

Consider what has happened over the period between 1975 and 1985. Inbound rush-hour trips at the Metro boundary cordon -- that is, at the boundary of Metropolitan Toronto -- increased by 90 per cent during that decade. That is to be compared with an increase of 10 per cent in inbound trips at the central-area cordon, which is the area at the north end of the city of Toronto itself.

Most of the suburban-trip increase was, unhappily -- or happily for the automobile manufacturers -- by way of automobile. Unhappily, our road structure is not built to accommodate all of that increase. However, the slower growth of Metro's employed labour force is probably going to ensure that we do not need quite as much expansion in the road system in the inner part of the city but that we will probably need a tremendous amount of expansion in the interregional-commuting transportation system, be that by subway or by road.

Many of these trips are certainly going to be very difficult to serve with the current Toronto Transit Commission pattern of service. The North York metropolitan subcentre itself is projected to require increases of about 35,000 employees by the year 2011. In North York's particular case, the road capacity itself may prove to be the greatest inhibition to future growth. Transit access may not be the factor which inhibits future growth in North York, but the Sheppard subway, if completed, certainly would support the development of the major metropolitan subcentres in North York and Scarborough. I think all of us would have to consider that serious and important.

The subway itself would most certainly relieve the very heavily used Sheppard and Finch bus routes. Any of the members of this House who have to travel east-west on Finch Avenue or Sheppard Avenue during rush-hour will recognize that at this point it is almost as bad as travelling west on Highway 403 at 5:30 in the afternoon and probably just about the same as travelling on the Queen Elizabeth Way at almost any time of the day.

The subway, which would free a good deal of that road capacity, would improve the situation mightily. The subway would provide a connection between the three other rapid transit lines -- Spadina, Yonge and the Scarborough RT -- which would improve rapid transit access for a great number of Metro residents. The fact that it would intercept the south feeder bus routes and the Richmond Hill GO line from the very rapidly growing region of York would provide much wider access to the larger numbers of citizens who are moving to that part of Ontario just outside the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto.

I think the experts would echo the statement that the Sheppard line is needed immediately because traffic volumes are now at capacity levels. I think we should point out that the need for the Sheppard line is based on current development and current employment figures, not even projected figures. Right now, the capacity levels have been reached, and the citizens of North York and those who live beyond North York who would use such a service do require this line at this time.

The line will ease crowded buses, the long waits to board buses at the Sheppard and Finch stations and the general disruption to existing auto traffic along Sheppard Avenue and Finch Avenue. Nearly 100,000 cars cross the Scarborough-North York boundary every day on Sheppard Avenue and Finch Avenue, which means that more people travel on these two streets in Metropolitan Toronto than live in the outlying municipalities of Vaughan, Richmond Hill and Pickering. It is essential that we add that the bus routes connecting to the Yonge subway at Sheppard and Finch stations are the two most heavily leavened in Metropolitan Toronto, with buses carrying 6,000 passengers per hour during peak periods.

The Sheppard subway line will help to significantly relieve congestion in Metro's busiest residential and employment areas, the loon Mills corridor, Consumers Road, Birchmount-Sheppard and Kennedy-Sheppard. Furthermore, employment levels along Sheppard Avenue alone are expected to grow by more than two and a half times by the year 2011. Sheppard Avenue is a key employment area in Metro, with a 25 per cent increase of all of Metro's employment projected to occur in that area during the next several years.

Obviously, the subway line would serve not only the residents who are moving to other parts but also residents in other parts of Metro who are moving to their employment along the Sheppard line. It is impossible to project if the increased load of commuters in this area could be handled by means of improvements only to the road system. There is no doubt that improvements to the road system are necessary, but they will not be adequate to meet the needs of the citizens of North York or the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto, who will be increasingly moving into North York for their employment.

In the words of the accelerated rapid transit study report of 1981:

"The problem is not the promotion of increased ridership on the TTC" -- the problem of rapid transit -- "it is rather the constraints upon the system which provide impedance to an increased ridership because it does not allow the system to handle increased ridership."

I think it is the responsibility of this Legislature to act decisively and effectively on behalf of the travel needs of the citizens of North York and Metropolitan Toronto. That responsibility has parameters which include serious considerations, not just for the questions of how best to handle the volume of commuter traffic but for the broader related questions of growth and development, which to a very large measure provide the foundation for the quality of life within this province and within Canada, and the quality of transportation provides the foundation for that growth and development.

I think we are compelled to act immediately on the matter of the Sheppard subway line by the factual argument of the conclusions drawn from informed analysis of this issue as well as the concerted voice of the citizens of the city of North York who, I think, have given unanimous approval to this project. They understand their travel needs and problems. I am sure the member for Oriole will echo that remark.

I would request that the government of the day manifest its determination to move swiftly in the prescribed direction and provide the funds that are necessary to begin this project immediately.

To delay any further will be interpreted by the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto as the demonstration of a lack of will by the government to develop authoritatively such an issue of importance, upon which depends a good deal of the economic vitality of this province and this country.

To delay any further would be to ensure that the cost for construction will rise absolutely astronomically, and the human costs will increase as well. To delay is most certainly a demonstration of lack of leadership at a crucial moment in this metropolitan area's driving move forward as it really begins to develop as a truly great urban centre. We have been told this by many of our visitors. Let us make sure that it remains a truly great urban centre by developing appropriately.

There is much more to lose by delaying than there is to gain by delaying, and all that is left really to do now is for the government to remove the last barrier which is blocking the inevitable of the future taking place. I would call upon the government to begin to remove that blockade immediately. Provide the funds for the Sheppard subway line right now.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the member wish to reserve the last three minutes and 10 seconds?

Miss Stephenson: For response.

The Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Warner: It is not a usual thing for me to agree with the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) on a subject. In fact, I am rather hard-pressed to think of the last time when the two of us did reach a common agreement on a topic; but, none the less, this happens to be an occasion where I agree and completely endorse the resolution that she has brought forward.

I listened attentively to a very thoughtful presentation, and she is to be commended for the presentation she has made. I guess what makes me a little bit sad with this morning is that having to move this resolution speaks to the continuation of our ad hoc approach to the development of transportation in Metropolitan Toronto and indeed throughout much of the region of southern Ontario.

Good, thoughtful, long-range planning has been absent for a long time. In fact, I would suggest that we really have not done any serious, thoughtful, long-range planning in this province with respect to public transit. We have never done that. It was a fault of the former government and, unfortunately, remains a fault with the new government.

Somehow, especially over the last 50 years, many people have found it perhaps convenient to see public transit in opposition to the development of highways and arterial roads, that somehow it was one or the other.

Many of us will recall -- certainly the member for York Mills will recall -- some of the really bizarre plans that were brought forward to have the city criss-crossed by expressways. She may recall the idea that was put forward to have an expressway that went east-west along either St. Clair or Bloor, and some really strange and bizarre ideas of simply not just putting expressways around the periphery of Toronto but in fact having them come through the city and that it was either this or public transit.

Somehow, there was never the notion that we could integrate the use of public transit with the use of arterial roads or expressways. Never, for example, was there the notion a long time ago that we could have an expanded expressway area that would accommodate some public transit, a rail line or an express lane for buses, taxis and so on. This was just something that was not considered.

As we go through the current debate about Sheppard, the question is now raised, "Will it be Sheppard or Eglinton?" I suggest we should not be approaching the question on an either/or basis. Surely to goodness, by now we appreciate, as they have appreciated for many decades in London, England, and in Paris, France, that a good subway system should be the base of an excellent transit system in a large urban centre and that both the Sheppard line and the Eglinton line are important, as indeed other sections of subway lines will be important, not just in the next 10 years but for many decades to come.

We missed the chance, I respectfully suggest, back in the 1920s and 1930s to have developed a good subway system in this city. We knew the technology. We understood that we could develop a subway system and yet we failed to grasp that opportunity and develop it. What makes me a little sad as well is that we will debate and at some point -- unless everybody over there has lost his or her marbles -- we will approve the Sheppard line. That is very nice.

I know in my community of Scarborough, the number one complaint I get from senior citizens is that they have difficulty travelling within Scarborough, from one place to another inside Scarborough. In a city of 500,000 people, half a million people, we have seniors whose transits needs within the city of Scarborough are not being met. At times I get so totally frustrated to think that we have the technology, the money, the intelligence, we know what needs to be done and yet we cannot do it; we fail to do it.

I support the resolution brought forward by the member. A lot of her comments with respect to the growth of the city are absolutely correct, but we can approve the Sheppard line and maybe through pressure the government will agree to build the line. Yet, a lot of problems will remain unanswered. For example, are we content to allow the sprawl of Metro Toronto through the surrounding areas, such as Markham, Durham, Pickering, Peel and York? Is that what we want?

We have forgotten about the greenbelts. The greenbelts are gone. The concept of having greenbelts so that there was an orderly development within Metropolitan Toronto and an equally orderly development in outlying areas and that we could protect our environment to a certain extent and try to civilize our urban development -- that is gone. Greenbelts are gone and we are looking at continuous urban sprawl.

Transit will be part of that, because as we allow that continuous urban sprawl then we have a transit need that needs to be met. Perhaps it involves merging GO Transit with the Toronto Transit Commission. I suggest at some point that has to happen, but as we develop that, what we will do is develop something that is similar to what we have seen in New York and down that eastern seaboard: continuous urban sprawl. I suggest that does not do any of us any good.

I get terribly frustrated because I know that the transit needs are not being met. I know that still there are many politicians who see public transit as being in opposition to highway construction and public transit will take a back seat. Metro council was not prepared to adopt a very modest proposal that the buses be given privilege on the roads, that the buses be given the right of way to pull out of the little turn-ins at the bus stops, that they be given the right of way to go back out into traffic. Metro council was given that opportunity by the former government and turned it down.

We still have some backward-thinking politicians, both here in Queen's Park and on Metro council as well.

Unless we are prepared to meet the challenges of public transit, then I suggest, perhaps in a slightly different fashion, but as the member for York Mills has said, this city runs the risk of losing the good status it has achieved. As much as members from Metro Toronto are often put down for standing up for their city, I do not think there is any question that this is a good city.

It is a darned good city and it has gained a good status, both within our country and within the world, but if we do not develop our public transit properly and if we do not take the initiative to ensure that those commuters who are living outside of Metropolitan Toronto are able to get in and out of the city, if we do not do those things, then I think we run the risk of creating a mess. That would be a real shame.

In conclusion, I am pleased to support the member's resolution, but I suggest, and I suggest very strongly to this government, that it is engaged in an ad hoc approach that has not served us well, an ad hoc approach that has been in this province for decades and remains. The member for Oriole, give her credit, will fight for this line, but she is part of a government that has no concept of orderly planning of a transit system for Metropolitan Toronto.

Ms. Caplan: I am pleased to enter the debate today with my colleague the member for York Mills and my colleague the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner). I would like to refer to some of the things they have said. I think it will come as a surprise to no one when I say how delighted I am that we have this resolution before us. I had been quite concerned because of the silence from the opposition benches on this particular issue.

The only time there was no silence was when, at the very first opportunity following the budget, I rose to ask a very important question which was on the minds of my constituents and the people of North York, and that was to the minister and to the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon): Was it either/or? Was the announcement of Highway 407 the end of the planning for the Sheppard line? Did one preclude the other? That was the only time when, in fact, there was a lot of noise in this House and I felt that, in some way, there was some suggestion that the question should not be asked.

So I am delighted that we have unanimous support, it would seem, from both opposition parties. The member for York Mills and I go back a long time. I remember her appearance when I was a newly elected member of North York council. It was 1978, and shortly thereafter, as a member of the planning board, she appeared before that not-so-august body and we had a little debate over some planning issues and appropriate development in downtown North York. As she speaks about her half century, I want to say I have spent the last 15 years -- not quite a half a century -- in the city of North York.

I was there when it became a city. I sometimes feel as if I have been there half a century, or perhaps appear as if I have been there half a century.

I believe the very salient point made by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere is the one that I would like to take a few minutes to address, because most of the facts and the points in support of this proposal have been laid very well before us by the member for York Mills.

That has been the absence of long-range planning. One of the earliest positions that I took as a newly elected member of North York council was chairman of the development and economic growth committee. It was during my time as chairman that we requested the subway station which was just opened, the Park Home and Yonge subway station. That had been something that seemed such a natural. Why was this not done? Why was this not planned?

At the same time, I recommended that we have an ongoing and continual rapid transit subcommittee in North York because, as we changed our committee membership each year, we lost that continuum of planning, of knowledge among council members. In fact, I became familiar with terms like "Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority, Accelerated Rapid Transit Study, GO advanced light rail transit, articulated rapid transit," all of the words of transportation planning. The end result, just after my departure from North York council, was in fact Network 2011, a report that I was very, very familiar with.

The

part I was most distressed about was that I found there had been no comprehensive planning or discussion among the Toronto Transit Commission, Metropolitan Toronto, North York transportation department, Scarborough transportation department and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. They had been looking at planning for Metropolitan Toronto, for North York, for Scarborough, but they had not been looking at the greater Toronto area, they had not been looking at the greater needs and doing long-range planning.

Let me say very clearly and strongly, I was disappointed that we did not have an announcement of funding in the budget. The minister explained to me very clearly that it is the policy of this government that we have that kind of comprehensive long-range planning, that we not make the kinds of ad hoc decisions that have been noted in the past.

When the announcement of $2.75 million was made for the evaluation and the studies to allow the Sheppard line to continue in the planning process, I was heartened. I really felt we were moving along. I have had assurance from the minister that the approval of Highway 407 did not preclude the Sheppard line.

I think the needs are clear for the people of my riding, the people of York Mills, the people of the new Willowdale riding, the people of Scarborough, the people not only in North York but those throughout north-central Metropolitan Toronto, those north of North York in the new planning regions, the region of York, the region of Durham, the region of Peel.

I was just discussing this with my colleague from the west end of North York, the member for Yorkview (Mr. Polsinelli). He was saying to me that it takes him longer to travel inward and across the city than it does his colleague the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan), who is that much further, or his colleagues coming the other way. So we have to look at a total transportation plan.

On this point, I would like to echo the words we have heard this morning and talk about a balance. It is not either-or roads or traffic, highways or traffic. I think the minister and the Treasurer are very aware. I believe this process, which has been going on since 1981 looking at Metropolitan Toronto's transit needs, was quite confusing. There was another process going on at the same time and that was the GO advanced light rail transit study for the interurban lines that the member for York Mills referred to.

What I found, because of my involvement, was that the Ministry of Transportation and Communications was looking at the GO-ALRT lines while Metropolitan Toronto and the Toronto Transit Commission were looking at the needs of Metropolitan Toronto and North York. There was a lot of confusion among the public. Now is the time to stop that confusion, to look at a comprehensive, balanced plan for future transportation needs that will allow for the appropriate development of the Scarborough Town Centre, the North York Town Centre, the downtown North York that I am so proud of and that I had some

part in seeing become a reality.

I believe the Sheppard line is needed not only for North York but for all of greater Metropolitan Toronto. I think the study that is under way now within the ministry, looking at the needs of the greater Metropolitan Toronto area, will come to that conclusion. It is important this be done so that we can end the kind of ad hockery the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere referred to.

I believe this resolution should be supported unanimously in this House. It speaks to an immediate start. I guess the word "immediate" is the one we are all going to look at and say, "What exactly does that mean?" I think immediately upon having that kind of comprehensive planning done and the commitment to the long-term needs of the people, not only of North York and Metropolitan Toronto but of the greater Metropolitan Toronto area, looking at all those transportation needs, then we must see the ground-breaking.

One of the points that was made already that I would like to reiterate, because I think it is most important, is that more people cross that boundary between North York and Scarborough every day than live in the new, fastest-emerging communities to the north, the east and the west. We are looking at 25 per cent of the employment opportunities within Metropolitan Toronto and this region occurring in North York and Scarborough. The link between the two is vital. I think it is important that the people not take for granted that this planning is occurring without their participation. They must participate by petition and by discussion with their members.

I have been an advocate of this line from the time that the decision was made at the Metropolitan Toronto council level. I have raised it at every opportunity in this House. I have presented petitions on behalf of the people. This morning, perhaps as a token of their appreciation, I would like to take the last four seconds to present to the member for York Mills a T-shirt saying "Sheppard Subway Line `I Need it Now'" and to ask for unanimous support of the resolution.

Mr. McFadden: I am rising, as have the other members who have spoken so far this morning, in support of the resolution of the member for York Mills.

I think the way to describe transportation in Metropolitan Toronto is really one word, and that is "congestion." We have congestion right across Toronto on our streets. There was a time when congestion was limited to traffic downtown or during rush hours. Today, we have traffic congestion from one end of Metro to the other, not just at rush hours but throughout the day, to the point where it is unpleasant for many drivers even to try to cope with the type of traffic congestion they face in street after street, on artery after artery, from Scarborough right across to Etobicoke.

To add to this, we have congestion in our parking lots everywhere. Try to find parking in downtown Toronto on an average work day. Any of the parking you do find, if you can find any, is expensive. In fact, there are a couple of lots downtown where at times you almost have to mortgage your car to get out with the kind of prices that are being charged.

We also have congestion, though, throughout our public transit system. I think we have reached a point where our subway system today is overloaded and past the saturation point. I suggest that the congestion in public transit throughout Metro, at rush hour at least, has reached the point of being inhuman. "Congestion" is very clearly, in my view, a word that describes transportation virtually everywhere in the major travelled arteries of this city.

It is safe to say, though, that this is the result of the success that Toronto has enjoyed since the Second World War. You could say that Toronto is a victim of its own success. If we take a look at the period since the Second World War, I think we will see through that whole period one of the most exciting periods of growth of any city anywhere in the world. Toronto has moved, over the past several decades, from being a moderately successful regional city to being a city which today is well known worldwide as a financial and commercial centre.

We can take a good deal of pride in the fact that Toronto has a remarkably low level of unemployment relative to other areas of Canada. One of the key reasons for that has been the success of this city in developing into a financial and commercial centre. Of course, there have been other areas of strength in the city besides those particular sectors, obviously in the area of education and other services, but the diversification of the Toronto economy into a whole broad area of concerns and activities has brought tremendous strength to the city.

Toronto has also become a leading theatre and cultural centre which is well regarded world-wide. Toronto is the home of some of the greatest teams in sport. Today we are fortunate to have in Toronto the finest baseball team in professional baseball, the Toronto Blue Jays. I know there are odd members of this House, and I describe them as odd, who actually cheer for other teams besides the Blue Jays, but even they have to admit today that the Blue Jays are the finest team in baseball.

Toronto, of course, is the home of the Toronto Maple Leafs. Now the Maple Leafs have gone through some troubling years in recent times. They have historically been one of the finest teams, but as a sports fan, I am well aware of the fact that the Leafs are right in the middle of another one of their rebuilding programs. I am confident that this current rebuilding program, led by Wendel Clark, will lead the Leafs to a Stanley Cup, which will create additional congestion in downtown Toronto.

Who can forget that tonight the Toronto Argonauts begin another fine season in the Canadian Football League hosting a surprise guest, the Winnipeg Blue Bombers? Again, that is another fine team that attracts people in from across Ontario and different parts of Canada and leads to further congestion.

One of the things, though, that has characterized Toronto now for many years is that it has become a magnet, attracting people from outside of the Toronto area, from across Ontario, from across Canada and different parts of the world. This is something that both Toronto residents and Ontarians can be proud of, but the kind of congestion that this has created is something that has to be dealt with on an urgent basis.

The current system of public transportation was, in effect, designed about 35 years ago with the decision of the city and the province to go ahead with the construction of the Yonge Street subway. From the 1950s on, we have just had further elaborations in the area of public transportation. We have had the construction of the University line, then the completion of the Bloor line and the construction of the light rail transit line in Scarborough.

Today, though, we very clearly need some major new initiatives in the area of public transportation. Leadership and support for this must come from the province now, as in the past, if Toronto is to remain an attractive city to visit, to work in and to live in. The Network 2011 report set out what I would suggest is a very practical and well-considered strategy for the improvement of rapid transit in Toronto over the next 25 to 30 years.

As the member for York Mills and other members have mentioned this morning, one of the strengths of Toronto is that a conscious decision was made not to rely on the automobile as the sole reliable means of transportation. That was the mistake that one city after another made in the United States. We have developed in this city a balanced system involving both the private automobile, surface transportation and mass subway transportation, but it is clear today that the rapid transit system we have in place in Toronto must be expanded on an urgent basis and improved.

Construction should start immediately on the Sheppard line as a first priority in the improvement of rapid transit in the city. This line is clearly needed to service the needs of the people in North York and the expanding business community in that city. More than that, we must also move on an urgent basis when that construction project is completed to construct a downtown relief line and other improvements to relieve the very severe pressure on the Yonge-University line.

Anybody who has travelled on the University-Yonge line in the last year or so would have to agree with me that the Yonge line has reached the breaking point. In fact, one of life's most unpleasant experiences is to ride on the Yonge Street line on a day like today when the temperature is 25 or 30 degrees. It is well past the point of saturation. I suggest that we have a situation now on the Yonge line where it has gone past the point of even being saturated, it is supersaturated.

I also suggest that the situation on the trains on both the Yonge line and the Bloor line is unhealthy and unsafe for elderly people and for children. They can virtually be trampled at rush hour trying to get on and off the subway trains. Something has to be done to relieve that problem as well, on an urgent basis.

Given the fact that thousands of people use public transit every day in Toronto in cramped and often unpleasant circumstances, the province should move immediately to allocate the required funding to start construction on the Sheppard subway line as an important, but only a first, step in improving rapid transit across Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Oshawa for up to seven minutes.

Mr. Breaugh: I want to join briefly in this debate because it hits on a point that is becoming more and more important to people in my area. I want to say that I support the resolution. I would be afraid to do otherwise because the sponsor of the resolution is well known for her tenacity.

It is apparent, if one drove in as I did today, that the road system in Metropolitan Toronto is past its saturation point. It does not matter which road you choose to take. You will find that the Red Brigade has totally taken over Metro works. They have completely shut down the transportation system on the ground in Metropolitan Toronto. There is not a motorist out there who does not know that. If they do not know it yet, on their way home tonight, if they just pause to look around, they will understand that the reason they are sitting still in traffic for long periods of time is that the road system cannot handle any more capacity.

The argument about whether there ought to be an expansion, as many American cities had, of the road transportation system, has been resolved in Metropolitan Toronto. We are not opting for a system of huge expressways that take apart a major urban centre and cause a raft of other problems. We have begun to focus on what I believe is the correct option, and that is rapid transit systems of different types that really have to be integrated.

Frankly, my concern is not that there is an absence of planning. When I sat on a regional council in Durham, we were aware there of many of the transportation plans of a long-range nature that have been done in and around Metro. As provincial politicians, we are or we should be very sensitive to the fact that there are people in Ontario who want to get a concession road paved this summer, and that is not going to happen because somebody said there is no money.

When you talk about transportation plans in Metropolitan Toronto, particularly rapid transit plans, you are talking about really large amounts of money. But the fact remains that we do not have any options left in this regard. There needs to be established a transportation system around Metro -- that would be the consensus I see -- to address this need to move huge numbers of people in and out of the city for a variety of reasons.

In my area, the hot potato these days is that this government is not much better than the previous government at actually carrying out the plans. It is obvious that we need to provide GO Transit into the region of Durham. It is so obvious that it is already there to Pickering. It is so obvious that they are already constructing it to Whitby; but it is also obvious that it needs to be extended further into Oshawa and to service Newcastle. It is equally obvious that the same GO Transit needs to go west. It needs to go into Hamilton.

Those are our priorities, and that is why the construction is under way. It needs to be done now, frankly, because the people are there now. This is not a theoretical argument any more. It used to be, and sometimes I wish it still was planning theories that we are talking about, but we are talking about something which is almost of emergency status. We need to develop things like the Sheppard line if we are ever to do anything to relieve Highway 401.

I do not believe there is a member here who would argue, even bother to argue, that we can further expand the Highway 401 complex. The only one that I have heard is the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) who said we ought to put up a second tier. That is the only place that I can see that you could go. You cannot go any farther. My problem is that the system we now have, ground transportation in particular, is beginning to crumble under its own weight. If we do not continue to do proper maintenance, that one is going to be in dire straits for a long period of time. We are well aware this summer that there is a problem when you try to do that repair work.

I am happy to support this resolution. I wish it were part of a somewhat broader resolution, because it will address one of our needs. If the member is proposing that this is the starting point for a transportation system which moves people almost in a ring around Metropolitan Toronto, more power to her, because those are the kinds of things that need to be done. I did hear her say earlier that this is meant to be a system that will fall in place eventually to link up rapid transit systems going through Scarborough and through the west end of the city so you will have the opportunity to use rapid transit all over Metropolitan Toronto.

As an alternative, you can come to Oshawa and we will build you the pickup trucks and everybody can hop into the back and whip around the Gardiner Expressway and do all of that; but short of that one, I do not know of a system that is going to work unless you go to some rapid transit system. It does not have to be subway; it could be light rail transit. There are some options that can be expressed there, but the need is apparent now, almost of an emergency nature.

In Metro and around Metro we are caught with this: the theoretical move to plan for the regions around Metro happened in the 1970s, and in those days on those councils we all proceeded to say: "This is what the province wants, it wants us to accept housing in large numbers." We did that; we approved those development plans; we went through official plan amendments; we did zoning bylaws.

Then' of course, because of the way we do housing in Ontario, we turned that over to the private sector, because it would be the one to actually construct the housing, and we lost control of when the housing would be built, the housing being built according to the market demands for it. The demand is there now. The problem is that all that massive housing -- if you go north, east or west, you will see housing being built on a scale we have never seen before in Ontario, 1,500 and 2,000 units at a time.

I believe this mode of transportation has to be addressed by the government right now. It has to be part of a package needed right now. It means extending GO Transit to Oshawa and Hamilton. It means putting in place now the Sheppard line. It means putting in place other lines.

We know there are some transportation options that still have to be looked at and examined. We know it is attractive to say those big GM diesels can do the job cheaper than anything else, but the truth is that if we want to move people on the scale we are talking about here, we need a rapid transit system, one that we have in part, one that we need in whole, or this community will experience just exactly what happened on the Don Valley Parkway this morning. It is going to come to a roaring and obnoxious dead halt.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Mills has three minutes either to wind up or wind down the debate.

Miss Stephenson: I am delighted to know I do not have to wind the debate up, because it would appear that all three parties are in support of the resolution.

I would like to remind the member for Oriole that our association goes back longer than her freshman year as alderman. It goes back to 1977 when she was the campaign chairman for her husband who was my Liberal opponent in the 1977 provincial election.

Mr. Warner: You crushed him, right?

Miss Stephenson: No, I did not crush him. He sort of crushed himself at that point. He did not listen to his wife; that was what was wrong, as usual.

Over the past decade, many studies have been carried out. The studies are good solid work, but they need to be integrated. That process was begun in 1983, the integration of the GO advanced light rail transit study with the Metropolitan Toronto study, in order that we could develop an appropriate, balanced transportation system, not only within Metropolitan Toronto but also for the larger area of Metropolitan Toronto and its environs.

Were I the Treasurer at this point with a windfall of $8 billion, one of the first things I would be doing is making sure that some of that study, which has been done and clarified, was being initiated right now, because the economic future of this province, whether we like it or not and whether anybody outside of Toronto likes it or not, depends very heavily on what happens to the Metropolitan area of Toronto. A good deal of the future of Canada depends on what happens here as well.

It is essential that this area be maintained as the vital financial-industrial-commercial centre that it is. We are not going to be able to do it if we cannot invite people to come and live here because they cannot get around the area to get to the services that are provided or to get to their employment. That is the kind of thing that is likely to happen if we do not proceed.

I could not agree more with the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere and the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) that we must develop an integrated program and we must begin on several fronts. But, for goodness' sake, let us not hold back right at the present time. If we cannot begin on all fronts at once, at least let us begin Highway 407, the extension of GO, which is absolutely essential, and the Sheppard subway line immediately, and then proceed with the other components that are absolutely essential to the future of this province and the future of this country.

The needs of the people must be met and the needs of our economic development depend heavily on the needs of the people.

RIDING OF PARRY SOUND

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Eves has moved resolution 20.

Motion agreed to.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr. Speaker: Miss Stephenson has moved resolution 21.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 12 noon.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

Mr. Eves: For some time now, Thomas and Gail Dowswell of Parry Sound have been trying without success to convince the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) that his provisions for disabled people are both inadequate and unfair.

Mrs. Dowswell is unable to work due to severe epilepsy and receives a disability pension from the ministry; however, because her husband is working, Mrs. Dowswell's pension is reduced. Mr. Dowswell makes the grand sum of $10,000 a year. The Dowswell family can hardly make ends meet as it is and the ministry is penalizing the Dowswells because Mr. Dowswell is earning a wage that is below the poverty line, even for single people in Ontario.

The minister seems to think that $10,000 a year is plenty to live on, which is rather hypocritical because the difference between the salary of his executive assistant now and my executive assistant when I was the minister is about $10,000 a year.

In response to the latest letter to the minister on the matter, which I received four months after the request was made, the minister's answer to the Dowswell's situation is that Mr. Dowswell is free to quit his job if Mrs. Dowswell wants her benefits reinstated. Because she is disabled, she cannot exercise the option to go out and work and augment her family's income. Mr. Dowswell could sit back and live off the government, but he believes in the work ethic. The government's track record with respect to the disabled is indeed a sad story. Hardworking people such as the Dowswells are trying to get ahead and deserve better.

Perhaps the minister could help these people out by raising those income levels.

POLITICAL ACTIVITY BY CROWN EMPLOYEES

Mr. Philip: On May 28, the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) on behalf of the Liberal Party, and the member for York South (Mr. Rae) on behalf of the New Democratic Party, signed an accord which stated, "Redefinition and broadening of the rights of public service workers to participation in political activity." On January 13, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) stated: "The government undertakes to deal promptly with the issue of political activity by crown employees as soon as the law reform commission report is received."

The

summary by the Liberal government in its review of the 1985-86 session stated: "The government expects to give the commission's report high priority on its legislative program."

On introducing that report on July 10, 1986, it stated: "The government expects to give the commission's report, for which I congratulate it once again, high priority in our legislative program."

The government has signed an accord in which it promised political rights to public servants. We have a report with very concrete and specific recommendations on how that is done. It is fairly obvious on this date that this government cannot be trusted in its promise to its own public servants, in its contract that it signed with the New Democratic Party, or indeed in the promises the minister has made in this House.

MULTICULTURALISM

Mr. Callahan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise today to commend my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro) on the fine work that she and her ministry have done in developing the government-wide multiculturalism strategy.

As a representative of the riding of Brampton, which has a wide cultural diversity, I am keenly aware of the concerns many members of the multicultural communities have regarding access to services and access to the many opportunities this province has to offer to its citizens.

These concerns go far beyond the confines of any one ministry's responsibility; that is to say, multiculturalism is not just song and dance but the very fibre of all aspects of life throughout this province and my riding. It has just as much relevance in the fields of health, social services, education, labour, human resources, management, etc.

As for the celebration of our differences in our heritage, multiculturalism means all of us, not just ethnics. We have a culture. We all have our own traditions and histories, but let us celebrate them together.

I would like to take this opportunity for the last time to invite all the members of the Legislature, as well as those who may be viewing, to our very excellent celebration in the city of Brampton, Carabram, which will be opening officially on June 30 and will continue thereafter with the sights, sounds and tastes or our multicultural community on July 3, 4 and 5.

PROPOSAL FOR WATERWAY

Mr. Runciman: Before the House adjourns, hopefully today, I want to place on the record my concerns and the concerns of many of my constituents in respect to the Ministry of Natural Resources' intention to designate the waterway between Otter and Charleston lakes as the James Auld Provincial Waterway Park.

The proposed designation of this waterway as a park has raised valid concerns, as residents and users perceive a threat to established uses and traditional occupations of those living along the waterway. I share these concerns and have advised the Ministry of Natural Resources to abandon its plans to implement a park designation and, instead, designate the waterway as the James Auld Waterway Trail.

In response to mounting criticism, the ministry has opted to establish a citizens' advisory committee and, although its terms of reference are open to

interpretation, the minister has personally assured me that the committee will consider the need and desirability of the park designation.

On the basis of that commitment, I have urged interested groups and individuals, despite their reservations, to participate in the committee process. I would urge the minister to ensure that the committee's first order of business be the park designation question. To do otherwise would very quickly bring into question the credibility of the process and discourage complete citizen participation.

IRRADIATION OF FOOD

Mrs. Grier: It is high time the people of Ontario knew where the provincial government stands on the question of food irradiation.

On May 14, a federal standing committee on consumer and corporate affairs released a comprehensive report on this nuclear technology for the preservation of food. This report was endorsed by all three federal parties. Its major finding was that there is currently not enough evidence to say that irradiated food is safe for human consumption.

The federal committee did not support the changes to regulations under the Food and Drugs Act proposed by the Department of National Health and Welfare. These draft regulations would allow companies to market irradiated food without having to prove it is safe.

Federal ministries have another three months in which to respond to the parliamentary report. I think it is essential that Ontario ministries respond also. I urge the ministers of Health (Mr. Elston), Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) and Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) to make public their positions on food irradiation. I hope all three ministries will support the position of the parliamentary committee.

It is shocking to think the federal government would go ahead and approve food irradiation when its safety is still so much in question, but this could happen: tremendous pressure is being put on the federal government by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and other vested interests.

Irradiation could change the Ontario food supply in a dramatic way. It is too important a provincial issue for the decision about its introduction across Canada to be left to Ottawa. It is premature to approve regulations allowing food irradiation while the safety of the irradiated food is so much in doubt.

INTERNATIONAL PLOWING MATCH AND FARM MACHINERY SHOW

Mr. McKessock: A couple of weeks ago I wrote to all members of the Legislature inviting them to the international ploughing match this fall in Grey county. If members have not responded to that letter, they should please do so immediately so we can send them meal tickets for the opening day and also have a sign made up for them to participate in the MP and MPP ploughing competition.

I also want to ask the Premier (Mr. Peterson) not to have the election in the week of September 15 to 19, because all the people in Ontario are going to be in Grey county for that week.

Besides inviting the members, I want to make this an open invitation to everybody in Ontario to attend the international ploughing match this fall, September 15 to 19. This is where the urban and rural people come together for a week of fun and education. Grey county is happy to play host to all those in Ontario this fall. One and all, come out to Grey county, near Meaford, this fall to the international ploughing match.

FISHING LICENCE REVENUES

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I rise with a great deal of sadness because I feel I must chastise the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio). In January 1987 the minister imposed a sport fishing licence on the residents of Ontario, the first sport fishing licence in the history of our province. My colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party supported that initiative with the explicit understanding from the minister that all funds generated by this fishing licence would be used to improve sport fishing in this province and that the minister would set up a fisheries advisory council to ensure that happens.

The minister has not honoured his commitment to the members of this assembly or to the anglers of our province. He has failed to set up the fisheries advisory council, and it is my understanding that he has already allocated more than half of the projected revenue from this tax for expenditures of his ministry that should have been paid out of general revenue. This is completely unacceptable, and I call on the minister to honour his commitment and spend 100 per cent of the licence fees for sport fishing.

IDEA CORP.

Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: On a number of occasions in this Legislature over the past six months, members of this party, myself included, have repeatedly asked the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) to produce the Biddell report with respect to Wyda Systems and Graham Software. We have been told by the Premier and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology on a number of occasions -- including, I may add, in writing; a letter dated June 15 to the member for Leeds (Mr.

Runciman), chairman of the standing committee on public accounts, signed by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology -- that the report had not been completed or that it did not exist.

My point of privilege is this: this morning in the public accounts committee, we were advised that not only did Mr. Biddell's report on Wyda and Graham Software and IDEA Corp. exist, it had been given to the minister on February 11, 1987, that he had kept it and that Mr. Biddell saw no reason for it not being produced and made public.

Clearly, what the minister said and what was really going on are completely at variance. This minister and the Premier said something to us, as members of this House, that was not true. I call on them both to resign or else to explain their actions to this House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I listened very carefully to the member. He rose on a point of privilege. l cannot see in any way where any member's privilege has been breached. He stated that on many occasions he had questioned different ministers on matters. There are certain aspects of the standing orders which would allow the member to take further action on receiving further information. It is not a point of privilege.

Statements by the ministry.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of privilege, if I may --

Mr. Speaker: On the same point? I actually ruled it was not a point of privilege. I may have been too quick, but I ruled it was not a point of privilege.

Mr. Gillies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I ask you, as Speaker, what remedy we have in this House when both the Premier and the minister have so clearly misrepresented this situation in writing and verbally to this House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gillies: What remedy do we have, through you as Speaker, to ensure that we are given factual information by this government and are not so clearly misled as in this case?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the honourable member to withdraw the words "misrepresented" and "misled." Will you withdraw?

Mr. Gillies: I will withdraw "misled," Mr. Speaker, but I assure you and all members of this House that what these two members have told the chamber is 100 miles from the truth.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member withdraw the word "misrepresented"?

Mr. Gillies: I withdrew it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I understood you withdrew "misled." Do you want to withdraw both?

Mr. Gillies: I withdraw "misled" and "misrepresented" and I leave on the record that what they have said is 100 miles from the truth.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am pleased to be able to report to the House that today the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously affirmed the majority decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, which in turn affirmed the constitutionality of Bill 30. The constitutionality of full funding for separate schools and its requirement as part of the Confederation pact is thus established by a unanimous decision of our highest court.

Honourable members will recognize that both Ontario and Quebec entered into Confederation on the condition that the educational rights of the religious minorities in those provinces were protected. This was one of the cornerstones of Confederation, a condition precedent for the formation of Canada in 1867. Indeed, Sir Charles Tupper, a Father of Confederation, speaking in the House of Commons in 1896, described the Confederation bargain in precisely that way, noting that without the education guarantees contained in

section 93 of the British North America Act "the provinces would have been unable to obtain any confederation whatever."

It appears from their reasons for judgement that a unanimous Supreme Court of Canada has reaffirmed this historic bargain. The court has concluded that the Confederation compromise of 1867, which took account of the rights of minorities, is not displaced or modified by the Constitution Act of 1982.

As well, a majority of the members of the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the Tiny township case, a decision of the judicial committee of the Privy Council in 1928, which was believed to have stood in the way of full funding for Roman Catholic separate secondary schools, was wrongly decided.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I would like to join the Attorney General in a brief statement regarding today's Supreme Court decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the constitutional validity of Bill 30 and I would like to say that this government intends to proceed with a careful and sensitive implementation of this initiative.

This government is looking to the future of our publicly funded school systems with a strong commitment to provide quality education for all Ontario students.

I might just add that on this occasion, I would like to personally and sincerely thank all members of this assembly for their support, their constructive criticism and their wise counsel in this very important matter.

I would like to say as well on this day a personal word of congratulations to my colleague the Attorney General for his wonderful handling of our case, which was decided successfully in the Supreme Court of Canada. It proves once again that he is truly one of the most outstanding lawyers ever to grace this chamber and operate in Ontario.

Finally, I want to say in conclusion how very much I have appreciated the very strong, constant and unbending loyalty of my colleague and seatmate, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) of this province, without whose support and commitment all this could not have happened.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: As members of this Legislature know, the government of Ontario is committed to making our province's system of social assistance fair, progressive and effecti