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

December 5, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

EARTH DAY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LA JOURNÉE DE LA TERRE

Mr Christopherson moved second reading of Bill 155,

An Act proclaiming Earth Day / Projet de loi 155, Loi proclamant la journée de la Terre.

Mr Christopherson: It is a pleasure to rise today on the first bill I have had the honour of creating and introducing here in this House. My bill is not intended to revolutionize anything, but rather it is meant to be an added wind in the sail of the environmental movement. Earth Day is becoming and has become an internationally recognized day of awareness of the need for all of us in our society to continue to focus and work towards, quite frankly, a survivable planet.

I would like to begin my remarks by going back to the beginning of Earth Day. To do that we must go back to the term in office of Senator Gaylord Nelson in the United States, who was a former governor of Wisconsin. One of the more proud events and accomplishments he felt he had enacted during his term as the governor of Wisconsin was to implement a one-cent tax on a package of cigarettes which generated over $50 million in 10 years, and in those days that was a fair bit of money. That money was used to acquire wetlands and park lands. In today's thinking we might route that money elsewhere, but certainly that was pioneering and revolutionary action for any politician of that day.

It is also significant that in 1963 Senator Nelson approached President John F. Kennedy and suggested to him there were not enough politicians speaking out on the issue of the environment and conservation, which really was the key word in that era. He persuaded John F. Kennedy to go on a resources and conservation tour, and indeed President Kennedy went on that tour and made some speeches following that tour, but they were not covered that widely. Later that year, President John F. Kennedy was felled by the bullet that brought his life to an end.

Who knows what would have happened to the environmental movement and to the issue of Earth Day as we now know it, had someone like President John F. Kennedy lived long enough and grabbed hold of that issue as he did so many other important issues.

However, in the summer of 1969 Senator Nelson was aware of the effect of the antiwar teach-ins and the attention they were focusing on the war. He said, "Why don't we do the same thing with the environment and have an environmental teach-in?" He announced that on April 22, 1970, there would be an event in honour of the Earth. In the United States, to the credit of those people, 20 million Americans participated in that first Earth Day event. Some argue that was the day the environmental movement was galvanized, certainly in North America and perhaps around the world.

One of the key organizers said on that day, "If the environment is a fad, it is going to be our last fad." Far from being a fad, 20 years later there was a recognition of what had happened in 1970: "Why not seize the opportunity to pull as many people together again and focus on the issue of the environment?" In 1989 a group of people got together and planned and expected that perhaps 30 countries might participate in such a 20th anniversary event. It needs to be said that during this time many communities continued to have annual Earth Day events, but certainly they did not carry the same kind of attention that the first one did in 1970.

In 1990, when there was the 20th anniversary, as many people in this House will remember, there was a major focus worldwide. In fact, 140 countries participated and 200 million people played some kind of active role or supported the issue of Earth Day 1990. For us in Canada, 1990 was a pivotal year. During that year the decision was taken by Earth Day International to move its international headquarters from San Francisco to Canada, and the 1991 Earth Day event was held with the world headquarters being in Victoria, British Columbia.

I had an opportunity last evening to speak with Sandra Beattie, who is the executive director of Earth Day Ontario, and I would also like to note that Mr Maury Mason, who is the president of Earth Day Canada, is here with us today in the members' gallery. I welcome you, Mr Mason, and thank you for your efforts, sir.

I spoke to Ms Beattie last evening and she advised me that just yesterday Earth Day Ontario approved its final mission statement. It reads, if I have the quote correct, "Earth Day seeks to foster environmental awareness and responsibility, using the celebration of Earth Day as a focus."

The Kitchener-Waterloo Record says:

"Earth Day will have succeeded when every day is guided by the principles that are the focus of today's effort at raising consciousness about our planet and its fragile environment. When everyone is constantly sensitive about natural resources, when waste is minimized and neutralized and when environmental consciousness is the norm, there will no longer be a need to designate Earth Day."

From the London Free Press: "Earth Day Revisited: Surveys consistently rank environmental issues among top concerns, but do those surveyed really mean what they say? Earth Day today is an appropriate time for reappraisal."

Both these editorials and others point to the fact that Earth Day is not meant, as I understand it, to be the be-all and end-all solution in and of itself. What it is meant to do is to provide a focus. If we ever have any doubt as to whether or not it is working, we should go to our school system, go to the classrooms and talk to the young children. Their support and understanding of the environmental movement is as strong and as secure and as sacred as that of the freedoms and human rights we were all taught in school.

Every year when Earth Day comes around, there is a focus in the classroom as the children and others learn to appreciate that this is something we must continually, each of us, work at in our own way.

My bill is only meant to assist Earth Day in that role of providing an awareness and a focus. I have talked to some people and I think there are some minor wording changes to Bill 155 that would be appropriate. Certainly a recognition of Earth Day Ontario in the bill would be the correct thing to do in light of the presence in the Legislature in other words. However, if it were enacted, it would provide in law that each and every year April 22 would be proclaimed and designated as Earth Day in Ontario.

I think that would be our one small piece of leadership in the kind of terrific, dedicated work that literally thousands of people are doing across the province. I hope the opposition members present today will be able to support this, and hopefully we will see this bill become law.

Mr McLean: I would like to rise today and speak on this bill,

An Act proclaiming Earth Day. What the member wants in this bill is as follows:

"The 22nd of April in each year is proclaimed to be Earth Day for the purpose of encouraging participation in community, provincial, national and international activities that are organized or approved by Earth Day Canada or Earth Day International or that share a common purpose with the activities organized by the Earth Day movement."

Really what this bill does is to make people more aware and have some type of focus in regard to observing Earth Day. Many years ago the natives of this land and the immigrants who came from other countries worked and tilled the soil, cut down trees and picked stones and really made agriculture what it is today. It is an indication to me of where we started being more aware of what Earth Day is all about.

As years went on, we looked at how we should be preserving our wetlands. We looked at our park lands. One of the greatest movements in this province was the formation of conservation authorities. Conservation authorities were a partnership with the municipalities and the government whereby wetlands and lands that were not wanted would be maintained to make sure our water was kept to a level that would be acceptable for the public and kept clean for drinking purposes.

Conservation authorities have done a lot of good work over the years. I was involved when a lot of people were not aware of the area called the Minesing Swamp, where we purchased large tracts of land in that area to keep it for nature, for the birds, for the habitat. That has gone on across this province in many different areas. So today, when we are discussing Bill 155 proclaiming Earth Day, I think we have to go back and look at all these things that have taken place to make people aware of the great country we live in.

It goes back many years ago to the introduction of a bill to look at the environmental assessments that would take place in the province with regard to people wanting to expand and to build on our wetlands, so to speak. With that legislation, the Ministry of the Environment put in place something that would not let our wetlands be wasted. So I was pleased to see that Earth Day International has moved to Canada and has its head office here, and that yesterday the mission statement was completed. That mission statement, I am sure, will put a further feather in the cap of those people and businesses that are on board now to recognize Earth Day.

There is an industry in this province that is very dear to my heart, and that is our agricultural industry. We must not forget that all the food produced in this province comes from the top six inches of the soil. That is the earth that we are talking about here to maintain and to make sure it is kept in a suitable manner in order that we will all have good produce and clean food. When we look at the many different aspects of the environment, we look at our Holland Marsh, one of the greatest food-producing areas in this province. There are many other areas like that.

On the dairy farm I own, we produce hundreds of tonnes of feed a year off the top six inches of that soil, thereby producing the milk that comes to Toronto and goes all over Ontario for people to drink.

Those top six inches of the earth are so important to this province. I know the member for Hamilton Centre is aware of that. He is aware of the great privilege the farmers have of trying to feed the people of this province. I say to his Minister of Agriculture and Food that we must not forget that this is so important.

I just wanted to take a few minutes to put a few things on the record from my perspective of what I feel Earth Day is really all about. Really, it is to make sure that our environment is protected, that our agricultural industry is protected, that our conservation authorities will continue to thrive and expand, to make sure that our wetlands are preserved. Some people think that wetlands are so large. If you just get in an aeroplane and fly from here to North Bay and you look at the wetlands in this province, it is tremendous. I look at the good agricultural industries in the areas around them which have the good land preserved for habitat, to maintain and to expand on.

Yes, Earth Day, I think, is important to make the awareness and the focus that this member is trying to put on the importance of the top six inches of the soil that feeds us.

Mrs Mathyssen: I am delighted to be able to participate in the debate in support of the member for Hamilton Centre's proposal to make Earth Day an annual event by law. As the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment, I believe this proposal compels all of us to recognize the importance of coming to terms with the fragility of our planet, the environmental crisis we face and our obligation to change the way in which we regard our world. That obligation, which we all share, is to take responsibility for practices that jeopardize our future and the future of our children.

Unfortunately, past generations built a society based on rapid production, mass consumption and mass waste disposal. We took a lot from nature; we returned very little, except as waste. We did not think much about that waste. We buried it in our land, dumped it in our rivers or spewed it into our air. We thought there was no limit to the amount of garbage we could toss into Mother Nature's lap. Few thinking people cling to this fading illusion any more. The reality is all too grim.

The decaying garbage in our landfill sites not only pollutes our ground water but it releases gases into the atmosphere which in turn artificially warm the planet and upset the balance of nature. We know this phenomenon as global warming or the greenhouse effect.

Likewise, the toxic emissions we pump out of our smokestacks not only contribute to global warming, they also attack our lungs and threaten our soil and water with acid rain. Acid rain, as I am sure members know, occurs when smokestacks belch out nitrogen and sulphur gases. The gases mix with water vapour and create an acidic rain that damages plant and animal life and even eats away at buildings.

Meanwhile, the chemical and biological contaminants we dump in our waterways damage our fisheries and other aquatic life and leave many of our beaches unfit for swimming.

Industrial pollution has contributed greatly to the deterioration of the quality of water in the Great Lakes basin. We have turned this great natural resource, the largest fresh water body in the world, into a cauldron of contaminants. There are at least 1,000 known chemicals in the Great Lakes system, 250 of which are considered serious health hazards.

Only a few weeks ago, yet another scientific report warned us that this witches' brew poses a serious health risk to both humans and wildlife. We have already seen far too many warning signs -- fish that swim upside down, water fowl whose bills cross like twisted scissors. Did you know, Mr Speaker, there are turtles in our Great Lakes system that are so full of chemicals they can be legally classified as toxic waste? Each summer, more than 100 beaches along our system have to be posted "No swimming" due to contamination.

The seriousness of this situation is underscored by the fact that 60% of the Canadian population and 20% of the American population live around the Great Lakes basin. That is more than 35 million people who are exposed to these dangers.

It is imperative that we address this situation collectively. I believe recognizing Earth Day every year will help us to keep environmental concerns before the public. This public attention in turn ensures that governments respond to these environmental concerns.

One of the ways our government can respond to this situation is through regulation. The prevention program with the most direct impact on Great Lakes water quality is MISA, our municipal-industrial strategy for abatement. MISA is a water quality program that began in 1986. It focuses on the industries that discharge waste into our lakes and rivers as well as our sewers. Our NDP government has revised MISA. Instead of controlling pollution, the new focus of MISA is pollution prevention. We want to turn off the toxic waste tap at the source.

We want to focus industry's energy on getting things right at the beginning instead of trying to fix them at the end. We cannot afford the cost of cleanup and we cannot afford the environmental damage. That means we want industries to recycle or recirculate their waste products rather than dump them into the river. We also want them to find less environmentally harmful methods of producing their products. Most significant perhaps, we are now developing a list of the worst persistent toxic chemicals and we are going to ban their discharge into our waterways. This is zero discharge. These are tough measures, but we have no choice.

Another Ministry of the Environment program that directly affects water quality is our waste reduction program. I am sad to say that Canadians generate the highest per capita amount of waste in the world. Ontario alone generates 11.5 million metric tonnes of municipal solid waste annually. Most of this finds its way into landfill sites where, as I have already mentioned, it continues to degrade the environment.

Again, we feel prevention is the best way to deal with our waste disposal crisis, through the 3Rs program: reduce, reuse and recycle. The first and most important R, reduce, encourages people not to buy disposable and overpackaged goods. It also challenges industry to examine its packaging practices and to generate fewer throwaway products. The second R, reuse, calls on people to reuse an item again in its original form for the same or different purpose. Examples include cloth diapers, refillable bottles and rechargeable batteries.

The third R, recycle, involves separating valuable materials such as paper, glass or metal from our waste system, reprocessing them and introducing them back into the market. Ontario's blue box program is the most recognizable symbol of recycling.

The Ministry of the Environment has made the first of these Rs, reduce, the priority. If you do not produce garbage in the first place, you do not have to get rid of it. Consequently, the Ontario government has set some tangible targets for reduction. We intend to divert at least 25% of all household and industrial-commercial waste from disposal to productive uses by 1992 and 50% by the year 2000.

To accomplish this will require nothing less than a revolution in thinking. We have to move from a consumer society to a conserver society, from a throwaway society to a thoughtful society. This will involve the co-operative efforts of the public, industry and government. It will require the constant reminder that we live in a finite world and that we only have one.

I would like to reiterate my support for the proposal by the honourable member for Hamilton Centre. I believe the recognition of Earth Day as an annual event is important to make sure the message that we must consider the Earth each and every day is clearly heard. May I extend my congratulations to my honourable colleague the member for Hamilton Centre and thank members for their indulgence.

Mr McClelland: At the outset, I want to congratulate the member for Hamilton Centre for introducing Bill 155, designating a specific day as Earth Day. I think it is important to note that the first Earth Day was on April 22, 1970. I am sure that has been brought to the attention of this House by my colleagues who have spoken. A lot of things have happened since that time that I think draw attention to the significance of environment not only locally but indeed internationally.

As has so often been said, only when we begin to act locally and take specific steps to do what we can as individual citizens, as communities, as a province, as a nation and then as a community of nations in our world will we be able to have the kind of impact that is absolutely necessary to leave a legacy for those who will come after us that we can be proud of.

Pollution knows no boundaries. We can pass the toughest clean air laws and regulations in Ontario that we could possibly imagine and we could do our utmost to enforce those laws, and if a neighbouring jurisdiction -- our friends to the south particularly -- chooses not to follow in a like manner, then it is of not little consequence that we would take a very positive initiative, but certainly any initiative taken in this province or in this nation would be offset by a lack of similar initiative, by way of example, by our friends to the south in the United States.

That is something that is understood when we look at the issue of acid rain and the international impact acid precipitation has in its genesis and also the effect it has that pollutants discharge into the atmosphere, mainland or almost anywhere. The air and the water of our world do not respect international boundaries in that sense.

I think we have seen that world leaders, since the first Earth Day of 1970, have taken it upon themselves to hold international summit conferences dealing with environmental questions. Certainly the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl galvanized the world's attention to what could happen with a major environmental disaster and drew the attention of people from every nation to the significance of what could take place -- what in fact had taken place there -- and the responsibility each and every one of us has to respond.

Not long ago the Prince William Sound disaster in Alaska, where millions of gallons of oil spread on the open seas and did untold damage to the environment and the area around Prince William Sound, was evidence of the very serious consequences that can result from irresponsible action by men and women around the world.

I suggest that concern about the environment has now moved out of the media spotlight somewhat. Economic crisis seems to dominate the news of late. It certainly does in the jurisdiction of our province. That is understandable, but it does not mean people are not vitally concerned about the environment. In fact, environmental issues remain at the core of the concern of the majority of citizens in Ontario. Virtually every poll commissioned by industry, the private sector and governments has indicated that environment remains very high on the list of people's priorities of concerns.

I find it interesting and might I say somewhat ironic that our friend the member for Hamilton Centre would bring forth a bill designating April 22 as Earth Day and at the same time the government he is part of, which campaigned so very vigorously on environmental issues and promised, by way of example, an environmental bill of rights as the cornerstone of its environmental agenda, subsequently produces as its first piece of legislation, legislation that basically flies in the face of every principle the party of which he is a member stood for.

I am sure he must find it difficult and somewhat -- dare I use the word -- embarrassing that he would be in a position where he would stand here and talk about Earth Day when this very afternoon in this place, his government would seek to shut down the right of people across this province to participate in environmental decisions that would affect them in a very fundamental way.

To me that is the height of irony, that here we would be debating the designation of a day as Earth Day on the very day the government of Ontario is saying: "Look, I'm sorry about what we said. It doesn't count for anything any more. The undertakings we gave, the commitments we made, are now of no effect and we're not prepared to live up to the promises we made."

As Humpty Dumpty said, "Words mean whatever I choose them to mean." Indeed, I think that is the message the government of the day is sending to the people of Ontario. Words about environmental commitment, integrity -- what does Earth Day mean to the people of Ontario when this Legislature would consider a private member's initiative to have a day proclaimed as Earth Day, and then the very day that proclamation was made say to the people of Ontario, "We're sorry, but we really don't believe in the general concepts that would underline an Earth Day"?

As we consider the symbolism of what has been talked about here -- that is what Earth Day is: It is symbolic -- it is fine to have a token day, if you will, but environmental issues are not prescribed or confined to a designated day in Ontario or around the world. It is a mindset, a lifestyle, a willingness for us to consider, in the whole scheme of our economic developments, the environmental sustainability of the kind of development we will proceed with in this province. It is a way of thinking. Earth Day is symbolic of that. I have no difficulty with that.

In fact, I support it and applaud the member for bringing this forward, but I ask him to consider where the symbolism of Earth Day stands when you put it up against the environmental agenda of the government of the day.

I hasten to add that there has been only one piece of environmental legislation brought forward by this government. What is that piece of legislation? It is legislation that seeks to shut down the participation of people in this province.

What an irony that a member of the government would introduce a piece of legislation that would designate a day as a symbol of environmental concerns for the people of this province on the very same day the government says: "I'm sorry; we don't want the participation of men and women, of interest groups, of municipal governments on the very first piece of legislation we have brought forward that impacts the environment." I hope that as we consider the designation of Earth Day pursuant to Bill 155, as introduced by the member for Hamilton Centre, that would not be lost on members opposite.

I very well know the pressure many of them are going to be under. I very well know the realities of what takes place here on Thursday mornings and indeed in the afternoons throughout the week. Members are occupied with other things. They have a sense: "Oh, we've heard this before. It's an opposition member who's trying to get his digs in at the government."

Members will do other things. They will be working diligently at signing Christmas cards or reading the morning paper or looking at what other material is necessary for the conduct of their business throughout the day. I appreciate that because certainly I have done that and doubtless will do that again. The comments I make may not really be heard by all members. I notice the member for Lincoln is listening intently and for that I thank him. He is a man of integrity, a man who has demonstrated his integrity and stood in his place and voted on a matter of principle.

We have here a matter of principle with respect to Bill 155. That is the fundamental issue here. Concepts are fine, but until they are put into practice, until people are willing not just to pay lipservice but to respond with concrete action to ideals, promises given and principles enunciated, they are, after all, meaningless. All the rhetoric in the world and all the designations of special days mean nothing if there is not action, and positive action, that flows from that.

While I support the general principle, I do so with great concern that in and of itself the principle is not sufficient. It accomplishes nothing. What is necessary is action that is consistent with the principle that underlies Bill 155.

When we vote on this matter, I ask members to seriously consider in good conscience, if they are voting for this, where it fits within the scheme of other things before this House and to let their conscience be the test of their integrity and consistency as we move towards designating a day as Earth Day, recognizing the serious responsibility each one of us has as a legislator and as a person who lives in this province, in this country and in this world to leave a better place for the young people who will follow us. The legacy we want to leave is a healthy environment and something we can be proud of.

Mr Cousens: I am pleased to support the motion before the House today and I congratulate the member for Hamilton Centre for bringing it forward. I have seen the value of Earth Day over recent years and I think it has done a great job. Environmental groups have helped educate the rest of the world on the importance of planting trees and making this Earth and the neighbouring surroundings a more friendly place for each one of us.

Taking care of our land, taking care of our backyards, taking care of our parks, everything that happens around that day gives an emphasis, a very proper emphasis, to the value of this planet Earth. In fact, I have the Earth Day flag flying in my office beside the Ontario flag as a constant reminder that we have a far bigger responsibility than just the province of Ontario when we are dealing with these great subjects that have to do with the future protection of society and this great planet Earth we live on. So I commend the member.

Now, those are the good words. The member for Hamilton Centre is to be congratulated for bringing forth the motion and for, I think, the very genuine desire he has for the betterment of all through this kind of motion.

Having said that, I wonder where he is at with his own Minister of the Environment, seeing what she is doing with regard to the protection of planet earth. First of all, on our order paper today we are looking at significant changes to the plans for this Legislature in debating Bill 143,

an act that affects the landfills for the greater Toronto area. We are going to have closure placed on this House to complete the debate on Bill 143 so that it is all put aside before Christmas.

We are dealing with property rights, land rights. The Municipal Act, the conservation act, the municipalities' acts and all those acts that are inherent in existing legislation will be shoved aside. All those rights that deal with property rights people have as individuals or municipalities are going to be put to one side as this New Democratic government in Ontario brings in legislation that gives it unprecedented powers over the rights of landlords and municipalities in dealing with the landfill crisis we have in Ontario.

I have to say that out of one side of our mouth we are saying that we want to protect the Earth, that we want to protect the future, and out of the other side, someone else within the government, the Minister of the Environment -- we have already had the parliamentary assistant speak on this bill -- does not talk about the tremendous powers this government is taking and the abuse of power that can have for future generations -- absolutely wrong. What this government should have been doing is looking at ways in which we could streamline the environmental assessment process, and in that way we could speed up the whole business of having landfill sites approved.

Instead, we have seen this draconian legislation brought forward, absolutely the worst piece of legislation I have ever seen. It is the first piece of legislation the Minister of the Environment has brought into the House since she became minister on October 1, 1990, and what she is doing with this bill is taking away property rights and land rights for people.

I know we have a crisis with landfill sites. We do have a crisis and we have to find a way of dealing with it, but what this government is doing to try to find a place to get rid of our garbage just does not make a lot of sense. This government is saying: "You've got to find a place to get rid of your garbage within the greater Toronto area. You can't look outside that. You can't transport it anywhere else." What they are doing is closing off options rather than opening them up.

In this legislation the government brings in very important packaging legislation, which we all have to look at together, but why not do it with consultation with industry and everyone who is involved? That consultation will be closed off by December 19 when this government forces through its legislation. There will not be dialogue. There will not be discussion, except what we are able to cram in in the few days of open sessions we are going to have.

On the one hand, I support this member's bill in saying, "Let's do something about Earth Day." On the other hand, I condemn their Minister of the Environment for not having any sense at all of working together to make planet Earth a safe and good place to live. There is something dreadfully wrong going on there. Maybe when his motion passes this morning, the honourable member can go to the minister and try to talk some sense into her brain on other matters that are coming out from the Ministry of the Environment.

What about the Clean Air Act? What is happening with the air? Planet Earth is important and I support the member on this, but we have to do something about the acid rain emissions. I have had a private member's resolution in this House since December 20 of last year, asking the government to do something about the Countdown Acid Rain program. The fact of the matter is that 1994 is when the existing guidelines expire. We have seen the United States buy into the acid rain program through the Environmental Protection Act and what they are doing down there, but our government has not taken leadership on that.

In fact, when I call the Minister of the Environment the minister of garbage, I am right, because that is all she is looking at, garbage. She is not looking at the other issues that pertain to the world and the protection of it. She is not looking at acid rain. She is not looking at the other issues. She is not looking at clean air. I am saying that has to be an issue. We cannot look at one without looking at the other. They are all integrated and tied together.

What is happening with our water resources? This government has not begun to do anything about clean water for the province. One of the few things David Peterson's crew did was to establish a corporation that was going to be responsible for making water in Ontario clean for the long term. People are worried about their water. More and more people are now going out and buying bottled water, and what is this government doing about it? Zip-all, nothing. The water we have in Ontario is one of the most valuable resources we have.

They are integrated, all together, the air, the water, the earth. Somehow or other this government is only looking at one thing and that is landfill problems, garbage sites, and it is not beginning to look at the great, broad spectrum of the problems that surround us. The people of Ontario have been so let down by the New Democrats, because they have not been able to develop any kind of comprehensive program on anything except garbage, and even that is flawed. They have not looked at clean air, they have not looked at water.

What are we dealing with? We are dealing with a Legislature that is off the rails. The New Democrats continue to shove through legislation, as we will see with Bill 143, that disregards the rights and privileges of the people of Ontario that have been built over our whole history till now. What we have to see then is somehow -- and I know it exists, because the member for Hamilton Centre and ourselves agree on this resolution -- why can we not agree on some of the other priorities this province should be working on together?

Why can we not in private members' hour, or by closing down the rest of the Legislature, sit down and honestly work through ways in which we can deal with water, deal with the tire problem? Nothing is happening. They have collected $200 million from the tire tax, yet they continue to pile them up or bury them or we have guards watching them. It is part of the whole issue. We can talk about the 3Rs, and I believe in the 3Rs. I believe every member in this House has a sense of commitment about the 3Rs, but what are we doing about it beyond just talking?

We are bringing in legislation, but can we not deal with the greater and ongoing issues that deal with the environment? We have a responsibility to do that.

When I think of the way this government is now dealing with other issues that have to do with the environment, it is off the rails. This government is in trouble with the really critical issues. They say the right words, as the member for Hamilton Centre says so well and so eloquently within this private member's resolution, but the actions that follow through the ministry and through the other ministers do not convey the same sense of commitment to the fundamental principles he is displaying. Maybe he can have some impact on those people who are in the government.

Mr G. Wilson: I am certainly happy to join in this debate that the member for Hamilton Centre has begun with his very important bill regarding the proclaiming of Earth Day in Ontario. I am especially pleased because, as the member pointed out, the co-ordinator for Earth Day Ontario resides in Kingston. I can attest to the very good job she is doing in bringing the community's attention to the need for greater awareness of what we are doing to our environment.

As the bill points out, Earth Day is for the purpose of encouraging participation in community, provincial, national and international activities. It shows that regardless of where you live, you are aware of what the importance of the environment is and that it is only by working in your own locality that you can do something about the environment but always in the context of greater areas.

As some members of the opposition have pointed out, it is one thing to proclaim a day, but it is certainly a different thing to bring about the necessary action. We know that Mother's Day did not achieve the protection of women in their homes, and this week we are highlighting the assault of wives. The fact is that proclaiming something does not lead to the goals that are set out. I am pleased the member has also included in his bill the necessity of working with a movement to achieve the goals, because it will take the participation of everyone in the community to achieve the life-sustaining globe that we are all after.

I am puzzled by the member for Markham's observations. He says he has in his office the Earth Day flag. I wonder where he thinks the degradation of the environment has come from. It is only since our government took over a year ago that the severity of the problem has emerged. As the member for Hamilton Centre pointed out, Earth Day itself was first devised 21 years ago in 1970. That followed on a very significant event: 29 years ago the publication of Silent Spring by Rachel Carson drew awareness to the problems our environment faces. Certainly the problems are now well recognized.

The importance of this bill, I think, is just to keep in mind the necessity of doing something about it. But then the question arises, what should we do about it? I think, as the member for Markham pointed out, there is some disagreement here. Certainly their government had a lot of opportunity to protect our air and water and to come up with sane arrangements so that our resources would be used to beneficial purposes, but they appear to have failed. The following government was not that much more successful.

This is not to point fingers; it is just to say that the problem is deeply rooted. As long as we have finger-pointing and jumping up and down about the activities that we try to reach, rather than, say, a more impartial and objective look at the conditions and asking questions: Why are the rain forests disappearing in the Amazon? Why is our air so polluted? Why are the Great Lakes at risk?

Indeed, why is the human species itself under threat from the lack of oxygen, and not only, I might point out, the human species but all the species that have evolved on this planet and certainly are very important to our standard of living. So again the question is why, and even when we reach that, what to do about it.

Thinking back to the celebration of Earth Day in Kingston last year, it was an important gathering. I was startled, in touring the park where the main exhibition was, to find cheek by jowl with the usual bootstrap operations a display set up by Loblaws, where we had several green products listed. It was almost like coming upon, I guess, a snazzy operation out on the street corner next to the kids' operation with lemonade. Even though it looked a bit out of place, I must say it was useful to have that person there because you could discuss exactly what a corporation was doing. At least it begins a discussion.

But I think we do have to go beyond there to say what it is that is causing the degradation of our planet and seeing things like recycling, for instance, as in effect a hospital operation. If packaging were properly set up, there would be no need for recycling. I think it is that kind of approach. We cannot reach that tomorrow, but we have to at least look at it to say what we can do to make sure that packaging, for instance, is done in a sensible way.

Again I want to applaud the member for Hamilton Centre for raising this issue. I think he well understands that simply proclaiming the day does not mean we will reach a sustainable planet, but it is a beginning and will lead to discussions like this.

Mrs Caplan: I am pleased to rise in support of the resolution to proclaim Earth Day. I believe the people of this province are in need of this kind of opportunity to express their commitment to the environment. I think that is the reason that Earth Day has been such a success in the past. It is a time when we see real educational opportunities, not only in our schools but right through our homes and our streets and in offices where everyone comes together to heighten public awareness about the need for everyone to make every day an Earth Day.

The concern I have has been expressed by others; that is, it is particularly interesting to see this member come forward with this resolution at a time when the record of his government is being exposed for the very first time. I think the reason he brought this resolution forward was because of his own personal frustration. I know of his commitment to the environment -- he shares that commitment with me and many others on this side of the House -- but I have seen during the time this new government has been in power not one piece of environmental legislation.

The only piece of legislation before us is Bill 143 and that is not a piece of environmental legislation, it is carried by the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area.

I know the member for Hamilton Centre, as he brings forth this resolution, is very aware of the letter of August 14, 1990, when his party was very clear on what its environmental platform would be. Yet when you take a look at the rhetoric of the past and the action of the present it is very sad, very upsetting.

Back in August 1990, as the member knows full well because he campaigned on this, he said there would be zero discharge for all toxic chemicals. They have done nothing. Lakefilling is still occurring. Millions of cubic yards are being dumped into the lake in this greater Toronto area. They called for an absolute ban on organochlorine dumping in the pulp and paper industry. They have done nothing on that.

We know when they go down through the list, yes, they brought in a ban on municipal garbage incineration. I think all of us want to make sure anything that is unsafe for the environment is stopped and better ways are found. But they have also said, particularly under Bill 143, that they are not prepared to consider any new technologies in the area of energy from waste, which may be better and safer for the environment than landfill.

As we talk about Earth Day, each and every single one of us wants to make sure our commitment to the environment is tested every single day. On this day and in this Legislature I say to the member that the government's record on refillables -- it says here, "The NDP would require all refillables" --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mrs Caplan: They have done nothing. It is about time we saw some action.

Ms Carter: I am sorry I do not have longer to speak on this very important issue. I think it is the biggest issue that faces us because all the things we do to help people socially, to improve our economy and so on, if we do not look to our environment, are going to be useless in the long run.

I support Earth Day. It is already in operation in my home community and there are a lot of very enlightened and dedicated people who take part. It is an educational issue, and I am glad so many teachers in schools are working on this with the children.

We are guilty in this country. We have a small population but per capita we produce vast amounts of pollution with our cars, our power stations, our generally extravagant standard of life. The good news is that we could pollute less without suffering, particularly if we do it in the right way.

I want to put in a word here for the Ministry of Energy as opposed to the Ministry of the Environment. It was said, I believe, by Jim MacNeill, who was the secretary of the Brundtland commission, that a Minister of the Environment gets to clean up the mess, which is what the Minister of the Environment is in fact having to do, but a Minister of Energy can prevent it from happening in the first place.

As we get to our industries, our homes, our commercial people and show them how they can get the heat, light, power and everything else they need and use less energy, we are helping to save the world and to improve our own immediate economic situation. There is hope if we can attack it in this kind of way.

Mr Christopherson: I thank all members who contributed to the debate today for their contributions. I want to give particular thanks, of course, to my own colleagues on this side of the House, the member for Middlesex, the member for Peterborough and the member for Kingston and The Islands.

Not to detract from others, but I want to give special acknowledgement to the member for Simcoe East who had the opportunity, as an opposition member, to rip and slash if he wished to. But he took what I consider to be the high road and talked about this issue in the manner in which it was offered and, quite frankly, in the way the international licensing corporation, which sent me a fax this morning, requested we do.

I quote from their letter: "May we offer you our sincerest best wishes that your presentation of this bill proves successful and that all members of the Legislative Assembly support your bill in a non-partisan spirit of endorsement for this outstanding environmental initiative."

The other members who had criticisms did so because they felt it was their obligation. I take them, as do my colleagues, as constructive criticisms, but I offer that special acknowledgement to the one opposition member who felt that was not quite appropriate in this place today.

I also want to acknowledge that it was fortunate for me today in that there was a group of students here from the Cathedral Girls' High School and I slipped out for a moment to have a photograph taken with them. I asked them if they were aware of Earth Day and they said they were. I asked if they supported it and they said they did. One of the students put her hand up and said, "I want to ask a question about why there are real trees being used here in the assembly." The answer is that they come from a tree farm and it provides employment. The example was given that it is the same as vegetable farming, etc.

But the point is that the students are going to be putting the pressure on all of us, regardless of who the government is, and in that way Earth Day will be a global event every day.

The Deputy Speaker: The time for the first ballot item has expired.

SPADINA SUBWAY

Mr Sorbara moved resolution 34:

That in the opinion of this House, recognizing that the development of our transportation infrastructure must be an urgent priority, and that initial plans for the looping of the Yonge and Spadina subway lines have already been developed, and that York University comprises a community of over 50,000 people who commute daily to the university campus, the vast majority in automobiles due to the lack of adequate public transportation, and that Metropolitan Toronto's transportation needs can only be properly addressed in conjunction with those of the surrounding regional municipalities -- York region in particular -- the government of Ontario should act immediately to extend the Spadina subway line to York University and along Steeles Avenue to join with the Yonge subway line, thereby significantly reducing the congestion on our roads and highways and laying the basis for an integrated transportation system for the greater Toronto area.

Mr Sorbara: I begin just by noting that this is my first opportunity to bring a resolution forward in this private members' time that we have every Thursday morning in our Parliament. My experience during almost six years as a member of this assembly is that this time allocation is an opportunity for members to bring forward projects, issues, items, approaches to reform and new laws and bills that are of particular importance to them, their constituents and the province as a whole.

That certainly is the case with me this morning as I simply ask the members of this House, through this resolution, to direct their minds to the incredible need that exists within the greater Toronto area, and certainly Metropolitan Toronto, for us to get on with the business of revitalizing our infrastructure, particularly the infrastructure of transportation.

My own view of this is that if we are not capable of urgently getting on with the building of subways and other means of transporting people, including the extension of the GO system and subway construction that goes beyond this extension of the University line to York University, then we are going to run into very significant difficulties in maintaining the quality of life and high standards in both our businesses and our community life that people in the greater Toronto area have come to expect.

How did this notion of expanding and extending the University-Spadina line up to York University begin? Frankly, it goes back well beyond the time when I first brought this matter to the attention of the former member for Scarborough East, Mr Ed Fulton, who was for a long time, as members will recall, the Minister of Transportation for this province.

Mr Curling: An outstanding member.

Mr Sorbara: He was an outstanding member, as my colleague the member for Scarborough North says. All the members from Scarborough are outstanding.

Mr Owens: Thank you.

Mr Sorbara: I hear another Scarborough member acknowledging the pre-eminence of Scarborough members. I should just point out that in advocating the York University subway in this resolution, I do not for a minute try to suggest to the members of this House, or to the members who represent Scarborough, or to my friend the member for Oriole, that this line should somehow take precedence over another subway system that we desperately need in Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr Owens: The Sheppard line.

Mr Sorbara: That is the Sheppard line, I say to my friend the member for Scarborough Centre.

In my view, we must get on with the business of extending rapid transit and building subways in Metropolitan Toronto. I know the member for Oriole is in agreement with that. Why do we have to do this? The answer is quite simple. The success, the viability and the vitality of an urban area such as the GTA is dependent on a host of things, but among the most important is effective transportation.

Anyone who came into the heart of Metropolitan Toronto, into downtown Toronto or to Queen's Park this morning or any other morning of the week will know our roads are now clogged beyond acceptable levels, and when we have a little bit of snowfall, traffic moves at an absolute snail's pace. The only alternative is to use the very best technologies we can develop and secure and to continue that kind of building we have done historically in this province quite well. I think back to the first leg of the subway we had in Toronto, the Yonge line from Union station up to Eglinton Avenue.

It was a small start, but for a while we took this stuff very seriously. We built the Bloor line; that has been a great success. We extended the Yonge line; that was a great success. We built the University line and extended it up to Spadina; that has been somewhat less successful.

The reason I am putting this resolution forward is that if we complete the line that was built along University Avenue and its Spadina extension up to York University, we can make the line that already exists a line that operates at capacity. The members should think as well about how the metropolitan area and the GTA are developing and understand that York University is a community of 50,000 people that needs to be served by rapid transit and a subway link if it is going to reach its real potential.

I used to live relatively close to York University. I attended York University. The great shame of it, as I say in my resolution, is that currently transportation to that area is dominated by the automobile. This is unacceptable in any context, but it is clearly unacceptable for a university where most students struggle just to pay tuitions and maintain living costs, let alone try to bear the cost of owning and operating an automobile.

There is another benefit that is going to accrue when we extend this line to York University. We are going to join up our two universities in the Toronto area by rapid transit; that is to say, the University of Toronto right next door to us -- our landlord in fact, because the University of Toronto actually owns the land these Parliament buildings are situated on -- which is served by a subway, will be joined to York University.

This kind of synergy between the two institutions, enhanced by rapid transit, will indeed in the future allow students to involve themselves in joint programs between the two universities, and it will actually in a real way build upon the kind of energies we need to develop between those two institutions.

More than that, members will recall the previous government adopted a plan to link the two subway lines with a loop. This loop will in fact allow the two lines to run as one. The real issue for this loop is where the western extension and the northern extension are going to run to. There are a number of models before, I guess, the Ministry of Transportation, the Toronto Transit Commission and Metropolitan Toronto. One calls for the western extension of the loop to end at Dufferin Street and the northern extension of the loop to end at Finch Avenue.

It appears we are going to build the loop. That seems clear by all accounts. The government has agreed to finance that kind of loop -- at least the previous government had agreed to that. The TTC is in agreement with that and Metropolitan Toronto is as well. If we build that, we must ensure that this loop goes to where the people are and where the community is expanding to. I say to members, in the context of this resolution, that this loop must go to Steeles Avenue and it must extend to York University.

Anything short of that would not only be a terrible disservice to the people in the northwest of the greater Toronto area, who are crying out for alternative methods of transportation, but it will for ever foreclose the opportunity to serve the university with appropriate transportation means.

Finally, I just want to point out that it was in the news this morning that a coalition of labour groups, employers, civic officials, representatives from Metropolitan Toronto and others have called upon the Ontario government to get on with the construction of subways. I see my friend the member for Oriole has the

article right here. The headline reads, "Grier Seeks Quick Action on Spadina Projects." That is very important. I am glad she is doing that. One of the things getting on with this construction right away will do is to put people who are not now working back to work. That is absolutely crucial.

There are thousands and thousands of construction workers who should be working on these very projects. If we could provide the financial assistance and if we could approve the projects, we could start that construction even this winter and it would make a great deal of difference to thousands and thousands of people in the greater Toronto area, in particular, construction workers. The project is called the Metro Jobstart Coalition.

In closing, I want to say that I support their view absolutely and 100%. I simply plead with my friends here to support this resolution and give York University the kind of subway service it deserves.

Mr Turnbull: I want to congratulate my colleague for bringing this motion forward today. I know he is working very hard on behalf of his constituents. Unfortunately, I cannot support him today for the following reasons.

While it is quite clear that we need to extend the Spadina subway line, it is inappropriate that we cut off the process at this moment of building the extension which has been planned over a period of years. The planning and the environmental assessment for the initial extension of the Spadina subway, which is Wilson to Sheppard, has been completed. Indeed, two years of study went into this. The study sat on the desk of the Minister of the Environment until September, and only then did she put out the various papers of her review and advertise the project.

The process allows, as members know, for the 30-day period when anybody can object to anything within an environmental assessment. There was only one objection, and that was filed by a Mr Ian Lithgow of the Loop Group. He is employed by York University. York University has a great interest in getting the subway out there. Indeed, it may be that ultimately that is where the subway should go. But there is ongoing study as to where it should go under several different routes being studied, and the answers are not in yet.

I hate to say it, but this is probably the first and only time I will agree with NDP councillor Howard Moscoe. He is suggesting this is a crass grab by York University to increase the value of its lands, because it has desires to sell off large chunks of the university for development. Obviously, if there is a subway line going out to it, the land will be significantly more valuable.

At the moment we are looking at a proposal to extend the subway up to Sheppard, which is a distance of some 1.5 kilometres. If you go out to York University -- as I say, one day it may be appropriate to do that, but we have to wait for the studies -- you are doubling the distance.

Clearly, at the moment we have a problem with respect to the subway lines. The Yonge line is overburdened with volume and the Spadina

section is underutilized. The ideal scenario would be to get headway times between trains of some 30 seconds in rush hours. At the moment they have considerably less than that. The trains running up and down the Spadina line are half empty. We have to find a way of tapping into a large reservoir of people who will ride the subway. By going up to Sheppard, we would immediately do this. We know the largest block of potential riders we can tap into is at Sheppard.

The imperative is to make sure we do not delay the process. Unfortunately, this one objection from the Ministry of the Environment is leading to a potential delay. One of the things that is constantly a problem for the taxpayers of this province, and in fact throughout Canada, is this whole question of governance. It is absolutely essential that we have proper environmental protection. The process in itself is good. The problem is that it is too long.

We have to start having very finite times allocated for the environmental process so that within a short period of time after objections, you resolve them one way or the other, and basically you either fish or cut bait. What happens at the moment with environmental assessment is that the whole question can be dragged out over many years. We only have to look at things like the building of large Ontario Hydro lines across the province. Some of these lines have taken as much as 14 years to be approved. This costs the taxpayer a lot more money because of inflation in the meantime.

The peculiar thing is that when we look at most of these assessments, the lines end up being built where they were proposed in the first place, but we have added to the taxpayers' burden.

This is the thing I would especially say to my colleague the member for York Centre who brought forward this motion: We need to get the whole process moving now, get the subway built to Sheppard, get all the studies in and then have a look. Maybe we can extend it out to York University, but there are about three alternative routes and they should be given a proper chance to be debated. In the meantime, we are holding up construction, which could start as early as January and generate at least 700 jobs. I suggest the construction industry desperately needs those jobs at the moment.

In an

article in the Globe and Mail about Howard Moscoe's comments, he is suggesting: "We're ready to put shovel in the ground in January, it will provide 700 jobs, and York has the unmitigated audacity, hiding behind the phony Loop Group, to file an objection." I have to point out once again that the person who filed the objection is an employee of York University and in fact is employed specifically to lobby, as he has lobbied me, on the question of extending the subway.

Once again I reiterate that I am not necessarily against extending it out there, because the northwest corner of Metro is probably one of the most underserviced areas of Metro in terms of transit and we need to be able to give an appropriate type of transit facility there, but what we do with this is give the NDP government the excuse to get out of building now. There are no environmental considerations involved here, and in fact Mr Moscoe says as much. My friends across the floor do not have to have any worries about that; such an NDP source as Howard Moscoe said there are no environmental problems.

We must look at the whole question of rapid transit, not just to northwest Toronto but out to all these greater Toronto areas, and ideally we will look at a system that will have multiple modes of rapid transit. Preferably we will rely heavily on subways and electrically operated trains, which are more environmentally acceptable. But we also have to look at the question of how we are going to fund them.

If the TTC were to fund the construction out along Steeles with the normal arrangement with the province, it would be providing a service for people who live in Vaughan and Markham and they should contribute towards the cost of it. I am sure my good friend the member for Markham would agree that would be appropriate.

But we must not allow an objection to halt the construction of the proposed extension to Sheppard at the moment. We must move forward with all the plans to examine the alternative routes, and if in fact the university is chosen as the preferred route, let us make that extension. But at the moment, with the distance we are moving, there would be virtually no difference between the route we would be choosing now and an alternative route that would go out to the university, so it just gives the NDP government ammunition to stall and not spend money at a time when we need stimulation of the economy.

The best time to build rapid transit is when you have a recession, because you can do it at much cheaper prices than when the construction industry is booming.

With that, I will say I congratulate my colleague once again for bringing forward this motion. I regret that I cannot support this motion at this time, but I do think we should look very seriously at the alternative of getting the subway eventually out to the university, along with the other potential routes, and move expeditiously with those once that plan is brought forward.

Mr Dadamo: I am pleased to rise this morning and speak on ballot item 50 being put forward by the member for York Centre. Along the way I would like to give the position of MTO, because I am parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation, but I know my colleague the member for Downsview is very close to this issue and has had meetings with the Loop Group and I would like him to take the bulk of the time, so I will be brief.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond on behalf of the government to the private member's resolution brought forward by the member for York Centre. This government is a strong proponent of public transit and is dedicated to improving transit, not only in the Toronto area but right across the province.

As members will know, just over one year ago we confirmed our commitment to continue with plans to complete the Yonge-Spadina subway loop as well as other projects under the Let's Move program of transit expansion. We have not wavered on that commitment. The Ministry of Transportation is now working actively with Metro Toronto, and of course the TTC, in pursuing these transit initiatives.

Connecting the Yonge and Spadina lines into a single-looped system in the Finch-Steeles area is one of the major initiatives in the Let's Move program. The first step towards implementation of the Yonge-Spadina loop is the preparation of an environmental assessment study. It is hoped this study will be completed by next spring.

The environmental assessment is intended to ensure that the proposed rapid transit initiative is properly planned and that potential impacts on the social and natural environments are considered. We believe in and fully support the comprehensive evaluation and consultation provided by the EA process. As part of the environmental assessment process, six public information meetings have been held: three in February 1991 and three in June of this year, and another three public meetings are planned for next spring prior to the submission of the environmental assessment report.

The EA is being carried out by the Toronto Transit Commission under the direction of an advisory committee that will include staff from the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Transportation, Metropolitan Toronto, the city of North York, the city of Vaughan, and of course the region of York. Various route options are being evaluated including the one recommended by the member for York Centre, the alignment along Keele and Steeles. The transportation needs of both Metro Toronto and south York region are being considered as well as service to York University.

Planners are also investigating opportunities to integrate the TTC and GO Transit as well as other transit services operating in the York region.

To date there has been no decision concerning a specific corridor alignment, nor can there be prior to further public review and completion of the environmental assessment. Members will know that a coalition of ratepayers, community groups, municipal government, institutions and private developers known as the Loop Group have asked for a deferral of the current environmental assessment. This request is currently under consideration by the Ministry of the Environment.

We are all anxious for work to begin as soon as possible, not only because subway service will be improved but because jobs will be created. The loop will provide major benefits including increased capacity and improved transit service on the Yonge-University-Spadina subway line. There is also no question of the need to complete the missing link in our subway system. Daily TTC ridership has reached 1.6 million and the system will be able to carry even more riders in the future if the service improvements are made.

In closing, and to the member opposite, this government is committed to increasing public transit and the Yonge-Spadina loop is just one example of the commitment of this government.

Mr Cordiano: I am delighted to be able to speak this morning on the resolution proposed by my colleague. I see various other colleagues who are probably in favour of this resolution, because they too have concerns that are similar to those I will express in my comments with respect to a number of issues regarding the extension of rapid transit to northwest Metro.

The loop, as it is proposed, will see an extension of subway access up along Dufferin Street to Steeles Avenue and then loop on to Yonge Street. Everyone knows that here, and I think that was a long time in coming and is overdue. The concern at the present time is for delay, which will be costly and probably not good for a number of reasons, for economic as well as transportation considerations, and the kind of environmental impact that has with respect to congestion and smog that we see increasing daily in northwest Metro.

In the last election I spoke a number of times and put forward the view that one of the major concerns for Metro Toronto and the surrounding region was rapid transit. In fact, I believe it is one of the most important issues we are facing with respect to the growth of Metropolitan Toronto and the other surrounding urban areas. Without the kinds of links we are going to see occur with rapid transit, we are simply not going to get the rational growth that is required, the kind of growth that makes sense.

What we see today in northwest Metro and surrounding areas in the greater Toronto area is enormous congestion of traffic. Chaos actually reigns. If members take a drive along Steeles Avenue at the three rush hours, one starts in the morning and goes for roughly three or four hours; there is another that starts at midday and there is another at the end of the day. Quite frankly, it is getting to the point where you have an entire rush hour period during the whole day. There does not seem to be any delineation between when one starts and one ends.

That simply cannot add up to economic expansion when it takes enormous amounts of time to get from point A to point B in the northwest part of Metro, let alone come to downtown Toronto. There are simply no routes that allow for easy access to the centre of the city by an automobile.

To link up to the Wilson-Spadina line at the present time is a feat in itself. There is no doubt that the loop is necessary. The question is, what should the loop accomplish and in which direction should it go to meet the greatest need? The decision having been made, we would not want to delay unnecessarily. I think, however, that the first phase of the construction could take place --

Mrs Caplan: Immediately.

Mr Cordiano: Immediately is correct. I thank my colleague the member for Oriole.

It should start and that first phase should go up to Sheppard. In the meantime, I cannot see why consideration cannot be given to extending the loop northwest from that point. I simply cannot see why that cannot take place. Perhaps the tactics that are being employed at the present time are not the ones we need.

What is required, I believe, is a little leadership on the part of the government to simply say, "We need another extension that extends northwest from Sheppard and Dufferin in the direction of Steeles and Keele, ending there." I think it is ludicrous to think we should exclude a circulation of 50,000 people who will most likely use the rapid transit facilities on an everyday basis. To ignore that is ludicrous. It is bad policy; it is bad planning in the extreme.

The kind of expansion we are talking about would also facilitate the possibility some day of more rapid links to the airport and to the whole quadrant that we are seeing expand at an ever-increasing rate northwest of Metro, which I think is probably the fastest-growing area in the greater Toronto area.

I cannot see why we cannot look at a possible alternative as a compromise. I repeat: The government should start the subway expansion immediately, go up to Sheppard and, in the meantime, some resolution could be found for this difficulty. This other alternative could be accomplished in the short term without too much delay. Environmental assessment is probably not the answer. It is simply a delaying tactic. I do not agree with that in the sense that it is there as an alternative, but I think also the intended purpose is to get delay so that this other alternative could be brought to the fore.

I do not want to delay the extension of the subway. The subway runs right through the heart of my riding. We know the enormous problems the people in the riding of Lawrence face as a result of the congestion, the ever-increasing amounts of traffic that flows north-south. We do not want to see a delay of that rapid transit expansion. The problems I have noted earlier with respect to the congestion -- enormous amounts of carbon dioxide and monoxide being released into the air -- are a pollution nightmare with respect to what is happening up there in the northwest quadrant of the city. We simply do not want to see that going on for ever.

Mind you, the recession has alleviated that problem somewhat in the last little while, but it is a short-term thing. In the long term we cannot have that kind of growth in the northwest

section of Metro without some rapid transit expansion. We have to get on with the program of building, and the sooner we do it the better.

Mr Cousens: I would like to go on record as commending the honourable member for York Centre for giving us the opportunity to discuss this very important subject. I would also like to say, to his credit, that there has seldom been anyone who has worked as hard or as conscientiously for transportation issues and other issues within his own community. As the member for the neighbouring riding I would like to have more reason to be angry with him.

I think it is worth while saying that the member for York Centre has always had the greatest interest in serving the needs of York region. That is something I have enjoyed very, very much, as we live in the same area and have the same concerns for the region. We were able to be very effective in fighting for those things that help the people who live north of Steeles Avenue.

Having said a few things that are nice, I now want to go to three more points where I do agree with the resolution put forward by the member. The first one is that in his resolution he says, "the transportation infrastructure must be an urgent priority." I do not think there is any doubt about that. As head of the Tory task force on transportation issues in the greater Toronto area, we saw this as an urgent priority.

To the credit of the former Liberal government, it did put $5 billion into the expenditure of building the infrastructure for transportation in the greater Toronto area, and to the credit of the New Democrats, they have continued that commitment. To me, we are doing something positive to help create a transportation network that is going to do an awful lot to help our areas. That must continue to be a priority. Transportation serves everybody and it is essential.

The second thing I agree with is that Metro Toronto transportation needs cannot be properly addressed without looking at the neighbouring municipalities. We have got to have far more integration of the planning that goes on between the regional municipality of York and the greater Toronto area.

It has to do with the planning of TTC services north of Steeles, integration of fare structures, rationalization of the local transportation networks and linking them more effectively with GO Transit and the other systems, having more transportation within the region and Metro Toronto linked so you can time the pickup of one bus to the next bus and people are not just caught at the boundaries of the different municipalities. This must continue to be a high priority.

The next thing I agree with is that through a better infrastructure of rapid transit services we will be able to get cars off the road and we can encourage people to use public transit more. That is the third of the three views the honourable member for York Centre has presented that I agree with.

Having said all that, I am not able to support the motion because I believe it does preclude some of the other options that should be considered for getting that subway north. I do not want to lock myself into one specific option at this time. Once we build it to Sheppard and once we see the different possibilities through the process that has been described by the government, then it may well be an option to build it to York University. I think it is going to be an expensive option and may well not succeed.

If it does, after it has gone through the whole process of consideration, I will be in a position to support it. At the early stage we are at right now I cannot agree that it is the very best option, which this motion would be inclined to want me to say.

There are a number of possibilities. I have the map as I look at them. It certainly is a greater distance to head over to Keele and then up by the university. I look forward to seeing the subway head north. If it takes a more direct way to get to Steeles, then I am not going to be totally unhappy, as long as it comes over to the corner of Yonge and Steeles. I would also be pleased to see some way in which we begin to look at subway expansion further north to Highway 7, and in that way there can be a linkup by people elsewhere.

We are going to have to look at the expansion of subway services. Rapid transit services have to be increased in this province. The more we do to link those areas outside Metropolitan Toronto into the Metro infrastructure the better. I know that is part of the intent of the motion put forward by the member for York Centre. I believe his intentions are honourable. Unfortunately, he is inclined to lock out other options through this motion, which may not be his intent, but is at least the way I interpret it now. I have every desire to go anywhere, and rapid transit is the way to go.

Mr Perruzza: It is very much a pleasure to be able to participate in this discussion this morning. I would like to thank the member for York Centre for bringing forward this resolution and bringing before this House a subject that is very important both for my area and for a number of other northwest Metropolitan Toronto communities which are in dire need of some infrastructure that will be able to facilitate their moving in and out of Metro more expeditiously. This is an issue that is relatively long-standing in the community, and I will speak a little bit to the merit of the proposal.

I know the member for York Centre has alluded to some of the more salient points in this regard. He talked about the ever-growing population at York University, the 50,000 or so students who access that campus on a daily basis. Those people come from all parts of Metro and from all parts outside Metro as well. Most of them commute by car to York University. If you saw an aerial photograph of York University, you would quickly see it is a rather large parking lot as it stands today. We have to deflect some of this traffic. We have to get some of these cars off our streets, and obviously the subway is the way to go to be able to move people in and out of this area rather quickly.

There are also a number of other factors. York region, Vaughan in particular, is growing at an alarming rate. It is my understanding they do not have an official plan, so how they are guiding their developments I am sure the member for York Centre would be better able to speak to. It is growing at an alarming rate and a lot of the residents in the greater Toronto area -- primarily the west end, Woodbridge, Vaughan, York and northwestern Etobicoke -- need access to the centre of the city, and there are not the transportation links that would facilitate that kind of access. That is another reason why this makes eminent sense.

As a North York councillor when the Liberals made their first announcement in this regard, I was really pleased to see the Spadina-York University-Yonge loop was at the top of the list in terms of expansion of the transportation infrastructure. However, my experience with this issue, as with other issues, has always been that the politicians, the people who make the decisions to get these kinds of things on track, quite often cannot agree. This is one of those issues where the politicians have not been able to agree. There has been a tussle.

Obviously the moneys are very limited in terms of what you are going to do with respect to expanding transportation infrastructure, and when you start piecemealing the money, quite often you find you come to dead ends, as the Spadina subway did at some point when it reached just north of Wilson and then died. It did not continue on the route it was intended to go as the Spadina Expressway.

The list goes on and on. Quite frankly, from a municipal standpoint, I am really shocked at some of the stances that have been taken by our municipal politicians on this particular issue. I know in his inaugural address yesterday the mayor of North York, Mayor Lastman, once again reiterated his particular push for the Sheppard subway line. This is not to say there is not a need to build a Sheppard subway line, but when you weigh the need for the Sheppard subway line against the need for the Spadina-York University-Yonge loop, you quickly see that one is a current, existing people need.

You see the populations in the west end of North York along Jane Street, along Finch Avenue and in Vaughan. Most of the roads in this area -- Jane, Wilson, Keele Street, Steeles, Finch and Weston -- are gridlocked. Gridlock is that magical transportation term which says that once you are at gridlock, the system begins to break down, people cannot get around any more. Their trips and their turnaround trips and the time they spend in their cars on the road is exaggerated, and when that begins to happen, we do not have a productive workforce and an economy that booms.

With the Sheppard subway proposal, this is not to say there is not a current, existing need, but it is a created need. The mayor of North York wants to realize a dream of a North York downtown.

I am not going to speak to some of the planning implications of that particular kind of dream or creating that kind of an access at Yonge and Sheppard, but one is a current existing need, the need for people to get from the place where they live to the place where they work expeditiously; the other one is simply a need to deflect commercial development from the centre of the city, a need to create an access, to create a downtown to be able to justify the kind of growth they are proposing and planning for North York's downtown.

Consistently in my history with this, as a municipal politician I generated petitions to the former Liberal Minister of Transportation, impressing on him the need to proceed with the Spadina-York University-Yonge loop, to my fights, quite frankly, on North York council with the mayor of North York, trying to impress on him and my colleagues at that time the need for this to be a priority. From that perspective I have attended meetings the Metro task force conducted to study this particular issue.

I have called meetings within my own community and surrounding communities to talk about transportation needs in the west end, a west end which my Conservative colleague the member for York Mills said was underserviced, and I agree with him. The northwest end of Metro, in terms of transportation needs, has been underserviced.

It was underserviced during the Conservative reign during the 1970s when the Jane and Finch corridor saw unprecedented growth in terms of housing developments. It was to some degree underserviced by the former Liberal government. For five years they simply howled in the wind and did not proceed with a comprehensive plan to address some of these needs that obviously were lacking.

Just in their final hour, in fact several months before they called their premature election which saw them bounced, for many obvious reasons, out of power, they made this grandiose announcement that they were going to commit $5 billion to a rapid transit network, which I thought was going to go a long way towards addressing some of the needs of this particular community.

As I mentioned earlier, I was really glad and surprised to see the Liberals make that kind of announcement, but just on the eve of their campaign call. They did not fool anybody. They obviously did not fool the west end communities, because they saw Downsview fall, they saw Yorkview fall, and two New Democrats were elected in these areas, and so on.

I am glad to see that the government is continuing in its commitment to proceed with this very much needed, very much sought after subway expansion to be able to serve a community that exists, a population that exists, not one that has to be created, not one that has to be conceptualized. The way I have read it all along, this is an issue of east end versus west end.

I was appalled when I was on North York council and many of my west end colleagues -- I will name a few who fought and supported the mayor in his push for a Sheppard subway line. We had Councillor Li Preti, Councillor Sgro and Councillor Sergio who supported Mayor Lastman in his push for the Sheppard subway line.

Quite frankly, this has to stop. We have to get together; this has to go now.

Mr Curling: What an opportunity this has given me, to speak in support of this resolution, this private member's bill. I, like the member for Markham, would like to pay high tribute to my colleague from York Centre, a very hardworking, dedicated politician and individual who has brought forward something that needed to be brought forward and to be addressed in the proper way.

This bill addresses itself to a very important matter. When we say "transportation," I see the word "opportunity." It is an opportunity for people to get to work, an opportunity for people to move around easily without the congestion that plagues this city now.

There is a saying that comes from Midas Muffler. It says, "Pay Me Now or Pay Me Later." As I hear from my colleagues across there, they are saying, "We want all or nothing" -- I am saying from some of the members of the government side. "Why do that portion now when we should be waiting to do it all?"

I am from Scarborough North which is, as members know, one of the fastest-growing communities, and quite a few of my colleagues on the government side are from Scarborough. I know they will support this. I am confident they will support this, because there are unselfish people in Scarborough, east of Yonge. Of course there are unselfish people west of Yonge too, but I just want to say why we are unselfish people.

We in Scarborough, and in North York too, have been advocating for a subway along the Sheppard line. We need that because half a million people just in Scarborough live east of Yonge Street. We need, very much so, that transportation from west to east. There is no way I would stand not in support of this resolution. The subway advocated by my colleague to go north up to York University is a very important part of it. The fact is, we should start doing that movement north.

Also, of course, anticipating this government, which is quite sensitive -- sometimes people in this government use the words "ordinary people." The ordinary people who get back and forth using the transportation system that is available to them in the city, many of those ordinary people we speak about who may take the surface routes, in the sense of cars or so, spend two to three hours and sometimes four hours just moving back and forth to work or for shopping or what have you when they use the public transit system. This system moving north would assist tremendously in following the growth of the city, so I have no qualms at all in supporting this resolution.

Of course we advocate less pollution. I listen to the government side. Of course there is the environmental assessment. I am a bit confused at times. At one stage they would like to move briskly on certain issues, giving power to the minister to bypass the environmental assessment. We are not saying to bypass the environmental assessment. We are taking into consideration all those steps necessary to be taken so that we do not have more pollution. As a matter of fact, I hear some of the members here say we have to go through these steps.

I am saying, "What an opportunity." The chairman of Metro, Alan Tonks, has supported this and said, "Let's get on with it." I am very sure the mayor, Mel Lastman, in North York would also say: "Let's get on with it. Let's move very fast and get along with the Sheppard subway line too." So we have an opportunity to have the co-operation of all levels of government.

I am confident that our mayor in Scarborough, Joyce Trimmer, will also support this. The unselfishness of Scarborough, seeing that it will not go immediately to the north but quickly go across the Sheppard line -- we see a link there. The rapid growth in Scarborough, and I emphasize this to our colleagues here, is moving at such a pace that we have to do something or else it will be more difficult to expand the transit system, especially a subway line.

When we were trying to build a highway in Scarborough moving north and south, we realized that the more delay on this issue, the more costly it would be. There are approvals for housing and approvals for other things that will make it more expensive for us to be uprooting people. The member mentioned the Spadina subway line earlier. I can recall the delay for that expansion and the costs involved because people had already built along the line. The cost factor of buying out those individuals expanded the cost to move the subway line up to where the end of it is now, at Lawrence on the Spadina line.

I feel very strongly in support of this because it is a progressive thought; it is looking ahead. Too often we feel we should be so parochial in our thinking that we will say, "We can't do it now unless we have it all." I think this is the first step in having a subway line not only move north, but on the Sheppard line, so I stand very strongly in support.

I just want a few seconds to emphasize the family time we spend at home. When we calculate the time and find out that we are spending up to four or five hours on the road getting to and fro because of the traffic jams, we could be moving faster and spending more time with our families. I want to commend the honourable member for York Centre for bringing forward this bill.

Mr Sorbara: Just to sum up, I am glad members have agreed to participate in this debate. I hope there is going to be significant support for this resolution when it comes time to vote on it.

There are just two points this resolution makes. New subway lines in the metropolitan area are an urgent priority for two reasons. First, as acknowledged in today's newspapers, this construction will in effect be a strong boost to an economy that is failing very badly right now. That is important to do in any event, but second, it is only through the construction of new subway lines and expansion of the rapid transit system that we will free the streets of Metropolitan Toronto and the greater Toronto area again for people and the movement of goods.

The second point, and it is the crucial point in this resolution, is that any extension of the subway northwest in Metropolitan Toronto that bypasses York University is unacceptable and shortsighted and would be a terrible mistake. We are going to build that extension. That subway is going to move to the northwest. I plead with members of this House simply to give the political direction that the planners, the bureaucrats and the other officials need to say, "In doing your planning, you must integrate York University as the northwest terminus of this subway system."

My friend the member for Markham said there are other alternatives. There are no other alternatives. Every other alternative is shortsighted. Every other alternative would constrain the loop and have it bypass the university. If we get to the university, the university could be the hub for a transportation system that would serve the entire northwest. The people of Ontario deserve it, the people of York region and Metro deserve it and the students and faculty of York University deserve it. I am asking for the support of the House.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

EARTH DAY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LA JOURNÉE DE LA TERRE

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Christopherson has moved second reading of Bill 155,

An Act proclaiming Earth Day.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

SPADINA SUBWAY

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Sorbara has moved private member's resolution 34. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Some hon members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 1203.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LIFE SCIENCES TECHNOLOGY PARK

Mr Daigeler: Last December and again recently, on October 7, I urged the government finally to approve the Ottawa life sciences technology park. Unfortunately, there has been no action as yet by the NDP.

I know we have had a new Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology since then. I also know he has recently visited the Ottawa area, and I am truly thankful for this and I recommend his example to the other ministers. During his visit, he was told that one of the Ottawa-Carleton region's top economic priorities is the development of the life sciences technology park.

Last Thursday, David Crane wrote in the Toronto Star that there is a clear and present threat that Canada will be left behind other nations which have already focused their national efforts to gain new competitive advantages through the use of biotechnology.

Ottawa business people, economic development officers and researchers are trying to bring new jobs to our area through the development of biotechnology. They are anxiously awaiting a supportive sign from the provincial government. How often do I have to raise this matter in the House? Will the minister please act and act now?

TVONTARIO

Mr B. Murdoch: Members will recall that in October I raised the issue of TVOntario and its apparent unwillingness to be an upstanding member of the community. It is relying on the Assessment Act to avoid paying tax in Grey, not only on the land it owns but on the land it rents out and for which it receives revenue.

I wanted the Minister of Culture and Communications to realize that the host municipality does not appreciate providing services to TVO while receiving nothing in return. I hoped she would ask TVO to use the enabling clause of the Municipal Tax Assistance Act and at least pay for the portion of land which is rented out.

The minister obviously did not take this very seriously, because nothing was done. The township of Sullivan then felt it had to deal with the situation the only way it could. Council passed a motion which said that since TVO has made no contribution to the township to maintain and snowplow roads, the township will provide no maintenance for it this winter.

I am very distressed by this situation. TVO makes an enormously valuable cultural contribution to the province, yet it loses all its respect and credibility when the people see that it is not willing to be a good neighbour and fulfil its community responsibilities.

CANADIAN AUTO WORKERS LOCAL 1973

Mr Lessard: Last week Canadian Auto Workers Local 1973, serving Windsor's General Motors workers, proudly announced it will now be providing onsite child care for members participating in local union meetings, unit meetings and educationals.

Onsite child care is a natural progression for Local 1973. The union hall is fully accessible, and the local meets the needs of hearing-impaired workers by providing sign language interpreters. This local is also known for consistently sending a positive message to minority, disabled and female members that harassment of any kind will not be tolerated. They had previously offered child care for union educationals and community-oriented events.

Marg Rousseau, an employment equity rep, and Terry Romanchuk, education chair, brought the concept of onsite child care to the attention of the local union executive board. Shirley O'Neill, a recent early childhood education graduate, has been hired to provide child care services, which began on November 26.

I want to commend CAW Local 1973 as it continues to meet its goal of providing innovative service to its membership by actively removing barriers to further member participation in local union activities.

WATER QUALITY

Mrs McLeod: I listened with great interest yesterday as the federal government announced its pulp and paper regulations to protect water quality in Canada. As I listened, I waited to hear how Ontario's Minister of the Environment would respond. I was sure this government would at long last tell us what its plans are for the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement. There was nothing from Ontario.

At a time when industries across this province are looking for consistency, at a time when industries across this province are looking for predictability, at a time when industries across this province are looking for responsible government, this government has done nothing.

Instead, our forest products industry will have to wait. They participated in consultations with government and were prepared for a harmonization of regulations at the federal and provincial levels. It makes good business sense and it is what environment ministers from across this country agreed to do.

This government will force our businesses to adjust not once but twice, because Ontario's Minister of the Environment is too busy looking at a world as she would like it to be, not as it really is.

The forest products industry and its thousands of employees need to know what the Ontario regulations will be and when they will be introduced. There has been no movement on MISA for a year. I call on the government to tell us what it plans to do and when to restore some predictability to business in Ontario.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Marland: The NDP government's proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act will do nothing to create jobs in Ontario, nothing to make us more competitive or attract investment and nothing to renew or strengthen our economy. So what will the changes do? They will pay back the NDP's friends in the labour movement, the union bosses whose support this socialist government desperately needs if it is to stay in office.

According to David Gordon, executive director of the Mississauga Board of Trade: "Should these proposed changes become law, we would see serious erosion in the present balance between employer, employee and union rights.... Legislation of this kind, which is so blatantly union-biased, sends all the wrong messages to those persons who look to Ontario as the place to do business in Canada."

Mississauga's city council has asked the government not to proceed with this legislation until broad consultation has occurred. Unfortunately, it is obvious that the NDP has already made up its mind to pass these proposals into law next year. The so-called consultation process is a sham.

Last spring a committee of labour law experts studied the proposed changes. While the labour members of the committee endorsed the government's wish list, the business members concluded that the present legislation works very well and there is no need for change. Indeed the government has never released any documentation to justify its radical proposals.

Clearly then, there is a Bob who sets this province's agenda, but it is not Bob Rae; it is Bob White.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Farnan: I received today a letter from a small group of 30 striking employees at the Cambridge Reporter, and they are requesting swift action on their application for first-contract arbitration applied for on November 29, 1991.

They walk the picket line daily and have received overwhelming community support from area unions and subscribers who have cancelled their papers for the duration of the strike. Cambridge city council cancelled discretionary advertising in the Reporter until the dispute is resolved.

However, they face a very powerful adversary in Thomson Publishing Co. They are witnessing the full might of the Thomson empire brought to bear on their small union. Expensive security equipment, dozens of security guards and imported strikebreakers are Thomson's proven method of union-busting. Thomson Publishing Co has a successful record of crushing attempts to unionize in small communities. Witness Welland, witness Timmins, etc.

All this small group wants is an opportunity to achieve a decent first contract. They asked for a wage grid, standard at daily newspapers across Canada, but Thomson will not address this basic issue across the bargaining table. The Thomson wage proposal, delivered five hours before the strike deadline, allows Thomson to maintain arbitrary control over substandard wages.

The reality is that the will to crush this strike is there on Thomson's part. Arbitration is the swiftest way to end this bitter strike, and I urge government intervention to help resolve this matter.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mrs Caplan: While the Minister of the Environment is busy attempting to dismantle the Environmental Assessment Act and runs roughshod over civil liberties and due process with Bill 143, she is neglecting the environmental problems about which she had so much to say in opposition.

We have heard absolutely nothing on a clean air program for Ontario; lakefilling, so vehemently opposed by the minister in the recent past, continues unabated; there are no remedial action plans in toxic hot spots on the Great Lakes; the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement regulations are stalled within her ministry; sewage treatment plant upgrading is postponed; district Ministry of the Environment offices are understaffed and facing further staffing cuts; trucks belch black smoke from their exhaust pipes; landfill sites leak; overpackaging continues; the percentage of soft drinks sold in refillable containers has fallen to 7%, an all-time low; the minister fails to show up at meetings of the Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy; rampant clear-cutting takes place in our forests, and no progress is made on promised further reductions in acid rain emissions.

What does the minister do to address these urgent and important issues? She introduces and promotes Bill 143, a draconian, dictatorial law that flies in the face of everything the minister stood for in the past. That was then, this is now, and it is unbecoming of this minister and this government.

JEWISH COMMUNITY IN SYRIA

Mr Harnick: This past Sunday evening the Jewish community began the Hanukkah festival, a celebration commemorating the saving of the Jewish temple from the hands of Syrian oppression. As a member of the Jewish community living in Ontario, I and my family celebrate this and all Jewish holidays without any restrictions on our lives. However, this is not the case with respect to Jews in Syria.

In Syria, 4,500 Jews are concentrated in the ghettos of Damascus, Aleppo and Kamishli; a special branch of the secret police is assigned to monitor the Jewish community; no Jewish emigration is permitted; Jews have no voting rights; identity cards of all Jews are marked in blue with the word "Mousawi," meaning Jew, on them. Discrimination, arbitrary arrest, imprisonment and torture all occur with regularity to Jews in Syria.

It is incumbent upon us as free people to indicate our displeasure when the human rights of Syrian Jews are endangered. They must be free to leave for friendly countries and to be reunited with their families abroad. Until that time, our efforts must continue and our voices must cry out.

In order to prevent the ultimate destruction of the remnants of Syrian Jewry, I urge the government of Ontario to call upon the government of Syria to lift all repressive regulations and permit its Jewish citizens to emigrate freely in accordance with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which Syria is a signatory.

For a great many Jews, this is not such a happy Hanukkah.

LOYALIST PARKWAY

Mr Johnson: Today I want to tell members of the Legislature about a great little highway in my riding called the Loyalist Parkway. It is known as Highway 33 and it runs literally from Trenton to Kingston.

This is a wonderful little highway that brings tourists and commerce through the counties of Prince Edward, Lennox and Addington. My riding being Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, I can say this highway is wholly within my riding and I am very proud of it. It is the original highway that used to carry the United Empire Loyalists back and forth as they travelled about this particular part of the province.

I also want to tell members about the Loyalist Parkway group of advisers, but first I would like to mention some of the communities this highway runs through. This highway starts at Carrying Place and runs through Consecon, Hillier, Rosehall, Bloomfield, Picton, Wellington, Adolphustown, Bath, Millhaven and ends in Amherstview. A couple of other small communities are Conway and Sandhurst.

The Loyalist Parkway group of advisers, chaired by John Ellis, is a very important group that has worked very hard to maintain the heritage of this highway and they are very grateful for some of the funding they have received from the Ministry of Transportation. In time, they would like to become a commission. I know that may not be easy to do today, but they are working very hard to see that this becomes a reality.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Hon Mr Charlton: I am pleased to advise members that later today I will introduce for first reading the Insurance Statute Law Amendment Act, 1991,

an act that will enable this government to guarantee Ontario motorists nothing less than the best auto insurance protection in the country.

The reforms outlined in The Road Ahead, our policy document, address five key goals: affordable insurance premium prices, reasonable and fair accident compensation for everyone, a fairer driver classification system, greater insurance availability and better customer service and safer roads.

The legislation we are introducing will return to many more innocent accident victims the right to recover compensation for their pain and suffering. The reforms provide Ontarians with greater access to the courts, including victims who suffer serious psychological as well as physical injury. The former government's plan did many grave injustices to Ontario motorists, while delivering windfall profits to the insurance industry. But in no area was that legislation more callous than in its disregard for the psychological suffering that can result from a motor vehicle accident.

There is also much more in this legislation and in the package of reforms. Let me share with members a few of the highlights. For income earners, the maximum weekly benefit moves to $1,000 a week from the current $600 a week, a much more realistic reflection of the income needs of many families today. The new ceiling, coupled with the new income replacement formula, covers more than 90% of full-time earners. Under the previous government's plan, 75% of full-time earners were covered.

We have recognized and are providing for people in special circumstances. Children and students, for example, will receive lump sum payments for each school year missed, as well as compensation for loss of earning capacity in the case of long-term injury. Our reforms provide vastly improved compensation to primary care givers and provide special recognition of their lost earning capacity when they are temporarily out of the workforce.

At the same time, we have removed the lifetime cap on the amount of money available for long-term care for accident victims. We also have removed the limit on the money available for supplementary medical and rehabilitation costs. This government does not intend to inhibit an injured person's chances for recovery or rehabilitation while allowing insurance companies to enjoy record profit levels.

It is an unfortunate fact that loss of life is the all too common result of traffic accidents. No amount of money can ease the pain of families and loved ones, but compensation can help to ease the economic impact of those accidents, and we intend to increase that help. The current death benefit to a spouse is $25,000. We will increase the minimum death benefit to double that amount, to $50,000, with a geared-to-income maximum benefit of $200,000. Under our new plan, the funeral benefit doubles, from $3,000 to $6,000.

These features provide fair benefits. We have ensured also that those benefits will not be eroded by inflation. Our income replacement benefits and weekly ceiling are fully indexed to the consumer price index. Also fully indexed are the monthly care cap, death, funeral, dependant care and new student lump sum benefits.

Under the previous government's plan, access to the court was limited by a very restrictive threshold. Only about 6% of those injured in accidents were able to clear that threshold, and those who did often faced long, expensive and frustrating processes. Sometimes they received nothing for all their hardship. This is not what most people want from an auto insurance system.

The fact is, a good accident benefit

schedule better compensates most injured parties' economic loss. The court system, on the other hand, better addresses specific and harder-to-define pain and suffering issues.

We have developed improved automatic accident benefits for economic loss for all those injured, and, for all injured persons not totally at fault, greater opportunity to recover compensation for pain and suffering, subject to a $15,000 deductible. Our accident compensation plan is expected to triple the number of injured persons who can access the court system.

Through regulatory and other changes, we will get good drivers out of the Facility Association and ensure they can purchase insurance at market rates; phase in a uniform, non-discriminatory, industry-wide classification plan, and create and maintain a more dynamic marketplace that encourages competitive and stable insurance premiums.

An improved insurance system that better meets the needs of motorists and accident victims in Ontario is essential, and our reforms will provide Ontario with a fair, affordable and accessible auto insurance system. At the same time, we recognize that the best possible protection for all Ontarians takes the form of prevention rather than compensation. My colleague the Minister of Transportation will outline the measures his ministry is proposing.

Our reforms will lay the foundation for greater linkage of insurance with other auto-related systems, including road safety education and traffic law enforcement. This government's commitment to substantially improved automobile insurance for Ontario motorists is well known. We reluctantly put aside our plan for public auto insurance, but we did not put aside our responsibility to ensure Ontario drivers are better served by the auto insurance system.

When this bill is passed, Ontario will have the most generous and equitable accident benefits in Canada, while keeping premiums affordable. Persons injured in accidents will have wider opportunity to seek compensation through the courts for losses associated with pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and loss of expectation of life. Ontario's six million drivers will have simpler, more convenient and more straightforward service.

Today I have announced many reforms. They constitute significant improvements for Ontario motorists, but they are not our final word on the subject. We will continue to monitor the system and to make appropriate changes and feasible refinements.

Collateral benefits are a good example. Under legislation put in place by the previous government, such sources as private disability plans, public health care and workers' compensation carry costs previously borne by insurers. We looked very carefully at this issue. To reinstate the insurers as first payors would mean an immediate and significant increase in premiums. This is, however, among the issues we are determined to address in the future as we continue to adapt Ontario auto insurance to evolving needs and changing circumstances.

The reform package I have outlined follows an auto insurance review that has lasted a year. Throughout this period, we have encouraged widespread participation. The resulting dialogue involved hundreds of individuals and interest groups. We welcomed presentations from consumers' associations, advocates for victims' rights, lawyers' groups, the insurance industry and others. Strong arguments supported a range of often conflicting positions. We believe these reforms will achieve fairness and the best possible balancing of these diverse objectives.

ROAD SAFETY ORGANIZATION / ORGANISME DE PROMOTION DE LA SÉCURITÉ ROUTIERE

Hon Mr Pouliot: Safety is the top priority of the Ministry of Transportation, yet we know there is much more we can do to make our roads even safer for everyone in Ontario.

Every year more than 1,200 people are killed on Ontario's roads. Another 120,000 people are injured. Every four and a half minutes someone is injured. Most unfortunately, every seven hours someone is killed.

It is estimated that motor vehicle collisions cost the people of this province more than $4 billion every year in health care costs alone. The personal costs and trauma are beyond calculation. The terrible reality of all this is that 85% of all vehicle crashes are caused by human error. This suggests that most could be prevented if people drove better.

A l'occasion de la Semaine nationale de la sécurité routière, nous croyons qu'il est approprié d'annoncer les mesures que nous entendons prendre pour accroître la sécurité sur nos routes en Ontario.

I am pleased to tell the House today that the government will develop Ontario's first Road Safety Organization. The new organization will handle all services and programs related to road usage in Ontario. Its priority will be to improve road safety by enhancing driver behaviour and awareness and developing policies that will tangibly reduce traffic collisions and fatalities in our province.

The organization will work closely with private industry and community groups, sharing advice and information. It will also identify opportunities for partnerships to develop and fund new and enhanced safety programs. The result will be safer roads for all the people of Ontario. Let me outline some of its potential benefits.

Ontario has more than 6.3 million drivers, almost 30% more than it did 10 years ago. As our population grows, we can rightfully assume the number of drivers will of course continue to grow. A road safety organization will ensure that drivers have the proper skills and attitude. It will allow us to monitor and improve the performance of all drivers.

We expect the work of this organization will significantly reduce traffic fatalities and injuries. Fewer and less severe crashes will result in lower insurance claims and rates. This will complement the initiative introduced today by my colleague the Minister of Financial Institutions in auto insurance reform.

The Road Safety Organization will also improve customer service, making transactions such as licence renewal or vehicle registration easier for Ontario drivers. I would like to point out that we will be consulting with the ministry's private licence issuers and involving them in discussions as the organization develops.

The new organization will not duplicate existing services. It will take all existing road safety programs and customer service currently provided by our ministry. We will work with ministry staff to ensure they are closely involved in the development of the organization.

The government will continue to receive the revenue generated by driver and vehicle licensing. A major responsibility of this new organization will be to initiate and secure business partnerships. We will be combining the forces and resources of our government, industry and community groups to improve road safety. As a result, the new organization will have no increased impact on the Treasury.

After ministry staff have had an opportunity to review all the options for a Road Safety Organization, I will return to the House in the spring with an implementation plan for the new organization, which we expect will be fully operational in less than two years. While this is the first Road Safety Organization in Ontario, there are similar groups in other provinces. The province of Quebec has reduced both collision and insurance premiums in the 10 years, since it launched its road safety agency, la Société de l'assurance.

Tout en amorçant la mise en place d'un organisme de promotion de la sécurité routière, le gouvernement de l'Ontario continuera de solliciter la collaboration et l'appui de tous ses partenaires chargés de la sécurité, c'est-à-dire la communauté, l'industrie et les diverses instances gouvernementales. Nous sommes tous responsables de la sécurité routière.

This government recognizes the need to improve safety on Ontario highways. We believe our efforts to develop a road safety organization will reduce the tragedies and costs of collision and give all Ontarians greater peace of mind on the roads.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Hon Mrs Boyd: This government has had to make some very difficult decisions. As we grappled with the matter of annual increases to the rates for Ontario's social assistance programs, we first looked back over the accomplishments of our first year.

As of January 1, 1991, we increased both the basic and shelter allowances beyond the rate of inflation, enabling social assistance recipients to begin to catch up with the past. We rejuvenated the process of social assistance reform in Ontario, and through our Back on Track report and the implementation of many of its recommendations we improved the ability of the social assistance program to respond. Turning to the future, however, we are seeking to maintain this momentum and we have had to keep in mind three very different but very compelling needs.

First, there are the vulnerable people in Ontario who must turn to welfare for support. A record number of Ontarians are now dependent on one form of social assistance or another. Second, there are the needs of our municipal partners and their ability to fund their mandatory portion of the social assistance program. The recession continues to build case loads and thus increase program expenditures at the local level. Finally, there is the need of our government to manage Ontario's economy responsibly and not add to the deficit.

After much thought and discussion, we have balanced these needs as best we can and arrived at the following increases. We will raise the basic allowance for individuals receiving assistance in 1992 by 2% and raise the maximum shelter increase by 6%. This 6% shelter allowance increase will be implemented in two stages, with the first 3% increase in January 1992 and the second 3% increase in July 1992. The increase in basic allowance will help families and individuals pay for their food --

[Interruption]

The Speaker: Order. Remove the demonstrators, please.

The members will note that the clock has been reset five minutes, to the approximate time when the demonstration occurred. The minister is welcome to continue with her remarks.

Hon Mrs Boyd: The increase in basic allowance will help families and indi