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

February 23, 1989

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L152 - Thu 23 Feb 1989 / Jeu 23 fév 1989

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

SPEED LIMITS

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

SPEED LIMITS

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

MEMBER’S COMMENTS

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

TEACHING ASSISTANTS’ LABOUR DISPUTE

PREMIER’S TRIP

BRYCE TAYLOR

ESTONIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

COURT RULING

BIRTH OF MEMBER’S CHILD

ORAL QUESTIONS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

RENT REGULATION

FUNDING FOR WOMEN’S PROGRAMS

OUTBREAK OF MENINGITIS

FUNDING OF SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES

ALCOHOL AND DRUG ADDICTION

ASSISTANCE TO GRAPE GROWERS

TEACHERS

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS

AIR QUALITY

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

PETITIONS

RAPE CRISIS CENTRES

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

COMMUNITY SAFETY

ICE FISHING

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

MOTION

HOUSE SITTING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

RYERSON POLYTECHNICAL INSTITUTE AMENDMENT ACT

THIRD READING

OTTAWA CIVIL SERVICE RECREATIONAL ASSOCIATION ACT

ASSOCIATION OF TRANSLATORS AND INTERPRETERS OF ONTARIO ACT /

LOI SUR L’ASSOCIATION DES TRADUCTEURS ET INTERPRÈTES DE L’ONTARIO

CITY OF TRENTON ACT

NORTHERN FRONTIER DEVELOP. LTD. ACT

SUDBURY HYDRO-ELECTRIC COMMISSION ACT

SISTERS OF SOCIAL SERVICE ACT

CITY OF LONDON ACT

JOHN ZIVANOVIC HOLDINGS LIMITED ACT

TOWN OF MARKHAM ACT

STRATHROY MIDDLESEX GENERAL HOSPITAL ACT

WINDSOR LIGHT OPERA ASSOCIATION ACT

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, OFFICE FOR DISABLED PERSONS

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, OFFICE OF THE ASSEMBLY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF HOUSING (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

SPEED LIMITS

Mr. Smith moved resolution 64:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that highways in Ontario are constructed in such a way to permit vehicles to travel safely at speeds greater than the presently posted limits, the government of Ontario should consider amending current legislation to increase speed limits on 400-class highways to 115 kilometres per hour for cars and light trucks and to 105 kilometres per hour for trucks over one tonne, and on secondary highways to 90 kilometres per hour for cars and light trucks and to remain at 80 kilometres per hour for trucks over one tonne.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Lambton has moved the resolution standing in his name. The member has up to 20 minutes to make his presentation and may reserve any portion of that 20 minutes for windup.

Mr. Smith: I would like to take this opportunity to express my thoughts and make comments in proposing this resolution, which would consider amendments to alter presently posted speed limits of 100 kilometres per hour to 115 kilometres per hour for cars and light trucks and 105 kilometres per hour for trucks over one tonne on 400-series highways, and on other secondary highways from 80 kilometres per hour to 90 kilometres per hour for cars and light trucks while remaining at 80 kilometres per hour for trucks over one tonne.

The issue of speed limit restriction has been a topic of controversy and even heated discussions for many years in Ontario and other jurisdictions such as the United States, Britain and European countries. A quick glance into our provincial debates over this subject indicates just that as well.

In February 1976, Ontario speed limits on the 400-series highways, as well as the Queen Elizabeth Way, were lowered from 70 miles per hour, which is approximately 113 kilometres per hour, to 60 miles per hour, which is approximately 100 kilometres per hour.

On August 8, 1986, the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton), after being approached by advocates in favour of increased speed limits, rejected pleas to raise posted limits from 100 kilometres per hour on freeways, 90 kilometres per hour on the Trans-Canada Highway and 80 kilometres per hour on secondary roads.

As recently as May 12, 1988, during this current 34th Parliament, my colleague the member for Kenora (Mr. Miclash) presented and received support for a resolution to consider amendments to existing legislation to increase the speed limit in northern Ontario from 80 kilometres per hour to 90 kilometres per hour.

I would like to say I have great respect for my colleague the Minister of Transportation and his staff for having taken many initiatives on highway safety over the past years. This ministry has worked effortlessly to provide safe standards for Ontario drivers. The latest, most modern technology has been utilized in the construction of provincial highways to enable drivers to enjoy a more comfortable and safe travelling atmosphere. I applaud and support the minister in his efforts to keep the transportation network in Ontario at such a high level of excellence.

As I am sure members are aware, speed limits in North America were lowered to reduce gasoline consumption in the midst of an energy crisis caused by the Arab oil embargo in 1973. Evidence indicates that this strategy worked; however, since that time, oil prices have dropped or stabilized and the energy crisis in North America has declined, cars have been built smaller and more efficient and the argument to keep speed limits down has become harder to justify.

As I said before, in February 1976, Ontario speed limits were lowered on 400-series highways and the QEW from 70 miles per hour, which is 113 kilometres per hour, to 60 miles per hour, which is 100 kilometres per hour; but also the use of seatbelts became mandatory for all drivers and passengers in the same year. It is therefore difficult to state the number of lives saved by reducing highway speeds, because both measures took effect at approximately the same time.

Trends in speed restriction in countries other than Canada provide evidence that a review of Ontario speed limit restrictions should be reassessed, and I feel to increase presently posted limits as outlined in my resolution does not seem unreasonable. Countries such as Austria, Belgium, France and Italy all restrict drivers to 120 kilometres per hour, a speed still higher than these proposed here today.

We are fortunate in this province to travel on highways which were built with the best technology. Roads today are constructed to accommodate a higher rate of speed and a greater volume of traffic.

It is interesting to take note of some statistics with respect to this increased volume of traffic on our highways. In 1931, there were approximately 666,000 licensed drivers and approximately 600,000 cars and trucks. In comparison, an overwhelming six million drivers were registered in 1987, as well as approximately 5.5 million vehicles.

If one were to examine the total accidents over this same time period, 1931 to 1987, one would soon realize that this figure fluctuates and shows no consistency to prove that high speeds were solely responsible for highway accidents. For example, in 1976, the year of mandatory seatbelt legislation and lowered speed limits, total accidents were approximately 211,000. In 1977, only one year later, this accident figure rose by 7,000, to 218,000 accidents. Incredibly, 1978 had 286,000 accidents, which is the most ever recorded in one year.

I have to mention the increase in the volume of cars and trucks from 1950, when there were 1,080,000 vehicles, to 1986, when there were 5,190,000 vehicles. That is a span of 36 years. If we project forward these numbers of cars and trucks, we have to move traffic more quickly where we can in the very near future. Upon closer review of the Ontario Road Safety annual report of 1987, the total accident statistics showed a great deal of inconsistency, especially since 1976. In fact, this figure has decreased from the previous year a total of seven times in comparison with an increase from the previous year of five times.

I am convinced that many more factors dictate the number of traffic accidents than solely the issue of travelling at higher speeds. Roads were designed for higher speeds. In circumstances where drivers travel long distances on well-designed highways such as we have, the presently posted limits create frustration, resentment and a bad driver attitude. It is my feeling that this resolution suggesting modest speed limit increases will enable a great volume of traffic to move more quickly and safely from destination to destination.

If safety is the only consideration, then there really is no speed limit that would guarantee driver safety because the issue of speed is only one of numerous safety measures that drivers must adhere to. Along the same line of thinking, it is my opinion that a modest increase in the speed limits will respond to the ability of today’s high-technology and efficient engines, as well as transmissions with their overdrives. They use only a small percentage of their peak engine power to cruise at highway speeds. Vehicle-wear benefit is improved and fuel efficiency and economy are greater when the time-of-travel factor is involved.

This resolution offers the driver greater mobility and a reduction in travel time, which is the most obvious cost of lower speeds. I strongly believe that there are numerous reasons to explain traffic injuries and fatalities. The issue of highway speeding is but one single factor.

Giving a few more statistics, there were 571 deaths in 1931 on the highways, if we could really call them highways at that time, with 666,000 drivers, while in 1987 there were only 1,229 fatalities with 6 million drivers and 5.5 million vehicles. Consideration and recognition must be given to other safety measures such as retraining for a better driver attitude and better training for the new driver.

Causes of accidents can be attributed to such things as drunk or impaired driving, slush on highways, unsafe lane changing, drowsiness, lack of driver concentration or a bad driving attitude. An example as simple as a parent finding the need to calm two children in the back seat could cause attention to road safety to be less than 100 per cent, or adjusting the tape deck or radio, or dropping a cigarette. The operation of a vehicle is a full-time job and requires one’s full attention whether one is driving at 40 kilometres an hour or 120 kilometres an hour.

I would like to address the subject of a limit for trucks over one tonne to 105 kilometres per hour on 400-series highways and the limit remaining at 80 kilometres an hour on secondary highways. A general feeling indicates that larger trucks should move more slowly, especially when loaded. They cannot react to traffic fluctuations and emergency situations as quickly as smaller vehicles.

One thing they do have an advantage in is that the driver can see farther ahead than a car driver because the driver’s line of vision is approximately eight feet off the ground level. In some cases this gives the truck driver an advantage to see pending problems ahead. However, it must be kept in mind that considerably slower speed restrictions for one-tonne trucks will result in productivity loss because profit levels are directly related to travel time. This could be considered a compromise to take into account for heavy trucks.

I have driven both a straight truck of over 20 tonnes and an 18-wheeler during a six-year period, so I can speak from experience in driving both cars and trucks, travelling on roads under all conditions to earn a livelihood. I feel that current average highway traffic speeds exceed posted limits now. Therefore, a modest increase of 15 kilometres per hour would better reflect reality on our highways.

Weather conditions also present an interesting angle to the cause of traffic accidents. Road conditions such as snow-covered, icy or slushy roads, and poor visibility due to sunlight, fog, mist or rain or even high winds are directly responsible for causing many accidents too. Although I am not able to substantiate this opinion with statistics, it certainly presents a thought-provoking question.

I might add that alcohol and drinking drivers are the cause of many accidents.

On February 16, 1989, the Minister of Transportation indicated that he is considering higher fines and additional demerit points for driving offences to target accident-causing practices. Driver error was reported to be blamed for approximately 80 per cent of traffic accidents. One measure to correct this figure is to retrain the driver to portray a better driver attitude towards the operation of a vehicle. I support the minister’s initiatives to reduce highway accidents and, at the same time, to improve highway safety. The Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere program has definitely reduced accidents on the highways.

I would like to reiterate an

article from the Globe and Mail of August 13, 1987, entitled “British Drivers Have a Lesson for Ontario.” In this article, David Nowell explains the British driving system and compares it to drivers in Ontario. For example, Mr. Nowell points out that on multilane highways, drivers utilize the far left lane at all speed limits. If a faster driver pulls up behind a slower vehicle in this fast lane, a psychological push is given to the driver ahead and perhaps headlights are flashed.

In frustration, the aggressive faster driver is forced to change two or more lanes to the right and then return to the left lane by changing two or more lanes again. This practice of passing on either side is legal in Canada.

In comparison, in Britain, the overtaking lane is not to be blocked and is used solely for the purpose of overtaking another vehicle. The law forbids drivers to pass on the equivalent of our right-hand lanes. Thus, traffic moves in an orderly manner. This also results in vehicles going all speeds to mix on the same road very safely, because each driver sticks to his lane in accordance with his speed. Mr. Nowell offers some suggestions which merit consideration, such as the banning of passing on the right and reservation of the left lane for the purpose of overtaking only, with slower vehicles yielding to faster vehicles.

In

summary, I feel that the resolution I have presented today responds to the needs of drivers of Ontario by accommodating a greater volume of traffic to avoid congestion. The roads in Ontario are in very good condition and are constructed in such a way as to handle the higher volume of traffic on today’s roads at higher speeds. An increase of 15 kilometres per hour for cars and light trucks and an increase of five kilometres per hour for trucks over one tonne for 400-series highways, along with a corresponding increase of 10 kilometres per hour for cars and light trucks on secondary highways and no change from the present limit for trucks over one tonne, seem quite modest.

Excessive speed at any posted speed limit is certainly a factor which could cause accidents, and certainly the slow driver can cause problems as well. However, there are many other factors that pose real dangers as well. If speed limits were raised, I feel that the roads would be safer in this more orderly environment and police could concern themselves with dangerous drivers rather than just speeders.

I think it is important to recognize that speed limits were originally lowered in response to an oil crisis which has since passed and possibly was never really a crisis anyway.

I support campaigns by the Ministry of Transportation to address the issue of driver attitude, but I would also like to suggest mandatory side mirrors, which are a tremendous benefit in heavy traffic. Amber fog lamps and brake lamps would help in poor weather conditions, as would higher truck brake lamps, amber-coloured as well.

I feel it is the absence of some of these changes and not solely the higher speed which causes the majority of accidents on our roads. There are many areas in Ontario where the drivers should be allowed to move more quickly over our excellent highways without endangering their safety. The operation of a vehicle requires 100 per cent of one’s concentration, whether the vehicle speed is under or over the presently posted speed limits. A modest rise in speed limits will still require 100 per cent attention and concentration to road safety and defensive driving.

I would like to reserve my remaining time for further concluding remarks after my colleagues have spoken to this resolution.

Mr. Mackenzie: It is unfortunate that I saw this resolution just this morning, because I really would like to have had some time to refresh my memory, if you like, on a committee of this House which I had the great privilege to sit on in September 1976 and early 1977. That was the select committee on highway safety, which spent a lot of time and, I think, did some of the best work I have ever had the privilege to participate in of a committee of this Legislature.

Having just received the copy in the last two minutes and not having gotten to the pages I really want to take a look at yet, I am going to express, if I can, some of my own comments, probably off the cuff, and may jump over a few points in response to the member’s notice of motion. I do want to say right off the bat, with respect to the member, that I think his notice is a bad one. I think it would be very, very unfortunate to see us move in this particular direction in Ontario.

Some things do stick in my mind very clearly. The hearings we held right across the province and a trip we took at the time to visit some of the testing facilities in Holland and England and to visit with the Swedish authorities, which had probably done more work on highway safety, road accidents and drinking drivers than just about anybody in the business up to that point in time, made one thing very clear; that is, there is a recognition universally that speed does kill.

There was also a recognition that yes, you may have an awful lot of drivers who have had some alcohol or who, in current times, may have been on some of the popular drugs of the day that are responsible for accidents. One thing that was clear then, and I do not think it has changed one iota today, is that for drivers who are drinking or maybe using some of the illegal drugs in society, a higher legislated speed is an invitation to disaster, because their judgement is even less clear than it would be under other circumstances.

I do not think you can say that more accidents are caused by drugs or drinking than speed in itself; I think there is a combination of factors. I do not think there is any question about that, but I am saying to the member that even he must recognize and recognize very clearly that if we boost the speed limits in this province, that is going to exacerbate, not improve, the situation in terms of any drivers who may be indulging.

I do not think the member can dismiss as easily as he has the fact that we are in little better shape in terms of our oil, gas and energy resources at the moment. The figures overall have not really changed in the world today. There is no question that the question of a secure energy supply, particularly in terms of gasoline and oil, is an ongoing problem. From time to time, due to a variety of factors, whether here or in the Persian Gulf countries, political situations may see the supplies ease or tighten up again. We are facing a very serious problem worldwide in terms of energy supplies.

The restriction of the use of those supplies is accomplished effectively and in large measure through control over things like high speeds on our highways. I do not think we just dismiss, because it is a little easier and gasoline prices are not that high at the moment, the fact that we do need to be concerned about the amount of gas consumed by drivers on our highways.

I think he has totally missed another new development, or a development that we could foresee from the demographics in our country, which has a very definite effect in terms of safety on the highway, and that is the fact that we have an older population and a growing older population. There may be some speed demons in that group. I say with respect that we always shuddered a bit at one of my colleagues and the way he would drive occasionally, the past member for Welland-Thorold.

The fact is that if you talk to older people, as when I talk to my mom and dad -- my dad is still driving at the age of 85 -- the vast majority of them are concerned about the speed and the increased use of our highways and tend to drive a little slower. I do not think we are doing them any favours and I do not think the member would find much support from the vast number of older drivers in Ontario for the idea of increasing the speed limits on Ontario highways.

The member can also say that we have built our highways better and for higher speeds. There is an element of truth in that. But the member must also know that, especially on our main highways in this province, the increased use and the increased traffic on them, which is a continuing concern for drivers, is phenomenal.

It may not be representative of all of Ontario, but the Queen Elizabeth Way, the highway from my town, Hamilton, over here to Toronto -- or whether you go up to Highway 400 and Highway 401 -- is clearly a highway on which the speed limits are not enforced, on which, on a bad day, one can pass as many as 10 or 15 accidents if one happens to have slipperiness, or some ice or snow. As it is, in the few spots where the traffic opens up a bit, the speeds are much too high but the increased traffic there makes it a disaster to drive every day of the week.

I suspect the member does use some of those main highways. I know that he would not get an awful lot of support from drivers on the Queen Elizabeth Way for increased speed on that particular highway.

The member also talks about the difference in trucks. One of the problems we had on the select committee on highway safety was the speed of trucks. I can recall sitting down with the trucking companies in that committee, and being told by them that some of our concerns and the concerns that many drivers on the highway have over the speed of trucks, particularly the big rigs that we have on the highway today, were really uncalled-for concerns, because in fact their drivers were instructed to obey the speed limits.

Quite frankly, that is a bit of a laugh. I do not think it is because of any deliberate desire to break the law, but I travel at close to the speed limit most of the time, when I can and when it is open enough on the highways. If I am travelling at close to the speed limit, and it is open enough so that we are not in a stop-and-go situation, most of the rigs will pass me almost as though I were standing still. That is the case with many other drivers on the highway as well.

The member has also not considered the amount of traffic moving in this province with the use of trucks. Trucks, as most of us know, have really replaced much of the rail shipping of goods, as some of the rail lines closed down and no longer serviced many of the smaller communities in this province. Trucks on the highway have dramatically increased in numbers, as have automobiles. I as an individual -- and, I am darned sure, most of the drivers in Ontario -- do not want to be competing with increased speed limits and with some of the huge rigs that we have on the highways today in increased numbers.

You add that to the factor, as I mentioned, of an increasingly older population as well, and I think you are penalizing them in terms of safety on the highways.

The congestion is the major factor that I think rules against an increase in speed limits. There was no question on that select committee on highway safety, either in our hearings here in Ontario or in the hearings that we held with many of the authorities in Europe, that speed does kill. It was not a popular move, even in the European countries, even for some of them that had a higher speed than we did.

Almost every recommendation in terms of controlling speed on the highway dealt with the question, “Could we afford more cruisers, even if they were unmarked, to try to slow drivers down, and even if they were parked without an officer in the particular cruiser, to have some effect on the traffic flow patterns?”

Even if we have built better highways that can accommodate more speed we have some problems, as you will know from the people who are responsible for good roads; and from many of the municipalities keeping our budget up-to-date in terms of repairs these days. So I am not sure you can totally make the argument that we have really built them to accommodate the additional speed.

There are many other things and some quotes out of the report I would like to have been able to refer to. But let me say in all seriousness -- and, as I said at the beginning, not in an attitude of confrontation -- I think that this motion and this proposal would be a wrong move, a very bad wrong move for Ontario, and I hope the members in the House will consider it carefully before they vote for it.

Mr. Runciman: I want to participate on behalf of my party and indicate that we are not supportive of the motion by the member for Lambton (Mr. Smith). I guess it is an indication of why we were here the past couple of weeks. We were here yesterday to listen to members of the government say wonderful things about their budget, and we are here today to listen to the member for Lambton talk about increasing speed limits. Obviously the members of the brownnose gang over here are very supportive of that initiative.

Mr. Ballinger: I am glad somebody finally recognized us.

Mr. Runciman: Mr. Speaker, is it appropriate to heckle when you are not sitting in your seat? If it is not, I am sure you will take the appropriate action.

The Deputy Speaker: I will.

Mr. Runciman: I agreed essentially with the comments made by the previous speaker, the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie), although I would have some difference of opinion with respect to the views about the fuel savings that are realized as a result of somewhat lower speed limits. I have always felt that was something of a red herring. If governments really feel that initiatives have to be undertaken to significantly reduce fuel consumption as a result of automotive use, I think much tougher and more effective measures will have to be considered.

I think all of us have noted that virtually every car we see in traffic in the Metro Toronto area has one person alone in that car. It is a terrible waste of fuel. If we all look at more effective ways of utilization of automobiles in our society, it could indeed have a very significant impact on fuel consumption. At some point in the future, I do agree with the member for Hamilton East, we are going to be faced with that kind of problem unless there are other technologies coming on the market which may be our salvation, but at this point it certainly does not look as though the answer is in the immediate future anyway.

The member talked about his view that speed limits be increased as not being a major safety concern; he is obviously not in agreement with his colleague the Minister of Transportation, who not too long ago gained a great deal of publicity when he tabled a report indicating quite the contrary and suggested he was going to be undertaking a number of initiatives to try to improve the traffic safety situation in the province. Certainly that report identified speed as a major problem. He talked also about tightening up regulations and penalties for speeders and a number of other violations of traffic laws. As I said, he got a good deal of positive press about those initiatives.

When I say that the member is doing something in direct contradiction to a member of his own executive council, I also want to point out that is not terribly unusual with this government. We have certainly seen it this week when I have been questioning the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs. Wilson), who is present today. When we are expressing concerns about senior-citizen auto insurance rates, she is saying that all of our concerns and the concerns of the media are hypothetical, that we are just trying to stir up unnecessary fears among the seniors in this province.

Of course, that is a bunch of baloney. As the member for York Mills (Mr. J. B. Nixon) knows full well, along with the member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr. Keyes), both of whom sat through the standing committee on administration of justice hearings on Bill 2, we had witness after witness indicate what the impact was going to be on seniors in this province, and we had the Mercer report very clearly indicate the dislocation that was going to occur.

But the minister stands up in this House, not only in the face of that testimony over a significant period of time but also in direct contradiction of the chairman of the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board -- who, over the past weekend, bemoaned the fact that this indeed was going to significantly hurt numbers of seniors in this province, pointed out some specifics in that regard and also expressed, I believe, a genuine concern about individuals living on fixed incomes -- and still has the -- I have to be careful here. Is temerity the right word?

Is that an appropriate word? -- to stand up and say it is still hypothetical and that I am trying to scare seniors. That is a case again of another individual in government -- an arm of government, a Liberal appointee, Mr. Kruger -- saying one thing and the minister standing up in the House and saying something else.

We have another indication again where we have seen an example of the member from Ottawa West (Mr. Chiarelli) taking strong issue with the duly elected municipal representatives in Ottawa, chastising them severely for doing their job, standing up on behalf of their constituents and saying: “Look, this Liberal government is not giving the Ottawa area a fair shake. We’re not getting significant dollars into our area for the maintenance and upgrading of our road and highway system.” What does the member for Ottawa West do? He stands up and dumps all over these duly elected municipal officials --

Mr. Ballinger: Just like you do to us.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Runciman: -- many of whom have supported the Liberal cause in years gone by and up to at least the date that the member stood up and was severely criticized.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Runciman: All of those good people, duly elected officials, trying to do the best job possible for the people they try to represent, and that is the sort of reaction we get.

Mr. Ballinger: I hear this; I don’t believe it.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Runciman: Of course, we have a conflict going with another member of the governing party, another Ottawa member -- I am trying to find her riding as well -- for Ottawa-Rideau (Mrs. O’Neill), who very quickly recognized the dangers that this kind of a comment was going to generate in the Ottawa area for other fine members from that area, and I know there are some; there is one in the House here today. I will not mention his name for fear it might show up in his brochure during the next provincial election.

In any event, I want to say that is the sort of internal conflict that we see weekly within this government, that one end of the horse does not know what the other end is doing.

I think auto insurance again is something that I have to dwell upon. This is certainly an area that I have some knowledge of, as the critic for our party.

This certainly flies in the face of what we heard in testimony before the standing committee on administration of justice on Bill 2 as well when we were talking about the real problem in respect to auto insurance costs in this province, and that is the effective claims costs. We know that the speed is a contributing factor. I am sure that the member will not deny that it is indeed a contributing factor.

When we take a look at the claims costs and the number of accidents in this province, and not only the number of accidents but the resultant costs to repair cars now, especially with the testimony before us with cars with unibody construction, even a very modest accident results in significant costs to repair the new cars. With the computerized cars as well, again there is a significant cost associated with that. As members can appreciate, I am sure, these all have implications for auto insurance costs for all consumers in this province.

I can understand the views of some of his constituents and perhaps the member in this respect, but I think that the member’s initiative here was ill thought out in light of the concerns that his own minister has expressed, in light of the continuing brouhaha over insurance costs, which the government has certainly botched up in a significant manner --

Mr. Ballinger: Is that a new beer in Brockville? There’s a new beer in Brockville, guys; let’s have a can of brewhaha.

Mr. Runciman: See? Now we even have another member of the Liberal party supporting drinking -- on the job, I assume. It is very disturbing the initiatives that are forthcoming from this government.

I think that even the member would acknowledge that when the speed limit was 70 miles per hour on Highway 401, the Ontario Provincial Police looked the other way when you went 10 miles per hour over. We do not have enough manpower to police a violation of 10 miles per hour. At 60, virtually everyone driving on the highway is going 70 and the police are looking at people above that limit.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member’s time is up.

Mr. Runciman: I think the reality is that you can drive 70 miles per hour. This is an unwise, ill-thought-out initiative and we cannot support it.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: I would like to commend the member for Lambton for the honest and reasonable resolution he has put before the House. I would like to point out to the members who have spoken against this resolution that the member for Lambton is not advocating an across-the-board elimination of speed limits. He is not advocating an across-the-board raising of speed limits. He is advocating that for certain highways, the series 400 highways being a good example, speed limits be raised to a safe level that recognizes reality. That safe level, that realistic level is the comfortable level at which drivers drive today and the comfortable level at which the roads were designed to be driven on.

The object of speed limits, as the members have already alluded, is to balance the goal of public safety and the needs of personal convenience. They argue, and it is generally argued, that speed limits accomplish the following: They reduce highway fatalities and there is a reduction in the annual consumption by the province of petroleum and gasoline. The cost of these benefits is a substantial increase in motorists’ travel times. There are hidden costs that are perhaps more significant, such as a loss of respect for the rule of law -- more particularly, a law that does not make sense.

The tradeoff of the benefits of the speed limit and its costs are not equal for all highway systems. I think the member for Hamilton East would have to recognize that. Should there be a blanket standard speed limit for all arterial roads, urban and rural, and the series 400 highways in Ontario, or should the standard speed limit exclude roads that are designed for high-speed driving?

The series 400 highways, as the members will know, have been built to the highest standards, feature multiple lanes, wide medians and controlled access,

whereas arterial roads tend to be two-lane roadways with at-grade intersections. They are quite a different animal, quite a different thing to drive on. By setting the same blanket maximum limit for all highways, without regard for their geometric design and safety performance, the speed limit reflects an uneven and insensitive commitment to safety across our road systems.

Whether the current laws governing the speed limit of 100 kilometres per hour need to be altered involves three questions. First, are the benefits of the speed limit of 100 kilometres per hour being eroded by higher speeds and other influences on safety? For instance, anyone who travels the series 400 highways knows that the average real speed is in excess of 100 kilometres per hour. I would ask the member for Hamilton East and the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) to tell us today in the House whether or not they ever exceed the speed limit of 100 kilometres per hour. Let’s recognize reality.

Second, the fatality rate on all roads and highways has declined significantly in the last decade, as the member for Hamilton East outlined. Much of this improvement has not been caused by speed limits, but by continuing improvement to vehicles, to roadways and to medical services, not by improvements to unenforced speed limits. More and more people are travelling our roads and there are diminishing safety benefits attributable to the speed limit of 100 kilometres per hour because of other improvements in safety, such as the mandatory seatbelt law, which have really taken over the primary role of protecting the public.

The third question the members will have to answer is whether noncompliance and motorist frustration ultimately lead to nullification of the law. One of the greatest pressures to increase speed limits is the real behaviour of the majority of motorists. The percentage exceeding the speed limit on the series 400 highways increases every year.

I notice the member for Leeds-Grenville is leaving. I am not sure where he is going. He has lost interest in the debate. He did not demonstrate any when he was standing on his feet. I think we heard a lot about auto insurance premiums and members speaking their minds, but we did not hear anything about speed limits. I say farewell to the member for Leeds-Grenville.

Mr. Keyes: As he leaves the House.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: As he leaves the House.

Compliance with the law on most highways depends on the voluntary actions of individual motorists, who are apparently increasingly disinclined to obey the speed limits. It seems that most supporters of a speed limit of 100 kilometres per hour right now argue that they should be able to drive at 110, 120 or 130 kilometres per hour without being ticketed, and in so doing they consider themselves in compliance with the spirit of the law. But really, let’s accept it: This is noncompliance with the law. The question I ask is whether or not this threatens the integrity of the existing policy.

Third, and a much wider question: Does the widespread violation of the speed limit of 100 kilometres per hour breed disrespect for law in general? Preoccupation with the speed limit laws in fact impedes enforcement of more vital laws, such as those dealing with Criminal Code offences, sexual assault, burglary and murder, and confuses the public about the priority we place on the most important elements of highway safety, such as the use of seatbelts.

Preoccupation with the speed limit encourages the misallocation of enforcement resources. We have an awful lot of police chasing speeders at a time when municipalities and cities are crying out for more funds for police to enforce Criminal Code laws. In fact, while we are tolerating widespread noncompliance, I really think what we are doing is suggesting to the citizens of the province that there are some laws that are worth obeying and some that are not, which at the very least is confusing and I suggest brings into question the ability and propriety of the state actually passing these laws.

I suggest to members that the consequences of higher speeds on the series 400 highways are not great. The series 400 highways were built to the highest design standard capable, greater than any other class of highway in this province or in fact in the country. The direction of traffic on the series 400 highways is usually separated by wide medians or median barriers that greatly reduce the risk of head-on crashes. The series 400 highways have wide shoulders, breakaway signposts, guard-rails, and other physical safety features that minimize crash severity.

Given the goal of speed limits, that of ensuring some modicum of public safety on our highways, one has to ask if there are more effective ways of ensuring public safety. I suggest there really are. For instance, there are compensating safety policies that can be implemented which will be much more effective in ensuring public safety than imposing blanket universal speed limits. I suggest the generalized blanket application of the universal speed limit is not the best means of achieving public safety.

We should be focusing on enforcement of existing laws that relate directly to public safety, such as laws on seatbelt use and impaired driving, and developing new laws to make, for instance, air bag restraints mandatory.

The real problem is in ensuring the safety of the individual involved in a crash. This problem is not solved by applying a blanket speed limit across the board. What the member has suggested is a selective adjustment in existing speed limits on those highways where the public safety is protected by the design of the highway, and where the use of that highway is restricted in a sense by the design features that are developed and implemented for public safety.

Finally, I suggest that this is in no way inconsistent with the recent announcement by the Minister of Transportation to the effect that he would increase the fines and penalties for violation of highway traffic offences. I fully concur with that announcement. I suggest what we have to do is to have a reasonable speed limit. For those who violate it, there should be severe fines and penalties. I say, “Make a reasonable law and enforce it.” That is all the member is trying to do with the resolution he has put before us.

I ask all members to consider supporting this resolution. As I said at the outset, I think it is reasonable, honest and worthy of the members’ consideration.

Mr. Charlton: I had not intended to speak on this resolution, but the comments of the member for York Mills have prompted me to say a few things here today. As one of those who spends about a quarter of his working week on 400 series highways, I have to say to the member for York Mills and to the member for Lambton that their naïveté and their inability to be observant somewhat distresses me.

First, the average speed on the 400 series highways is already 115 kilometres per hour, not 100. Drivers are in a hurry. The member for York Mills asked the question, and I just conferred with the member for Hamilton East, about whether the member for Hamilton East ever exceeds the speed limit of 100 kilometres per hour, and of course he does.

The reality and the naïveté of what the member is saying, though, is that he wants the average speed on the 400 series highways to be 130 kilometres per hour, not 115, because that is what it already is. Drivers in this province understand that as long as they stay 15 kilometres per hour or less over the speed limit, they may have to pay a financial fine but they will lose no points and they are driving generally within a safe range.

Those of us who spend a large proportion of our time on those 400 series highways, especially those of us who have had the unfortunate opportunity of witnessing some of the disastrous accidents on those highways, do not feel very comfortable seeing the average speed on those highways move from 115 to 130 kilometres per hour, including those of us who have even been involved on occasion with trying to assist people who have been injured in those accidents.

We have a situation where at present the Ontario Provincial Police are running an ad campaign in this province. I suggest to both the member for Lambton and the member for York Mills that they take the time to listen to those ads because those ads are a product of some studies of speed that have been done in this province. Those ads clearly say to us: “The greater the speed, the greater the injury when there is an accident. The greater the speed, the more difficulty there is in stopping the vehicle, regardless of whether the vehicle is in control or out of control.”

For every kilometre per hour we add to the average speed on 400 series highways in this province, the greater both the risk of accidents becomes and the greater the damage that results from those accidents becomes. We will turn some accidents that are presently car damage accidents into personal injury accidents, and we will move some of those accidents that are already personal injury accidents up to the category of death accidents. I do not think that is what any of us wants.

If you go out onto the 400 series highways and spend a little time observing what is going on around you, you will begin to understand the folly of even contemplating increasing the legal speed limit on those highways to 115 kilometres per hour. The cars we have today are in some respects slightly safer than they were 20 years ago, and they are in some respects less safe because of the initiatives that have been taken to make cars lighter, to increase mileage and all of the other things that have been going on over the course of the last 20 years.

To put those cars and the passengers and drivers of those cars into the situation, as we inevitably will, of having more accidents -- we will because it is harder to stop at higher speeds -- and to put more of those drivers into the situation of killing someone is in my view, at this stage of our development, tantamount to insane.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): The time remaining permits only the wrapup by the member for Lambton.

Mr. Smith: Certainly, I want to thank all the members who have participated in the debate on this resolution. As I have heard some of the comments, I wonder who are the naïve ones.

I have driven for 34 years now. I have been lucky, I suppose. I have never had an accident. I have seen many accidents. I have driven in all kinds of conditions. As I said in my opening remarks, I have driven an 18-wheeler to Toronto, so I know what that is like, but I still go along with the general feeling that trucks should drive somewhat more slowly than the general car and light truck traffic.

I want to say to the members who object to this resolution that the statistics I have here -- these are from the Ministry of Transportation -- say that in 1976 we had 211,000 accidents; in 1977, we had 218,000; in 1978, we had 286,000. We have never had that many accidents since then. It looks to me as if, as they allowed the speed limit to go back up, the accidents actually came down in numbers, because in 1979 they came back down to 197,000. Even in the year 1987, we were back to only 203,000. I say “only,” but I am making comparisons here. We have to go back to the year 1974 to have that same number.

I believe that if we want to be realistic about what is happening out there on the highways, we are not endangering any more people by allowing the speed limit to come up to 115 kilometres an hour on the 400 series highways. Some people argue that the general traffic would go up to 130 kilometres. I do not believe that. I believe the traffic would change very little, but as it shows in statistics from the Ministry of Transportation, if you are allowed to drive at about 115 kilometres -- I travel these highways every week -- that is the general flow of traffic. I have slowed down to 100 kilometres and I was a nuisance on the highway.

The other thing I want to bring out is that I think there could be other changes made, and I believe the Ministry of Transportation is working on some of them. These are items I have noticed work well for me. They have certainly helped me get through bad weather conditions.

If you go to amber fog lamps -- I have driven down the highway and I drive in all kinds of snowy or foggy weather -- you can turn your headlights out and drive with fog lamps on and you can see further than the people who are flashing their lights at you saying you do not have your lights on. But that is not the fact. I have had fog lamps for quite a number of years. They are amber coloured. I think we should put them on the brake lamps, especially the high one that they have in the back window now. That registers more quickly on the eye and I think that would be an advantage.

Having driven a truck, I know there is a vacuum created behind a truck as it is travelling down the road. I think we should raise the brake lamps there to a higher level and possibly make them amber as well.

I certainly understand when some people say that speed causes accidents, but it is a combination of a lot of things. If members are realistic about what is happening out there on the highways today, they would have to say that I am not asking for a crazy speed limit. I am asking for a realistic speed limit; maybe then the police can get on with the business other people are asking them to do.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

Mr. Elliot moved resolution 65:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing the importance of the Niagara Escarpment as a significant feature of Ontario’s natural heritage, and that the varying uses of the escarpment lands for farming, tourism, housing and aggregate extraction have a significant impact on that land, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs should be directed to ensure that any development or use of Niagara Escarpment lands be environmentally sustainable development; and that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs be further directed to maintain heritage and environmental concerns as priorities when considering land use planning within the Niagara Escarpment boundaries.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): The member is reminded that he has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and may reserve any portion thereof for his windup.

Mr. Elliot: Environmentally sustainable development must be a priority along the Niagara Escarpment. Environmentally sustainable development does not mean no development; it means development that preserves our future.

In my motion, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is directed to maintain heritage and environmental concerns as priority concerns when considering land use planning within the Niagara Escarpment boundaries.

A ribbon of green trees and grey limestone zigzags across Ontario from Niagara Falls to Tobermory. It runs from Niagara Falls to the Royal Botanical Gardens in Hamilton. It runs to Crawford Lake Conservation Area in Milton. It runs to the Forks of the Credit in Caledon. It runs through the beautiful Hockley Valley, past Collingwood, along the Blue Mountain, up the Bruce Peninsula to Tobermory and beyond to Flowerpot Island.

Last Saturday, February 18, 1989, 12 environmental groups met in Holy Cross Church hall in Georgetown. They held a day-long workshop. They formed a coalition to make all levels of government more aware of their concerns. They care about what we are doing to the Niagara Escarpment. They feel strongly that lands designated as Niagara Escarpment lands must be protected. Each group made a presentation. Each presentation was to last 10 minutes. They stretched into the half-hour mark and the concerns coalesced into one main theme: environmentally sustainable development along the Niagara Escarpment.

I will read the names of the 12 groups, for the very names tell a story in themselves: the Citizens Network on Waste Management, the Coalition on the Niagara Escarpment, the Caledon Ratepayers Association, Greensville Against Serious Pollution, Keep the Environment Environmentally Protected, Puslinch Quarry Expansion, Glenridge Landfill Concerned Citizens Committee, the Hockley Valley Improvement Association, the Cheltenham Park Preservation Group, Protect Our Water and Environmental Resources, Ecology Awareness Group Landscape and Environment and finally, the Bruce Trail Association, Halton chapter.

The story told by these names is one of hundreds of concerned and caring citizens. They want waste stopped. They want us to stop relying on technical solutions. They want us to have a different attitude towards the environment. They want us, in our very own backyards, to do things right.

From Cootes Paradise outside Dundas to the Beaver Valley, the Niagara Escarpment lands sit on top of the Amabel aquifer, one of the main water sources for rivers flowing into Lake Ontario, Lake Huron and Georgian Bay. Eight of the 12 groups were concerned about specific quarries and/or garbage being dumped into quarries. Seven of the quarry sites are on escarpment lands. All groups are convinced Niagara Escarpment quarries are not acceptable landfill sites. We cannot risk polluting our water supply with the leachate naturally produced by garbage in a landfill.

The Niagara Escarpment is a significant feature of Ontario’s natural heritage. Farming, tourism, housing and aggregate extraction have a significant impact on that land.

The good news is that we have the means to address our citizens’ concerns: the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act as amended in

Section 2 reads, “The purpose of this act is to provide for the maintenance of the Niagara Escarpment and land in its vicinity substantially as a continuous natural environment, and to ensure only such development occurs as is compatible with that natural environment.”

Section 8 reads: “The Niagara Escarpment plan may contain, (

a) policies for the economic, social and physical development of the Niagara Escarpment planning area in respect of, (

i) the management of land and water resources, (ii) the general distribution and density of population, (iii) the general location of industry and commerce, the identification of major land use areas and the provision of major parks and open space...(iv) the control of all forms of pollution of the natural environment, (

v) the general location and development of major servicing, communication and transportation systems, (vi) the development and maintenance of educational, cultural, recreational, health and other social facilities.”

Clause 8(

b) says the plan may contain “policies to co-ordinate the planning and development programs of the various ministries for the Niagara Escarpment planning area.”

Clause 8(

c) says the plan may contain “policies designed to ensure compatibility of development by the private sector.”

All land within the Niagara Escarpment planning area has been assigned one of seven different designations. Each such category has accompanying land use policies stating permitted uses and lot creation guidelines. The three major designations -- escarpment natural, escarpment protection and escarpment rural -- compose 90 per cent of the plan area. The remaining 10 per cent is encompassed by the minor urban centre, the urban area, the escarpment recreation area and mineral resource extraction area designations.

The Niagara Escarpment plan was approved on June 12, 1985. The Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act was passed in June 1973. The honourable member for Simcoe West (Mr. McCague) was appointed the first Niagara Escarpment Commission chairman in September 1973. Regulation 118/74, defining the Niagara Escarpment planning area, evolved into the Niagara Escarpment plan of 1985. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) has been responsible for that plan since September 1987. The member for Ottawa East (Mr. Grandmaître) was responsible for the plan from August 1985 to September 1987.

Many highly desirable initiatives have been started since 1985. I will highlight three of them briefly.

The first relates to mineral aggregate extraction. In order to preserve the Niagara Escarpment as a continuous natural feature, the Ontario government has decided wayside permits will not be issued for provincial road construction projects in the escarpment natural and protection area designations. All references to high potential mineral aggregate resources, mapping and textural, have been removed from the plan. New licensed pits and quarries producing over 20,000 tonnes per year will be permitted only in escarpment rural designations and only following an amendment to the plan.

To meet the needs of municipalities, provision has been made for wayside pits in escarpment protection and escarpment rural designations. However, aggregate for municipal road construction may be obtained only from sites previously used for pit operations in the escarpment protection designation. Authority to issue development permits for aggregate extraction will be retained by the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

The second initiative relates to land acquisition stewardship. A Niagara Escarpment fund has been established by the Ontario Heritage Foundation to receive donations for escarpment land acquisitions. Expenditures from the fund have been directed as follows: (

a) acquisition of lands to complete the park system, including lands required for the Bruce Trail, and (

b) among other activities to promote and support responsible stewardship of escarpment heritage properties, the Ontario government’s commitment to $2.5 million per year for a 10-year period.

The third initiative is a tax rebate program for class 1, 2 and 3 wetlands, nonrevenue-producing conservation authority lands, escarpment natural areas and conservation lands owned by nonprofit organizations.

Less than 200 years ago, the beautiful ribbon of green along the Niagara Escarpment stretched as far as the eye could see in all directions. The Iroquoian Indians of that time and place developed a unique and worthwhile custom which we might do well to adopt. In some tribes, decisions made in council session, for example, were always subject to the scrutiny of one wise elder. The wise elder’s sole responsibility was to check decisions before they were final against one very significant criterion: each decision had to be considered for its effect on the next seven generations or it was not implemented.

My son is the seventh generation of Elliots to live in Ontario. Our family came here from Scotland in 1814. My great-great-grandfather, Adam Scott Elliot, was two years old in 1814 when he arrived in Ontario. His father helped clear 500 acres of prime forest near Perth, Ontario, 100 acres for himself and 100 acres for each of his first four sons. The settlers cleared the forest and the entire area because they needed the land to grow food. They burned most of the timber.

In the 1850s, Adam Scott Elliot moved to Bruce county. He and his son William founded the town of Chesley near Owen Sound. They also helped clear most of the forest from that area, again to grow food. Most of the lumber this time, though, was used in building. They built grist mills, foundries, sawmills, founded a bank and established limestone kilns and gravel pits. It was an exciting time in Ontario. There was unbridled and extensive development with no worry about the seventh generation.

My colleague the member for Grey (Mr. Lipsett) will be speaking to this motion later. A large proportion of the Niagara Escarpment is in his riding, the county of Grey.

The other branch of my family, the Cain family, helped open up Grey county. My great-uncles Frank and Dick Cain, and the Brownlee family on that side of the family, helped build roads and worked in gravel pits and quarries. When development slowed in the early 1900s, their boss, a man named Butchart, moved to British Columbia and they went with him. If you are ever in Victoria, visit Butchart Gardens, a beautiful rehabilitated quarry.

I mention these facts to underline my personal involvement with the development of this province. But we are all involved and must all care about the effects of development on our seventh generation. Environmentally sustainable development must include the preservation of the Niagara Escarpment. There are mineral resources on escarpment land. There are forest, recreational and tourist areas on escarpment land. There are farms now on escarpment land. There are private residences on escarpment lands.

The time for a promised five-year review is approaching. That review must address the compatibility of the many presently accepted uses of escarpment land. That review must place the preservation of the Niagara Escarpment’s natural and protected areas as a top priority in all land use plans in Ontario.

This is Ontario Heritage Week. The Niagara Escarpment is one of our finest natural heritages. This week, all of us should resolve to visit one of the many parks in the Niagara Escarpment. We will enjoy the experience, whether we visit Rattlesnake Point in Milton, Niagara Falls, the Royal Botanical Gardens in Hamilton, the Forks of the Credit, Blue Mountain or Flowerpot Island. What a terrific time to recommend to preserve our great natural heritage, the Niagara Escarpment, by committing to environmentally sustainable development.

I will reserve my remaining time for wrapup.

Mr. Charlton: I rise to support the resolution placed here today by the member for Halton North. I commend him for the views he has expressed here today regarding the Niagara Escarpment and its protection.

Having said that I support the resolution, I have to say it is unfortunate that we have to be here even debating it today. It is unfortunate, as the member for Halton North has mentioned, that we are going to have to go through this five-year review. The process that we have been through around the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act has been a lengthy one, a thorough one and, on occasion, a very heated one, as disputes over the last 15 years have been hot and heavy and sometimes very politically acrimonious.

I recall that in 1984 the former member for Welland-Thorold, Mel Swart, and myself were out on the road along the escarpment in an attempt to fight a number of the very issues which the member for Halton North has raised here today in terms of the need to protect the escarpment. Two of those issues were aggregate extraction issues, one in Fonthill down in the Niagara Peninsula and one at Speyside, just around this corner of the end of the lake. The third issue was in the Beaver Valley. It was not an aggregate extraction issue. It was a pollution issue around a proposal for another rather large sewage lagoon to service a proposed new resort.

The reason we had to be out there on the road, along with a number of other environmentalists fighting those issues, was not because the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act is not a good piece of legislation, because it is a very good piece of legislation. Again, the member for Halton North read into the record a number of the sections and the protections that they provide. It is excellent legislation.

There are some of us who would have wished that the actual boundaries of the Niagara Escarpment planning area had been the old boundaries under the original legislation -- the larger boundaries, rather than the more restricted boundaries of the final act -- but aside from that it is a good, enforceable piece of legislation.

We were out there on the road fighting those issues for one reason alone: because of the ability in the act to appeal the decisions of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, to the politicians and the cabinet of Ontario.

I would seriously encourage the member for Halton North in his drive to see the maximum protection for the escarpment maintained into the future, for the next seven, eight or 10 generations, to lobby with his colleagues to see during the five-year review -- which I wish we did not have to have at all -- some minor amendments might be made to the act to remove some of the loopholes that ultimately make that a very good, protective piece of legislation subject to the political whims of the day.

The member will understand that all of his colleagues in his own party will not always, on every day of every week, be as concerned about the escarpment as he is. That is probably true of my colleagues and my own party as well. He is also fully aware that the present party in power, even if its intention is to provide the absolute maximum protection for the escarpment, will not always be there, either. To leave those kinds of loopholes in this kind of excellent legislation, where developers then can subject politicians to pressure to cause other decisions to happen, will always be a threat to natural environments like the Niagara Escarpment.

It is important that we make those changes and get rid of those loopholes. If we are really serious as a society, as a province, as the citizens and the government of this province, in providing the maximum protection for the Niagara Escarpment, then let’s do it by taking out of the legislation those things that may threaten it down the road.

I recall, just along those lines, going through an unfortunate process. It was unfortunate in the sense that the former government on a number of occasions used the very sections I am talking about to provide exemptions or to overturn Niagara Escarpment Commission decisions. Unfortunately, I cannot even remember the names. There was one decision on the escarpment, in the Brampton area in the early 1980s, which was a very controversial one.

Those are examples of how the political process and political pressure on politicians threaten the very essence of the kind of protection that I think I support, that I think the member for Halton North supports and that I know a goodly number of other members of this Legislature support.

In summing up, I wholeheartedly support the intent of the resolution of the member for Halton North, I wholeheartedly support the kinds of comments he has put on the record here today; and in the review that is going to occur of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, I wholeheartedly support maintaining the protective strengths in that legislation.

But let’s be frank and understand the weaknesses that are there and, as legislators who are concerned about the escarpment, let’s be prepared to deal with those weaknesses in a straightforward way, not just to pat ourselves on the backs for a good piece of legislation but to be prepared in a straightforward way to deal with those weaknesses, to plug the loopholes, to take that very important piece of legislation in terms of the ultimate appeal out of the hands of politicians, who in the past have been subject to political pressure and in the future may again fall subject to political pressure and lobbying.

Let’s remove those weaknesses from the legislation and ensure that the decisions of the people who run the Niagara Escarpment Commission, the people who review in detail the applications for development on the escarpment, the people who understand the legislation in detail and understand the environment they are trying to protect in detail, will be decisions in the escarpment’s favour for all time to come in our future.

Mr. Pollock: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this morning’s debate. It is close to 20 years since the government commissioned the Gertler study. This conservation and recreation report brought to the attention of all of us what a treasure we have in the Niagara Escarpment and how important it was to preserve it for the people of Ontario. It was following many reports, investigations and much controversy that we finally saw the Niagara Escarpment plan put into place.

I understand that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has commissioned a report which is to examine the management and administration of the commission. The report, known as the Cresap report, has very many recommendations, including the recommendation that one body be responsible for the implementation of the plan and that the ministry be responsible for policy and program leadership; also that the ministry be required to establish some clear priorities for programs and that it should attempt to increase its accountability, and that some streamlining of legislation that governs the Niagara Escarpment Commission take place.

It is unfortunate that my colleague the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) is not here today. I know that we all would want him to participate in this debate and I also realize that he would be making his comments on some very good authority.

I understand from reading the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs that the administration of the Niagara Escarpment plan came under some rather close scrutiny. I also understand that the Cresap report made some recommendations on how the Niagara Escarpment program monitored development in the area and stated that the monitoring needed to be tightened up.

I must also say that I am somewhat concerned about other remarks that the member for Carleton made in Municipal Affairs estimates. He questioned whether in fact the Niagara Escarpment plan should be handled by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs at all. I am sure that all members will realize that the member for Carleton was extensively involved in drafting the Niagara Escarpment plan through his work as Provincial Secretary for Resources Development.

Incidentally, I noticed that the Niagara Escarpment plan, which is available from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and is a rather large package I might add, still bears the name of the member for Carleton, and I might say that here is some of the work that the member for Carleton has done. This is a clear tribute to the ability and the high degree of success that the member for Carleton achieved in this capacity. The government has recognized, to its credit, that to remove the name of the member for Carleton from this material would be highly inappropriate, especially since he was the one who did the work on it.

The member for Carleton wonders, as I do, whether or not the protection of the Niagara Escarpment would be better ensured if the administration of this plan was removed from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs over to the Ministry of the Environment. It seems that he encountered some rather substantial opposition from the people within the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and, in fact, at one point felt that there was a lot of pressure to do away with the Provincial Secretariat for Resources Development altogether.

There does seem to be a problem with the municipalities going up against the escarpment commission, and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is left to come up with some sort of compromise. The problem stems from the fact that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is concerned with municipal development rather than land conservation. As the member for Carleton stated, “Putting the escarpment plan in the hands of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is like putting Colonel Sanders in charge of the chicken coop.”

The Progressive Conservative government recognized the uniqueness of the Niagara Escarpment and that the general planning laws of the province were not sufficient to deal with this very special area. In drafting the escarpment plan, the Progressive Conservatives struck a balance between the need to both develop and conserve by dividing the powers between the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, to represent environmental interests, and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, to represent the development interests of the local municipality.

I believe that the Niagara Escarpment is unique to the province, and I am very supportive of the resolution of the member for Halton North here this morning to protect the Niagara Escarpment. I have supported the Ministry of Natural Resources’ program to protect our wetlands and I am very supportive of our local conservation authorities. They have done an excellent job of protecting certain areas of our environment.

They have put in dams, they protect some of the natural habitat, and I believe that these conservation authorities should be left in place in the way they are. They are local people looking after local interests. We should not only protect the Niagara Escarpment, but I believe we should be very involved in protecting our good farm land, especially around the city of Toronto.

I can remember when the present Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) used to get up here in the early 1980s and rant and rave about how the good farm land was being covered up with concrete. Since he has been the Minister of Agriculture and Food, there is more good farm land being covered up, and it is being covered up at an increasing rate.

I have heard the comments floating around in the media that there are some people who want to raise that old argument to have the Pickering airport proposal brought back. I am totally opposed to that. The Pickering airport would be placed on excellent farm land. There are two other airports in eastern Ontario. One, of course, is the military airport at Trenton, and there is another airport over at Mountain View that is getting very little use. That airport at Mountain View is on nothing but flat rock. There are literally thousands of acres of flat rock. If they want another airport, there is a good place to put it. I cannot think we should be covering up our good farm land in that way.

I not only would like to mention that we should protect our farm land, but we should protect our crown land. I was at the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters convention in Windsor last week, as you were, Mr. Speaker, and I heard you bring greetings from your particular constituency. I appreciated your being there and meeting with the other people. The minister spoke there and after the minister had spoken --

Mr. Ballinger: He did a great job.

Mr. Pollock: The member for Durham-York was not even there to listen to him. He did not go to even listen to his own minister.

Mr. Villeneuve: And he is supposed to be in charge of something or other.

Mr. Pollock: Yes, he is supposed to be in charge.

Anyway, after the minister spoke, they had a question-and-answer session and one of the people who got up to the microphone asked the minister if there was any truth to this rumour floating around that large areas, in some cases whole lakes, were going to be sold to a foreign interest. The questioner seemed to feel that these rumours were well founded. I am certainly concerned about that; I am every bit as concerned about that as I am concerned about the situation with regard to the Niagara Escarpment.

Once again, I would like to compliment the member for Halton North on his resolution. I think it is a very worthwhile resolution. We should protect our natural heritage and our environment in these particular areas.

Mr. Lipsett: I rise today to support the resolution proposed this morning by my colleague the member for Halton North. The priority of sustainable growth that is environmentally sound is very important as we plan our future growth within the boundaries of the Niagara Escarpment, and any other part of the province for that matter.

As stated at the time, the plan was given cabinet approval. It was intended to serve as a framework of objectives and policies to strike a balance between development, preservation and the enjoyment of this very important resource.

I believe this debate is an excellent opportunity to evaluate our progress to date, recognize the differences in the way the plan impacts on local municipalities, counties and regions along this 725-kilometre height of land extending from Niagara to Tobermory, and finally to set priorities and recommend changes that could be considered in the five-year review that happens next year.

I am most familiar with the natural landscape and scenic beauty of the escarpment features in Grey and Bruce counties; therefore, I would like to base my remarks on the Niagara Escarpment as it applies to my riding of Grey county and the impact of the plan on this area.

First, over 158,000 acres of the total land area designated under the plan is located in Grey county. Of the 37 local municipalities in the four regions and five counties that are affected by the approved plan, 11 are in Grey county.

Whereas in many areas the planning area size is very narrow as it passes through a municipality, in our area it generally encompasses a very wide band.

The escarpment actually enters Grey county at the eastern county boundary at Blue Mountain in Collingwood township. It then thrusts deep into the centre of the county, down the east side of the Beaver Valley through Euphrasia and Artemesia townships to the village of Flesherton. It then turns back up the west side of the valley, again passing through Artemesia and Euphrasia townships to St. Vincent township and the town of Meaford. It then follows a very fragmented pattern west through St. Vincent township, Holland township, Sydenham township, and northeast back into Sydenham township at the Meaford artillery range.

It heads west once more, again through Sydenham township, encircling the city of Owen Sound and then north along the west shore of Georgian Bay through Sarawak and Keppel townships. At this point, it leaves my riding as it proceeds through Wiarton and up the east side of the Bruce Peninsula.

As a result of this winding path of the designated escarpment natural area and the accompanying designations of escarpment protection and escarpment rural, almost 35 per cent of the total 453 acres in the plan are located in Grey county.

As each and every one of us learns more about the history and heritage of this significant and scenic landmark in our midst, I believe that public support to preserve this area for the benefit of present and future generations is increasing. However, conflicts in opinion occur, when indeed some not only want to see the escarpment, explore it or experience the breathtaking views from its highest points but also want to establish seasonal or permanent residence in or near it or see an opportunity to establish a business or service in the vicinity.

As a result, the objectives of preservation and the expectations of developers come into conflict. Accusations of preservationists being extremists and developers having no regard for the interests of the general public are issued. Then, as stated at the time of cabinet approval for the plan, the balance between preservation objectives and individual property rights becomes essential to the successful implementation of this land use plan.

Tourism is considered by many as a logical growth industry within the escarpment boundaries, based on the principle of public access to enjoyment of this important resource. Tourism opportunities in the vicinity of the Niagara Escarpment in my riding include hiking, skiing, fishing, hunting, boating, windsurfing, swimming and snowmobiling, to mention a few. As I mentioned before, these attractions result in a demand for permanent residences, seasonal residences, time-sharing condominiums, support service industries and retail outlets.

In this regard, I believe a Grey county planning department recommendation has merit. The county planners suggest that, in some areas, appropriately selected locations for subdivision development could be a better approach than the present one, two or more lot severances permitted to each eligible land owner, which leads to sporadic lot creation.

With the five-year review approaching, this is an opportune time to assess land use designation, boundaries and removal of controls where local official plans and zoning bylaws conform with the Niagara plan. Some regions, Halton being a good example, have already been able to achieve total confirmation of local plans in the Niagara Escarpment plan. Development controls have been removed in portions of Collingwood township in my riding. Planning documents are proceeding in other municipalities, but due to staff limitations, completion dates for some are still some years away.

Further, I agree with my colleague that, indeed, for areas of very significant heritage or environmentally delicate areas, we must convey our support and encouragement to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ontario Heritage Foundation to continue to acquire privately owned escarpment lands. These purchases will create a series of Niagara Escarpment parks to make our escarpment area more accessible to the public to enjoy and provide a very positive alternative to relying entirely on regulations and restrictions on private property.

It has been a privilege to have the opportunity this morning to recognize the importance of the Niagara Escarpment and to assess our priorities for preservation and land use planning within its boundaries.

Mr. Villeneuve: It is also a pleasure and an honour for me to participate in the debate today on the member for Halton North’s (Mr. Elliot) resolution. Certainly, our party and I personally will be supporting strongly the private member’s motion.

It is always interesting to see a member from the government party bring on this type of resolution. Quite obviously there is a message there, a message that there is not a great deal of faith in the ministry responsible for looking after and caring for that very fine natural area, the Niagara Escarpment.

Coming from the eastern part of the province, I do not very often get the opportunity of visiting that great part of Ontario known as part of the Golden Horseshoe. However, I strongly support the protection of the natural beauty that is in the area and trying to prevent some of the schemes we know are out there to develop areas that should stay exactly the way nature laid them out many thousands of years ago.

From Niagara to Tobermory, I think we have some of the finest tourist areas we can find anywhere in North America. Four seasons exist there, as they do across most of Canada, and certainly the charm of the Niagara Escarpment in all seasons is something to behold and something to make sure we maintain.

I am often very flabbergasted at some of the things that occur and I will compare some of the things that happen in the riding I represent. For instance, this very week we had an Ontario Municipal Board appeal hearing looking at a request for a severance that would have occurred in a very marginal area. I will not go into the details, but it is a five-acre parcel of very marginal land. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food, in its wisdom, saw fit to oppose, and oppose vehemently, any sort of land division that would allow a second rural dwelling to be established on this very marginal land in the county of Glengarry.

To me, common sense does not prevail when we have areas such as the many marginal areas in eastern Ontario. As my colleague the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock) alluded, they could be doing anything but doing nothing, which they are in many instances right now.

We have here a private member’s motion to try to protect a beautiful area, the Niagara Escarpment. Again, I compliment the member for Halton North, but this same government is preventing and creating artificial shortages of lots that municipalities are fully in favour of developing for rural housing that is needed. Artificial shortages are being created, and in areas that are very marginal, most marginal.

The soil maps indicate it is class 4 or inferior soil, not having been farmed in any way, shape or form, not having been replanted to trees, simply doing nothing, growing some goldenrod and willows, and again we have the government of Ontario, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in particular, standing up and fighting the approval of land divisions where municipalities involved are agreeable that yes, it should be used as residential housing.

I represent a rural riding that has gone down in population over the last 20 years, yet we are trying to maintain our small rural towns in that

section of Ontario, which does have a lot of marginal land. Common sense seems to be eluding the government of the day.

I strongly endorse maintaining the beautiful area from the Blue Mountains to the Niagara Gorge and the beautiful area between which has been developed for tourism, which brings people from all across North America and Europe to visit and spend time and money in the Golden Horseshoe

section of Ontario.

We must decentralize. We must bring the population away from the downtown core, from the beautiful, natural areas of the Niagara Escarpment. We must not develop those into industrial or other economically incompatible uses. We must maintain the natural beauty.

In summation, common sense must prevail. When common sense prevails, we maintain those beautiful areas we have while still allowing for the development and residential accommodation that the people of Ontario must have, and especially, not necessarily in those centres such as the city of Toronto where housing is certainly most people’s ability to purchase.

We speak of housing in Metropolitan Toronto at $350,000 plus for an average home, and yet we can go down to those areas in rural Ontario. The government has created an artificial shortage and has put pressure on the Niagara Escarpment by not using common sense. That is what it is doing.

In summation, I want to again emphasize that the Niagara Escarpment must be protected. The natural beauty is there and it must not be tampered with, but let’s not be ridiculous and prevent rural residences going into some of our marginal areas, which will help our rural municipalities, help their tax base and provide funding for the schools in those areas. The services are all in place. Let’s use common sense.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. We are on time-limited speeches here. I am sure the member for Durham West (Mrs. Stoner) would appreciate the attention of the House.

Mrs. Stoner: I would like to open my remarks by congratulating the member for Halton North on his resolution. I wholeheartedly endorse it.

In recognizing the significance of the Niagara Escarpment in Ontario’s natural heritage, this resolution calls on the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to ensure that development or use of the Niagara Escarpment lands be “environmentally sustainable development.” Maintenance of heritage and environmental concerns are to be priorities when considering land use planning within the escarpment boundaries.

The key to planning the Niagara Escarpment and other sensitive areas is found in the term “environmentally sustainable development.” Governments at all levels must shoulder their responsibilities, their share of the burden for defining and protecting those areas of environmental sensitivity.

We must all practise good land husbandry. We are entrusted with the stewardship of the resources of the future. We must ensure our natural heritage is enhanced rather than destroyed by this generation. We must ensure we have something worthy of passing on to the next generations.

The people of Ontario, and indeed the rest of Canada, are becoming more aware and more vocal about preservation of the natural environment than they ever were before. They are speaking out about inappropriately located landfill sites, roads and quarries that do not acknowledge sensitive areas, large-scale developments that gobble up prime agricultural land and improper forestry practices.

Communities and individuals are eloquently stating their support for our natural environment, support for our river valleys, for our wetlands and woodlands, our sand dunes, our beaches and our lakes. They are expressing concern too about the preservation of our heritage: our architectural heritage, our archaeological sites and our archives.

Key to environmentally sensitive and sustainable development is co-operation on all fronts, the bringing together of government, environmental groups, industry, business, labour and the agricultural sector to form one solid front. The Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy is an excellent example of the kind of co-operation that is required to plan responsibly for the future.

When he announced the membership of the round table last fall, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) said the panel will be planning the future directions that will ensure the long-term health of both the environment and the economy of Ontario.

As well, I commend the work that is being done by the National Task Force on Environment and Economy, which was established by the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers. Among the recommendations of the task force was the formation of round tables in each province and territory and at the federal level. In a recent publication in response to the task force, the Conservation Council of Ontario said that it will have a profound effect on the long-term management of the economy and the environment.

The Conservation Council of Ontario

article pointed out that although there has been talk about the need to marry environmental issues with economic decision-making, it had never happened until now. We are now finding that leading government and industry representatives are supportive of co-operation.

One of the responsibilities of the Ontario round table is to put together a strategy for sustainable development. We have to recognize other sensitive areas as well as the Niagara Escarpment, such as the Rouge River valley, the Duffin Creek system, the Muskoka-Georgian Bay area and many other areas. We have to ensure, and we have a moral obligation to care for and preserve for future generations, not only a strong economy but also a strong ecology.

Mr. Elliot: I would like to thank all the honourable members who spoke in support of my resolution. I would like to comment a little bit on two or three of the comments made by members of the official opposition and of the third party, particularly with respect to the comment made by the member for Hamilton-Mountain (Mr. Charlton), with whom I have shared many meetings in committees. He always comes to committees well prepared, is thought-provoking and does an excellent job from an opposition point of view.

I have to use his statement with respect to not needing a review as an opportunity to talk a little bit about the complexity of the problems we face today in a province like Ontario. I want to indicate to him that without a review component in solving a problem, you really do not have a complete circle, and you cannot, on a continuous basis, really worry about the kinds of things I have highlighted today, and that means the next seven generations of people who will reside in Ontario.

The awareness stage of the Niagara Escarpment plan happened prior to 1973. From 1973 until 1985, there was a long, involved developmental stage. We have been experiencing the implementation stage since 1985. A lot of very good work has been done. The fourth component of any valid problem you solve is the review process, which really starts again at the awareness stage. You redevelop the solution and make it more and more perfect all the time. He said the present plan is excellent; what we should be working towards is a perfect plan.

With respect to the comments from the honourable member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve), I have shared since 1971 some of the concerns at the lack of proper use of what I call marginal land for building permits. I support him in that completely.

I would like to thank particularly my two colleagues, the member for Grey and the member for Durham West. Obviously, the member for Grey is interested: 35 per cent of the Niagara Escarpment is in his riding of Grey; 35 per cent of Grey is escarpment. Those of us who come from that part of the country know Grey county is approximately 70 miles long and 40 miles wide, so we are talking about an escarpment planning area of approximately 2,800 square miles. That is a significant feature, and to point out the value he places on it is a very significant comment indeed.

The honourable member for Durham West expanded the whole dialogue to encompass the province of Ontario by mentioning a significant number of other areas that should be treated in exactly the same way as the Niagara Escarpment should be treated. I compliment her on that visionary approach.

I mentioned in my opening remarks the compatibility of development by the private sector. The definition in the dictionary for compatibility is “capable of existing or operating together in harmony.” I thought I should take a moment or two of my windup to talk about the seven designations and comment on salient features of each of them.

For example, on the “escarpment natural” designation, I think there is unanimity. Everyone agrees that should be inviolate; one should not infringe upon those areas at all. “Escarpment protection” is really put in place to maintain the remaining natural features and the open rural landscape character of the escarpment and lands in its vicinity. “Escarpment rural” should provide a buffer to the more ecologically sensitive areas of the escarpment.

As my colleague the member for Grey pointed out, in “escarpment recreation area,” this may involve clusters of buildings -- single-family buildings -- going in. In “minor urban centre,” the main designation and criterion that is important is that we should be maintaining from a heritage point of view our rural hamlets that encompass almost all of the escarpment from one end to the other. In “urban area,” I think the significant thing is that we must minimize the impact and further encroachment of urban growth on the escarpment environment.

I have already highlighted “escarpment recreation area” in commenting on the comments of my colleague the member for Grey. For “mineral resource extraction area,” the key thing I would like to highlight is the fact that we must consider rehabilitation as per the Butchart Gardens example that I used in my opening remarks.

In conclusion, the preservation of Niagara Escarpment lands must be a priority in land use planning in Ontario. In the five-year review of the Niagara Escarpment plan, compatibility of land use must be revisited. What do we mean by single-family dwellings in natural, protected and rural areas? Does it make sense to be using Al and A2 agricultural land for commercial and industrial development in some parts of Ontario, while at the same time not allowing clusters of single-family dwellings on A3, A4, A5, A6 and A7 lands in “rural escarpment protection” designated areas?

While we must preserve the “natural” and “protected” designations, I think some of those rural lands should be developed. Does it make sense to landfill our garbage in leaking quarries when the real solution to the problem is in reuse, recycling, composting and reduction?

Water is a prime concern in discussing the preservation of the Niagara Escarpment. Water permits have been granted to owners of quarries on escarpment lands. These permits allow as much as one million gallons of potable water per day to be pumped into the nearest creek or river. One million gallons of water, I am told, will service between 4,000 and 5,000 households.

Our natural heritage, housing, waste management and agricultural land are all part of my caring concern for the Niagara Escarpment. How we treat this unique natural phenomenon will be a key signal of the heart of this 34th Parliament of Ontario for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for debate on ballot item 65 and ballot item 66.

SPEED LIMITS

The House divided on Mr Smith’s motion of resolution 64, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Bossy, Kozyra, Lipsett, Mancini, Matrundola, Miclash, Miller, Nixon, J. B., Smith, D., South.

Nays

Ballinger, Black, Charlton, Cleary, Collins, Cooke, D. S., Daigeler, Elliot, Epp, Farnan, Faubert, Fleet, Grier, Kanter, Keyes, Laughren, LeBourdais, Leone, Lupusella, Mackenzie, McCague, McLean, Morn, Nicholas, Oddie Munro, Offer, Philip, E., Pollock, Pouliot, Rae, B., Roberts, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sola, Stoner, Tatham, Villeneuve, Wilson.

Ayes 10; nays 38.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Elliot has moved resolution 65.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 12:07 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Mackenzie: One of the more unfortunate occurrences in the course of the life of this parliament is the denial, for that is all it can be called, of the right of injured workers, their organizations and their friends to appear before a committee of this Legislature dealing with Bill 162. This legislation will affect the lives of injured workers in Ontario from now on. It is the most major piece of legislation affecting injured workers that has come before this House.

I think it is important to once again point out the events of last Friday when injured workers confronted the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) in Hamilton and told him how frustrated and unhappy they were over the fact that almost two thirds of the organizations in Hamilton would not be heard as a result of the limitation. The Minister of Labour told them that it was none of his doing, that it was done by the committee, that the committee set its own

schedule and that, if they were unhappy with that schedule, they should go back to the committee. This was on Friday, I want to point out.

It was only one day earlier that the Minister of Labour himself was before that committee all day, along with his officials, when his members solidly -- six to three -- turned down the rights of those workers for additional hearings or to be heard. He was there; he helped to orchestrate it one day earlier. He did not have the decency to tell the workers that was what had happened and that their protest would be futile.

MEMBER’S COMMENTS

Mr. Runciman: In the last year we have watched Liberal cabinet ministers frantically reaching in every direction for someone to blame for their problems. The Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling) has blamed the federal government rather than addressing administrative problems in his ministry. The Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) has blamed doctors and hospitals for problems in her ministry. In areas of provincial jurisdiction, such as Lieutenant Governor’s warrants, she has tried to blame the federal government. Yesterday, the Attorney General (Mr.

Scott) blamed the federal government with respect to drug abuse problems among young people in society. The Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) blames the federal government for funding shortfalls when she lacks the competence to spend all of her own budget.

Now some Liberal backbenchers are emulating these irresponsible cabinet attitudes. This week, in the Ottawa Citizen, the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Chiarelli) blasted regional chairman Andy Haydon for letters in which Mr. Haydon merely attempted to ensure that his municipality obtained funding for road construction. The member for Ottawa West not only attempted to stifle a legitimate attempt by a municipal politician to communicate with a member of the Legislature, but continued the disturbing tendency of the government to blame everyone else for its problems.

If the citizens of eastern Ontario need support, they can look to their five Conservative MPPs rather than the Liberal MPPs, such as the member for Ottawa West, who have adopted the do-nothing, blame-it-on-everyone-else Liberal cabinet philosophy.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

Mr. Faubert: I rise to advise the members of this House of the findings of a study conducted by the heritage consulting firm of Mayer, Pihl Poulton and Associates Inc. regarding the archaeological resources of the northeast area of Scarborough.

This $114,000 study, which is funded by the Ministry of Culture and Communications, took almost two years to complete. A previous study, sponsored by the Ministry of Government Services, and efforts by individuals like Scarborough planner Elaine Hitchman had pointed to the archaeological importance of the area. This province should be commended for once again adding its efforts and financial support to this project, which has helped to discover the history and cultural significance of the area.

In all, 40 new archaeological sites were discovered, bringing the total number of known sites in the Rouge area to 63. Indian villages and campsites were discovered, some of which may be as old as 8,000 BC. Some of these sites are considered to be of international significance, including a Seneca Indian village dated about 1650.

Indeed, archaeology provides us with the pieces which, when placed together, create the puzzle commonly referred to as history. These findings reveal much valuable information regarding the cultural heritage and history of what we now call Ontario.

I applaud the efforts made to discover and preserve all archaeological sites deemed to be historically significant. For these reasons, every effort should be made to preserve the Rouge area as a national heritage park.

TEACHING ASSISTANTS’ LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I want to bring to the House’s attention that the local of the Canadian Union of Educational Workers at the University of Toronto is on strike for the first time in 15 years. These are the teaching assistants at the university who have increasingly, with the problems of underfunding, been carrying a larger and larger role, underpaid and with no job security.

This is the first time this has occurred in the province. It is a crucial strike in terms of trying to get rights they are after. Members will perhaps be surprised to know that it is not money, although they are not well paid, that is the outstanding problem. They want the right to review hiring, the right to look at class size -- because, as members will know, that is a huge burden on their time -- the right to job security and the right to fair treatment.

The University of Toronto deans involved are saying they would like to give more but cannot, because there is not sufficient funding from this government, because of the lack of pass-through dollars over the last number of years. This strike should never have come about, but now that it is here, I would urge members to give these TAs all the support they can, so they can finally get the kind of support they deserve. It is quite parallel to what went on with the interns in the hospital system not too many years ago.

PREMIER’S TRIP

Mr. Harris: We all know the only reason this House is still sitting is because the Premier (Mr. Peterson) himself has insisted that we have important items of government business to complete before we adjourn. These legislative items are so important that the Premier has now decided to book a two-day trip to Hollywood next week while the House deals with them. Some may question the Premier’s sincerity, but I have looked into the matter and I want all members to know that the Premier is indeed going to promote a number of film projects developed by his government.

They include: (1) a takeoff of The Ten Commandments, called The Six Conditions, about the Premier’s epic fight against free trade; (2) a sequel to Revenge of the Nerds, the inside story on the Liberal government of Ontario; (3) a remake of Lost in Space which deals with the Liberal agenda at Queen’s Park, and (4) the newest

chapter of Nightmare on University Avenue, the film version of the Public Affairs Management consulting report on his government.

There is one rumour I have not been able to confirm, and it is that the Premier wants to quit politics to do what he does best, acting. If it is true, he may want to try out for a method role in either a mystery or a horror show, since what he has been doing since 1987 is a mystery to everyone and horrible to watch. In any case, we wish the Premier well in Tinseltown and, as they say in showbiz, “Break a leg.”

BRYCE TAYLOR

Mr. Ballinger: I wish to express this government’s sense of loss at the passing of Dr. Bryce Taylor on February 16, 1989, at the age of 55. Dr. Taylor was known and respected across Canada for his leadership in national sports organizations and for his important work with the provincial and federal governments.

As founder of the York University physical education department, Dr. Taylor designed an academic program which is clearly among the best in Canada. He wrote extensively on athletes, recreation and lifestyle. Writing alone or in collaboration with his peers, he produced 64 books, major reports, articles and research papers. His tireless effort on behalf of the Toronto Olympic Organizing Committee to bring the 1996 summer games to Toronto holds a promise for ever greater achievements for Canada’s sports community.

However, Dr. Taylor left no greater legacy than his love for native Indian folklore and dances, a passion he shared with audiences around the world ranging from thousands of children across Canada to the Peking Opera.

I have been informed by the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil) that this government will officially recognize Dr. Taylor’s tremendous contributions to the Ontario sport and recreation community on April 7 at the Ontario Sports Awards banquet. Dr. Taylor will be honoured posthumously with a provincial sports citation in the category of education for his impact on amateur sport development.

On behalf of the government of Ontario, I extend my sincere condolences to Dr. Taylor’s wife, Cheryl, and his family.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cambridge, for 40 seconds.

Mr. Farnan: On behalf of the New Democratic Party, we would like to join in condolences to the Taylor family. Bryce Taylor is, first, a husband and a father, and I think it is the quality of his relationship with his family that he would probably prize most and treasure most, and which has probably left the greatest mark on society.

But all that the member said is true. His contributions to universities, his contributions to the sports life of Canada are very much appreciated, and we join in the honour that has been accorded to Dr. Taylor.

Mr. Harris: Before we proceed, I think there has been unanimous consent to allow all parties a few moments to comment on the statement that has just been referred to and, as well, on Estonian Independence Day, and I would ask that we be permitted to do that now.

Agreed to.

Mr. Cousens: I would like to join my colleagues from the government and from the New Democratic Party in commenting on the life of Dr. Bryce Malcolm Taylor. I appreciate the sentiments that have been expressed and indeed the support that has been shown by the Minister of Tourism and Recreation to make him the sports citation recipient for Ontario.

Dr. Taylor passed away last Thursday and was buried yesterday in Manotick. There will be memorial services in the Metropolitan Toronto area and also in Ottawa tomorrow.

He was professor in the department of physical education, recreation and athletics at York University, active in the Young Men’s Christian Association across the country and became recognized nationally as one of those who had given leadership training by receiving the Howard Crocker Award of Excellence.

He obtained his doctorate in 1964 and then quickly became the director of the physical education and athletics program at the newly created York University. He was charged with the responsibility of planning the sports facilities for the main university campus and establishing the university athletic and recreation program.

He remained chairman and director from 1964 to 1976, and a member of the executive committee of numerous organizations, including the YMCA; the Canadian Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation; the Toronto District Physical Education Supervisors’ Association; the board of directors of both the Integra Foundation and the Youth Clinical Services; the Coaching Association of Canada; the Canadian Olympic Association; the Ontario Council of Leisure, and the Canadian Gymnastics Federation.

In 1974, Dr. Taylor was named to the Hall of Fame of the Canadian Gymnastics Federation. He has received the prestigious R. Tait McKenzie Honour Award from the Canadian Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation.

As president of the Canadian Gymnastics Federation from 1974 to 1979, Dr. Taylor was honoured with the Air Canada Award as the amateur sport executive for the year 1976.

He has served his profession locally, nationally and internationally as president of the Coaching Association of Canada, president of the Commonwealth Gymnastic Federation, vice-president of the Canadian Olympic Association and chairman of Metric Commission Canada, health care sector.

He founded the sports administrative certificate program for the department of physical education and athletics at York University. He was secretary general of the Toronto Ontario Olympic Council, which is heading Toronto’s bid for the Summer Olympics in 1996.

He has published numerous books and articles on sport; he has authored many other things that have been recognized worldwide, especially on the North American Indians, on which he has presented over 1,000 performances, lectures and master dance classes.

He was a friend of Ontario, a friend of sport, a man who was a leader and is indeed a loss to our province and our country; someone who has done a great deal for health and physical fitness.

ESTONIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

Mr. Cousens: There was unanimous consent on Estonian Independence Day and I have the privilege of making the presentation from our caucus. I know there are others who are anxious to participate.

Tomorrow, February 24, marks Estonian Independence Day. February 24 marks the 71st anniversary of the day that Estonia was proclaimed an independent nation.

Although Estonia became a functioning member of the League of Nations and enjoyed 22 prosperous years of independence, the country was forcibly annexed by the Soviet Union in 1940 by means of a secret pact with Nazi Germany which divided up eastern Europe among themselves. As a result of this pact, Red Army tanks entered the port of Tallinn, thousands of Estonians were arrested and deported to Siberia, and it became a Soviet puppet government.

Ironically, the first nation to recognize Estonia’s independence was the Soviet Union, which signed a peace treaty in 1920, promising to renounce, voluntarily and for ever, her sovereign rights over Estonia.

Despite the oppression of nearly 50 years of forced Soviet occupation, Estonia has recently emerged as the frontrunner among the Baltic states in courageously seeking self-determination under the leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev, who has recently admitted past errors and is attempting to bring about glasnost and a more open society.

To the nearly 15,000 Estonians in Ontario and their relatives at home and abroad, we in our party extend our support and hope that glasnost and perestroika will not merely be a good idea but a reality.

Mr. Ruprecht: Today I am delighted to extend our hand of friendship to the Estonian Central Council in Canada and, indeed, the whole community as they commemorate the 71st anniversary of Estonian Independence Day.

In the House today, we have a senior delegation of leaders of the Estonian Canadian community: Ilmar Heinsoo, who is the honorary consul general, and Avo Kittask, who is the vice-president of the Estonian Central Council in Canada.

When the scribes of history are going to record the history of that part of Europe, they will no doubt speak of a people who for hundreds of years had courageously fought for freedom and independence for Estonia. They will have to speak of a people who developed a special culture and language and who made tremendous strides in architecture and craftsmanship in the whole Baltic area that indeed are the envy of the neighbouring states.

In fact, when independence was declared in 1918, Estonians embarked upon such growth that it can only be termed and described as an economic miracle. When over 100,000 Estonians left their country before the Soviet invasion, 20,000 of them settled in this country called Canada and made their mark. They helped us develop this country. In fact, Estonians have done so well with the skills they brought with them from Estonia that Statistics Canada yesterday listed Estonian women as the highest wage earners of any ethnic group in Canada. Their contribution is indeed exemplary.

As the events unfold this weekend in Estonia, the torch of freedom will be passed to a new generation of Estonians, who, I am sure, will not rest until once more the bells of freedom ring throughout that country.

Finally, Estonia may be a very small dot on the map of the world, yet its love of freedom is a giant example of great courage in the face of overwhelming odds. Therefore, on behalf of the government of Ontario and the Premier (Mr. Peterson), I am delighted today to declare Estonian Independence Day. We commend its observance to all the people of this province.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: If I could add my own comments on behalf of the New Democratic Party on this, the remembrance day of independence being declared in 1918 in Estonia, this completes our recognition of the three Baltic states’ period of independence, which they now are hoping to be able to recapture after many years of hardship under Soviet rule.

Estonia, probably more than the others, has suffered by another whole process that most people do not know about, which is the Russification of their country in a determined effort by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to limit the ethnic composition of that country and to try to take away its identity in that kind of fashion.

I am pleased to say that I have met the honorary consul now on a couple of occasions, once in Scarborough and once at a Lithuanian meeting the other night. I know that he and the people who have gone before him in that position in Canada and elsewhere in the world have carried an enormous burden in trying to get our attention to what looked like a hopeless situation, that they would never achieve the independence they sought.

The changes that are now taking place and the incredible courage that was shown in Estonia by taking leadership in the Baltic states just this last year in pushing for sovereignty has changed that feeling enormously. There is huge optimism, although it is guarded optimism, that the goals will be achieved in the foreseeable future. For that, we should all be very pleased and should, I hope, at this stage throw as much of our energies behind that taking place as we possibly can.

Welcome today.

COURT RULING

Mr. Speaker: Just before I call the next order of business, I would remind all members that on Thursday of last week, the honourable member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) raised a question of privilege which has given me a great deal of food for thought and I am now ready to rule on whether or not I can find a prima facie case of privilege relating to this matter.

As honourable members will remember, the honourable member for Burlington South brought to the attention of the House a matter in which he alleged that a judge, the Honourable Mr. Justice Walsh of the Supreme Court of Ontario, had issued a court order which would have prohibited one of the parties in this case from communicating with any party on matters relating to the action in question.

The member alleged that, by extension, the court order would have to be interpreted to mean that parties in an action before a court of the province could not in fact, because of this order, communicate with a member of this House. In his presentation, the honourable member refers to this order and suggests that it had been issued on January 20 of this year. On obtaining a copy of the order, I was able to ascertain that this order had been issued on May 27, 1987.

I believe the honourable member made an honest mistake here, based upon the information that he had obtained, and in no way do I consider this to be more than an honest mistake. However, I have noticed that a correction has been made to Hansard in this regard without the member having informed the House. In my opinion, this correction is one that should have been brought to the House’s attention by the member.

I think it would be apropos at this point to quote the order in question:

“This court orders that the applicant and the respondent are hereby restrained from communicating by telephone or otherwise in such manner as may molest, annoy or harass the other and they are each hereby expressly prohibited from writing or contacting any third party in any way which touches upon the matters of this action.”

This court order of general application as it stands is part of the decision of Mr. Justice Walsh on May 27, 1987. Subsequently, the same case came before Mr. Justice Osborne on January 17, 1989. During hearings before Mr. Justice Osborne, he gave permission to the respondent to communicate with others. Therefore, as of January 17 of this year, the court order in question has no further application and the person in question has been able to communicate with whomever she wishes since that time.

I have given a lot of thought as to whether or not I should be tempted at this point to give a ruling in a hypothetical way upon the question raised last Thursday, and after reflection, I feel that I must be guided by the tradition that Speakers throughout history have resisted giving any ruling based on a hypothetical situation.

The question as raised and presented by the honourable member for Burlington South is a very compelling and interesting one, but as I have said, a Speaker is not able to rule on hypothetical situations. Therefore, at this time I can find no prima facie breach of privilege.

BIRTH OF MEMBER’S CHILD

Mr. B. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Many members will have noted the absence of the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) in the last few days. He has been up north waiting for the arrival of a child. I am happy to announce that last night at six o’clock Anne Wildman, his wife, gave birth to a healthy baby girl weighing nine pounds and 14 ounces.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Premier and I hope he will be able to answer it.

I wonder if he can explain how it is that the Workers’ Compensation Board communications department, when contacted by us about its activities in promoting Bill 162, stated that a senior bureaucrat, Henry McDonald of the Workers’ Compensation Board, has already been reassigned to bring in the changes under the job title “executive director, implementation of Bill 162.” Our party researchers were told by the Workers’ Compensation Board that it would be very much involved in the promotion of this bill when the bill is passed in June.

I wonder if the Premier can tell us why the Workers’ Compensation Board would already be assuming that this bill in fact is law and then telling us it knows it is going to be passed in June.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the Minister of Labour can help out the honourable member.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I do not think anyone is making any predictions about when the bill will finally come before this House, have third reading and ultimately be passed and given royal assent. But I want to tell my friend the