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

June 4, 1987

33rd Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L022 - Thu 4 Jun 1987 / Jeu 4 jun 1987

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

COMPUTERIZED TOURISTRESERVATION SYSTEM

MUNICIPAL ROADS

COMPUTERIZED TOURIST RESERVATION SYSTEM

MUNICIPAL ROADS

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ROWING CHAMPIONSHIP

OVERCROWDING IN SCHOOLS

SAFETY IN SPORTS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

PATIENTS' RIGHTS

BELGIANS IN ONTARIO

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CHILD CARE

MINIMUM WAGE

COURT RULING

CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

TRANSMISSION LINE

RESPONSES

CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

MINIMUM WAGE

CHILD CARE

CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

TRANSMISSION LINE

CHILD CARE

AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY

CHILD CARE

RADIOACTIVE SOIL

CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

RENT REGULATION

CENSUS OF ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITION

AMBULANCE SERVICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT

BUDGET DEBATE(CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

COMPUTERIZED TOURISTRESERVATION SYSTEM

Mr. Guindon moved resolution 14:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation should move immediately to implement a computerized tourist reservation system for eastern Ontario similar to the system currently in use in the province of Nova Scotia.

The Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and may reserve any portion of that for his windup.

Mr. Guindon: It is with great pleasure that I address this assembly on a matter that is of great importance to me: tourism in eastern Ontario. I feel that we, as legislators, must pursue every available avenue in an effort to enhance tourism not only in the east but also all across Ontario. That is why I am requesting that this government implement a central computerized reservation system similar to that currently in use in several of the maritime provinces.

This government, as well as previous governments, has always put a strong emphasis on tourism. It has taken several forms and different names. We have asked people to "discover" Ontario and now we are telling them how "incredible" we are. The current government has even gone as far as creating a waterfall to promote the beauty of Ontario.

The one point I am trying to make through all this is that you can show as many picturesque scenes as you want, manufactured or natural, but if people do not know what accommodation is available or where to find the information, you will not see an increase in the number of visitors to your area, pure and simple.

I am proposing a form of one-stop shopping. The system could be run by the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation but I would rather see it contracted out to a private firm. There are several systems in existence but the one that could be used as a model is that currently in operation in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and parts of Maine. Let me describe exactly what I have in mind. The system is relatively inexpensive to operate. In the off-season, it would be run effectively with about 15 or 16 people.

During the busy season, staffing requirements could reach a combined 40 full-time and seasonal workers. The entire business would be located in one suite of offices in eastern Ontario and staffed by people knowledgeable about tourism in the area.

How this service would work is quite simple. A person could call a toll-free number and the consultant at the other end would be able to reserve any type of accommodation, travel and excursion the client wished. A series of l-800 numbers could be established to serve all areas of Canada and the United States. There would be no cost to the general public for using the service. Listed or member operators could be charged a small percentage of their realized reservations to help pay for the system. This would make it fair to all members of the service. By paying a percentage rather than a flat rate, the operator is paying for the service only when it brings him business.

No special equipment is required by the resort owners. Large hotels would be advised immediately of reservations through their telex system. If a telex is not used by the resort, that resort would be advised by telephone within minutes of the reservations being made. The type of tourist operators who could join the service is not limited to large hotel chains. Anyone, including campgrounds, bed-and-breakfasts, lodges and small country inns, is able to use the service.

It is common that if the more well known resorts are full, people generally do not try to locate other accommodations such as bed-and-breakfasts. It is not because they do not want to stay in these places; it is because they do not even know they exist.

The use of such a system has proved to increase the number of people using the smaller inns as well as lengthening the average stay per person. Let us face it, there are several of these small country inns around this province that do not have the resources to advertise. Since this type of low-cost service is available, we should do what we can to help all tourist operators in Ontario increase their business.

If such a program were implemented in eastern Ontario, it would not only help the tourism industry but would also be of great assistance to the touring public. With one telephone call from your home or office, whether you are in New York or Vancouver, you could book your air ticket, get a rental car, reserve a two-week stay at any of a number of excellent resorts, and plan several day trips to places such as Upper Canada Village, the Thousand Islands, Old Fort Henry, World Fest in Cornwall and the Rideau lakes, and even excursions of fishing and hunting. You could even call up that number and it would give you the bank rates and the exchange rates as they are on that day.

It would also make it easier when organizing a convention. Those people attending the convention would have to call only one number to arrange their transportation and book a room. The system would automatically keep an up-to-date inventory of all rooms put aside for convention use. It would also make it easier for people visiting the area who are not involved with the convention. They would be able to find accommodation without making several frustrating calls.

The success of this type of approach to tourism speaks for itself. In Nova Scotia, there were only 10 operators participating in this service when it first started in 1978. Now, close to 99 per cent of all guest accommodation in the province is listed with the system. It is also in use throughout the Maritimes and in the state of Maine.

Municipalities, such as the National Capital Commission in Ottawa and the city of Vancouver, are currently giving active consideration to this type of program. I feel that for the system to be successful as well as to justify the implementation cost, a larger tourist area, such as all of eastern Ontario, should be used for at least the initial period.

The operating cost involved in serving the national capital region and the cost for all of eastern Ontario would be virtually the same. Covering all of eastern Ontario would also allow for a better evaluation of the service in that a more diverse tourist area would be covered. In this way, when the system proves to be a success, we would be in a better position to implement the system throughout Ontario.

Obviously, I am not advocating the use of one system or one firm over another. I would expect the government to examine and evaluate which program would be best suited to all aspects of tourism in Ontario. When you speak with people from outside eastern Ontario and mention various places, they have either never heard of them or else they may have stopped for gasoline while on their way to Montreal or Toronto.

We in the east, like those in other areas of Ontario, have much to offer. Our history goes back long before Confederation. There are excellent campgrounds, historical sites, terrific night-spots, fine restaurants and many interesting little out-of-the-way places for people to discover. More and more people are looking for a quiet place to spend a weekend or even a week. As big-city life continues to increase their blood pressure, the more they long for the solitude of a quiet country inn.

In eastern Ontario, we have all of this. What I am asking in this resolution is that the government implement a system that has been proved to increase tourism in a given area while giving the greatest flexibility to the public.

Mr. Speaker, I will reserve some of the time left for later.

The Deputy Speaker: Fine, thank you; 11 minutes and 22 seconds are reserved.

Mr. Warner: I would like to congratulate the member for Cornwall (Mr. Guindon) for bringing forward this resolution. Those of us who have had the privilege of visiting parts of eastern Ontario know that it is a beautiful area of our province and an area that has quite a number of scenic spots. As the member has indicated, it is quite an excellent area for a vacation, whether it is for a couple of days or longer.

I think the member has hit on a good idea. It is important for us to reflect on the fact that tourism today is certainly a growing area of our economy in Ontario, as it is in many parts of our country. People generally, especially middle-income people, have more money at their disposal for vacations. There has been an attempt, I would say over the last 30 or 40 years, to ensure that people have more leisure time, more holiday time, long weekends and so on, so that they have an opportunity to travel.

In Ontario, we have been attempting to improve the quality of the services provided to tourists. If members think back a little while, the variety of vacation opportunities and the variety of accommodation have increased. We have everything in Ontario from cottages and inns to hotels and motels. There are farm vacations, bed-and-breakfast opportunities, guest homes and so on. There is quite a range of accommodation available.

There is also a greater variety of things to see and do in Ontario. Much of that is being developed and continues to be developed, whether it is historic sites or forts such as Old Fort Henry, whether it is various parks such as small community parks and the large provincial parks, or whether it is the growth of the artisan type of operation where pottery and arts and crafts and so on are available.

Many communities are attempting to promote their local artists or local historic sites, to find something that makes them unique. In fact, if we want to talk about each little community attempting to put itself forward as a place for tourists to come to, I heard on the radio yesterday that the little town of Exeter has decided, as some white squirrels have been discovered, to adopt the white squirrel as the town mascot. Apparently, Exeter has a population of about 600 white squirrels. This has brought about a flourishing little cottage industry in producing ceramic white squirrels for sale.

No doubt the tourists who go to Exeter will find they may wish to purchase a ceramic white squirrel as a little memento of their visit to the town of Exeter.

There is no end to the imagination and creativity of the good people of Ontario. Certainly in eastern Ontario, which is what the member is speaking about, the little towns and villages have an opportunity to develop their own tourist attractions.

How do we respond to this? We know there are more people with money to spend and a little more leisure time. We would like them, both the people who live in Ontario and those who live outside Ontario, to see all our province. We have an obligation to try to provide the very best in the way of information and service to the public.

One way to do that is to utilize computers. Naturally, it makes sense that we utilize the capacity of the computer system so tourists who are planning a visit, or while they are actually here in Ontario, can very quickly find out what accommodation is available, what places there are to see, things to do and places to eat. The more quickly and the better we can provide that information to tourists, the more likely they are to come and enjoy their stay in Ontario.

Because the member comes from eastern Ontario, he has of course directed his approach to eastern Ontario, but I think he will agree that the approach he is suggesting could be available throughout the entire province so each region of this province would have an opportunity to provide in a very systematic way the kind of detailed information helpful to tourists.

By so doing, we are strengthening our economy. We are making it possible to obtain those tourist dollars from folks outside the province, as well as from those within, and this has increased tax revenue. That always catches the attention of the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon). He likes to see a few extra dollars enter the very large Treasury on any occasion. I think it creates a little better quality of life for our residents as well. The people of Ontario have an opportunity not only to see the province but also to enjoy their short stay or their long stay.

I am pleased to support the resolution and I wish to commend the member on his effort. I hope that through his effort, the province, through the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, will indeed take the resolution seriously and make it a reality.

Mr. South: I rise in support of the resolution of the member for Cornwall. We think anything that will assist tourism in this province has to be a big plus. We in eastern Ontario, especially in the Kingston area, feel that the surface of tourism has barely been scratched. We have in our area the beautiful and majestic St. Lawrence River, the river on which the earliest explorers came to this country, and later the voyageurs, soldiers and settlers. Now much of the commerce of North America travels on this mighty river.

In the eastern part of Ontario, we have not only the St. Lawrence River but also the beautiful Thousand Islands. There they sit in the St. Lawrence River like a beautiful jewelled necklace. Some of these islands are the size of postage stamps, and some, like Wolfe and Howe islands, support very viable farming operations.

Tourism is our fastest-growing industry and the recent restocking of game fish in eastern Lake Ontario has added great impetus to the development of a very viable sport fishing industry in eastern Ontario and in the Kingston area.

Tourism is labour-intensive and nonpolluting. It takes service people to look after your needs when you are on holiday. It is the type of labour that cannot be replaced with a robot; it is only people. It is a very labour-intensive type of industry and when any of us is on holiday, I am sure he enjoys being indulged by the service he gets from other people.

In the Kingston area, we have not only the St. Lawrence River and the beautiful Thousand Islands, but we also have the 120-mile inland waterway, the Rideau waterway all the way from Kingston to the nation's capital. In addition, we have many inland lakes and rivers and beautiful provincial parks, such as Bon Echo Provincial Park and Mazinaw Lake, with those prehistoric stone pictographs placed there by a now departed Indian culture.

We in eastern Ontario are very pleased with anything that will improve service to the tourist industry and we think the resolution by the member for Cornwall deserves investigation. We think eastern Ontario would be a good pilot project for this. We can iron out the kinks and work out this system for the whole of the province.

I certainly support the resolution by the member for Cornwall.

Mr. Runciman: I am glad to have the opportunity to participate in the debate today in support of the resolution of the member for Cornwall. We all know of the member's particular interest in the tourism industry in eastern Ontario and his efforts over the past two years as a member of this Legislative Assembly. He has been an outstanding member, speaking out frequently on behalf of the east and more particularly in respect to the tourism industry.

Tourism, as I think all of us know, is a very important component of the economy, perhaps more so in eastern Ontario where we see increasingly a down-sizing of manufacturing. In my own riding, there have been significant layoffs at the Black and Decker firm with the movement of its power tools division to the United States. There is Electrolux with some 80-plus jobs being lost. A number of other major manufacturing facilities are down-sizing, if not completely closing, in eastern Ontario. Kingston is another area that has been impacted negatively.

Tourism is extremely important, and I think more energy and more focus have to be placed on what we can do to improve the tourism sector in eastern Ontario. The member's proposal to have the government implement a central, computerized reservation system is an excellent suggestion, one proved in other jurisdictions and one that can reap immediate economic benefits to a region of this province that the Liberal government is treating with neglect.

One just has to look at the recent budget of the Treasurer for proof of that neglect. With close to $1 billion of additional revenues, what did they give eastern Ontario? Peanuts, crumbs, $5 million a year for five years; and this is at a time when they are contributing $30 million to a domed stadium in Toronto and 130 million extra dollars for roads in -- where else? Members guessed it -- Metro Toronto.

In 1986, unofficial figures, excluding Ottawa, indicate that eastern Ontario had an unemployment rate of 9.8 per cent versus a provincial rate of 7.4 per cent. We need some help and we are not getting it from this government. We have, I believe, four members of the current executive council from eastern Ontario. Two are in senior portfolios: Industry, Trade and Technology and Education. But what are they doing for eastern Ontario? The answer is virtually nothing.

The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) gets a grant to write down sewage-system debt in Belleville while ignoring smaller eastern Ontario municipalities in much more dire straits with their water and sewage system payments.

The Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes) gets a new government building for his riding, a building that violates a long-standing policy of deinstitutionalization for the mentally handicapped. At the same time, for purely political reasons, he delays a two-and-a-half-year-old government commitment to construct a secure custody facility for young offenders in eastern Ontario.

What about the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway), supposedly the most powerful of eastern Ontario ministers? He gets an Eastern Ontario Development Corp. office in his riding, and the rest of the region -- forget it.

Do not just take my word for it; listen to these comments from Andrew Haydon, chairman of the Ottawa-Carleton region. This is a press release of May 22, 1987:

"There are no initiatives" -- in reference to the budget -- "in this area by the province of Ontario. We have to initiate, fight for, and always receive second-class funding relative to Metro Toronto. Much has been promised. The Premier himself has vowed economic aid to eastern Ontario. The result of those promises is no economic initiatives, economic deprivation and higher municipal taxes. Never in the history of municipal government in Ontario have so many promised so much been so badly deceived."

That is from the chairman of the Ottawa-Carleton region.

Mr. G. I. Miller: He must be a recycled Tory.

Mr. Runciman: Okay. The member mentions the chairman's political affiliation. I am not sure what it is, but if that quote was not enough for the member, here is a quote from a prominent eastern Ontario Liberal, a gentleman by the name of Daniel Curley of Woodlawn, a vice-president of the Carleton Liberal Association. This was on Friday, May 15.

Mr. G. I. Miller: What are we debating, tourism or eastern Ontario?

Mr. Runciman: We are debating the government's neglect of eastern Ontario. That is what we are debating.

"The provincial Liberals are in real trouble" --

lnterjection.

Mr. Runciman: The member does not want to hear this, does he? I do not blame him.

"The provincial Liberals are in real trouble if they are so Toronto-centred, imperceptive and insensitive that they fail to recognize that roads and regions are issues of major concern around here."

Curley, while continuing to support the federal Liberals, said: "I can no longer stomach the double-dealing platitudes and outright lies served up by the provincial Liberals. Like most people, I was willing to give Mr. Peterson a chance, but after all this time, we in Ottawa have little to show for our patience."

That is the vice-president of a provincial Liberal association.

Mr. South: Crybabies, crybabies.

Mr. Sterling: Liberal crybabies.

Mr. Runciman: Great stuff. We will get that framed and send it over to the government side.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. It is deteriorating a bit. Perhaps we could keep the interjections out, please.

Mr. &. I. Miller: Would the member for Leeds give us something to --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, the member for Haldimand-Norfolk. The member for Leeds.

Mr. Runciman: It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that this Liberal government, propped up by the New Democratic Party, is failing in respect to its handling of eastern Ontario, and failing miserably. We need executive council members with the guts to stand up and fight for eastern Ontario, people like the member for Cornwall. We need a specific tourism program to promote this under-exploited market.

Mr. South: Destinations East. Have you heard of it?

Mr. Runciman: Baloney. We need innovative initiatives, such as the one the member for Cornwall has proposed here today. I urge all members to give this resolution their support.

Mr. Charlton: I too rise in support of the resolution put forward by the member for Cornwall and I congratulate him, as my colleague did, on bringing this motion forward.

I am going to make a couple of comments which I do not want him to take as jabs at himself. My comments are in response to the member for Leeds who just spoke. Ontario happens to be the largest province in Canada. We have led the way in this province in many, many areas of endeavour in this country, and I think it is just a little bit facetious on the part of the member for Leeds to be chastising the present government when the Conservative government failed for 40 years to put together any serious program to promote tourism effectively in Ontario.

It is good to see that the Conservatives have at least got a few new lights in their caucus to replace some of the deadwood that did nothing for 40 years. We are still the innovators in terms of every issue that this House has dealt with in the last year, so I would put it to the member for Leeds that he had better think seriously about what he says.

Back to the resolution, Mr. Speaker. The resolution is a resolution which can be a good start to some major initiatives in this province. A system that Ontario should have had many, many years ago would go a long way, as the member has said in his own comments supporting his own resolution, to making it easier for people to access tourism facilities in this province.

It is not a very costly approach to that question but there are so many other things that we could be doing in addition. I would like to run through just some of them, so that perhaps the member can think, as a member from eastern Ontario, about ways to get at some other very cheap forms of promotion, not only for the people of this province but also for those who come into Ontario from outside.

I have been a member of this House for 10 years now and, like most of the members from the large urban centres, I have had at least access to cable television stations for a number of years. One of the things that I find when I travel around Ontario is that I know about this facility or that historic site, because it has had some kind of profile in Ontario's history. We learned about it in school, or whatever the case happened to be.

The Ministry of Tourism and Recreation here in the province puts out lovely, big, thick books, which, in detail, run you through the entire province; but when you are planning a vacation you do not want to have to read for seven days to figure out what you might like to do and which of the tourist attractions in this province you might like to go to see.

One of the things that this government could do, in addition to setting up this kind of computer access to accommodation information, to the sights that surround certain accommodation locations and so on, would be, in a very straightforward way, to go out and make a number of tour package videos which we could provide to cable stations across this province. I think, even in locations like Cornwall, we have access to cable stations. There are lots of places in rural Ontario where we do not.

As I travel around this province, I find that I know very little about so many hundreds of lesser-known sites. The beauty and the facilities they have are little known to most people, especially most people who live in big urban centres and who do not get out of their urban centres very often: parks, recreation facilities, camps on the Ottawa River for whitewater rafting, all kinds of things the average Torontonian or Hamiltonian never dreams about except when he watches the wildlife films and the films of whitewater rafting in the Rocky Mountains. They do not think of those things as being close to their own homes, unless they happen to live in Ottawa or in Pembroke.

We could put together some very useful packages to promote this province, and not only here in Ontario to our own citizens to encourage them to spend more and more of their vacation time in their own province. Those packages would be just as useful on all the major cable networks south of the border, which are often-times looking for filler like that, where you have a 10-minute clip of a tour package in eastern Ontario, northern Ontario or the Georgian Bay area.

We have a situation where the tourist industry in Ontario is one of our major industries, yet ever since I have been here, the entire 10 years, we have stood up every year and talked about the problems that exist in the tourist industry. From time to time we talk about retail sales tax breaks on the cost of your accommodation when you are touring in Ontario. We do packages like that.

We also spend millions of dollars on mass media advertising programs in the form of 10-second, 20-second and 30-second clips, all of which look pretty glitzy but, unfortunately, most of which end up focusing on Toronto, Ottawa and the major centres, instead of focusing on some of the really quiet, serene, beautiful facilities we have in this province that we are missing in those targeted advertising campaigns.

We have an opportunity, if we take a serious approach to tourism in Ontario, by implementing the kind of computerized program the member has suggested and looking seriously at a number of other very cheap approaches to promoting tourism in Ontario in a way that people can view what a trip might look like if they were to take a particular trip that we set out in a video.

If you think about the work that has been done in those cable stations, with taping of video shows and the video crews coming into city councils and filming the city council meetings and the other things cable stations have got into, you understand the really minimal cost for which that kind of a program could provide a very beneficial service.

I very much support the efforts of the member for Cornwall and his willingness to stand up as a new member of this Legislature and take positions that, far too often, we have found all kinds of government resistance to in the past.

Mr. Newman: I rise to support the resolution from the member for Cornwall. Maybe I should first read it, to point out the deficiencies in it.

"That, in the opinion of this House, the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation should move immediately to implement a computerized tourist reservation system for eastern Ontario similar to the system currently in use in the province of Nova Scotia."

I see nothing wrong with eastern Ontario, but why limit it to eastern Ontario? Where I live, in Windsor, there are more Americans living north of us than there are Canadians in all of Canada. If we want to go after a tourist market, we have the state of Michigan, which is an ideal market. It is close for people. In addition to that, the American dollar is worth so much more; so it is an inducement for the Americans to come to Canada. Also, Windsor and the western part of Ontario are the automotive centre; so that is another inducement for individuals to come.

There is the manufacturing of the various automotive components, in addition to the assembling of cars. That is another reason for spreading the interests to all citizens in Ontario.

There is the good Canadian food we could be selling to our American friends; it is easier to sell them that across the border than it is to bring it in from the far eastern part of the province, although I am not saying we should not bring it in from eastern Ontario. In addition to that, we have an attraction that would bring our American friends across the border, and that is the raceway. In the Windsor-Essex county area, we had one of the first raceways developed in the Dominion of Canada. There used to be a Devonshire racetrack, there used to be a jockey club and there used to be a Kennilworth. At that time we catered to those who were living just a few miles north of us.

It is a simple trip for them. Once they get a taste of Essex county, it is only natural that they would like to see what else there is in the province. We strongly urge them in the Windsor area to do exactly that, to come in and sample Windsor and Essex county; they will be so surprised at what they see and how they are treated that the good news will spread to the 10 million or 11 million Americans who live within one day's drive, and in a lot of instances within two hours' drive, of the city of Windsor.

I would strongly suggest to members in the House that they support this resolution but not to limit it to only one part of the province. Let us get people coming to see Ontario from all over the United States.

Mr. Sterling: I rise in support of the resolution of the member for Cornwall. I think it is an extremely useful and constructive suggestion, and I am only chagrined that the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins) is not here to listen to the debate, to listen to fresh new ideas, to listen to the members of the Legislature on a subject in which he should be very much interested. As a member from eastern Ontario, I am not very pleased that he is not here today.

Mr. G. I. Miller: He's listening.

Mr. Sterling: He should be here. There is no excuse.

I would like to read from a report of Tourism Ontario to the federal standing committee on regional industrial expansion; I want to quote from an underlined portion of the introductory part of the report, on page 3:

"There remains considerable regional disparity, economic hardship and unemployment in and around numerous communities throughout Ontario and untapped tourism wealth in several areas, wherein the Ontario tourism and hospitality industry can provide diversification and numerous long-term employment and economic opportunities via necessary and appropriate planning and feasibility studies, expanded infrastructure and product development, and co-operative marketing initiatives which can and should be facilitated through an expanded and prolonged Canada."

I believe this resolution speaks specifically to that kind of statement. It offers a positive suggestion in dealing with the marketing aspect of eastern Ontario and the marketing aspect of smaller businesses in eastern Ontario.

By taking the Nova Scotia model, I think the member for Cornwall has struck upon an area that has many similarities to eastern Ontario. They have one large, major municipal area, the Halifax-Dartmouth area, and many smaller regions, smaller counties and smaller communities that are comparable to eastern Ontario as well. The populations in the areas are approximately equal. I think there are about 850,000 people in Nova Scotia and about 1.5 million people in eastern Ontario.

This resolution is also very positive in my view and would help many small businesses in eastern Ontario that are involved in the tourism and hospitality industry but cannot compete with the large institutions that are also located in the large municipal areas of eastern Ontario. The small motel along Highway 2 cannot compete with the Westin Hotel here in Toronto or Ottawa. It needs assistance in terms of dealing with getting to the public in some small way. I believe this kind of a resolution would help, first, the less-populated areas, and second, the smaller businesses rather than the larger businesses.

The third part of this resolution, which I think is extremely good, would help families afford a reasonable vacation in areas that I think have not been explored enough in eastern Ontario. It will encourage, in my view, people who come to our province to visit out-of-the-way places, to visit very quiet and very beautiful places. I think of places such as Merrickville which is located in my riding. I think many more people would go to those places if they could be assured that there was accommodation in those villages that was of a class quality.

Another aspect of this resolution that I believe is very advantageous, is that the scheme sees a day when it would pay for itself. It would not remain a drain on the taxpayer.

The member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman) asked, why is this not done for all of Ontario? I agree it should be done for all Ontario but we have to start somewhere and this government has not paid enough attention to eastern Ontario in the past. I suggest that the unemployment rates in eastern Ontario, particularly in those areas outside Ottawa-Carleton, are probably much higher than those experienced in southwestern Ontario where they have other economic bases to rely on.

I want to refer to a report of the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation round-table conferences on the development of a provincial tourism strategy dealing with eastern Ontario. On page 7 of

part 3, it recognizes two problems with regard to tourism in eastern Ontario. One is high taxes on gas and another that I would like to relate to is the unsupportive signage policies of this government.

To date, we have seen this government fix a tax on gasoline that has resulted in higher gas prices in eastern Ontario. We have heard much in this Legislature about high gas prices in northern Ontario. I want to tell the members of this Legislature that in eastern Ontario they are even higher and this government has failed to do anything about this. That has a very significant impact on travel in eastern Ontario because we are bordered along the St. Lawrence River by New York state, where there are much lower gas prices. We need to compete in the gas price area. I wish this government would do something in that particular manner.

Second, with regard to highway signage, I believe a different policy should be implemented for the less-populated areas of eastern Ontario. We do not have to worry in those areas about an overabundance of signs on our highways because there is not that much population. There is not that much activity over a long period or stretch of roads. If it can be done neatly and if it can be done with taste, then I would ask this government to consider that particular part of it.

When we talk about the attitude of this government towards tourism, I think it is no better explained than in the letter from the Minister of Tourism and Recreation to various people in this province about the recent budget. I want to quote from his tourism-related initiatives. He talks about northern Ontario and he talks about eastern Ontario as two locations in this province. He mentions under northern Ontario that better roads mean better access for visitors. He talks about $107 million going for northern transportation.

He talks about an overall healthier northern economy benefiting tourism, and he talks about $30 million. He talks about more people with more money to spend, and he talks about $40 million going to the north, a total of $177 million.

Then he talks about eastern Ontario, and he talks about two things. He talks about a sound economic base promoting growth of all sectors. He talks about $5 million to co-ordinate business-related assistance programs. We welcome that $5 million, but we are talking about $177 million in the North in the minister's own literature. This is him bragging. He is bragging about giving $5 million to eastern Ontario, which has more people than northern Ontario, and he is giving northern Ontario $177 million in his budget. Second, he of course announces again the office in Pembroke in the home bailiwick of the Minister of Education.

I would like to sum up by reading from this same report on eastern Ontario that I referred to before, and I will read one paragraph because of the time constraints:

"What all the regions appear to have in common is a frustration with the lack of market awareness and appreciation of their areas' special tourism resources and opportunities, with the ineffectiveness of past and present marketing programs, with the lack of support for the tourism industry at all levels."

That is the

summary of many seminars taking place across eastern Ontario. This is what the people are saying. The resolution of the member for Cornwall directly addresses it. I hope the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, who is not here today, listens on his television set to what this resolution says and takes some action.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other members wishing to participate? The member for Carleton for three minutes.

Mr. Mitchell: I am somewhat surprised that I have this opportunity to speak this morning because of the representation of our party in discussing the whole issue of tourism in eastern Ontario. What surprises me is that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who is a member elected from eastern Ontario, and the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes), who is a member elected from eastern Ontario, are not here to participate; at least I have not seen them here, and I wonder. He is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, and he is not interested.

Mr. South: I'm here.

Mr. Mitchell: I saw the lone speaker up there, and I acknowledge that.

We really treat the tourists to Ontario shabbily. I know that the reason the member for Cornwall has raised this is that tourism is a big issue in eastern Ontario, and l know at the same time he recognizes that we pay short notice or short service or whatever you want to call it to the tourists coming to Ontario. For goodness' sake, they drive through into Winnipeg and Manitoba, and what do they get? The tourists are met with free coffee and everything else and real hospitality. People go to New Brunswick and they are met with an automatic dialling system for reservations.

They go to Nova Scotia and they are met with a piper and all that goes with greeting the tourists and making them feel that they are, in fact, very important to that part of the country.

What do we do in Ontario? You come off the Thousand Islands Bridge, you drive along Highway 401, for example, and you may find a picnic area next to the gas stations that dot our highways, which are now going strictly into fast foods. Along our 401 now, nobody is going to be able to get a decent meal, not that I am putting down McDonald's or any of those. But a sit-down meal? Our travellers really are not going to be able to enjoy that sort of thing, because that is how much concern we have about the tourists.

Mr. Sheppard: Come in to Cobourg and get a sit-down meal.

Mr. Mitchell: Maybe in Cobourg, yes.

We really do treat our tourists badly. This resolution by the member for Cornwall certainly is a positive step towards making the tourists feel, yes, they are important to us; yes, we recognize that we have some beautiful things for them to see and we want them to come again. When we can provide services such as the computerized reservation system, the tourists are going to know we care, and they are going to come again.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cornwall has up to five minutes to make final comments on this debate.

Mr. Guindon: First of all, let me thank the members for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner); Frontenac-Addington (Mr. South); Leeds; Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton); Windsor-Walkerville; Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) and Carleton (Mr. Mitchell) for supporting my resolution this morning.

I would like to cover a few points. The member for Windsor-Walkerville mentioned that maybe it should be for all of Ontario. Let me give the member an example. Ontario never did start one big project as a whole. They always like to try a smaller project. If we can get the support of the House for an all-Ontario reservation system, I would be only too pleased to support that too.

In the throne speech, the Lieutenant Governor mentioned that, like all parts of our province, eastern Ontario's greatest strength is its people. Here we are and we are ready to do something about it. We are ready to go to work and make the tourist population that comes to our area feel at home, enjoy itself and want to stay longer than it is presently.

We have to mention that eastern Ontario is the gateway from Quebec and from New York state. In our area, we do not quite receive the tourists in the tourist season. As the member for Carleton mentioned, they are not piped in as they are in New Brunswick and they do not have any automatic reservation dialling system as they come into Ontario.

This is an improvement that could come right across Ontario, and it could come in a short time. We are ready to put it to work in eastern Ontario. We know we can use it. The small business operators and the large business operators in the hospitality field are ready to use the system. They are ready to get together to make sure it works and works well.

If we are truly interested in a distinctly increased quality in tourism, this resolution is the stepping-stone to making the commitment to tourism that the government and the Minister of Tourism and Recreation have, making it so that it would be fruitful and productive for all Ontario.

We have to have a focus of attention. The budget estimates for the tourism marketing department of the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation are going to be close to $30 million this year. Certainly, parts of that could be used for something similar to this.

Can you imagine what it would be like if you could tap the resources of New York City and Montreal? You could have people from New York City say they want to go to Apple Hill, which is in Glengarry, and they could have that information for free. Then they would really be relaxed whenever it is time to come. All they would have to do would be to get here, and they would know they would be getting the best of services.

I think the member for Hamilton Mountain mentioned the jobs spinoff and also his video for cablevision, which is a great idea. It would mix very well with my resolution. On the jobs spinoff, if we could just increase tourism in eastern Ontario by 10 per cent -- or in all of Ontario, but let us start with eastern Ontario -- it would be incredible. We would be able to assist the Ministry of Community and Social Services by paying less in welfare and other benefits people have to rely on to have a decent living.

This would also all fit in very well with the government's proposed hospitality curriculum which it wants to implement at Algonquin College of Applied Arts and Technology in Ottawa, ideally to make both of these ideas work together and as much as possible have the reservation system in place long before Algonquin College has done with its first graduates.

Once again, I would like to thank the House for the support members are giving to this resolution.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for debate on private member's resolution 14.

MUNICIPAL ROADS

Mr. Sheppard moved resolution 10:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that the maintenance and construction of a good road system is vital to the local, regional and provincial economy and recognizing the increasing gap between road subsidy and the expenditures required to maintain the existing level of service for roads, the government of Ontario should increase the municipal subsidies available to municipalities for road purposes.

Mr. Speaker: The member will have up to 20 minutes, and if you wish to reserve any of that time, please advise the chair.

Mr. Sheppard: It gives me great pleasure to have this opportunity to say a few words about my resolution, which addresses the maintenance and construction of a good road system in Ontario.

In a sense, I had hoped the May budget would have made it unnecessary for me to present this resolution. Unfortunately, the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) chose to underfund the rehabilitation of provincial highways and the roads, even though his government, and I quote from the throne speech, "appreciates the critically important role that roads and highways play in supporting tourism and all other Ontario industries. The best-made products and the talents of the best-trained work force will improve our competitive position only if we can bring our products to market on time."

In a brief forwarded to the Treasurer of Ontario in March of this year, the Ontario Good Roads Association stated that an extra $75 million a year for five years would be the absolute bare minimum required to halt the deterioration of Ontario's paved municipal road system. What is more, this amount of funding would not include even one extra kilometre of new road, nor would it include the addition of a new lane to an existing road.

The need for more money for roads is urgent. The price we are paying by putting off road repairs, in construction alone, is just too much to ignore. I am talking not only about the price in dollars, even though it is only common sense to realize that the longer we wait to do the repairs the more expensive and extensive the rehabilitation or reconstruction will be.

I am also talking about a high price to pay in terms of safety, employment, tourism and commerce. All of these factors are seriously affected because the government has not seen fit, now that it has the funds, to do something about our provincial road system before the roads are beyond repair.

With respect to satiety, for example, according to the statistics of the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton), more than 250,000 schoolchildren are bused on a daily basis throughout the province. If nothing else, do we not owe it to our children and grandchildren to ensure their safety to and from school by providing the best municipal road system possible?

In addition, emergency vehicles for services such as fire, police and ambulance depend on the road system to respond to situations as safely and efficiently as possible.

I quote from the throne speech, "Tourism is a key source of employment and revenue for the Ontario economy." Notice the phrase "key source." I quote further, "It is estimated that tourism accounts directly and indirectly for at least nine per cent of total employment in the province and six per cent of gross provincial product." If we are to seriously promote tourism in Ontario, we must literally "pave the way" to encourage a strong tourist industry.

Again, to use one of the minister's own figures, 80 per cent of all tourists in Ontario travel by road. We must be able to assure these people that they will be safe while travelling our picturesque highways and that they will not wreck their cars while doing so. How serious can this government be about promoting tourism in Ontario when it is not willing to commit the proper funds to our vital transportation network?

Bad roads cost money every single day. It costs us dearly in vehicle repair costs and fuel consumption. It costs us in highway and road congestion, not to mention how much it costs us in accelerated vehicle deterioration. Deficient pavement surfaces cost each Ontario motorist over $100 a year in extra vehicle operating costs.

It is a well-established fact that every $1 spent on road construction and rehabilitation generates over $1.50 in the economy. This would literally create thousands of much-needed jobs, both on a local level and at the point of manufacture of the products used.

Furthermore, inadequate funding for roads increases industry costs. As a result, this means increases in consumer costs. Approximately 95 per cent of all trips in Ontario are made by road. The value of goods shipped by road is far greater than that of goods shipped by rail, air and water combined.

For example, the agriculture industry delivers the majority of its products to market by road and reportedly in Metro alone more than $12 billion in goods arrives by roads. More than 100 million tonnes of freight moved across Ontario by roads in 1986 and goods exported from Ontario via trucks amount to over $36 million every year.

Retailers have been increasingly relying on the road system for supply of goods and for access by customers. Between 1975 and 1985 the Ontario Good Roads Association's statistics indicated that car registrations increased by 26.9 per cent in Ontario, licensed drivers increased by 36 per cent and truck registrations increased in Ontario by 51.2 per cent. Over 904,000 commercial trucks and tractors were registered in Ontario in 1985 alone.

It is clear that our industries are turning increasingly to the trucking sector to handle transportation of their goods. They cannot afford to be delayed by a congested or deteriorating road system when delivery deadlines demand to be met.

We certainly recognize, as does the Ontario Trucking Association, that heavy trucks put considerable stress on our roads and highways, but most important, trucking contributes significantly to the employment figures, not to mention government revenues, of our province.

Our roads are in desperate need of repair. In the 1984 survey, 61 per cent of Ontario's paved municipal road system needed either resurfacing or reconstruction repairs over the following five years in order to prevent further deterioration.

The road information program surveys indicate that 7.6 per cent of Ontario's highways did not meet Ministry of Transportation and Communications pavement standards; 36.9 per cent are expected to deteriorate to fair or poor condition within the next five years.

Bridges are also in a state of disrepair. The same study indicates there are nearly 1,500 bridges in Ontario that do not meet normal highway standards and 32.5 per cent of the 11,684 provincial bridges need to either be replaced or rehabilitated in the next five years. The cost of this disrepair is a burden to the community and there is no doubt that the poor roads and bridges hinder the efficiency of all types of industries.

Now that the government is in a position to do so, why has it not allocated sufficient funds to make ours the best municipal road system ever? Our present economy is as strong as the $1.2-billion windfall indicates. The Ontario Good Roads Association's brief to the Treasurer strongly urged him to ensure that a portion of the windfall be invested in municipal roads. Why was that request not taken seriously?

In April 1985, during the provincial election campaign, the now Premier (Mr. Peterson) stated that he would spend an additional $40 million per year for five years on rural roads alone. The additional revenue generated by the increased cost of personal and vehicle licences generated that very amount. Why did this government not live up to that election promise in the May budget?

We all know that the Ontario Good Roads Association held its annual conference this past February. In the minister's address to the members, he stated, "The urgent need for transportation funding, both within the provincial and municipal networks, is well recognized by every member of the Liberal government."

If there is any truth to his statement, why was preserving our road system not a priority? Let us ponder for a moment how vital our road system is.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The member for Northumberland (Mr. Sheppard) is not addressing himself to rule 19(d)(4) in that he is reading verbatim from material which has obviously been prepared for him by a researcher.

The Deputy Speaker: Yes, I am familiar with the order and I would ask the member not to read his entire speech verbatim.

Mr. Sheppard: Let us ponder for a moment how vital our road system is to the elderly every day of our lives. Roads enable us to get to work and to pick up our day-to-day essentials. Roads allow our goods to be shipped and received. They allow us to get to cultural and social events. They allow Ontarians the benefit to receive or deliver our social and health care systems. Roads, as the lifeline that connects communities, make it possible for families to unite. How can anyone say that we are not affected by the conditions of our road system?

There is no debating that preserving our network of roads is an investment. The cost may be termed high initially, but there are no risks to speak of. The only risks we are taking here include increasing tourism, commerce and employment; those, to me, are risks we cannot afford not to consider. Putting money in our transportation network is an investment with a focus on the long-term economic impact of transportation dollars.

I am not disputing the fact that the proposed Highway 407 is necessary -- on the contrary, I am sure there is an urgent need for it -- but this government can no longer reserve its focus for multimillion-dollar projects. These projects, without a doubt, result in a healthy flow of capital into our economy. What is more, the long-term benefits to all of Ontario could not be denied. However, this government, and we as provincial representatives, can no longer ignore the dynamics of equally deserving projects which have just as great an impact on smaller communities.

This government must realize that any project, big or small, which creates or maintains jobs for our local work force and brings much-needed social or economic benefits is undeniably crucial.

This to me constitutes a very important investment. I cannot stress enough how urgent the need is for adequate funding for municipal roads. As the minister, Treasurer and Premier are aware, several resolutions were submitted by municipalities throughout the province during the Ontario Good Roads Association's annual conference. Some of them read as follows:

"Be it resolved that the Ministry of Transportation and Communications be petitioned to allocate supplementary funding to rural townships to allow paving on roads where the volume of traffic warrants it."

"Be it resolved that the Ministry of Transportation and Communications be petitioned to consider providing supplementary subsidies for periodic gravel contracts since the regular road budget will no longer support the large expenditures required."

"Be it resolved that the Ministry of Transportation and Communications be requested to increase the municipal subsidies available to municipalities for road purposes."

From my own riding, I have a couple that I received from several of the municipalities.

"Be it resolved that we endorse the position of the Ontario Good Roads Association for increased subsidies for Ontario's decaying municipal roads."

"We urgently request that the provincial government provide additional funding to municipalities in the way of road subsidies to bring our road systems back to an acceptable level."

Those are just a few. Please note that these resolutions come from the towns and townships throughout the entire province, not just from the great riding of Northumberland. All these municipalities agree that municipal roads are in a bad state of disrepair and that road systems are falling way behind the Ministry of Transportation and Communications' established acceptable standards at an accelerated and alarming rate.

Municipalities are very concerned that putting off road repairs for five years will force them into spending five times as much on major rehabilitation work. They are responsible for the construction and maintenance of approximately 86 per cent of the entire 153,000 kilometres of roads in Ontario.

At present, in many cases, municipalities are raising 100 per cent of the dollars for essential work that the Ministry of Transportation and Communications does not even subsidize. Many municipal governments are being forced to spend dollars on road and bridge maintenance that were originally budgeted for much-needed new construction jobs to hold their road systems together. This is an extremely heavy burden on the tax base of any community, and especially the smaller rural townships.

There is no doubt the province has the money to significantly increase its share of contribution to municipalities for roads and to speed Ontario's economic recovery. This government is in the enviable position of having the resources to put a stop to the deterioration of our valuable road system.

The Treasurer had the best opportunity to win and influence over 1,800 municipalities and failed. He also had the wonderful opportunity to effectively share the province's economic recovery. The Treasurer could not have chosen a better time for replacing if he had planned it, yet his government chose to play coy with the public in view of the anticipated election.

I will reserve the rest of my time for later.

The Deputy Speaker: The member has reserved three minutes and 50 seconds. The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

Mr. Gregory: He is an expert on roads.

Mr. Warner: Just a minute, hang on for a minute, I was about to offer support for the resolution but, provoked, it is a very tentative thing.

Mr. Rowe: We take it back.

Mr. Warner: Okay, just be careful.

My support for this resolution is indeed tentative, and not just because of my experience and my memory. The member for Northumberland, who proposed the resolution, quoted some very startling statistics based on information collected in 1984, which, if we will all just stretch our memories a little bit, was during the time of the last Conservative government.

What the member has very accurately portrayed is the dismal record of the former government in providing decent roads in Ontario. It is a bit of an irony that the member could conveniently forget the history that preceded the 1985 election in suggesting that the present government is not paving enough roads in this province or paving them properly or repairing bridges.

Mr. Gregory: You don't have to defend the present government any more.

Mr. Warner: You cannot forget history, as much as you would like to.

Mr. Gregory: You can push it around a bit.

Mr. Warner: No, no; the facts are there. The deterioration of the road system in this province, in municipalities and through the provincial roads, started during the Tory regime. In fact, during that bad decade, the devastating decade as we call it, from 1975 to 1985, when there was an attempt to close hospitals and to cut back on funding in education and to cut back on social services, it included the deterioration of the roads for lack of money to keep the roads repaired and the bridges in order.

As I attempt to navigate my way down the clogged Don Valley Parkway, especially in these last few days because of the extensive repairs it is undergoing, and at night attempt to navigate my way along Highway 401 as it goes east from the parkway and encounter the incredible delays because half the highway is blocked off, I have certainly become very sympathetic with what the member raises. We have some very serious deterioration, and obviously a lot of repairs are required -- and throughout the province. Each of us can talk about our own local area, but it is throughout the province.

Highway 401, in the

section skirting Metro Toronto, is undergoing major repairs, as are the Gardiner Expressway, the Don Valley Parkway and roads throughout Metropolitan Toronto, but there is another aspect to this which the member did not address and I think is extremely important.

The whole development of the road system is not only for cars and transports, as important as that is, but I think it also has to be put in the context of the development of a good public transit system. If we have a good road system throughout Metropolitan Toronto or other municipalities, it is used by the buses as well or by trolley buses or streetcars. Obviously, if you pave the roads properly and make sure there are good road connections, and at the same time provide a good light rail transit system or a subway system then both people and goods can move quickly and that is a benefit to all of us.

I think the development of the highway system in this province needs to be put into the context of the development of an efficient public transit system. What I find painfully frustrating is that both the previous government and the present government have failed to come to grips with having an overall plan for public transit in this province.

We see it now bubbling to the surface over the struggle in integrating the GO Transit system with the Toronto Transit Commission. There is going to be a lot of argument, a lot of heated debate over the next little while as there is an attempt to somehow integrate the systems in order to serve the area surrounding Metropolitan Toronto. That is very important, but it is being done and it will be done in isolation of any overall provincial plan for public transit. To me, that is a mistake.

It has been a tradition in this province that we will allow the residential development of areas first before planning any public transit service to those areas. To me, that is backwards; it is totally backwards. Public transit by my definition includes the development of roads, and the planning should happen first for the development of municipal roads and provincial roads before anyone starts to build homes or develop industrial areas or commercial areas. It makes a lot more sense to develop the road system, incorporating with it at the same time the development of public transit.

When you have an idea as to how you wish to develop that, then you look at developing your commercial, industrial and residential areas in some kind of systematic way that makes sense for the growth of your area.

The former government chose --

Mr. Haggerty: They let Frank Drea give that speech four years ago.

Mr. Warner: Yes, and you could give it again today. The member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) raises a good point. He made a speech like this 15 years ago. He could make it again today to his government, because it has failed in the same way in which the former government failed to pay any attention to that concept. I find it frustrating because when we do not follow that kind of systematic approach we create problems for ourselves. What we are looking at now is urban sprawl in the Metro Toronto area; urban sprawl that will do none of us any good.

We are just sort of nitpicking our way through how the road system is developed to service these new areas and how a public transit system is developed to service the areas.

In conclusion, I support the member's resolution in acknowledging, as he has in the valuable statistics he has brought forward, the failure of the former government to come to grips with providing good roads throughout the province; and of course the failure of the present government to come to grips with the same problem. The answer is inescapable: we need someone else to tackle this problem, and indeed our group is prepared to do that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce.

[Applause]

Mr. Sargent: I thank the members very much. They may not be so kind after I finish. This debate may be my last shot, but I just think of the fact that when a racehorse retires they put him out to stud, and that ain't bad.

I am very pleased to take

part in this debate sponsored by the member for Northumberland. It gives me an opportunity to put on the record the tremendous leadership of this government in the area of municipal roads funding. The member for Northumberland is doing exactly what he should be doing to press for action, as we did for 42 years when we were over there. But the member has raised an issue of great importance to all of us because the role of good roads cannot be overstated. We depend on them to get from place to place and to fuel the commercial life of our communities.

Good roads are vital to the movement of people and goods and they bring families together. I have been in the selling business all my life and I learned a long time ago that no one gives a damn how good your product is; it is how good your product makes them. Today, I want to say that we can all agree that roads play an irreplaceable

part in our lives. That is why I am proud to state this government's position clearly, its commitment to improving the provincial and municipal road structure in Ontario.

In politics, a commitment is meaningless without the proper level of funding. Very clearly, this government has backed this commitment with vastly improved funding levels. Of course, there will be some who will argue that any amount of money for municipal roads is not enough, and I agree, but in recent years this government has increased road funding dramatically and this reverses a trend that for many years saw road funding drop year after year.

What is more, the recent increases have been much above the rate of inflation. Of course, I will review some of the numbers for my friend the member for Northumberland, because these numbers show clearly that this government has the kind of commitment we need to improve our roads network here in Ontario.

While any increase in municipal roads funding is important, it is especially important if those increases are above the rate of inflation. In the past two years the increases have been more than double the rate of inflation.

For instance, in 1986 the basic municipal roads funding increased from $536 million to $558.7 million, an increase of 4.1 per cent or a rate equal to the rate of inflation. But when you add in the Ontario municipal improvement fund of $30 million for 1986, the total increase in the municipal roads funding was at a rate of 8.5 per cent, an increase double the rate of inflation.

This year, in 1987, the basic municipal roads funding increased over half a billion dollars. Once again this year the Ontario municipal improvement fund continues. When you include new allocations from the budget you can add a further $27.5 million. The total increase in municipal roads funding for this year, then, is a rate of 9.1 per cent.

In the 42-year history of the former government we never had such performance as that. I cannot anticipate the rate of inflation for this year, but with the current rate running at just about four per cent you can easily guess that this year's rate of road funding increases will be at least double the inflation rate.

The recent budget reinforced this government's commitment to an improved road system in Ontario. That budget, while increasing overall municipal roads funding to a total of $601 million, before including the OMIF moneys, also held considerable promise for all of Ontario municipal governments in the years to come.

As members will recall, the Treasurer outlined plans to increase transportation funding by $290 million over the next three years. Many of those new dollars will go to municipalities in the form of new roads money. For northern Ontario the budget also had good news. The transportation funding in the north will be increased by 32 per cent to a total of $107 million this year.

While all of these dollars are being spent in the municipalities, this government has launched or revived a number of highway projects.

Mr. Haggerty: Highway 20 -- the first time any work was done on it in years was done with the Liberal government.

Mr. Andrewes: I've never heard you read a speech. Who wrote this stuff for you?

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sargent: Let us talk about the different regions. In the Niagara region Highway 406, which local residents had requested for so many years, will soon be a reality. The Minister of Transportation and Communications visited there last June to announce that work would start this year.

Mr. Haggerty: From St. Catharines to Port Colborne.

Mr. Andrewes: No; it is already in Welland.

Mr. Sargent: Does the member want to get up and talk against this? I will give him the floor if he wants.

Mr. Andrewes: No; I want to hear more.

Mr. Sargent: He is in favour of it? Okay. In Peterborough, residents had long awaited the completion of Highway 115 as a four-lane route linking that city to Highway 401. Again, the minister visited that city and got the project on track. Where were those members all those years?

Mr. Sheppard: Highway 115 wasn't in the budget this time.

Mr. Sargent: Pardon?

Mr. Sheppard: It wasn't mentioned in the budget or the throne speech.

Mr. Haggerty: Go ahead, Ed. You have three minutes.

Interjections.

Mr. Sargent: I am running out of time here. Mr. Speaker, will you give me some time for all this?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the members please permit the member for Grey-Bruce to complete his debate.

Interjections.

Mr. Sargent: I think he is very much out of order.

In eastern Ontario, the minister announced work to complete Highway 62 near Round Lake Centre in Renfrew county.

Mr. Andrewes: What about Highway 6?

Mr. Sargent: We will get to that. Of course, I have already spoken about the increase in funding for northern Ontario. The member missed it when I talked about northern Ontario: a 32 per cent increase there.

We can all tell horror stories about roads in our own constituencies, and I have lots up my way. We can all argue that there simply is not enough to make the kind of improvements that are desperately needed, but I think we have made a very important start. I agree that we had a good minister in Jim Snow, but their policies were bankrupt for money.

Although I have spoken about the vast increases in road funding, I think it is worth while to quote briefly from the comments made by the Ontario Road Builders' Association after the last budget. The members should listen to this; they will like this one. Arthur Ryan, the executive director of ORBA, said: "It is an excellent budget for us. They have certainly started to address our concerns." That is from the horse's mouth. Later he said, "It is a substantial increase for us." Lee Smallman, vice-president of ORBA, referring to the increase in roads budgets, said, "This is the first turnaround and it is long overdue."

Just as important is the amount of increase for local roads and the way in which this increase can come about. I have had an opportunity to travel with the Minister of Transportation and Communications since working with him, and wherever he goes he tries to meet with the local elected representatives. Many of the members here recall meetings in their own areas with reeves, councillors, mayors and the minister.

I would like to tell the members, for example that down in Kingston with the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. South), we moved in there one morning at six o'clock and we met in Frontenac-Addington every village and township councillor, town councils and city people to review all of their budgets. This is a policy to let everyone know what is going on and that no one is getting more than they should be getting.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Thank you. The member's time has expired.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I am very pleased to join in this debate, and to follow my good friend the member for Grey-Bruce in this very important debate as we both share the same highways. Highway 6 is certainly getting improvement; they put a little gravel on the shoulders and that is it.

I strongly support the resolution presented by my good friend and colleague the member for Northumberland. I would like to highlight the importance of this resolution by reading it into the record once more:

"That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that the maintenance and construction of a good road system is vital to the local, regional and provincial economy and recognizing the increasing gap between road subsidy and the expenditures required to maintain the existing level of service for roads, the government of Ontario should increase the municipal subsidies available to municipalities for road purposes."

As a member representing 21 municipalities, I can attest to the very strong support these municipalities have for the intent of the member's resolution. As an example of this very urgent need for extra funding for road improvements, I would like to quote from an

article in the Wellington Advertiser of May 25:

"Wellington county's 21 municipalities, plus Guelph, have endorsed the funding push by the Ontario Good Roads Association... `A massive infusion of money is needed,' OGRA president Robert Leggate said in an interview. `We are pushing for $75 million annually over the next five years to arrest road deterioration.'"

The

article goes on to say, "Wellington has prepared a five-year forecast of $67.7 million worth of maintenance needed for the county's 550-kilometre road system. The report recommends immediate replacement of 11 of the county's 82 bridges and a long-term program of bridge repair and evaluation to `ensure public safety and protect the county's large investment in its bridge system.'"

I have received letters from nearly all my municipalities supporting the brief prepared by the Ontario Good Roads Association, requesting the Premier and the Treasurer to provide additional funding for municipal roads. I would like to read a few of these into the record.

The township of Peel sent a letter addressed to myself:

"Enclosed are copies of letters sent to the Honourable David Peterson and the Honourable R. Nixon on the brief prepared by the Ontario Good Roads Association.

"Council of the township of Peel supported the position taken by the Ontario Good Roads Association, and we seek your support to urge the government to allocate more funds for municipal roads in the budget." That is what I am trying to do today, to get the ear of the government. I might need some money to do so but I am trying.

"In order for us to maintain our road system at an acceptable level to MTC standards and acceptable to the people who travel our roads on a daily basis, it will be necessary for the government to provide more subsidy dollars.

"We trust that you will consider our request for your support and that you will help to bring the message across to the government."

I hope the government members are listening. That is signed by Mrs. Christine Oosterveld, clerk-treasurer of the township of Peel.

One paragraph from a letter from Robert Skeoch, clerk-treasurer of the township of Maryborough reads: "The township of Maryborough is faced with the problem of replacing three bridges and culverts over the next few years. Without additional funding from the province of Ontario they would cause real hardship for the township ratepayers."

From the township of Pilkington: "A relatively small rural municipality supported by a largely agriculture assessment, the township is negated, both by a lack of reasonable provincial road funding support and an inability to further burden the depressed agricultural sector with heavier tax demands, from maintaining the roads to a minimum standard of public expectations." That is signed by Len Day, clerk-treasurer, township of Pilkington.

I have received similar letters from the town of Harrison, the villages of Elora and Arthur, the townships of Arthur, Erin, Guelph and Minto. Wellington county council, as well as several other municipalities; all support the intent of the resolution presented by the member for Northumberland. I am also sure the vast majority of the municipalities of rural Ontario are very supportive of this initiative, and I am sure the members of the opposition parties which represent rural ridings will bring their concerns to the attention of the government.

The member for Northumberland mentioned that the Ontario Good Roads Association is stating that the government should be providing $75 million a year, and this is money for repairs and upgrading to preserve the present system, not for new roads. They feel that with an extra $900 million in windfall revenues, the government has the funds to invest in a municipal roads system. Indeed, the government's revenues have increased 14 per cent and a matching 14 per cent for municipal roads would bring in that $75 million.

In the recent budget, gasoline tax revenues increased from $977 million to over $1 billion, a $23-million increase. Fuel tax will increase from $242 million to $280 million, an increase of $38 million. The government made a promise to provide an additional $40 million a year for rural roads. Instead, the government not only increased revenues through gas and fuel tax, but it also reimposed sales tax on heavy trucks and trailers that will bring in revenue of another $68 million. Surely, if our motorists and truckers are forced to pay heavy taxes, they should at least be provided with decent roads to travel on.

I might also mention that the Ontario Trucking Association has some comments to make pertaining to the budget. In their legislative report number 3, dated May 1987, they say there is some commitment to roads but Ontario truckers are unimpressed by the Ontario budget. Jim, you are a fairly reasonable man. You will understand that they are not impressed with this budget.

They go on to state: "According to Ray Cope, OTA president, `The Treasurer now appears to recognize that an efficient and safe transportation network is essential for sustaining economic growth, but he falls somewhat short of providing the amount of dollars needed to upgrade and expand the system.' The budget calls for a $290-million enrichment in spending on roads, bridges and highways over the next three years. In prebudget consultation, OTA maintained that an injection of $1.5 billion over the next five years was needed." That is quite a difference. "`Moreover,' according to Mr.

Cope, `the budgetary estimates show that transportation spending will rise 7.8 per cent in 1987-88, but that is in fact lower than last year's growth rate of 10.2 per cent.'"

It is indeed quite a commitment by the government in the budget. The Treasurer has reduced instead of increased support for the transportation needs of this province. It is a sad indication of the government's commitment to the transportation system, the roads, especially in rural Ontario, that are so vital to the economy of our agriculture in the province.

I urge all members of this assembly to join with the member for Northumberland and pass this very important resolution. I hope the Treasurer and the Premier will take some interest in what we are doing here this morning and will do something about increasing funding to the road system of this province.

Mr. Grande: I too want to rise, and I am thankful for the opportunity to rise, to speak in favour of the resolution from the member for Northumberland. Actually, I want to thank him for bringing this resolution forward, as I thanked the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) last Thursday for bringing forward another very important resolution that dealt with municipal services, namely, the water distribution system. This week we have another resolution from the member that talks about the road system.

I am sure that in another week we are going to have another resolution from some member that will talk about other municipal services that are desperately needed in all our municipalities in Ontario.

We do not often get a chance to talk about our municipalities. The only time we get a chance to do it is to get up on a speech from the throne and talk about our own ridings or to get up in response to a budget and talk about our ridings and the needs in our municipalities. Because we rarely do get a chance to speak about these, I am sure that letters, from all members and I suppose from myself in particular, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître), to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) and to other ministers of government flow very freely because of these municipal services and the lack of support for municipal services in our municipalities.

I want to ask the member for Northumberland a question. The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) makes the point very well. Where on earth has he been? Where has his party been in the past 10 years when some of our municipalities have been screaming for support, have been screaming for help? Year after year, we got exactly the same answers.

Where has he been? Where has the Conservative Party been? Leave that aside; it is history, it is in the past. I guess it has to say mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa for having made mistakes as a government. Let us talk about this government because it is repeating exactly the same mistakes of the past government. In other words, it is leaving the municipalities out there without any great support.

Unfortunately, there is not one minister in his place in the Legislature for such an important debate, but I want to say to the government that while the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) may show that in this particular year government support went up 5.2 per cent or six per cent or seven per cent, the fact, and he knows it, is that our municipalities are suffering from structural problems in terms of their infrastructure. It is not something that is going to be fixed with a 5.2 per cent increase in one year.

It is something that has to be planned over a period of time, a five-year period of time, that says we are going to put in this kind of support because services have deteriorated to the point that unless we inject billions of dollars today we are going to have to inject many more billions of dollars five years from now.

Our road system is deteriorating. In 1985, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications made a study here in Ontario that showed our municipal road system was deteriorating very fast. For the city of York, which I represent, it showed that for any urban municipality the size of the city of York, it had the worst municipal problems in all the province.

When I see that kind of information and when I get the concerns I get from the people of the riding of Oakwood, l do not say to those people that they are municipal problems: I have to say to those people, "Your provincial government is not responding to the needs of the people of the city of York, not just in terms of roads or water distribution systems or sewer separation, but in almost every kind of municipal service available."

The government can no longer say, "Here is a certain amount of money just to maintain your services." Maintenance of service is not the question today. The question today is redoing, structurally remaking. In other words, it is not putting on tar and patching holes any more. Structurally, some of the roads in our municipalities are not sound to be travailed upon. They are dangerous.

Therefore, while the member for Grey-Bruce and the Minister of Transportation and Communications may say, and may point to some people saying, "Applause, applause, applause for this year; it is a good start," the fact is that they know and the government knows we need plans for a five-year period and we need to inject massive funding into that.

Unfortunately, the federal government is not responding. It is too bad that the federal government is saying, "It is none of our responsibility." I think Michael Wilson is wrong. Michael Wilson is going to have to change his mind on that. The provincial government, on the other hand, is turning around and saying, "Because Michael Wilson says they are not going to spend a penny, we at the same time are not going to inject the funding necessary to look after the concerns of people in our province, in our municipalities."

It is unfortunate, because while the government now may get applause here and there, in two or three years from now, should the government remain, it will not be getting applause. As a matter of fact, more pressure will fall upon the provincial government.

In the little time I have left, I want to provide the government with a solution. Particularly with those municipalities that on a yearly basis get what is called resource equalization funding because they do not have a rich enough tax base to be able to provide services to their people -- those amount to a good number of municipalities in the province -- perhaps we should have the land transfer tax revenues that come from those particular municipalities, the kind of tax that is collected from the sale of homes and houses, to make sure we create a special fund for rebuilding the infrastructure in the province.

Mr. Sheppard: I would like to thank those who are going to support my resolution today, especially the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere. He mentioned how the Don Valley Parkway and the Gardiner Expressway are deteriorating. Nobody knows more of the traffic jam when you come down the Don Valley in the morning. If you come in late at night, you cannot get down the Don Valley. You have to come down Avenue Road.

I would like to make a comment on the remarks of the member for Grey-Bruce. He talked about all the money that was spent on roads in the past two years. I want to remind him that it was the previous government that brought in the Don Valley Parkway, the Gardiner Expressway and Highway 401.

Mr. Andrewes: Highway 6.

Mr. Sheppard: And Highway 6, if you want to mention it.

I was also interested in his comments about the budget. I do not know whether the member for Grey-Bruce is listening or not. If he would take his seat, maybe he could listen. He never mentioned, and it was not mentioned in the throne speech or the budget, the finishing of Highway 115. I wonder whether the reason it was not mentioned was that there is a Conservative member there and not a Liberal member.

I remind the minister and the Treasurer that Highway 115 is opening up part of northern Ontario, especially the great lakes in the Kawartha area. There are a lot of tourists in that part of our riding. I remind him that Highway 115 should be finished. I travel 115 a lot when I am going home, whether I am coming up in the morning or at night, whatever the case may be.

I would also like to thank the member for Wellington South (Mr. Ferraro) for his comments. I know he has 34 municipalities. I have only 15 but I got a letter from every municipality asking that I put pressure on the Minister of Transportation and Communications and ask for more money.

An hon. member: It was the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson).

Mr. Sheppard: The member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel; I am sorry.

Mr. G. I. Miller: We can all use more money. Mr. Sheppard: Yes, but Highway 115 was not even mentioned. The member for Grey-Bruce said the Minister of Transportation and Communications was down there at six o'clock in the morning. When one of this government ministers comes to my riding, he does not have the decency even to tell me he is coming. Just ask the member from Thunder Bay. I would get up at five o'clock or even 4:30 a.m. if he wanted me to meet him and take him around the great riding of Northumberland.

Mr. Andrewes: Not 4:30.

Mr. Sheppard: Not 4:30? I am used to getting up. The member knows I am a farmer. Do fruit growers not get up early in the morning too?

I would like to thank all those who are supporting my resolution. I do not know whether the member for Grey-Bruce is going to support it, but if he does not he should support it.

COMPUTERIZED TOURIST RESERVATION SYSTEM

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Guindon has moved resolution 14.

Motion agreed to.

MUNICIPAL ROADS

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Sheppard has moved resolution 10.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 12 noon.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ROWING CHAMPIONSHIP

Mr. Partington: An exciting and very successful 42nd annual Canadian Secondary School Rowing Championship was held this past weekend on the l,500-metre Henley rowing course in St. Catharines.

In total, there were a record 93 schools represented from across the country, from Vancouver Island to Newfoundland, as well as from the eastern United States. Heats were run on Friday and Saturday, with 30 finals run on Sunday.

The trophy for the total points accumulated by men's crews was won by Upper Canada College of Toronto and, for women's crews, by the Ridley College team from St. Catharines. The Ridley College crew defended its last year's win in the senior men's heavy eight race, once again capturing the prestigious Calder-Cleland trophy and contributing to Ridley's overall victory in the total points championship.

Second place in total points was won by UCC, with Denis Morris High School, Lakeport Secondary School and Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School, all of St. Catharines, placing third, fourth and fifth respectively.

Rowing is a demanding sport which requires discipline and dedication from all participants on a seven-day-a-week basis. I commend the young people who have participated for their achievements throughout the season and particularly for the sportsmanship and the high level of competition displayed this weekend.

To the athletes, coaches and officials, I would like to offer my congratulations for a job well done.

OVERCROWDING IN SCHOOLS

Mr. Philip: The speech from the throne talks about the need for excellence and quality in education. However, the budget shows that when it comes to capital expenditures, the government is not really serious. I bring to the attention of the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) just one example.

St. Stephen school in Rexdale presently has about 800 students. The school was never intended to accommodate that many students. The library is too small and the use is therefore limited. In order to accommodate the student population, it should have about 2,000 square feet more. The gym is so small that the children's allotted time has been reduced from 80 minutes to 50 minutes per week in order to accommodate every class and, at times, cancelled completely when the gym is required for other needs.

Space has been taken away from the playground by the six portable classrooms that have been inserted in there. The kindergarten rooms do not meet the standards of other schools. St. Stephen's students must be sent to other schools for many programs because of the lack of space.

The parents of the children of St. Stephen ask why their children must be deprived of the adequate facilities that other children in other neighbourhoods and other schools take so much for granted. I call on the Minister of Education to meet with the Metropolitan Separate School Board and to plan whatever corrective action is needed to remedy these serious problems at St. Stephen.

SAFETY IN SPORTS

Mr. Reycraft: I rise today to advise that CFPL-TV in London recently requested viewers to phone in and offer their support for government action to reduce injuries in hockey.

Pete James, CFPL-TV's sports director, told viewers that "the slashing, high-sticking and cross-checking have turned the hockey stick into a weapon" and that "it is now time to put the hockey stick back where it belongs -- on the ice."

Not surprisingly, there was a tremendous response to CFPL-TV's appeal. Over three evenings, approximately 9,000 calls were handled, some from as far away as Pennsylvania and Ohio. In addition, calls were received the following week from many who were unable to get through on the evenings of the show.

I recall that in January, the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins) allocated $1.4 million for a program to reduce injuries in sports and fitness. The minister took this option in response to the concern that the public had voiced against the increasing number of injuries resulting from participation in amateur sports.

The CFPL-TV phone-in has clearly reinforced this public concern. I understand that the minister is currently working to address the safety issue in amateur hockey and that the final report of the Ontario Sport Medicine and Safety Advisory Board is due on June 30. I look forward to initiatives which will reduce the risk of serious injury in sports.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. McLean: My statement is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins). As he is aware, there is a long list of hospitals throughout Ontario, including the Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital in my riding, seeking government funding for new or expanded health care facilities. When my party was in power it approved more than $200 million alone in the spring of 1985 for hospital capital projects in this province, and the list of hospital capital construction projects continued to grow with each passing month.

Hospitals must keep pace with increasing technological developments in the health care field and the growing number of Ontario residents who are using their services, if we are not to put health care at risk. That requires expansion and that means creative methods of providing capital funding must be devised by this government to meet the growing demands of Ontario's hospitals.

I would urge the minister to meet with the Ontario Lottery Corp. to devise a provincial lottery for the purpose of using profits to fund hospitals capital projects. The Irish sweepstakes has proved, over the years, to be a creative and imaginative method for generating hospital construction funds in that country. The success of existing lotteries in Ontario and throughout Canada indicates to me that the people of this province would support a new lottery, especially if they knew that all profits would be used for hospital construction projects in their own communities.

I would urge the minister to vigorously pursue the development and promotion of a new hospital capital lottery program, which I am certain will generate millions of dollars in profits that can be used to ensure that our health care delivery system continues to keep pace with growing demands.

PATIENTS' RIGHTS

Mr. Reville: The executive director of the Canadian Bar Association-Ontario strongly opposes the

section in Bill 190 that restores to the review board the right to order treatment over a refusal by a patient representative or family members. The bar association recognizes that mental disorder may indeed compromise the decision-making ability of a patient. It believes, however, that this factor properly enters into only a decision of whether the patient is or is not competent to make the decision personally.

Once that question is resolved, a competent patient or a competent substituted decision-maker must have autonomy in deciding whether to accept the proposed treatment. This right is unquestionably one held by medical and surgical patients, and we see no reason why it should be withheld from psychiatric patients. In fact, the bar association feels that it is a violation of the equality rights provided by

section 15 of the Charter of Rights and that such a legal position could not stand a court challenge on that ground.

BELGIANS IN ONTARIO

Mr. McGuigan: A couple of weeks ago, I was asked to go to the launching of a book called Belgians in Ontario: A History, by Joan McGee, an author and academic from Windsor. It was written with the support of the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture, the Ontario Arts Council and the Canada Council. It is the story of the development of the sugarbeet industry in southwestern Ontario, later the tobacco industry, and the role that was played by the Belgian immigrants.

They started as migrant workers who came from Belgium to Canada, stayed for a few months and went back each fall. They had experience in sugarbeet growing because, prior to the Canadian experience, they used to go to France. Through that, a number of them decided to come as immigrants and establish their families here, first as workers and sharecroppers, and many of them today are very substantial owners of farms. They moved really from the sugarbeets to the tobacco in Kent and Essex counties, where it has been established ever since the days of the Indians, and they moved to the second belt around Brantford.

Mr. Speaker: The member's time has now expired.

Mr. McGuigan: I would commend the book to anyone's reading.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr. Pope: I rise to express my dissatisfaction with the report released by the Industrial Disease Standards Panel concerning lung and stomach cancer among gold and mixed-ore miners. I believe my dissatisfaction would be shared in general terms by Jean Larcher and the victims of the mining environment organization in Timmins and by the local representative of the United Steelworkers in Timmins, Moe Sheppard.

Basically, in 1979 I stood in this House as a back-bench member of the governing party of the day to indicate the existence of a Wigle study. That resulted in the Muller study, phases I and 2, which clearly linked exposure to silica dust with the development of lung cancer. The standards that have been developed by the Industrial Disease Standards Panel are clearly inadequate to compensate dependents of dead miners.

I think it is incumbent on the government to step into this process, ensure that it is expeditiously dealing with claims and come up with a standard that is the same standard as it has allowed for other lung cancer claims in every other industry in the province.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CHILD CARE

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The government of Ontario has stated its commitment to building a comprehensive child care system that will meet the needs of all families in this province.

In both the speech from the throne and the budget, we have acknowledged the need for a high-quality, affordable and accessible system -- one that recognizes child care as a basic public service and not a welfare service.

Together with my cabinet colleagues, most notably the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Minister responsible for Women's Issues (Mr. Scott), we have consulted widely and weighed the issues and concerns of Ontario families.

Further, we have benefited enormously from the energetic work done by advocacy groups, which have ably demonstrated their real concerns about the future of Ontario's children.

Today, I am pleased to announce the steps this government is taking to build a new system of child care in this province, a system designed to suit the particular needs of those contemporary families.

We are establishing a comprehensive, integrated and affordable child care system for Ontario. An undertaking of this nature is necessarily a long-term challenge. As a result we will be building this new system in stages. Specifically, we will be working in three-year planning cycles, beginning immediately.

Significant resource commitments are being made to the development of child care. This year we are allocating an initial annual increase of $26 million, which brings the total child care budget to $185 million.

By the end of the first three-year planning cycle, the total child care budget of the Ministry of Community and Social Services will have grown to a target of $325 million.

That represents an increase of 133 per cent over provincial spending for child care in 1986-87. These funds will be used to strike a balance between expanding the availability of services and improving the affordability and stability of these services.

I would like to take a moment to explain why we have come to regard child care as one of the most pressing social and economic issues facing Ontario families today.

Child care in Ontario is at a significant crossroad. A larger number of women are now working outside of their homes. In many cases, working women are the sole breadwinners in their families. In others, they are working to keep a two-parent family's income above the poverty level. For these families, child care is a necessity, but it is also essential to make the equality of women in the work force a realizable goal. In this context, the pressure on existing child care supports has never been greater.

Quality child care is in short supply and is increasingly out of the financial reach of many parents. Ontario families need more care and more financial help with that care. They need more information and a greater sense of participation, and they need a wider variety of options.

Child care, as it exists now, is difficult to find in rural areas, for shift workers and for irregular hours or emergency situations. Services for infants, school-age children and children with special needs are particularly lacking. The need for building a new system has never been more apparent.

In addition, because we are talking about the development, safety and wellbeing of our children, we must be stringent about the quality of that care.

Some of the highlights of these new directions include:

Starting this fiscal year, direct operating grants to licensed, nonprofit programs will be introduced to provide ongoing support. Priority will be given to improving salaries. By improving staff compensation in this traditionally undervalued field, we hope to make child care more affordable, while enhancing quality by attracting and retaining qualified staff.

Depending upon the results of our negotiations with the federal government, direct grants will be extended to the existing commercial sector as soon as possible, provided that federal cost-sharing is secured.

Increases in capital funding from the Ministry of Community and Social Services will expand the nonprofit system by supporting the construction of new community-based centres and the renovation and expansion of existing ones. Within the three-year allocation of $33 million, funds have been set aside for the renovation of vacant school space.

In addition, the government is requiring the provision of child care spaces in new schools. Separate capital funding for this purpose will be provided by the Ministry of Education.

We will continue to increase child care subsidies. Beginning with a preliminary cash flow of $7.4 million in the balance of 1987-88, this additional financing for new subsidies will represent approximately 30 per cent of the new child care financing.

We will replace the current needs test with an income test as the eligibility screen for subsidy during the 1988-89 fiscal year. Application of the income test to the commercial sector depends upon the outcome of current federal-provincial negotiations. Income testing is considered a simpler and less intrusive system. Together with the subsidy increases, we believe that this will make child care more affordable for a larger number of Ontario families, especially for farmers, who tend not to qualify under a needs test.

Under the new child care development program, we will continue to support the development and expansion of flexible models of service. Extra funding will be directed to innovative shift work and emergency care projects, the integration of children with special needs, programs for school-age children and care for children in rural and isolated communities.

There will be a special emphasis placed on community development.

Child care resource centres, which provide a wide range of child care support services to parents, informal care givers and licensed programs, will be expanded and new centres will be established over the next three years.

Parent information will be developed through the design of a new posting system that will prominently display the results of the annual licensing inspection visit on the centre's premises. Parents will be better able to assess their centre's compliance with the Day Nurseries Act.

The participation of parents in child care decision-making and management will also be encouraged.

Finally, a new child care act that will embody this new vision of a comprehensive, integrated approach to child care will be developed. It is expected to be introduced by the end of the first three-year planning cycle, setting the stage for the second three-year planning cycle.

These are only the highlights. The details of these and other initiatives are contained in the paper, New Directions for Child Care, which we are tabling today and which will be in each member's mailbox today.

I believe these new directions reflect the commitment of this government towards the establishment of a comprehensive system of child care in this province, but I must emphasize that the success of this plan depends upon the development of partnerships with parents at the core of the decision-making and with all levels of government joining with representatives of the child care community and with schools and employers.

All of us together are making an investment in our future -- our children. The degree of our success will be measured in the wellbeing of the adults of tomorrow. This plan is a cornerstone of this government's commitment to the preservation and enhancement of the family into the 21st century.

MINIMUM WAGE

Hon. Mr. Wrye: In keeping with the government's commitment to review Ontario's minimum wage provisions on an annual basis, I am pleased to announce today an increase in the general minimum wage to $4.55 an hour from the present level of $4.35. This change will take effect in the work week in which October 1 occurs. It constitutes an increase of 4.6 per cent over the current rate, which took effect on October 1, 1986.

The special minimum wage for liquor servers, students under 18, domestics and hunting guides will also rise by 20 cents an hour in the work week in which October 1 occurs. This will mean increases of 5.71 per cent for students under 18 and 5.19 per cent for liquor servers.

As well, maximum room and meal allowances, which employers may charge against minimum wage earnings, will increase to $57 a week for meals and private room provided and to $46.50 a week for meals with nonprivate lodgings. In addition, the minimum wage for fruit, vegetable and tobacco harvesters will rise by 20 cents an hour to $4.55 on January 1, 1988.

The government has also decided to revoke the standard that permits employers to pay learners 10 cents an hour less than the minimum wage rate in their first month on the job. It is our view that the standard is inappropriate for many easily learned minimum-wage jobs and it is our experience that it is little used.

Finally, I would like to inform the assembly at this time that my colleague the Honourable Pierre Paradis, Minister of Labour for Quebec, has today announced an increase of 20 cents per hour in that province's minimum wage, ensuring that both provinces have the same general rate.

As I have indicated, my announcement today flows from the decision the government made last year to conduct a regular annual review of the minimum wage. I am pleased to report that the consultation undertaken during the review has indicated that this new approach has been received positively by all concerned.

COURT RULING

Hon. Mr. Scott: Today the Supreme Court of Canada refused leave to appeal in the case of Regina versus Ernst Zundel.

As honourable members are aware, the Ontario Court of Appeal set aside Mr. Zundel's conviction and directed that a new trial be held. I am able to advise the House that the crown attorney for the judicial district of York has been instructed to proceed with a new trial as soon as possible.

CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Je veux dire aujourd'hui que je suis très fier d'être un canadien. Je suis très fier de coopérer avec mes collègues partout dans ce pays pour créer un Canada plus fort.

Today, I would like to provide members with copies of the agreement the first ministers reached yesterday on proposed constitutional amendments. This agreement is one more progressive step in affirming explicitly what Canadians have long believed implicitly. With the changes and the clarifications worked out yesterday in Ottawa, we are continuing a process that began 120 years ago and we are building a stronger Canada. We are building a stronger Canada by bringing Quebec into the Canadian constitutional family.

We can meet our needs only by working together; clearly, this must include the government and the people of Quebec. Through these proposed amendments, we are renewing our collective spirit for the challenges of the century to come.

We are building a stronger Canada by reaffirming the importance of Canada's multicultural character. The Ottawa agreement includes a provision which expressly protects the recognition of multicultural communities, as set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The agreement makes it clear that Canada, as a mosaic of cultures and languages, can enhance both its bilingual origins and its multicultural evolution with stability, prosperity and security.

Moreover, the Ottawa agreement expressly states that the recognition of Quebec's distinctiveness will not reduce the powers of the national or provincial governments. Canada will continue to speak with one voice -- the federal government will speak for all Canadians.

The federal government's direct contact with all citizens of Canada will be maintained, as will be its ability to introduce new social programs. Provincial governments will be able to operate their own programs and receive financial compensation, provided their programs are compatible with the national objectives as established by the Parliament of Canada.

Several other important points were clarified in the Ottawa agreement.

A new provision protects the rights of aboriginal peoples as set out in the Constitution.

The mobility rights in the charter are expressly given precedence over any immigration agreement that might be negotiated. Moreover, the language in the agreement now expresses the simple but important truth that whatever our mother tongue, we are all Canadians.

I would like to take this opportunity to help clarify an area in which there has been some confusion. The process for amending the Constitution agreed to in 1981 included a provision for unanimous approval for amendments to several matters. That provision was expanded under the Meech Lake agreement to include additional matters such as the Supreme Court of Canada and Parliament. On other items, the process of approval for constitutional amendments, in which no single province has a veto, will continue to apply.

The process of amending a constitution is not an easy one, nor should it be an easy one. There are many different perspectives to consider, and there must be an opportunity for all Canadians to examine the issues and make their views known.

For that reason, we are delighted that the Prime Minister has said there will be public parliamentary hearings to provide full and open discussion. Ontario will follow up on that process with provincial hearings.

Canada's greatest strength is the ability to take the ideas that all Canadians have to offer and to find common ground. We found common ground at Meech Lake five weeks ago. We improved upon it this week. I am confident Canadians will support it, and it will serve them well in the future.

TRANSMISSION LINE

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Concerns have been expressed regarding activities by Ontario Hydro relating to the construction of the eastern Ontario transmission line in the city of Kanata. I would like to bring the House up to date on this matter.

As members may know, the joint board's March 9 decision regarding rerouting and mitigating measures for this line has been appealed. The appeals are before cabinet for consideration, and I can tell the House that this issue does discuss --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am advised that members have not received copies.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: They just got it? I am sorry.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Yes, they have, Mr. Speaker, or they will in 30 seconds. I shall start from the top.

Concerns have been expressed regarding activities by Ontario Hydro relating to construction of the eastern Ontario transmission line in the city of Kanata. I would like to bring the House up to date on this matter.

As members may know, the joint board's March 9 decision regarding rerouting and mitigation measures for this line has been appealed. The appeals are before cabinet for consideration, and I can tell the House that this issue was discussed as recently as yesterday at cabinet.

The Ministry of Health is looking again into the matter of public health as it relates to high-voltage lines to determine if there is any new, valid evidence that such lines have an adverse effect on health.

I can also tell the members that at my request, Ontario Hydro has agreed to suspend all activities relating to the construction of the line in the city of Kanata until cabinet has dealt with the appeals.

RESPONSES

CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

Mr. Grossman: We in this party have been expressing our concerns about the Meech Lake accord since it was conceived. We have asked many questions and received few answers. Notwithstanding the allegations of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) -- which is the most I can say about them -- there seemed to be no new answers following yesterday's signing.

On May 4, I told this House of the context in which our party approaches these discussions. As Ontario Progressive Conservatives in the tradition of Robarts and Davis, we believe in a strong national government. We oppose the weakening of its powers and prerogatives.

Let us make one unequivocal point: Our party wants Quebec to be in the Constitution but it must do so as part of a strong agreement, an agreement that strengthens the country as a result of having Quebec sign, not weakens it as the price of getting Quebec to sign.

There is no rush. Meech Lake was a hurried agreement, finalized after a night of nonstop bargaining. It is fair for us and the public to ask for a careful analysis of a document so conceived. If Meech Lake is a good document, time will not now be its enemy.

On May 5, we asked for one week of public hearings on the draft agreement. The Premier said they were not needed. Then he said there was not time and then he changed his mind. He then said outside this House, moments after we again asked for public hearings here and now, that there would indeed be hearings in Ontario. He also said he would ask for hearings on the national level. We in this party have always supported the involvement of all Canadians at all stages in this important process. I might say we are glad the Premier has changed his mind on public hearings and now agrees.

There are many uncertainties surrounding the draft agreement and the new accord. The Premier's assurances today are not backed up by the constitutional experts or by any sense of unanimity among either the other Premiers or the experts who have perused the document. It is not sufficient simply to state that nothing much has changed. We need the proof.

These uncertainties remain. There are the concerns of the group of 43, the concerns of some of our finest constitutional minds and what appear to be growing concerns in the minds of average people who are eager that this country remain a strong central nation. There are the concerns of Canadians who put the national interest first, as we in this party have always done, who believe we must rise above our own likes and dislikes and our provincial preferences and our provincial politics. For us in this party, the national interest means equipping the federal government with the tools and the resources to do the job. It also implies not a community of communities, not a league, but a nation.

We need time. We now have time. I do not wish today to restate all of the questions we have raised. They are all on the record. They will be asked again at a future time, and there will be new questions. I hope it is understood by all Canadians that we have a duty to ask these questions. They are asked in a genuine commitment to this country and to our party's clear centralist heritage. That heritage lies in sharp contrast to the Premier's vagueness about this deal.

I call upon the Premier today to do several things: (1) explain his views as to the exact impact of what he signed, the impact for Canada and the impact for Ontario; (2) have genuine, unhurried public input and analysis, the analysis he has refused to offer today; (3) set out clearly his understanding of the distinct society and immigration clauses, and the opting out clause.

The ball is now in the court of the Premier. As he seeks ratification for what he has signed, he must analyse, explain and defend what it is he signed. There can be no blank cheques for Confederation.

Yesterday, the Premier said he always thought it was possible to "do a deal." Those are not words of reassurance. Nation-building requires perhaps a different approach from "doing a deal," an approach instead built of principles, commitment and vision.

It would be easy for our party simply to endorse the accord, but we have a responsibility and I am not in public office to take the easy way out. We look forward to the process and hope our concerns will be alleviated, but we are steadfast in our resolve to do what must be done to defend our vision of a strong Canadian government.

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr. Mackenzie: I want to say how deplorable I find the increase of 20 cents an hour in the minimum wage. We are now going to give workers who are willing to work $9,400 a year in wages, about $1,500 or $1,600 less than the poverty level. We are going to give them $416 a year more if they work the full year; $786 a month, which barely pays the rent in a city like Toronto. I find it deplorable. I find it disgusting. I will send one of the pages across the floor of the House with 20 cents for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye). Maybe he can add a nickel to it and call all his friends.

CHILD CARE

Ms. Gigantes: I would like to respond very briefly to the announcement by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) and state, first of all, our regret that there is so little time today to respond. We understand the minister will be away most of next week.

The policy -- if one can call it that -- he has