Hansard Transcript 1987-Dec-03 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak about Bill 24, An Act to establish a Tourism Advisory Board in Ontario. Under Bill 24, which received first reading in this Legislature on November 18, I am recommending the Tourism Advisory Board be set up with at least 12 members representing a cross-section of industry, labour and government. This would be a permanent advisory body to the government on matters concerning and related to the tourism and hospitality industry in this province.

It is quite clear to me that the Ontario tourism and hospitality industry can generate unparalleled economic and employment opportunities, substantially reduce our provincial travel deficit and attract our rightful share of world travel and tourism revenues. To do that, the industry relies heavily on the provincial government through the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation to generate creative, innovative and sensible public policies and financial stimuli.

In order to do this job effectively and efficiently, this government should and must rely on input from the experts. In this case, those experts can be found in the tourism and hospitality industry itself. According to Statistics Canada, in a comprehensive paper titled Ontario Study of the Service Sector which was released in 1986, the service sector in which the tourism and hospitality industry was the leading mainstay now accounts for 73 per cent of employment, 70.2 per cent of gross domestic product and an estimated 80 per cent of all new jobs that will be created in the next decade.

However, the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Recreation lacks the human and financial resources to adequately serve the needs of the tourism and hospitality industry. By establishing the Tourism Advisory Board, the ministry would be in a better position to ensure that this industry remains vital by relying on suggestions from experts in the field.

We were all grateful to hear recently that visits to Ontario by overseas travellers rose 30 per cent this year. Approximately 839,000 overseas tourists visited Ontario between January and July of this year compared with 646,000 during the same period in 1986. That increase followed closely on the heels of a 24 per cent rise in overseas visitors to Ontario in 1986 over 1985.

This certainly proves to me that Ontario is considered to be a great place to visit, with its many first-class, world-class attractions. More tourists from south of the border are discovering Ontario. Approximately 14.5 million Americans visited our province during the first seven months of this year compared with 13.8 million during the same period in 1986, which is an increase of 3.5 per cent. I am sure they are not coming here to buy cheaper gas.

Granted, many of the increased visits to Ontario are due in part to strengthening overseas currencies and economies. Much of it is also due to provincial government promotional campaigns featuring Ontario as an ideal place for tourism. I would hope and expect that these promotions will continue, but I fear that we will not be able to expect 20 or 30 per cent increases in the number of visitors to Ontario if we do not look for input from the tourism and hospitality industry. For an industry as vital to this province’s economy as tourism, this government should rely on the services of the Tourism Advisory Board, which could be used in a variety of ways, including researching, marketing and developing this environmentally clean and renewable resource.

It could very well come up with innovative and creative methods for working with all the government ministries in developing programs and policies aimed at strengthening and expanding the tourism and hospitality industry. The tourism industry is subjected to a growing number of legislative provincial acts, regulations, controls, taxes, licences, levies, fees, tariffs and assessments, some of which discourage investment and enterprise and some of which are counterproductive. This is another area the Tourism Advisory Board could look into and recommend which measures could be dropped, which could be combined and which should be maintained. The Tourism Advisory Board would not come up with silly or trivial ideas because its membership would include representatives from the industry and they would not put forward recommendations that would end up hurting themselves.

The members can be assured that this board’s activities would be monitored right from the very first day it is established because my bill recommends that its membership include government representatives. It is clear that effective tourism policy can only be developed with increased private sector involvement. This industry is on the front lines and its experts should be called upon to help government develop an effective tourism policy.

What else could the Tourism Advisory Board do for the tourism and hospitality industry? We all recognize the need to take some immediate short-term actions to halt the erosion of foreign market share that is currently taking place. The Tourism Advisory Board could take an in-depth look at the industry to see what things could be done right now in developing and promoting Ontario and identifying areas of opportunity with strong potential for future growth.

1010

The Tourism Advisory Board would provide the provincial government with firsthand accounts and information on what the people in the industry felt, what they see as problems and where they see opportunities, big or small, for improving the picture of the tourism sector. This board could review and recommend new policies and programs for improved rest stops and travel information centres to enhance highway travel in Ontario and it would ensure that our tourism and hospitality associations have their views adequately reflected. We need a long-term tourism strategy for this province.

In the area of how the Tourism Advisory Board could work with other government ministries to benefit the tourism and hospitality industry, we could look at the Ministry of Natural Resources. All provincial natural resources including land, mining, forestry, water, fish and wildlife management, and assessment and planning programs must recognize the important and productive role the Ontario tourism industry plays as a vital partner in these processes. After all, if we have spoiled or depleted natural resources, then it logically follows that we will have reduced tourism. No natural resources means no tourism; it is as simple as that.

The Tourism Advisory Board may think of natural resources that need protection, maybe even before they come to the attention of the Ministry of Natural Resources. Tourism is where many of our natural resources are. They are in our tourism operators’ backyards and they are certainly familiar with what is found in their own backyards.

These are only a few of the areas where I believe the Tourism Advisory Board could play a vital role. We would get input from industry, labour and government. What a team that makes. They would be working for a common goal. A strong, healthy and viable tourism and hospitality industry in this province of Ontario, working with both industry and labour along with input from the government, deserves to be heard when it comes to the direction of millions of dollars in government funds for the tourism and hospitality industry.

This new partnership could reflect in a truly effective marketing program to encourage domestic trade as well as continuing to promote Ontario in the international marketplace. This new partnership could develop incentives that will create jobs in the service industry through the development of new and innovative tourist attractions. This new partnership could lead to measures that eliminate, where possible, provincial government policies, rules and regulations that inhibit the development of the tourism industry.

By establishing the Tourism Advisory Board, the members of this Legislature would be reaffirming our substantial commitment to tourism and hospitality, and more important, our recognition that the real answers for long-term growth, development and success can only come from the tourism sector itself, from people who work in and operate the tourism and hospitality industry.

There cannot be sufficient focus on the value and importance of the tourism and hospitality industry in Ontario. It is the province’s largest employer, the third-largest provincial industry and the second-largest provincial earner of valuable foreign exchange. More full-time and part-time professional employment is being created by the Ontario tourism and hospitality industry than by any other sector of the provincial economy.

Tourism Ontario, which is a nonprofit federation of hospitality and travel associations, strongly favours the establishment of any officially recognized senior advisory body of the Ontario government that is prepared to seriously consider and address the needs of our vital industry.

In the area of Simcoe county, we have the Huronia Tourist Association, the Georgian Lakelands Travel Association and the chambers of commerce in the city of Orillia and in the town of Midland that work with the municipalities to attract tourism.

There was some talk some time ago that there was an idea of a Premier’s council on tourism. This advisory board for which I am asking the members’ approval today is on the same lines as what the Premier (Mr. Peterson) had initiated and which was talked about earlier on.

Tourism in Simcoe county is a very large resource, a substantial income. When we look at the advisory board, it could be looking at such things as farm holiday packages. When we get a group of people from different walks of life involved in an advisory board, they can bring a lot of new ideas. They can bring them to the ministry for their input, to be acted on.

It was not long ago that there was a debate in this Legislature on Bill 38 with regard to lotteries. Some 400 municipalities organized and supported a campaign to have Bill 38 withdrawn. It is important that there are people involved within the community who really get involved in the tourism industry.

What I am saying today is that second reading of this bill is very important for tourism in the whole province of Ontario. I indicated earlier some of the figures on the number of people we have visiting Ontario. We have to sell. We have to be involved. We have to have a group of people that is doing just that.

In closing, I would like to say that I am fully confident that with the help and support of the members of this Legislature in passing Bill 24, which establishes the Tourism Advisory Board, we can help create a strong, mature and broadly based tourism and hospitality industry that is fully responsive to the needs and demands of the expanding world tourism market.

At this point, I will save the remaining time allotted to me for the end of this debate.

Mr. Wildman: I want, at the outset, to congratulate the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) for bringing this bill before the House. I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the other members of the assembly that my colleagues are all out at this time consulting with the tourist industry about this bill and hopefully we will be of one mind when it comes to the vote on the legislation.

I am happy to be able to participate. I want to indicate that I will support this private member’s bill. I think it should be obvious to all of us that the government does in fact need advice on how to promote tourism in this province. Tourism is, as the member for Simcoe East indicated, one of the largest industries and the largest employer in this province. It would be very helpful to have a representative board that could represent various parts of the tourist industry, labour and government that could give advice to the government.

In this province the tourist industry seems to suffer from a rather strange kind of schizophrenia. On the one hand, we have the accommodation industry in the urban centres that would like to promote Ontario as a sophisticated, modern, urbane community that can provide culture and the arts as well as sporting activities and other tourist attractions. On the other hand, we have in rural, small town Ontario an emphasis on outdoor recreation as the attraction for tourism.

In the north, of course, we have emphasized in the past the wilderness experience as a way of attracting tourists to our part of the province. In fact, in northern Ontario, tourism is really one more resource-based industry. It is based on the forests, the lakes, the fish and wildlife that we have or have had in abundance in northern Ontario. We face some serious problems in that those resources are fast being depleted. Whether it be because of pollution, acid rain or just the exploitation of the resources, tourism faces a very serious problem of how to adjust to a new circumstance of the dwindling of our wilderness. At the same time, the tourist industry seems to be attempting to attract more and more visitors from outside of Canada, not just from the United States but also from Europe and Japan.

1020

Certainly, the wilderness experience is something that seems to sell very well and has a great potential in Europe. In that continent, many of the people are very crowded together and do not have the opportunity to experience the great outdoors in the way that we do in North America. But, as I say, at the same time those resources are dwindling. I think it is something that must be studied, and the government certainly needs some advice on how to adjust in the tourist field and to promote Ontario to attract visitors and foreign capital.

One of the major problems that faces tourism in northern Ontario is the exploitation of our forestry resource. The timber companies are building more and more forest access roads throughout the wilderness. They are having to go farther and farther afield to cut timber, and that is making it very difficult for the tourist industry -- the outfitters who have been dependent on a fly-in operation, outpost operations for fishing. It is making these lakes more and more accessible to the general public so that many lakes that were never fished heavily before are now experiencing a serious amount of pressure and the fishing is not what it used to be.

The Ministry of Natural Resources has a very difficult task in balancing the various demands of competing groups. The forest industry wants access to the timber; the tourist industry wants to protect isolated lakes; of course, the general public -- the sports fishermen from other parts of Ontario and from our own area, and the recreationists -- wants access to those lakes; and the conservationists and environmentalists would like to protect them as well.

It is very difficult to balance all of those demands and to properly manage the resource for the benefit of all those competing groups. Perhaps a tourism committee, such as is proposed in the legislation, could help in this regard. I must say though, I am not sure if the member for Simcoe East is aware that the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation is currently developing a tourism strategy for Ontario which is, I understand, going to be completed in February and published in February.

One of the proposals that has been made by the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association to the ministry in that regard is for something that they called tourism management agreements, which are patterned after forestry management agreements. It seems the tourist industry is proposing that it be given control over areas, in terms of access.

I want to say that while I am very much in support of tourism and the need to promote our area, protect the industry and to develop that industry, I am very much opposed to this kind of feudal control of our crown resources that is being proposed. No one group, no one industry, owns our resources. They belong to the people of this province, and the Ministry of Natural Resources or the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation cannot shuck off the responsibility to a private industry to manage those resources; so I would be very much opposed to the ministry agreeing to this proposal for tourism management agreements.

I must say there are a number of other things that the government should be doing and that this board could advise on to assist the tourist industry. Number one, I think, is doing something about the crisis in liability insurance. In my area, a tourism attraction, a water slide, that was doing a very good business has been put out of business recently because of the exorbitant demands of the insurance industry for premiums that would cover it for liability. I think that is a serious problem.

Also, as has been mentioned, the gasoline prices we have in northern Ontario are certainly one of the things that make it difficult to attract more tourists from the United States. It is just unbelievable for the visitor from south of the border when he pulls up to a gas pump and finally is able to figure out the difference between metric and imperial measurement and the American gallon and how much it is costing him in Canadian dollars. That word-of-mouth description that is spread by that visitor when he returns home does not help tourism in northern Ontario.

We also have to improve our highway system in the north if we are going to be able to attract visitors who are travelling by automobile or camper. As the member for Simcoe East said, we have to improve the rest stops. I think it is most unfortunate that when a traveller from western Canada or from the western United States travels across the Manitoba border into Ontario, he or she suddenly feel as if they are returning to a bush road. Highway 17 is completely inadequate as a Trans Canada highway. On top of that, the rest stops are so few and infrequent as to appear nonexistent in many parts of northern Ontario; and where they are they are in such poor condition that it is a disgrace really. When one compares the rest stops in northern Ontario and across Ontario to the kinds of rest stops that one sees in the Maritime provinces and Quebec for instance, I think we all should feel ashamed.

I support this proposed legislation, but I hope that we all recognize that it probably will not be a panacea. It will not resolve all the problems. What it will do is make it possible for there to be greater input from the industry and from various elements of the industry advising the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation on tourism policy.

In conclusion, I want to say that in itself will not resolve the problem of promoting and developing tourism in this province. First of all, the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation is not one of the major ministries of this government. The minister does not have a great deal of influence in the cabinet. Until the government as a whole, the Treasurer (Mr.
R. F. Nixon) and the Premier, the people who really make the decisions in the executive council, have a commitment to the development and promotion of tourism, the development of a board to advise the minister is not going to change anything. Certainly the proposal that the ministry is considering, to turn over the management of not only tourism but also the crown resources to the industry itself, I think is an abdication of its responsibility.

The government must take the responsibility to promote and develop tourism in this province and not leave it to the private sector alone, otherwise we will not be able to promote tourism as we should in this province.

Mr. Black: I am pleased that my friend, the member for Simcoe East, has proposed in a private member’s bill this particular piece of legislation. It does serve to focus attention on the needs of the tourist industry in Ontario. It serves to bring to the attention of the members of this House what those needs are.

He has quite correctly identified that tourism is the province’s largest employer; that the tourist industry and the hospitality industry is the second largest earner of foreign exchange in this province. It is the third largest provincial industry in this province. There are more full-time and part-time jobs in tourism and hospitality in Ontario than in any other sector.

I know the member for Simcoe East has a long-time commitment to tourism. He is generally recognized and acknowledged as a friend of the tourist industry. His intentions are good. His proposed legislation, however, in my view, is not. I would like to tell members why it is not.

My friend the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) has already made the statement it will not have any impact, it will not change anything. We know in the past that members of the Progressive Conservative Party have been prone to have such boards appointed. They serve as make-work programs for former MPPs and MPs and their friends, and their federal counterparts continue to use them for that purpose. That, however, is not reason enough. There are a large number of organizations in this province that provide support and that provide information and advice to the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. We do not need another group that comes to Toronto one day a month, sits in session and then goes back to the various parts of the province.

1030

Tourism Ontario Inc., for example, which is an umbrella organization looking after the various tourist and trade associations and organizations in this province, provides a strong effective voice on behalf of tourism. The Ontario Restaurant and Foodservices Association does the same thing. Regional development councils are now providing input to the ministry on the needs of tourism. The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters Inc. is another organization which does that job.

There is no need, in my view, for another advisory board. There are some needs. There are some very significant needs in tourism in this province and I would like to speak to some of them. The needs, however, are not general and they are not vague. They are specific. Tourism needs improved marketing. It needs to be sold and to be effectively sold. That marketing should be based on research. It should be based on sound planning.

We have in Ontario a number of tourism organizations which are in the marketing business. In my riding, for example, the Muskoka Tourism Marketing Agency is considered to be a model across this province for organizations which do an effective job of marketing the tourist industry. We need more help and more support for them. In this province we need effective promotion for the tourist industry. The northern Ontario tourist information centres enhancement program is an excellent example of effective promotion. Rather than spend money on another advisory committee and on bringing members from across this province to Toronto once a month to meet and accomplish very little, I would suggest the expansion of the NOTICE program would have much more impact and much more effect.

We need to have more and better rest stops across the province. We need those to include picnic areas, information centres and to provide for an upgrading of signs, buildings and grounds that surround those centres. The tourist industry needs more effective information, as do my friends across the Legislature. We need information for tourism on marketing trends. We need to be able to share that information. We need a centralized clearinghouse for the tourist industry so that information can be effectively distributed across this province.

We need a national data bank for the tourist industry. In my view, that would be a far better way to spend funds. I would suggest that if we have money to spend on tourism, let us spend it on management development. Let us take organizations such as the Canadian Tourism Management Centre at Georgian College of Applied Arts and Technology in Barrie and assist that kind of organization to provide management training for young people wanting to enter the field. Just as important -- and perhaps even more important -- let us provide cost-sharing programs to assist people who are presently in the tourist industry to gain the kinds of in-service training they need in order to carry on the programs that are currently in place.

Tourism needs more research and study, and I know that my friends are always supportive of this government when it talks about doing more study, but we do need more study and more research into marketing of tourism and of some of the new technologies which will become available, and are currently available, to support tourism in this province.

At a recent conference of the Tourism and Hospitality Educators Association, a paper was presented on the outlook for employment and education in tourism and hospitality. That is the kind of background paper and the kind of study paper that the tourist industry needs.

In conclusion, what the member has proposed is another piece of vague, general, nonspecific legislation. He has proposed, as has his party on many occasions before him, to put in place another advisory board when we already have many advisory boards. We do not need more vague generalities. We need specific, targetted strategies to improve. We do need action, and I am sure that this government will be providing the action. I would suggest that this bill is vague, it is unclear, it is -- as my friend the member for Algoma has just so correctly pointed out -- without meaning.

I find it difficult to understand how a man can on one hand say, “This bill has no meaning,” and then on the next hand say, “I will support it.” It seems to me that is typical of the opposition in this Legislature.

Although I support the concept of the promotion of tourism in this province, and I think all of us do, and all of us recognize it is important, I would be concerned if one more advisory board might be mistaken by some people to be the answer to our problems. It is not the answer to our problems. We need more specific strategies developed to aid tourism. Therefore, I cannot support this bill.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I might start off by saying that I disagree with the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black). He is not supportive. He says we do not need another advisory board. I suggest that government needs all the advice it can get. Sunday shopping is an example.

I strongly support the member for Simcoe East and his Bill 24, An Act to establish a Tourism Advisory Board. The member mentioned that it should be composed of people from industry, labour and government. I suggest there should also be representatives from chambers of commerce, the agricultural sector, sports organizations, such as the Ontario Federation of Hunters and Anglers, and perhaps other organizations should be involved as well.

Consider the importance of sports fishing in this province. Consider the millions of dollars spent in the salmon hunt. Let us take a look at the example in Michigan where they are able to generate millions of dollars because they have been able to do something with sports fishing, other than the small effort that we put into that industry.

Representatives on this advisory board should also include people knowledgeable in recreational areas as well. Tourism is an extremely important industry and it is my understanding it will be the number one industry in this province by the end of the century. I mention the sports fishing industry as an example. If we think in terms of the people who would benefit: owners of hotels, motels, cabins, restaurants, marinas, grocery stores, gas stations, tackle shops, sports shops, and possibly even the Liquor Control Board of Ontario and the brewers retail stores, would all benefit from an increase in activity in this sector of the tourist industry.

Mr. Villeneuve: Now they will be open seven days a week.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Yes, seven days a week. Another area of the tourist industry that does not even come close to its potential is the farm vacation program. Ontario’s vacation farms program was started in 1967-68 with 24 hosts operating independently, supported by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. That is the old organization of the member for Lincoln (Mr. Pelissero). Ten or 12 new hosts joined each year, but they also lost about the same number. In the mid-1970s the government became involved in a very limited way. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food gave some support and the Ministry of Industry and Tourism also provided some assistance, mostly in an advisory capacity. I presented a paper on the Ontario vacation farm programs in 1977. It is one of the best papers ever presented on that topic and I hope members will have an opportunity to read it.

Mr. Ballinger: Who was the government at that time?

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Read about my success. I would like to read a couple of excerpts from this paper:

“In this paper, I would like to explore one small dimension of the tourist industry that has not yet been fully developed, but which would be the type of innovative program that could serve as a model for the development of other programs of a similar nature. In my view, expansion of the Ontario vacation farms program would provide an attractive alternative form of vacationing for tourists, both from inside Ontario and from other parts of the continent and Europe. At the same time, it would provide added revenue for residents of Ontario’s rural communities participating in the program.”

1040

It is 17 to 18 pages long so l will just read one other excerpt. I suggested at that time that Wellington-Dufferin-Peel, which was my riding and is now called Wellington, could be a pilot project and that the government could co-ordinate efforts in that direction:

To use Wellington as an example, within a two-hour drive, 110 miles from Fergus, which is the centre of Wellington there are about four million people living in large urban centres in Ontario, plus some 1.5 million in Buffalo. Within a 400-mile radius there are approximately 20 million people, and that does not include Chicago, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, New York or Boston, which are not far outside that range. That is a potential of 50 million people within a day’s drive of Wellington who could participate in a very inexpensive vacation program.

I will not go on to mention the many reasons why Wellington should be chosen as the site for this pilot project, but most of the members know that area and would agree.

Mr. Wildman: It is mainly because you are the member.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: That is the main reason. I have researched this tourism program extensively. I have contacted the proper officials in several provinces, especially Prince Edward Island and I have also talked with people in Great Britain, especially in Wales and in England.

Working with the excellent leaders in the Ontario farm vacations program, the executive and I were able to convince the then Minister of Agriculture and Food, Dennis Timbrell, to provide some financial assistance back in the early 1980s. I would also like to give credit to the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins), who was Tourism critic in those days and totally supported this program.

I wish some of the other members who have spoken today would follow his example. The farm vacations program is now on the move. In 1980, there were 22 host farms; in 1982, 44; in 1984, 61, and this year, we have 96 farmers engaged in the program. More should be done.

The program is administered by the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell). I want the member for Lincoln to listen to this. Logic would dictate that it should fall under the mandate of the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. That ministry should have the expertise to market this program to its full potential.

This is one example of where the Tourism Advisory Board could offer the government some guidance and determine which ministry is best able to assist this Ontario farm vacations program to reach its full potential. It is an outside advisory body that could make the determination that might help both ministers.

Last week I did some research on the program to see where it was at today. I would like to mention some of the highlights of that. We checked with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in Fergus and Guelph, the chamber of commerce and the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation in Toronto. We asked if the latter had any statistics. They have no program; it is too small for their department.

Many of the people in this Legislature are likely not aware of what the farm program is, and if they are not, they should be. I would like to mention the average costs that I received from one of the top people in the program. The average cost per adult for three meals a day is $35. For accommodation of six days and nights and three meals a day it is $180. For a family of two adults and two children, three meals a day for one week cost $600.

One could spend that in a downtown hotel in one day for four people. There are many people out there who cannot afford that type of accommodation in downtown Toronto. In fact, many people in Toronto would like nothing better than to go into the rural part of this province and find out what it is all about. I think that $600 for a family of four for all meals and accommodation is exceptionally good value.

My executive spoke to Mrs. John Gillespie from Ayr. The comments were that the OFVP very much appreciated my help. They have been hosts for several years and they feel that assistance with the accommodation guide has been extremely worth while. That is the one the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation puts out. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food puts out Ontario Farm Vacation Programs but it is only distributed in Ontario. This goes all across the country and into Europe, and they feel it is much more beneficial to the members.

Mrs. Gillespie had three or four points she wanted to suggest. The Ministry of Tourism and Recreation allowed them access to the tourist consultant from Kitchener, Stephen Pearce, and that was very helpful. If OFVP could have the public make use of the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation’s 1-800 number, that would be very beneficial. If the OFVP could be listed in the accommodation seasonal guide, because some farms offer winter vacations as well, that would also be of assistance, and all guests should be requested to fill out a questionnaire.

Mr. Hampton: It is with some pleasure that I have an opportunity to speak on this bill. My constituency of Rainy River, along with the constituency of Kenora next to it, has a very large number of tourist resorts. In fact, my community, the community of Fort Frances, in the summertime becomes one of the largest ports of entry from the United States into Canada, strictly for the purposes of tourism. In the summer, it is not unusual to find American tourists lined up for three or four miles to cross the bridge to get into Canada to catch some of the fish that our area is famous for.

Similarly, the small community of Rainy River, which is located at the very western edge of the riding, up against the Manitoba border, also becomes a thriving tourist community in the summer. In fact, that community is pursuing right now with the federal government the opportunity of having the airport on the American side of the border declared an international airport and having Canadian customs inspection available at that airport to ease the entry of American tourists.

This bill is certainly quite important for the part of Ontario that I am from. It is for that reason that I support the bill and I support the ideas that are contained within it. The establishment of the Tourism Advisory Board is important for a number of reasons.

First of all, it is very necessary, I think, to expand the vision of tourism in Ontario today. One of the things that strikes me when I watch many of the tourism ads is that more and more what is being advertised is the city of Toronto. I recognize that tourism is a very important part of the Toronto economy and I recognize that it makes a large contribution to the province, but I have to remind the House -- and I think the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation needs to be reminded -- of the fact that there is a very large area of Ontario which is virtually dependent upon tourism, and that large area of Ontario needs to be recognized.

The advisory board that this bill would establish would, I think, go a long way in assisting this government to realize that tourism is not just a Toronto phenomenon; it is a phenomenon that is important to a very large section of the province. More than that, the government needs, I believe, some rather specific advice on the whole issue of tourism.

I am afraid if the government does not get that advice and along the way begins to encounter the complexities of the tourism problem, this government will pull what is beginning to appear to be its favourite move, that is, it will pull its “duck and run.” As I look at what is being proposed in the tourism management agreements, that is precisely what they seem to be doing, handing over responsibility for the tourism industry to the private sector and letting it be that sector’s problem.

1050

Mr. Wildman: Another name for the Liberal Party: Ducks Unlimited.

Mr. Hampton: Please, that is a rather respected organization, Ducks Unlimited, and I do not know whether I want to sully its name like that.

Quite seriously, as I look at what is proposed in the tourism management agreements, I am afraid that looks very much like handing off responsibility for tourism to the private sector and saying: “You do it. We do not have any solutions.” There are some solutions and there is some good advice that can be offered to the government, and I want to deal with some of those concrete things at this time.

Distributed throughout my riding, and in fact taking up a very large part of it, is a provincial park that we should all be quite proud of, Quetico park. Quetico park has a very large wilderness area. It is known throughout the world. It is known throughout many urban areas in the United States and, in fact, many young entrepreneurs have recently come to Quetico park and are now providing a different kind of tourism. It is tourism aimed at bringing people to the park who are interested in photography; aimed at bringing people from an urban setting into the park who are interested in a wilderness experience; aimed not just at someone who wants to fish but at someone who is generally closed in by the urban experience and wants to experience wilderness in all its manifestations.

They are being successful in attracting not only people from the large urban centres in the United States but also from such faraway places as Japan, Germany and Great Britain. I would argue very strongly that the government should be looking at this kind of tourism development in the future and utilizing some of our crown land in this way. That is the kind of advice that this advisory board could provide the government. That is one concrete way.

There are several other concrete things that government could and should be looking at, and I want to mention them quickly. In my area, where we have a large number of small tourist camps, we must reach those tourist camps by means of secondary highways, but the state of secondary highways in northwestern Ontario at this time is nothing less than deplorable.

When there are four or five tourist operators phoning me in one day and saying, “I had tourists from Iowa, from Minneapolis, from Chicago who attempted to get to my tourist camp this spring and they could not make it because the road is so bad,” and it is a provincial secondary highway, something has to be done. It is not the same thing as fixing up Highway 401. It is not at all the same thing. It would not involve one tenth of the expense and yet the immediate returns would be there.

The member for Algoma mentioned the issue of gasoline prices. How can this government justify gasoline prices all across northwestern and northern Ontario that are four cents a litre higher than they are in southern Ontario? They cannot justify them. It affects everything we do in northern Ontario: transportation in and transportation out. In itself that is a factor in disillusioning tourists who want to come from the United States to experience the tourist facilities and the tourism experience that we offer in northwestern Ontario.

Let me give some other examples. If you want to cross from the United States into Canada where I live, the bridge crossing the Rainy River is owned not by the government of Ontario, not by the Canadian government, not by the state of Minnesota, not by the American government, but by the paper company. In fact, you have to drive through two paper mills to get across the border.

In its recently released reports, the Ministry of the Environment has stated that those two mills have the worst air quality of any mills in Ontario. One can see right away what the tourist is confronted with as he comes across the border hoping to do some fishing, hoping to experience some interesting wildlife and wilderness.

Mr. Black: They should come to Muskoka and Georgian Bay.

Mr. Hampton: I am afraid that is the kind of solution the government is proposing. I am afraid that is just it and that is not good enough.

There are some concrete things that can be done in terms of working with the Ministry of Transportation, with the Ministry of the Environment and with the Ministry of Natural Resources. In our part of Ontario now, many of the pulp companies cut right up to the river’s edge, cut right up to the edge of the lake and, indeed, cut right up to the edge of the highway. What does that look like to a tourist who comes across the border expecting to see wilderness and all he sees for four miles along the highway is something that looks like a desert because all the trees have been cut away? That is not good tourist management.

I conclude by saying that this bill and the ideas it encompasses would do some good things for this government.

Mr. McLean: I want to compliment the member for Algoma for his support of this bill and his remarks during this debate. I also want to compliment the member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson) for his comments in support of the bill and I want to thank the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton) for his comments in support of the bill.

However, I am not so sure about the comments of my friend the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay who does not support this bill and who, in my estimation, does not want to support the future of the great tourism industry we have, promoting it --

Mr. Villeneuve: That is exactly it.

Mr. McLean: I said further promotion of it. I just hope he will reconsider and support this bill and that his party will also. There were some indications in his remarks with regard to promoting rest stops. Some three years ago during an election campaign, his leader indicated that would be one of his promises. To this day, it is still an election promise.

The other thing I want to mention is the gas prices in Ontario. Some time ago, the Treasurer brought in legislation which did away with the ad valorem tax on gasoline and made it a flat rate. At that time, he wanted 8.8 cents per litre. We, along with the New Democratic Party, had him reconsider and it ended up at 8.3 cents a litre. However, today, if the ad valorem tax were still in effect, the people of this province would be paying approximately 3.5 cents less a litre for their fuel. That is a very important item. When we look at fuel and we want to have tourists come here, the gas price is one thing that is so important.

The other aspect of the bill that I want to elaborate on just a bit is the importance of tourism in the province. Just last year, the Ojibway Indians in Rama township had a special project which was funded through the Futures program in co-operation with that community, a large tourist attraction. I think it is going to be something that will take place across the province.

I have talked to the members of the Christian Island band with regard to the development of Hope and Beckwith islands as a tourist attraction. There are many things in this province that we can deal with that would bring more tourist dollars to this province. Here we are in this area of the province supporting tourism and my colleague the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay is not in favour of and does not want to support this bill. I find that hard to accept.

The member mentioned Georgian College. I can tell him about the tourism programs they have in Georgian College. They are excellent programs. I can also tell him about the programs at Ryerson Polytechnical Institute. They are great. He says there is no impact. What an attitude. I do not accept that. No impact with this bill? Certainly there would be impact. This advisory body would give the ministry some great advice. It is what they need.

The member talks about an extra advisory board. Over the past two years, we have seen 37 advisory boards appointed and I have not seen their reports, but I want it in a bill and I want an advisory board that is approved by all of us in this Legislature, not just by the Liberal Party.

In closing, I want to ask members for support for this bill for the betterment of tourism in the province of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: This concludes the debate on Mr. McLean’s bill.

1100

Mr. J. M. Johnson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if we could agree to go clockwise rather than counter-clockwise on all private members’ bills. It really does not make much difference as long as we do the same thing every week. I would suggest that we simply rotate in a clockwise motion. It seems to me that is the way we do most of the time.

The Deputy Speaker: We have done it both ways in the past. Is it the wish of the House that we continue the clockwise rotation as usual?

Mr. Wildman: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker: While I support this bill, it is most appropriate that when the Conservatives introduce bills, we go counter-clockwise.

The Deputy Speaker: Now that the House has been very clear as to what it wants, the chair is very flexible, but I would like the House to decide. Is there a consensus to move clockwise?

Agreed to.

HERITAGE BUILDING FUND

Mr. Cleary moved resolution 6:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that heritage buildings play an important role in reminding us of the dedication our forefathers had in establishing a country that differs from the United States, the government of Ontario should establish a heritage building fund to be used to maintain heritage buildings in their original state for all to enjoy and that money for the fund should be derived from the provincial lotteries.

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

Mr. Cleary: It is an honour for me to address this House on the matter of heritage buildings. As some members may know, I have been involved in municipal politics for many years as both reeve for the township of Cornwall and warden of the united counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

Over those many years, one issue which continually came up for discussion was the matter of heritage buildings. To appreciate fully why this is so, I would like to share with the members a brief history of the Cornwall area. I say “area” because from time to time I may speak about areas which are geographically outside my riding.

In 1784, the first immigrants settled in the Cornwall area. These people were United Empire Loyalists who served the British crown under General Cornwallis in the American Revolution, which had recently ended. General Cornwallis must have been quite a man, for they named the settlement in his honour. It is interesting to note that although it has often been assumed that the first settlers in Cornwall were of British origin, there were also settlers of French descent. This has led to a rich and diverse cultural heritage which Cornwall enjoys today.

The person under whose supervision pioneers located there was Sir John Johnson, who commanded the King’s Royal Regiment of New York during the revolution. These first settlers, who came from the southern part of New York State, New Jersey and the Mohawk Valley decided, or had it decided for them, that they did not want to live in the United States but would prefer to live in a country under British rule. Having decided to leave the new republic and leave many of their belongings behind, they travelled north to the Ile Jésus near Montreal. It is said that some of these people lived on the island for as long as two years before locating in the Cornwall riding.

Once landed in Cornwall, they were given an allowance for land from our government and immediately started clearing forests in order to allow them to plant their crops and get on with their new lives. After all, a majority of them were farmers, and Canada at that time was an agricultural economy.

The second wave of immigrants in the area was the highland Scots in 1786. They settled primarily in Glengarry. A considerable number of them settled in the township of Cornwall along the banks of the Raisin River and formed a settlement which is known as St. Andrews West, seven miles north of Cornwall. One of these newly arrived immigrants was a gentleman by the name of Alexander Macdonald, who would later marry Nancy Macdonald. Their eldest son was Sir John Sandfield Macdonald, who would later become Ontario’s first Premier.

The individuals I have spoken of chose to come to Canada and settle in Ontario. I believe they saw in the new land something which was worth the pain and effort they had to endure to tame it for future generations. Something was better than what they had left behind.

Once established in their new homes, they were willing to defend their new lands. You bet! The War of 1812, and Congress had just declared war on Britain. I am sure most members remember their history lessons from their school days and the great battle of Crysler’s Farm, where 1,300 men defended the region against an attack of between 16,000 and 18,000 men of an American army. The defeat of the Americans was decisive. They had defended what they had worked hard to build, and once the battle was over, history tells us that they beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. In other words, they discarded the implements of war for those of agriculture.

Around 1870, good farm land was a scarce commodity in Quebec, and young men and women were encouraged to move west to Upper Canada. It is fortunate for us today that some decided to settle in the Cornwall riding for, as I indicated earlier, Cornwall enjoys a bicultural heritage. At the same time, Cornwall was becoming an industrial centre. Cornwall, in fact, was the early leader in the industrial development of Ontario. It had many large modern textile plants which earned the proud title of Cornwall, the factory town.

I could talk for hours on the history of our riding, but I am sure that members can see what a historically rich riding I represent. It is because my constituency has such a rich heritage that I can see the importance of an Ontario heritage conservation program.

At this point I would like to elaborate on some of the heritage programs which are currently funded by the Ontario government. The Ministry of Culture and Communications and its agency, the Ontario Heritage Foundation, provide financial support for the preservation and restoration of provincial heritage buildings. Their grant programs encourage community involvement in architectural conservation activities and help strengthen our sense of community identification.

For example, the community facilities improvement program, known as CFIP, provides capital funding for the planning, purchase, construction, improvement and renovation of cultural facilities and for conservation of heritage buildings, including historic bridges. Preserving Ontario’s Architecture, another ministry program, helps to support the efforts of municipalities and property owners to preserve our architectural heritage. Currently, funding for the government’s heritage program is awarded by the Ontario Heritage Foundation. The Ontario Heritage Foundation awards capital grants for the conservation of heritage properties when the directors of the foundation judge the properties to be of considerable architectural and historical significance.

After reviewing the current program which is made available by the Ministry of Culture and Communications, I would like to commend the minister on the marvellous job she has done in preserving Ontario’s historical heritage. Her work with Ontario museums, historical societies and municipal boards is noteworthy.

1110

When I originally envisioned my resolution for a heritage building fund, I had in mind the restoration of actual buildings. I still believe that to be the case. However, let me go one step further. What is also missing is a central tourist package which focuses on the major forces that have helped to shape the history of Ontario. This package, which would be funded by proposed heritage funds, could emphasize such important themes as industry, agriculture, transportation, advances in medicine and health care and education.

As I mentioned earlier, Cornwall was an early leader in the industrial development of Ontario. Yet what does a visitor to this town learn of Cornwall riding’s industrial experience? The same might be said, in a different context, for Glengarry. The Scottish pioneers came to Glengarry and carved out their homes and farms in the new land. However, from one generation to another, agricultural practices, machinery, crops and livestock changed and farmers sought to wring a living for themselves and their families from the land. Yet where can one go to see and learn about farming practices over the 19th and 20th centuries in this distinctive Scottish community?

The same observations could be made about the mining industry in northern Ontario, or lumbering in the Georgian Bay area, or even our tourism in the Thousand Islands or the Muskokas. The proposed tourist packages would outline all the museums in a particular area that specialized in such subjects as medicine, transportation, health care, industry and agriculture. Thus, the tourists who travel in our riding could pick up a package from the local tourist bureau and learn about Cornwall’s rich industrial past and the Glengarry agricultural roots.

On that note, I would like to reserve the remaining time for my final remarks.

Ms. Bryden: I agree with the mover of the resolution that the preservation of Ontario’s heritage buildings is a matter of great importance and I congratulate him on reminding the new Liberal government of this fact. Since he was not here last spring, he may not be aware that the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture brought out a discussion paper in April 1987 affirming its commitment to updating the Ontario Heritage Act and stating that there is indeed a provincial interest in heritage.

Since then, we have heard nothing from the ministry on this commitment, nor was there any significant increase in the allocation of money to the programs of the ministry in the May budget. It is true that the day after the budget, the then Minister of Citizenship and Culture, now Minister of Culture and Communications (Ms. Munro), announced a $2.2-million initiative of grants and educational programs to preserve our architectural heritage. However, this was not really a new initiative but a replacement for the five-year BRIC program, which was about to run out. BRIC stands for “building rehabilitation and improvement campaign.”

In her statement the day after the budget, the minister gave no indication of the time span for spending the $2.2 million. In fact, it appears to have been just another pre-election promise, part of the $2.5 billion of promises made by the Liberal Party during the campaign, and we have not yet heard where the money is coming from to implement them.

It is on the money question that I part company with the resolution of the member for Cornwall (Mr. Cleary). We are already financing too many essential programs through lotteries. If we add a new lottery, we are increasing the encouragement to gamble and decreasing legislative control of the allocation of funds. The proceeds of the six lotteries that we now have are presently earmarked for physical fitness, sports, recreation, cultural activities, health and environmental research and hospital capital grants.

Last year the provincial Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) tried to get his hands on all the lottery proceeds so he would have the say in where the money went. There was such an outcry from local sport, recreational and cultural organizations who depended on the lottery proceeds for their activities that he withdrew the bill. That was one time I agreed with the provincial Treasurer.

I am shocked that the member for Cornwall has so little concern for the sports, recreational and cultural programs in his own community that he is prepared to rob them of some of the lottery proceeds which are earmarked for them. At present the Minister of Culture and Communications, her new title, is already siphoning off $1.5 million from Lottario as part of the commitment to restore the Elgin-Winter Garden theatres. This project is estimated to cost $19 million, of which $11 million will come from the federal and provincial governments. It is not clear whether the Ontario government is planning a further raid on lottery proceeds to meet this ongoing commitment in the next year or two.

At any rate, the funding of anything as important as the preservation of our heritage buildings should not be left to lottery proceeds. If the government really means what it said in its April 1987 discussion paper about its interest in the field, it should put its money where its mouth is. It should give the Legislature the full opportunity to debate the allocation of funds to this important area and to see whether the allocation is adequate.

I can support the member’s motion only with the caveat that if legislation is brought in to implement it, the reference to financing it from lottery proceeds would be dropped and the program would be financed as a recognized responsibility of the government through the budget.

In November 1986, the Architectural Conservancy of Toronto issued a news release on the inadequacies of the Ontario Heritage Act and recommended three significant amendments. They related to demolition stays, relief from property taxes on certain designated buildings and empowering municipalities to designate properties owned by the provincial government. Such buildings, of which the old city hall in Toronto is an example, are not subject to demolition controls and the other requirements of the act.

The conservancy contacted the Premier (Mr. Peterson) in the spring of 1985, when he was still Leader of the Opposition, to ask if he supported the above three amendments. He agreed to them all. He has had two and a half years in government to implement them, but nothing has happened. I urge the member for Cornwall to raise his concerns about heritage buildings in his own caucus and show us whether the Premier was just playing politics in 1985 or whether he and his party really believe in preserving heritage buildings and funding the work adequately.

1120

The Toronto Historical Board has done yeoman’s service for the past several years in lobbying for improvements in the Ontario Heritage Act. I congratulate it on its attempts to get better demolition controls in the Planning Act when it went through in 1983 as a new act under the preceding Progressive Conservative government.

The NDP members introduced amendments to strengthen the demolition control section but were voted down by a combination of Progressive Conservative and Liberal votes in the committee that was dealing with the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in 1982 and 1983.

The Toronto Historical Board’s managing director, Scott James, cited the provincial and federal governments as the greatest threat to Toronto’s heritage buildings because most of them are owned by those governments; but they are not, as I mentioned, subject to the Heritage Act.

The bill is definitely in the Liberals’ court. With its huge majority, there is nothing to inhibit action on heritage protection except a lack of will. I urge the mover of the resolution to pursue this matter very vigorously in his own caucus. I hope we will have some action this session, if possible. It is long overdue.

Mr. Villeneuve: It is indeed an honour and a pleasure to participate in the debate brought to this House as private member’s notice of motion 6 by my colleague and neighbour the member for Cornwall, Cornwall township and Charlottenburgh township.

Certainly, we represent an area very steeped in history. I was pleased, as I noticed the member was the other day, at the change of command of the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders, and I just want to expand a bit on the history that my colleague the member for Cornwall brought forth in his preliminary debate. It has to do with a bit of history of the regiment.

In 1804 -- and that is not yesterday -- former members of the Glengarry Fencibles of the British army who served in Europe settled behind the area already taken up by veterans of the American Revolutionary War. On July 3, 1868, the 59th Stormont and Glengarry Battalion of Infantry was authorized to be formed from six independent companies, and to this day the S, D and G Highlanders is the only regiment authorized to wear the tartan Macdonell of Glengarry, which I very proudly sport today.

I was glad to see my colleague’s interest in history and heritage buildings; it is significant because in what is now part of his riding, the township of Charlottenburgh; I believe we have five or six bicentennial farms, which were recognized back in 1984 during the bicentennial celebrations. I believe that says a great deal about the history of the area.

In eastern Ontario, we have a strong attachment to our history. The Glengarry Highland Games, for instance, held annually in my home town of Maxville, are a living reminder of the Scottish traditions and heritage in eastern Ontario. Upper Canada Village, near Morrisburg, is itself a living museum of life in the 1860s.

Even our municipalities date back a long way. For example, this year the village of Lancaster celebrated its centennial. Next year, the thriving little community of Chesterville will be celebrating its sesquicentennial, and the village of Winchester will be celebrating its centennial, so history abounds in the area that we mutually represent.

Our area farms go back a great many years, as I mentioned before. The riding which I formerly represented, including the township of Charlottenburgh, did have 50 per cent of all bicentennial farms in Ontario.

These few examples should provide an adequate reminder to this House of the importance of history and heritage in eastern Ontario and, in particular, the united counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, which includes, of course, the city of Cornwall.

Having said that, I would like to make some other points about our part of Ontario. I would like to address these particularly to the member for Cornwall.

First, I would point out that we have not shared in the economic boom experienced in our area as compared to, say, the Golden Horseshoe or the city of Toronto. We still require considerable economic expansion to reduce our unemployment rate and provide more full-time jobs.

I personally attended the Eastern Ontario Economic Outlook Conference recently held in Ottawa, and yes, many problems were brought to the fore. However, I was very disappointed to see no Liberal members, either provincially or federally, in attendance at that meeting. Ironically, when the same meeting was held in Kingston last year just prior to an event that happened on September 10, we had two cabinet ministers and a number of private members. How much difference can one year make?

We need an expansion of our tourist facilities and the means to promote these activities. Currently, tourism in S, D and G is mainly a summer activity. We should be expanding to include some winter activities, particularly in the area of Upper Canada Village.

In Cornwall and Charlottenburgh, as well as in my own riding, most of the tourist-related activities are along the St. Lawrence River -- Lake St. Francis, Lake St. Lawrence and the river. On October 7, I wrote the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) on the matter of polychlorinated biphenyl pollution. I also wrote the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil). The latter replied and stated that he agreed there was a problem, however, it was out of his jurisdiction to correct. The Minister of the Environment still has to answer. The Minister of Tourism and Recreation responded, saying that indeed it would be addressed in cabinet. I hope it is happening, I hope it has happened and I hope that corrective measures soon will be put in place.

Our agricultural sector faces low prices, very low prices, particularly for grain producers. At the same time that our farm incomes are being squeezed, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food will not allow changes in land use for people to set up small businesses compatible with the struggling farm economy. I think that is a disaster.

The average age of people in our area is going up. This problem relates to a number of issues. The first, as evident in my earlier economic argument, is that we do not have the jobs to keep our young people in the area. The second is our increasing seniors’ population. We need our government here to have a look at providing seniors’ accommodation in a rural setting without discriminating against senior citizens who have been frugal and who have accumulated a bit a wealth over a number of years. Furthermore, we need policies which will make it possible for seniors to qualify for such accommodation when they can no longer bear the burden of home ownership.

Compared to all these issues facing us in eastern Ontario, the need to use lottery funds to preserve heritage buildings is not a real, burning issue. However, it is an important one to the people who I represent and to the people who are represented by my colleague the member for Cornwall. At least that would be the perspective of those of us from eastern Ontario.

The major reason this new member to the Legislature brought this very important private member’s bill is that he readily admits, and has already recognized, that this government is quite obviously not doing the job in preserving heritage buildings.

There is already a program in place to look after heritage buildings. It is commonly known as Preserving Ontario’s Architecture. It is a program launched on May 21, 1987, only a few months ago. The heading on the press release announcing that program was actually a bit of a joke. As the member for Cornwall probably knows, it read as follows: “Bold New Program Will Preserve Ontario’s Architecture.” It then went on to say that the new $2.2-million program would preserve Ontario’s “rich architectural legacy.”

The joke is that this bold new program was simply a repeat of the previous government’s undertaking of $2.2 million in the building rehabilitation and improvement campaign. The minister had simply changed the name of the program, added a few details, but had not added one dollar more; and as my colleague previously mentioned, a study is still out waiting to be tabled in this Legislature.

The member for Cornwall recognized very early in the game that his government is not doing the job in the area of heritage buildings, and I commend him for that. I would suggest with great respect that the member for Cornwall also has to speak to his colleagues who are in cabinet at the decision-making level.

1130

The member for Cornwall should also be aware that a review of Ontario’s heritage policy and the Ontario Heritage Act was announced in February of this year. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate for his resolution to have been introduced after the review was completed and made public. As I mentioned, we are still waiting for the results of that study.

I also suspect that the member for Cornwall is probably embarrassed by the financial statement of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) about two weeks ago. Members will recall that in addition to last year’s windfall revenues, this year’s revenues are running $355 million ahead of budget; again, some found money for this very fortunate government. Never before in the history of this province have such huge revenues poured into provincial coffers. The Premier admits to being the luckiest Premier ever to inherit a very enviable position that occurred in spite of him.

However, even during these times of windfall revenues, those of us who have been in this House for at least two and a half years know the government does want to get more control over lottery winnings. As I sum up, I recall standing in my place in this Legislature when Bill 38 was brought forth and was not brought to fruition; under it, lottery earnings would have all gone to the central fund of this government. In small-town Ontario, we must get our share of these lottery funds for sports facilities and heritage buildings.

Mr. Owen: First, I would like to congratulate the member for Cornwall for his election to this Legislature and also to commend him on what I believe is his maiden speech this morning.

I would also like to point out to the House that while I concur in the enthusiasm that has been shown by the member for Cornwall in his efforts for this province to preserve buildings of heritage quality, I am afraid I cannot endorse the rest of his resolution, which advises that he is proposing the setup of a new structure when we already have a structure in place that is functioning for this province.

In fact, the Ontario Heritage Foundation has been in effect for a number of years and is under a two-year review which is still in process. That two-year review, of course, is a time when there is introspection by the foundation itself as to its goals, its aims, what it is trying to do and what it has achieved. That report should be available to us some time later in 1988, and I look forward to that. As a matter of fact, having been a director of the Ontario Heritage Foundation, I welcomed the opportunity of having played a role and a part in that review program.

There has been a reference made to the community facilities improvement program. I would point out that for the fiscal period 1987-88 there will be $6.9 million spent in that area, and that is money from lotteries. So again, I must oppose the resolution because we are already using lottery moneys in that direction. It has already been mentioned that the moneys available in the Preserving Ontario’s Architecture program is in the vicinity of $2 million, and again it is from the source of lotteries.

I would like to point out that the foundation, in its handling of heritage buildings, has learned a number of things that have to be kept in mind. First of all, they have to look to the historical and architectural qualities of the buildings that are in mind. Beyond that, they have learned that they must have a useful purpose or function for the building. To simply look at a building and say that it has something of quality is not going to maintain it or ensure its future. They have learned that in partnership with the communities, or with the families in the home or with industry if it is a commercial building, together they can work towards preserving our past in heritage buildings.

The heritage foundation has a number of obligations and committees that work underneath it. First of all, there is the historical section of the foundation, and it deals with encouraging literature and studies on various aspects of our province. In fact, members will find all across this province, in each area, that there are people who are achieving great things with regards to looking into the history and background of their own areas. For example, in my own area, Barrie is about to see, in another week, a book written by Dr. Allan Fisher, who is going to be going into the early history of Barrie and the early people who settled there and how the streets came to be named. Others have done the same in our area of Huronia, and no doubt other areas have enjoyed the same thing.

At the same time, I want to commend the encouragement of the historical and heritage associations in every one of our communities across the whole of Ontario. These are, in fact, the unsung heroes who are recognizing what is of importance to their areas in our history and our tradition. They too should be commended because most of them do this simply because they have an interest in and a passion for our past, knowing the importance it will play in our future. They do so simply because of their interest, simply because of their dedication, with no remuneration or other encouragement or benefits for themselves.

The historical section also deals with the plaquing that goes on across our province. Many of the members who have been sitting here for some time have undoubtedly attended some of these events where plaquing occurs. For every plaquing event that occurs, there is a great deal of research, there is a great deal of involvement with the community. Sometimes the province has to say unfortunately it is an event, an occurrence or a person that is of only local importance, and therefore local plaquing occurs. But when it is a plaquing which occurs from the Ontario foundation, it means it is of province-wide importance. Under the foundation, we are in the midst of updating the plaquing book for the whole province, and it should be released very shortly.

In addition to that, of course, we have the architecture committee, which deals with looking into the proposals for heritage preservation, assisting with advice from architects who are known in that field and recommending skilled people and tradespersons with expertise in that particular area. This too is an important role which has been played by the foundation.

In addition to that, of course, there is archaeology, which looks into the more distant heritage of our province. We have a trust committee under the foundation which identifies and looks after buildings that are owned by the foundation itself. In fact, the people of this province own 33 buildings, which we are administering and operating.

Last but not least, of course, there is a committee which deals with the Niagara Escarpment, because we have a natural heritage which must be preserved and looked after in this province.

I would like to point out that my experience has been that the staff at the ministry and at the foundation is dedicated; it is incredibly competent and incredibly overworked. I would like to see if maybe we can give more assistance through the ministry in that direction.

I would like to point out that all of us are able to contribute to the heritage ourselves just by looking at buildings that are proposed in our ridings. How many of the members have gone to the schools in their own communities and said, “Will you consider walking tours, taking children who are studying local history and showing them the importance and significance of buildings right in their own ridings?” How many members have done that? How many members will undertake to do that?

We are trying to encourage the people to use our museums. For example, in my riding of Simcoe Centre, we have an incredibly fine museum. Members need not visit it; they can see it on television this coming Sunday night, because that is the location of the Anne of Green Gables series and there is a sequel running on this Sunday. Members will see that we have taken a church, a school and other buildings of historical significance and brought them to our museum site.

1140

I point out that we have motor tours which identify many of these heritage buildings across the province, and with the co-operation of tourism we have shown that these are available. If members go to the tourist bureaus in their own areas, they will see pamphlets and literature trying to get people to identify more and more with regard to what is of importance to our background.

I note that my friend the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) has left the chamber.

Interjection.

Mr. Owen: I am sorry. He is here; great. I note that he referred to the bicentennial of 1984. I always wondered how they ever arrived at 1984 as a bicentennial because in fact history has always taught me that it would take place in 1991.

Mr. Villeneuve: So we will celebrate it again.

Mr. Owen: So we will celebrate it again, but with a new government we will be honest and observe it on the date it should take place.

I ask that all of us concentrate on what we can do for heritage. I ask members to look at their railway stations and see what can be done there. I point out that the restoration of a building that is owned by the foundation, the Winter Garden and Elgin theatres, will be observed this coming year. It is the last and only stacked theatre left in the entire world. The restoration that is going on there is something of which we can all be proud, and I hope all members will attend the opening in 1988.

Mr. Breaugh: Rushing in this morning to defend a member who is under fire from his colleagues, I have great sympathy with those dissidents who are attacked scathingly by people in their own caucus just for putting forward a simple resolution in their maiden speech. A little cheap advice from an old wart to a new member: It is OK; you will survive. Dissidents are allowed to live in these premises. It is just a painful career; that is all. These family squabbles are always ugly. Do not worry about them.

I want to tell him that I am going to support the resolution this morning, although it is a scathing commentary on the status of heritage buildings in Ontario that we have come to the point where we want to finance the restoration of our heritage from the numbers racket. That is precisely what is proposed here. The problem, of course, is that there are a lot of other people at the numbers racket trough these days, so there is not very much spillage left around the edge for heritage buildings.

One of the problems for anybody who has even the vaguest interest here, as the previous speaker mentioned, is that a lot of what is done on heritage buildings in Ontario has to do with this thing called “plaquing.” You may think that has to do with dentistry; it does not. It has to do with people sitting around at meetings deciding, “This is an old building worth saving.” The problem is that we have not really got it past that point. The Ontario Heritage Foundation is relatively good at putting a plaque on a building, but this does not do a whole lot for the restoration of the building. Unless it is a hell of a big plaque, it is not even going to help keep the building up. So one of our problems is that we have got it to the point where we kind of recognize there is some of our heritage involved in the building, but we cannot do much about it.

On the positive side, there are several examples around Ontario of newly created structures at Old Fort William and at Fort Henry and at several other venues around Ontario where we have reconstructed our history. We provide excellent opportunities for young people and our citizens in general to see what Ontario was like in the old days. The tragedy, of course, is that while all this is going on, quite successfully restructuring and recreating the history of this province, where the existing history is already there we cannot seem to do very much to kind of save it.

I am reminded of some examples in my own background. In Napanee there is an old post office and the Ontario Heritage Foundation moved in to try to do something about the restoration of the old post office in Napanee. It was such a failure that the citizens in the community took it back. They kind of seized it from the Ontario Heritage Foundation and put up a huge sign saying: “Heritage Ontario, get out of town. We will do it ourselves.” I think that is not nice. That is not the way it is supposed to be.

Governments are supposed to provide agencies that assist local citizens who have an interest in preserving our heritage. There should be a mechanism to fund them properly. There should be advice for them; technical advice on how to do restoration.

There are several members here who may have a conflict of interest because it is not clear in the resolution whether this is about restoring old fossils or old buildings. If it is old fossils, several will not be able to vote on the matter.

Mr. Black: They are on your left there.

Mr. Breaugh: They used to be on my left, but there are so few now that they are an endangered species so we do not challenge them at all.

Mr. Villeneuve: Be nice. We are nice to you. Your health will suffer, Michael. I can tell that.

Mr. Breaugh: I appreciate the concern about my personal health.

One of the problems we are going to face in the Legislature is a very serious one that those of us who have been interested in preserving the heritage of Ontario have been aware of for some time. This building, folks, is falling down. The members will notice that as soon as they leave the grand staircase and the beautiful red carpeting that is brand new and enter into the back corridors of the building. Some of the members will be in offices where they will find that the wonderfulness of modern technology does not fit very nicely with the ancient state of this building. The members will find that we have not quite mastered plumbing, heating and lighting and things like that in this building.

Many of us are concerned that a great part of Ontario’s heritage is threatened somewhat, and the best example I can think of is this building we are in today. We do not have a long-term restoration plan for the building itself. We have seen it in many other jurisdictions. Our problems are not unique. Society has generally just kind of left these older buildings, these older parts of our heritage, to kind of decline. Much of what they found as problems we find here.

One of the first problems we have in trying to preserve a building like this is that for years and years people had no interest in this and so they did a great deal of damage around the building. Members will see it all over the place. There is woodwork throughout the building, for example, that if you tried to replace it today would cost an arm and a leg. Yet people are running around stapling wires. The wire is left bare in somebody’s office. Computer wires are stapled to the wall. People knock holes in the walls. There are false ceilings all over the place.

If they had to replace some of the doors around this building, members would begin to see how expensive that can be. There are some interesting examples of places in the building itself where people did try to replace doors and they found, for example, that they do not make doors such as the ones that are used in this building.

A lot of what we have to do across Ontario, in this building and elsewhere, is to provide two or three basic things, the first of which is funding. That has never been present. This motion in a way addresses itself to that. I will support the motion but I want to put this caution up: even the numbers racket in Ontario has its limits. It is not an unending source of funding and in my view this is not the best way to do this. I can think of better ways to get a commitment for long-term funding to do restoration and renovation of buildings to preserve our heritage all across Ontario than to take it out of the numbers racket. That is the first problem I have.

I do not think it should destroy anybody’s ability to support this resolution, but I want to point out that there are real limits to that and that I have a real problem in basically funding projects of this nature from the lotteries. That is our first problem.

Second, as some members have alluded previously, we have kind of talked ourselves around in circles for years and years on how to go about this. The sad tragedy is that while all this discussion is under way and while everybody is writing their book on Ontario’s heritage, Ontario’s heritage is falling to the ground, literally. Those who are interested in preserving the buildings and the sites and that part of the very real heritage of Ontario that you can see in your own community are well aware of how difficult it is to do it. Theoretically, there are agencies charged with the responsibility of identifying, preserving and restoring Ontario’s heritage across Ontario, but in practical terms they have never been able to do that and you would need a quantum leap of faith to think that if we only wait until February it will happen. I do not believe it will. I do not believe it is going to be high on this government’s priority, though it ought to be.

1150

One of the things that it will have to do, whether it likes it or not, is it is going to have to do something about the building that we are now in. Gravity is going to take its course here. This building is slowly but surely falling to the ground. The roof leaks, and it is not quite exactly like the roof one has on his house. The building outside is being restored gradually and surely, but we do not really have as much technical knowledge as we should have to complete that restoration. So it is a problem that we face here in the assembly itself, and citizens’ groups around Ontario face.

I support the resolution for two very simple reasons. First, the member for Cornwall had the courage to criticize his own government for its abject failure to do anything about this. He risked the condemnation of his own colleagues to put it forward, and I believe anybody who has that kind of intestinal fortitude can use my support no matter what the resolution says. He has it.

Second, I believe that this is a very serious problem that affects a number of people around Ontario who are trying very hard, under difficult conditions, to preserve our heritage. That is eminently supportable.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the member for Cornwall reserved some time. Do you wish to use up the final nine minutes?

Mr. Cleary: I would like to thank all honourable members for their input. I am not here to criticize anyone. The only thing I am here for is to try, I hope, to have some input to make things a bit better.

I have a few comments about the input from the honourable member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden). It was not my intention to rob any recreation program. But over the years, in municipal politics, I felt that there are special interest groups in different areas. I felt that if this was included in a lottery program that there probably would be increased sales. That was my thinking.

The honourable member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry made some good comments about some of the things I was going to touch on in my windup about the bicentennial farms, about Upper Canada Village, about the Glengarry Highland Games, which is a big tourist attraction in eastern Ontario. The other thing I wanted to touch on was back in the time of the Seaway, which some of the members might be familiar with. Many of our buildings from Mille Roches and Moulinette were moved to Upper Canada Village and restored in a certain area. Then we have other villages that have not had the same opportunity.

I would like to thank the honourable member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) for part of his remarks. I guess he has probably left, but I hope he does not get too sympathetic with me because I think we will try to stand our own here.

I would like to thank the honourable member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. Owen) for some of his remarks as well. I know that some of the things he has mentioned are probably true.

An hon. member: Don’t give him too much credit.

Mr. Cleary: I am not going to give him too much credit.

In my closing remarks I would like to say that this is something that has haunted us in eastern Ontario for a number of years. I feel very strongly that it should be closely looked at. I am very flexible on where the funding comes from.

As I said earlier, I mentioned a lottery because when one is in politics that seems to be easier than getting it out of the direct general revenue.

In closing, I would simply like to say that Ontario has a rich and diverse heritage and we, as a Legislature, should do all that we can in our power to preserve our heritage.

TOURISM ADVISORY BOARD ACT

Mr. Speaker: It is a little difficult for the Speaker at the moment. The standing orders are very clear that a vote shall be taken at 12 o’clock. Is there unanimous consent to hold the vote now?

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. McLean has moved second reading of Bill 24.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

HERITAGE BUILDING FUND

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Cleary has moved resolution 6.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 12 noon.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

RENT REGULATION

Mr. Breaugh: I thought it would be interesting to try to follow rent review as tenants see it, particularly tenants at an apartment unit at 25 Wellesley Street East here in the city.

People in this building, because it is a post-1976 building, were hit with a 20 per cent rent hike in 1986, and they were asked for a further 20 per cent increase in 1987. They are now paying for the utilities -- heat and light -- that were previously paid as part of their rent.

They thought they had a rent review process in the works, but they are now beginning to see all of the loopholes that are there. They have paid the second round of rent increases up front. Many of them have left the building because the landlord is interested in turning it into an apartment hotel now. They have begun to experience the delays that are present for all tenants in Ontario under the current rent review process.

They thought the landlord had dates to meet in terms of submitting cost estimates for the rent review process. They found out the landlord can have extension after extension.

They are beginning to understand exactly what the process is all about. It is a system which is unfair to landlord and tenant alike. It results in nondecisions. It puts a heavy economic penalty on the tenants all the way through the system. It is a system that is just plain not working; 23,000 people are waiting for their applications to be heard, and none of them is getting a decision out of the process.

CREDIT UNIONS AND CAISSES POPULAIRES

M. Villeneuve: Les députés progressistes-conservateurs de cette Assemblée législative désirent exprimer leur désaccord en ce qui concerne une injuste initiative des libéraux envers les caisses populaires de l’Ontario. En mars 1987, les «credit unions» ont inscrit un déficit collectif net de $85 millions. Cela représente près de 10 pour cent des actifs des «credit unions», qui sont en difficulté. Donc, ce gouvernement a proposé un plan de redressement de $75 millions.

Au contraire, nos caisses populaires sont en bonne santé financière. Les caisses ont leur propre fonds de stabilisation, qui s’élève à $7.5 millions, pour absorber leur déficit de $5.3 millions. Il leur reste, donc, un surplus de $2.2 millions en plus des réserves individuelles de $17 millions, mais ce gouvernement a décidé d’associer ces deux groupes.

Les caisses et les «credit unions» ont tous deux exigé deux fonds séparés. Le projet de loi les reconnaît clairement comme deux groupes séparés. Ces deux groupes ont fait savoir qu’ils ne veulent ni recevoir ni obtenir cet argent.

Les membres de mon parti insistent pour que le gouvernement reconsidère ses propositions et traite les «credit unions» et les caisses populaires individuellement et séparément.

ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WITH BRAIN INJURIES

Mr. Morin: There always seems to be a segment of society that, because of a stroke of bad luck, falls between the cracks of our social system. I am referring to those people who are suffering from brain injuries. Statistics are alarming. An educated guess puts the number at 44 new cases each day. Most of them are under 30, and 80 per cent are male.

The needs of the brain-injured are considerable. Some of the difficulties involve social behaviour. They are often irritable, anxious and easily depressed; under stress they become verbally abusive.

The greatest tragedy is that once their hospital-based rehabilitation programs are over, head-injured persons and their families are left to cope alone. Many head-injured persons land up alone in psychiatric facilities and, even worse, in jail. The solution is for the province to assist in providing co-ordinated services in the community.

Presently, Canadians with severe disabilities due to brain injury look to the United States for help. These facilities offer a blend of techniques not available in Ontario.

I have cases in my constituency where families are torn apart by the stress, the mental anguish and the financial burden. On behalf of the brain-injured and their families, I ask that the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) take immediate action to establish parallel facilities in Ontario and, in the short term, to allow them to go the United States for treatment and to be fully covered by the Ontario health insurance plan so that they can get the treatment they rightly deserve.

CHILEAN WINES

Ms. Bryden: I was shocked to learn last week that the Liquor Control Board of Ontario had announced it was giving shelf space to wines from Chile. Chile is a country whose record in violating human rights is as bad or worse than the record of South Africa, but on the instructions of the government the board does not stock any products of South Africa as a protest against their human rights policies.

All members of this Legislature have recently received an information package on an international campaign to end all torture and oppression in Chile. The package came from Professor Israel Halperin at the University of Toronto. He has a worldwide support group which is publicizing shocking violations of human rights in Chile to strengthen public opinion to demand that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights be enforced in every country in the world. His documentation includes the horrifying story of Carmen Gloria Quintana, who was set on fire by Pinochet’s soldiers in Chile. She survived to tell her story, amazingly.

I urge the government to ask the Liquor Control Board of Ontario to reconsider its decision to stock Chilean wines. In this way, the government will express our solidarity with the international campaign.

ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney). I would like to take this opportunity to remind the minister about a unique circumstance that could be used to house and treat some of the 93,000 middle-aged residents of Ontario who are afflicted by Alzheimer’s disease. This is a disorder of the brain that causes loss of memory and serious mental deterioration over a period of time ranging from two to 20 years. It usually results in the death of those afflicted.

As I told this Legislature before, the riding of Simcoe East has the Huronia Regional Centre in Orillia, which has both staff and facilities that could be used to care for and treat patients suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. Earlier this year, the minister announced a series of programs aimed at community living for mentally handicapped residents at facilities such as Huronia Regional Centre. Rather than losing facilities like this and shifting staff elsewhere in the province, I urge the minister to consider retraining the staff to handle patients with Alzheimer’s disease.

This is a serious affliction that is devastating not only to the victims but to their families as well, because they must travel great distances to visit their institutionalized relatives. Alzheimer’s disease is not yet treatable, and a considerable amount of research is required to get to the cause of this affliction.

I urge the minister to consider using the Huronia Regional Centre for a care and treatment facility for those suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. I urge the minister to establish free training programs for his staff in that area.

SIMCOE CHRISTMAS PANORAMA

Mr. Miller: I rise today to announce to the House that the annual panorama of lights in Simcoe was officially lighted at 7:30 on the evening of December 1 this year. This year marks the 30th anniversary of the month-long panorama, which annually attracts up to 500,000 visitors to the town of Simcoe. I invite all members to visit Simcoe during the month of December and to walk through the park and see the display for themselves. I am sure all members in the House join me in sending my best wishes to Simcoe for another successful year and in congratulating the chamber of commerce, the Simcoe parks department, the planning committee and all the companies and organizations which so generously donate their time and resources to this beautiful Christmas tradition.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Swart: I want to direct my statement to the Minister of Community and Social Services, even though he is not in the House.

There is a very real desire, an understandable desire, on the part of people who are on family benefits to receive their cheques this month in advance of Christmas. Let me put the case for this early payment in one of my constituent’s own words, who wrote to me and said:

“As you may know, I have been, and still am, on the Ontario provincial family benefits pension for a long time. I was wondering if you could try to persuade the government to send our disability pension cheques before Christmas. Every year they come too late to really do anything beneficial for Christmastime. It is hard to make ends meet any time of the year, but Christmas is the most crucial time for anyone, I am sure. There are so many things to buy and so little money to do it with.”

We phoned the ministry and we got the answer that family benefits do not make their payments earlier during December in order to accommodate those people, nor do they have any intention of doing so in the future. Surely this is not the voice of a compassionate government. I ask the minister to reconsider.

1340

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TECHNOLOGY FUND

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: In the 1986 speech from the throne, this government announced the formation of the Premier’s Council and the allocation of $1 billion to support science and technology research and development in the private sector and post-secondary institutions.

The Premier’s Council and the technology fund form the cornerstone of this government’s drive to develop long-term strategies for economic development in Ontario. These strategies emphasize technological advancements and research and development as a way of improving our international competitiveness. The urgent need for this country to improve its record of industrial research and development was underlined by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) at last week’s first ministers’ conference in Toronto.

Today I would like to inform the House of progress towards achieving the objectives of the technology fund and to announce several awards for private sector industrial research and development.

Members will recall that in June we announced the establishment of the centres of excellence with an allocation of $200 million from the fund. I expect financial support to begin flowing to those centres on January 1, 1988.

The university research incentive fund, a component of the technology fund, has allocated $8 million this year to encourage joint research projects between industry and universities.

The centres for entrepreneurship were announced by my colleague the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod) earlier this fall with a total allocation of about $1 million.

Now I am pleased to announce the first three awards under the industrial research and development component of the technology fund.

The first award is to Canadian Astronautics Ltd. of Ottawa. The company will be working with Queen’s and Carleton universities and the departments of the Environment, Communications and National Defence to develop a new form of radar. This radar system, when mounted in planes, will have many applications in coastal and Arctic surveillance and the resource-mapping industries. The company has identified a considerable export market for this improved radar.

The technology fund will be contributing about $2.5 million to the $6.7-million project over three years.

The second award is to Sciex of Thornhill. Sciex, with scientists from the University of Toronto and Perkin-Elmer Corp., will develop new analytical instruments for measuring very small amounts of chemicals. These instruments will be used by the semiconductor, environmental, advanced materials and metals industries. Considerable export potential also exists for these products.

The technology fund will contribute about $17 million to the $34-million project over five years.

The third award is to American Standard of Toronto, which will work in partnership with Spar Aerospace Ltd. of Toronto, Canadian General Electric Co. Ltd. of Toronto, IBM Canada Ltd. of Markham and the universities of Toronto and Western Ontario. The company will research new computer-aided design and manufacturing processes involving pressure casting and finishing of industrial ceramics. This will enable American Standard to compete favourably with low-priced imports as well as assist valuable research on new ceramic raw materials and products. It will also lead to a diffusion of these new skills and processes into other areas of the Ontario economy.

The technology fund will be contributing about $3.8 million over four years to the $7.6-million project.

These projects were the subject of extensive assessment by a scientific advisory panel composed of members of the industry, labour and academic communities, as well as representatives from four ministries and the Ontario Development Corp. I would like to thank everyone for their work on these proposals.

I would also like to recognize Dr. Geraldine Kenney-Wallace, chairman of the Science Council of Canada, and Norman Kissick, president of Union Carbide Canada Ltd., who are in the members’ gallery today. Dr. Kenney-Wallace headed the scientific advisory panel to the technology fund assessing these projects, and Mr. Kissick, a member of that panel, has now taken over as panel chairman. Both are members of the Premier’s Council.

I would also like to recognize Dr. Mike Stott, executive vice-president of corporate development for Canadian Astronautics; Jim Reynolds, president of Sciex; and Ron Gaughan, president of American Standard. My congratulations to them all for their excellent proposals.

This money has been committed, subject to the completion of detailed contracts between the government and the various parties. These projects will be continuously monitored and evaluated by my ministry to ensure that there is effective financial control and that the research proceeds as planned. I believe the work we have begun here today will play a valuable role in improving the skills and technology available in the Ontario economy.

But this government is doing much more than just underwriting private sector research and development with these projects. It is building another link with the academic world, research institutions and industry. History tells us that such co-operation usually results in formidable growth of technological innovation.

The contribution of more than $24 million from the technology fund for these projects is further proof of this government’s commitment to ensuring that the province remains a leader in the drive for economic success.

PREMIER’S COUNCIL ON HEALTH STRATEGY

Hon. Mr. Peterson: In the recent speech from the throne, our government announced its intention to establish the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy. This afternoon I wish to inform members of the House of the membership of the new council and the mandate being given to council members.

Our government recognizes that Ontario health care now faces a number of important challenges, among them the challenge to develop appropriate services for a growing elderly population, the challenge to respond effectively to a host of new medical technologies and the challenge to create programs that sustain and promote good health.

Our government also recognizes that health relates not only to the traditional health and health care services; many economic, social and environmental programs can and do have a significant impact on the health status of our population. Our government is moving to respond to these challenges and to create a new concept for healthy public policy in this province.

The Premier’s Council on Health Strategy reflects our commitment at the highest level to examine the policy options and alternatives available to us, policies intended to improve the health and health status of all Ontarians. We will establish our priorities and build a consensus for change in partnership with the providers and recipients of health services, the various ministries of my government and the public at large.

As Premier, I will chair the council, and the Minister of Health (Ms. Caplan) will serve as vice-chairman. Council membership will include individuals with a distinguished background in government, health and related social services, the business community, labour and consumer organizations. In order to fulfil its mandate, the council is initially being asked to do the following:

To select specific goals that will improve health among Ontario residents. The council will establish targets and priorities for those goals so that we can measure and evaluate our progress towards a healthier society.

The council will recommend initiatives in public policy which are beyond the traditional jurisdictions of the health care system, but which will improve the health status of Ontario residents.

The council will identify the initiatives that emphasize health promotion, disease prevention and community alternatives to institutional care.

It will recommend new approaches in health services to promote greater personal responsibility for health, and it will develop the natural linkages between health and all related services and programs.

Finally, the council will advise and assist the Ministry of Health in the allocation of the newly created health innovation fund and it will monitor the performance of projects approved for funding.

In establishing the initial agenda of the council, the Ministry of Health will play a major role in helping to identify the specific issues that will be addressed through this collaborative approach. The Minister of Health will also take every opportunity to include greater public involvement in the ministry’s own internal planning and policy development. This will ensure that the spirit of collaboration and participation is reflected at each level of our decision-making process.

I wish to express my appreciation and thanks to all council members for agreeing to participate. They understand the importance of their new responsibilities on behalf of the people of this province and have pledged to work in a spirit of co-operation and commitment.

The council members are Roy Aitken, executive vice-president of Inco.; the Honourable Jim Bradley, Minister of the Environment; Joe Brown, executive director, Kenora-Rainy River District Health Council; the Honourable Elinor Caplan, Minister of Health; John Carter, president, Greater Niagara General Hospital; James Clancy, president, Ontario Public Service Employees Union; Dr. John Dirks, dean of medicine, University of Toronto; the Honourable Murray Elston, Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet;

1350

Peg Folsom, president, Ontario Public Health Association; Dr. Reva Gerstein, vice-chairman, board of trustees, Hospital for Sick Children; André Girard, member, Cochrane District Health Council; Fred Griffith, chief executive officer, Sault Ste. Marie and District Group Health Association; Robert Hiscock, past chairman, Ontario Hospital Association; the Honourable Chaviva Hošek, Minister of Housing;

Ronald Luciano, president and chief executive officer, Institute for the Prevention of Child Abuse; the Honourable Remo Mancini, Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons; Sister Alice McEvoy, administrator, Marianhill, Pembroke; Dr. Stuart McLeod, dean, faculty of health sciences, McMaster University; Neville Nankivell, publisher and editor in chief, the Financial Post;

Anne Opzoomer, faculty of medicine, University of Ottawa; Father Sean O’Sullivan, chairman, Review of Advocacy for Vulnerable Adults; Dr. Andrew Pipe, vice-chairman, Minister’s Advisory Group on Health Promotion; Dr. Naomi Rae-Grant, child and adolescent psychiatrist, Victoria Hospital, London; Eleanor Ross, president, Registered Nurses Association of Ontario; Dr. Miriam Rossi, paediatrician, Hospital for Sick Children;

Dr. Hugh Scully, president, Ontario Medical Association; Mary Shamley, chairman, Association of District Health Council Chairmen; Dr. Robert Spasoff, chairman, Panel on Health Goals for Ontario; the Honourable John Sweeney, Minister of Community and Social Services; Joan Watson, consumer advocate; and the Honourable Mavis Wilson, Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs.

The first meeting of the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy will be held on December 10.

COURT FACILITIES

Hon. Mr. Scott: On November 13, 1986, I made a commitment to this assembly to develop and present a strategic plan for the construction, maintenance and repair of courthouse accommodation and facilities in Ontario. I also pledged that, when completed, our determinations and the priorities we had established would be, for the first time in the history of Ontario, a matter of public record.

Today I am pleased to advise the assembly that the analysis and consultation process is complete and that our priorities have been established.

The need for a plan and its development in consultation with courthouse users and the general public became evident to me in my first few months as Attorney General.

I had the opportunity to travel across Ontario to many, if not all of the more than 240 locations in the province where court is regularly conducted. It became clear to me that, in the past, strategies for courthouse renovation and construction had often been a function of local or political pressures and that what was clearly required was a comparison of the needs across the 49 counties and districts in Ontario, a rational attempt to prioritize those needs and a strategic plan for construction and renovation.

In my statement to the assembly last November, I outlined a number of general principles that would guide the ministry in determining our priorities for courthouse construction and renovation. I think a few of them bear repeating today.

First, facilities would be provided only in response to proven need.

Second, the assessment of need for accommodation would form a critical part of the responsibility the ministry bears for the management and administration of the court system.

Third, courtroom utilization would be maximized irrespective of the division of the court to which the facility was originally assigned.

The first step in establishing a strategic plan was to direct the staff of the ministry to prepare profile reports on the 49 counties and districts in Ontario. To prepare those reports, each county or district was visited by ministry staff, often more than once. In the course of those visits, we sought to assess and report on the existing facilities available to the Supreme, district and provincial courts, the present condition of those premises, their present utilization rates, anticipated population growth, anticipated utilization rates in the near- and mid-term and other local factors which bore on the extent to which additional facilities might be required to meet expanding needs.

In the course of preparing those reports, the ministry received much important information and input from a wide variety of local sources to which we are grateful.

Following the completion of a profile report for each district, it was then sent to local users such as judges, bar associations, police forces, municipal authorities and a wide variety of other community groups that had expressed interest in, or that might have been expected to have an interest in, the development of the strategic plan. Comments from these groups were invited. All comments -- and many, many were received -- were thoroughly considered and played a significant part in the process of the development of the list.

Following a careful analysis of the response of the community groups in each of the counties and districts, and after careful review by the staff and myself, a priority list for courthouse construction and renovation was established.

There will not be time to read them, but I have listed in the statement the criteria that have been established in order to prioritize the assessment.

We have filed with this statement two lists. The first list contains major capital projects. The list sets out the 21 projects that have been assessed as the highest-priority major capital projects at the present time, each of which is estimated to cost over $250,000. The first 10 projects are listed in order of priority. The remaining 11 are set out in alphabetical order. These 11 projects have been selected as priority projects. It would, however, be unrealistic at this time to further prioritize them.

As the first 10 projects near completion, the remaining projects will be reviewed in order to update the priority list. This ongoing review will take into account unexpected changes due to the vicissitudes of the economy, population growth and the impact of court reform. This ongoing review will not necessarily be restricted to projects on the now current list.

It must be emphasized that the implementation of each of the projects on this list will be dependent entirely upon the availability of funds. In an era where fiscal restraint and responsibility is critical, maximum utilization of physical resources will remain a requirement.

The second list sets out renovation, refurbishment and leasehold improvement plans for projects which will take place over the next four years and are expected to cost less than $250,000 each. The order in which these projects will be completed will depend on a number of factors, including the availability of funding and current pressures in the system, as well as negotiations with landlords in the case of expiring leases.

We have attempted in this exercise, undertaken for the first time in a public way in Ontario, to recognize the need that users in each county and district in Ontario have expressed. We have attempted, again in a public way, to compare those competing needs and develop a rational priority and strategic plan. I recognize that the published results will not please everybody in the short term.

Nevertheless, I believe this process and our priority and strategic plan establish a fiscally responsible, prudent schedule for the construction, renovation and refurbishing of the province’s physical system, designed in the last analysis to assure that the most pressing needs the public consultation process revealed will be addressed on a priority basis. In that way, we can most certainly ensure that the funds provided by taxpayers for courthouse facilities are employed in the best interests of the public and of the administration of justice.

UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Eakins: The Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) recently announced the 1988 overall funding increases for Ontario’s municipalities, colleges and universities, hospitals and school boards.

Today I would like to announce details relating to my ministry’s unconditional grants program. Unconditional grants are payments made by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to municipalities to help offset each municipality’s general operating costs. The funds are used at the discretion of each municipal council.

These payments are in addition to those made by other provincial ministries for specific services such as roads, transit, sanitary sewers, libraries and social services, to name a few.

I am making this announcement now, in keeping with this government’s commitment to provide municipalities with information on transfer payments in time for them to plan their next year’s budgets in an orderly manner.

The 1988 unconditional grants to municipalities will total nearly $870 million, an increase of 5.7 per cent, or $46.2 million over 1987. This increase is almost a full percentage point higher than the 1987 increase of 4.9 per cent. The increased funding will enable municipalities to cope with normal cost increases while holding mill rate increases to modest levels.

I will be making some adjustments to the 1988 program which will benefit all municipalities in the province.

1400

Mr. Speaker: I want to inform the minister that according to standing order 28(b), 20 minutes are allowed for ministerial statements.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Are you asking for unanimous consent? Is it agreed?

Agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: They include improving the grant increases which municipalities receive through the resource equalization grant. In addition, the basis for calculating the general support grant and the northern support grant has been broadened, which will particularly benefit the more urban municipalities. These adjustments have been discussed with and endorsed by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

I am pleased that Doris Brick, the president of AMO and representative of the county of Peterborough, is here in the members’ west gallery today. She is accompanied by Grant Hopcroft, alderman of the city of London and vice-president of AMO, and David Hipgrave, the director of the management services department of Metro Toronto.

Another important feature of particular interest to municipalities, the revenue guarantee feature, will be continued in 1988. This feature assures each municipality an increase over the previous year’s grants. For 1988, the lowest grant increase which any municipality will receive will be two per cent.

This safety net provision in the program is particularly effective in assisting mainly smaller, slower-growth municipalities whose household and tax increases have not kept up with provincial averages.

Complete details of the 1988 program will be forwarded to all municipalities during the next few days.

RESPONSES

PREMIER’S COUNCIL ON HEALTH STRATEGY

Mr. Reville: I wish to respond to the announcement of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) of the membership of the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy and the mandate he has given to the council.

May I say that certainly the Premier has discovered a large number of distinguished people to serve on his council, and I would like to convey our thanks to the people for being willing to serve. I can find only one defeated Liberal candidate among the membership of the council, and that is not very many, but I do worry that eight of the –

Interjections.

Mr. Reville: I do note that the membership of the council is rather large and in that eight of the members of the council are cabinet ministers. One wonders just how much work this council is going to be able to do. It does not seem to me to be a working committee. I regret that the strategies that are known and that are constantly raised in this House are not being implemented but are continuing to be only thought about.

UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS PROGRAM

Mr. Breaugh: I want to respond to the Scrooge-like statement made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) today.

People are beginning to understand how the Liberal government speaks and they are beginning to understand that an almost full percentage point higher than last year is a not quite full percentage point higher. They will know that 5.7 per cent is not very much money. They will understand that that 5.7 per cent can also be translated in different ways, and for some of our municipalities it will in fact be two per cent. Even the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), by today, will know that there are some parts of the province where there are unorganized territories, and they will not even get a sniff at the sagging net.

TECHNOLOGY FUND

Mr. B. Rae: I just want to say in response to the statement of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) that we are pleased, obviously, that the Premier’s Council is finally making some decisions and making some investments. It is impossible for us to judge on the basis of the information which has been provided to us the relative merits or demerits of any of the proposals. I am just delighted that the investments that have been promised for so long are finally being made. This kind of state intervention, of course, is something that we have much less difficulty with than members of his own cabinet. We have the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) in particular, whose neck I see bulging almost every day now in response to these various forms of intervention.

PREMIER’S COUNCIL ON HEALTH STRATEGY

Mr. B. Rae: I seriously say to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and the government that I wish the government would look at its own structures a bit more, both in terms of the Premier’s Council on technology and in terms of the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy which is being created. I would venture to suggest to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) that it is time he looked at the way in which these councils are integrated into the work of government and into the life of government.

Particularly with regard to the health council, as our critic the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) has already said it has a group of 30 people, I would remind them that Mr. Grossman, when he was the Minister of Health in 1982-1983, had a very similar province-wide series of forums which discussed a series of objectives -- the Premier is shaking his head; I am afraid I am right -- and we are really not very much further ahead than we were back in 1982 and 1983 in terms of defining the problems.

I say to the Premier I think the wiser approach would be to look at the structures of government, to look at the structures of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services, to look at the structures in terms of the ministries of state for the disabled and of senior citizens and to look to the need for some basic reorganization in the way in which government plans and provides its services to the people.

This is an issue which will not go away. The government can establish all the advisory councils it wants and, I would venture to suggest, they would come up with many of the same points of view. The point is to make sure we have the capacity in government to respond rather than simply to advise.

COURT FACILITIES

Mr. B. Rae: I think the very least the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) could have done would have been to name this courthouse project -- which is sufficiently complicated that I thought perhaps his statement had been written by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) -- the Gerry McAuliffe memorial construction program. I think that is the very least he could do in this regard.

TECHNOLOGY FUND

Mr. Sterling: First of all, I would like to thank the staff of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology for delivering a statement before I came here to the Legislature. It has been trying to do that in the past and I wish all ministries undertook that same kind of approach.

Second, I would like to congratulate each of the three firms that received this substantial government assistance. It is important that we do help our high-technology industries. It is interesting to note, of course, that most of these companies, I am sure, rely on foreign markets and therefore are very much concerned with access to those foreign markets.

I would particularly like to congratulate Dr. Mike Stott, who happens to be a constituent of mine, and I would encourage him to spread the good word around the Ottawa area to any other high-tech firms.

It is kind of ironic that this government has taken two and a half years to tear down the old structures of high-technology funding. It has taken it two and a half years now to put them back in place with the son of BILD and the son of the IDEA Corp. This is the first year that this government has spent over $2 million on high technology. It is unfortunate that it had to go through that process in order to help companies out like this.

COURT FACILITIES

Mr. Sterling: I would like to make a brief comment with regard to the Attorney General’s (Mr. Scott) great announcement about prioritizing. Last November, he told us he was going to prioritize. This year, he has told us he has prioritized. He has not indicated that he is going to spend one more cent on building any justice facility in all of Ontario. One portion of his statement, which he neglected to read but which was in his written statement, said, “At this point, I should observe that the priority analysis process to which I have referred was not applied in Nipissing or Ottawa-Carleton, where new courthouses, housing all divisions of our courts, were either under construction or have just been completed.”

I assume from that statement that they were not necessary in those areas. The former government did think a courthouse in Ottawa-Carleton was necessary. It did think that a courthouse was necessary in North Bay. We did not need a priority list or a long excuse for delay. We went ahead and did things. We did things when they were needed.

1410

UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS PROGRAM

Mr. McCague: I am sure the municipalities are happy with the 5.7 per cent the minister announced today. His almost one-percentage-point increase is 20 per cent short of being one per cent, as the minister might realize. On “holding mill rate increase to modest levels,” his colleague the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) is going to make darned sure that does not happen, let me tell him, with the niggardly policies of the Treasurer (Mr.
R. F. Nixon).

The other point I would like to make is that the minister’s friends the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) are going to use up all the increase. The municipalities will have to use it up in order to settle the Sunday shopping issue.

PREMIER’S COUNCIL ON HEALTH STRATEGY

Mr. Eves: In responding to the statement by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) today with respect to his health council, I find it very difficult feeling there is going to be a great deal of work done. There are 31 members plus the Premier. By the time they get around to their introductions on December 10 it will probably be time to adjourn.

I am happy to see they are finally going to think about priorities in the health care system. They have been the government for two and a half years. I would think that by now they would know something about the health care system and its needs in Ontario.

If the previous Minister of Health had followed up on some of his commissions, committees and advisory groups, maybe we would be a lot further down the road. I note he is a member, along with six other cabinet colleagues. I wonder if cabinet ministers over there ever speak to each other. Maybe this is a good idea for seven of them to get together. Three of them sit right in the front row here. You would think they would talk about these things from time to time.

TECHNOLOGY FUND

Mr. Cousens: Congratulations to Sciex and IBM, two constituents of mine that did well through the technology fund; so I hope they will keep on putting some money out there where it is needed.

UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS PROGRAM

Mr. Cousens: The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) has not understood the per capita costs of running municipalities, because if you start taking the cost of running York region, York region is going down. In the last five years, the per capita cost for York region is about 16 per cent less than other municipalities.

[Applause]

Mr. Cousens: Do not clap.

Hon. Mr. Scott: It’s finished. That’s why I’m clapping.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That completes the allotted time for ministerial statements and responses.

CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE

Hon. Mr. Peterson: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I hope it is appropriate. A couple of days ago, the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton), I believe, asked me a question about agreements concluded between the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the provincial government. I was not aware of it at the time and I perhaps misled him. I have checked into the matter. I think I have perhaps given him some incorrect information.

If I could just use this information, I am told there have been agreements concluded between CSIS and various police forces about the exchange of information and other matters relating to security. It is the feeling of everyone concerned that it is not in the public interest to reveal what those agreements are, but I want my honourable friend to know that indeed there are agreements in existence.

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: What just transpired here was a little bit irregular. I believe the Prime Minister wanted to correct the record. The difficulty is that if he had done so during the --

An hon. member: He is not Prime Minister yet.

Mr. Breaugh: I know things you do not know.

The point I was going to raise is very simply that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) was asked a question during question period. I would have said that he should have responded during question period today, which would have allowed the member to ask a supplementary. I think we can get around this if we just permit that to happen, Mr. Speaker, whether you do it now or when you begin question period.

Mr. Speaker: I listened carefully. The first part appeared to me to be a point of personal explanation; then it extended into a response to a question. The Premier may wish to respond during question period, as usual.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question of the Premier. On September 7, the Premier was apparently in Cambridge in the last days of the election campaign. On Sept. 7, he stated, “We have a very specific plan to lower insurance rates;” according to the Toronto Star of September 8, in the story that runs under the byline of Denise Harrington. The Premier then went on to say that plan included the freezing of the cap, the continuation of the cap and the commitment to bring in legislation as soon as the House came back.

Can the Premier equate the commitment he made in the last days of the election campaign, that he would “lower insurance rates,” which was a very specific commitment he made, with the announcement yesterday by the Treasurer (Mr.
R. F. Nixon) of a 4.5 per cent increase in insurance rates starting January 1?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will refer that to the Minister of Financial Institutions.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The commitment obviously was that the capped rates would continue until the board was in operation or until December 31, 1987, whichever came earlier. It was well understood. It is now apparent that the legislation establishing the board cannot be enacted by that deadline. In order to give the insurance companies time to inform their premium payers, I felt it was appropriate and fair that it be announced in the Legislature that a 4.5 per cent increase was going to be appropriate on January 1.

Mr. B. Rae: I find it a little astonishing that the Premier would not be willing to answer a question which relates directly to a statement he made. The Treasurer did not make that statement during the election campaign. He made a lot of other statements, but he did not make that one. It was the Premier, the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), who made that statement. He made that commitment in the last days of the election campaign to the people of Ontario.

I would like to ask the Minister of Financial Institutions, then, before his neck bulges any further --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Before anything happens, the question is?

Mr. B. Rae: I would ask the minister, is it true that on September 7, 1987, the Liberal Party had a very specific plan to lower insurance rates? How is that plan compatible with his statement that he is going to give an increase of at least $100 million to the revenues of the insurance companies starting January 1, 1988?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I will answer the question before my honourable friend’s halo gets any tighter. The plan, which as far as I know was supported by everybody in the Legislature, even though the New Democratic Party did not want it to go forward into enactment at the time, was for the reduction of the premiums paid by males under 25 by 10 per cent and taxi drivers by 10 per cent. It is part of the legislation that is before us. The cap that was announced at that time has been very effective, but it is clearly understood by everyone that the cap runs out at the end of this year.

As a matter of fact, the huge, double-digit increases in other jurisdictions are much larger than those we are proposing at the present time.

Mr. B. Rae: I am troubled by what the minister is saying. Is he denying that the Premier said on September 7, “We have a very specific plan to lower insurance rates”? Is he arguing that plan is compatible with his decision to raise the rates? Either he is in favour of lowering the rates and he has a plan to lower rates, or he has a plan to increase the rates, which he has just announced. He cannot have it both ways. Which is it? Is he saying the Premier was not telling the truth when he had a very specific plan to lower the insurance rates?

1420

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The member knows that I believe the Premier always tells the truth, in spite of his comments.

Mr. Wildman: In spite of your leader’s comments?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: No; in spite of the Leader of the Opposition’s comments.

He would know that our plan, which is not for driver-owned and -operated insurance -- which is what the New Democratic Party calls the state-operated program -- was for a program involving a rate review board and the reduction of the rates, as I have already put forward.

We know what the NDP plan was. These two plans, as well as many other issues, were considered by the electorate. That is the situation we find ourselves in, where we are over here trying to keep our commitment to establish the rate review board, and I invite the honourable members to support it.

CHILD CARE

Mr. B. Rae: Now that that is perfectly clear, perhaps I could ask another question of the Premier. I do not know whether --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is all right. The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) is not here.

Mr. B. Rae: Since the Minister of Community and Social Services is away, maybe he will answer this one. I do not know.

Last week Sheila Copps, the member of Parliament for Hamilton East in the other place, said in reference to the new policy on child care, “Our sources tell us that the new policies will encourage private, not nonprofit, day care and will leave children at risk with no plan for national child care standards.” At almost the same time, the Minister of Community and Social Services was saying: “The signals we are getting from Ottawa is they are favourably disposed to what we want to do here in Ontario. Basically, that is what we are asking for.”

Can the Premier tell us whether he agrees with Ms. Copps or with the Minister of Community and Social Services?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I always agree with the ministers.

Mr. B. Rae: I must say that comes as a complete surprise.

Since the Premier agrees with the minister, I take it he is therefore saying he basically approves of the plan that is being announced today in Ottawa, which is now available to members and to the public. That plan calls for the subsidization of for-profit, private-profit institutions in the province, it focuses nearly half the money on taxes rather than on direct funding for community-based child care and it means that there are literally hundreds of thousands of children who will not receive adequate child care in Ontario. Is that the plan he is supporting?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not familiar with all the details of the plan. As the member knows, the minister is, I believe, in conference now with the federal minister, getting the details. As I said, I am not familiar with them. It is his intention, I am sure, to share all the information available as soon as he comes back to this House, which I expect will be next week. I tell my honourable friend with regret that I cannot tell him about the details; and I cannot tell him, frankly, whether we approve or disapprove of them.

Mr. B. Rae: It is a little bizarre that I can tell the Premier the details simply because one has a press release in one’s hand and he is not aware of them because he is the Premier. That is a little strange.

Perhaps the Premier can tell us how he feels about a plan that will continue to leave thousands of families, now over 3,000 families in Metro Toronto, still waiting for subsidized space. There are nearly 250 families in Hamilton and 264 families in Thunder Bay waiting for such space.

Does the Premier not recognize that since the federal government has so badly dropped the ball, it is now the obligation of the province to respond with a plan that will meet the needs of working families in this province and assure that there will be no children in this province who will want for child care, which is obviously the result of the federal plan, as has been published today, and that apparently has been acquiesced in by his own minister?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Again I apologize to my friend that I am not in a position to comment on all of the details, be they good or bad. The minister will be reviewing it. He will come back to this House and share his views with the member, and he can stand up and make any attacks or any points he would like to make at that particular time.

We have been waiting for this announcement with considerable anticipation, as my honourable friend knows, because we are of the view that we do need a comprehensive national plan with respect to child care. I just want to say to my honourable friend that in many respects this province is leading the country with respect to its commitment, which I believe is over $1 billion in the next four years. We have substantially increased the number of spaces, and we have fundamentally changed the policies attached thereto with respect to direct grants, income testing and other areas that the former government, as the member knows, felt incapable of moving on. So I think we have been providing leadership.

We recognize the fact that it is a joint responsibility and that we do need federal participation. Whether that meets our particular aims and needs, whether it meets the needs of Ontario families, I am not in the position to tell my honourable friend, but obviously we believe it is a very high social priority. We would like to put as many resources as we possibly can into it and welcome other levels of government to share our very strong commitment.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Solicitor General. We on this side of the House are still attempting to discover how the evolution of her policy took place and how her conversion took place in relation to the long-standing issue of the Sunday shopping question. Would the minister share with us whether she had any conversations prior to her policy statement on Sunday shopping with the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, the Ontario Federation of Labour or the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. Did she consult with any of those groups?

I ask that question because it appears that, first, those who are most directly involved in enforcing the policy of whether there will be Sunday shopping and, second, those who will be forced to work, from all the evidence I have seen in the public responses to her policy, seem to be virtually all in opposition to what the minister has stated Ontario is about to do. Did the minister in fact talk to them?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I recognize that these unions would indeed have an interest in the workers they serve, and I would have been glad to talk to them, which I did not, if it had been a question of what we were able to do that we were discussing. What we were faced with was a situation where we made a judgment that we were not able to define tourism on a broad provincial level in a way that would be meaningful at all before the courts or any other group.

Since we could not do this definition and since we decided we must have a policy that recognized that fact, there was no point in getting the opinion of these people, many of them union organizations which had expressed opinions to the select committee. I am pretty sure they would be much happier with no Sunday openings, but unfortunately, we could not do that ourselves under the broad definition that covered the whole province.

Mr. Brandt: The one group the minister did not make any comment on was the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. There are close to 900 municipalities throughout Ontario, and since that is the government level that is now going to be responsible for implementing or introducing Sunday shopping, and since it is our belief, shared by many people, that the minister has shirked her responsibilities in that respect, why would she not at least discuss with the municipalities whether they were in favour of taking on this responsibility?

Second, in the response that the minister has given, I see no reason whatever why she could not have consulted with the working people of this province who are now going to have to give up their family lives on the Sunday to work or, in some instances, may have this interfere with their religious beliefs. Could the minister respond to that?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The groups the member mentioned were consulted by the select committee and their opinions were made known at that time and have been taken into consideration in our study of the select committee report. But it was unfortunately found that we could not find a broad enough definition of tourism for the province to define it on a provincial level. Therefore, it is left with the municipalities either to make such a definition on a narrower version of their municipal interest or to have a referendum or to go open. They still have that choice.

I note that in today’s paper many of them are grateful for the opportunity to not open. In my own home town of London and most of the Toronto areas, I gather, the councils, at this point at least, in a straw vote are saying they want to stay closed. I do not think they would have very much appreciated us forcing them to stay open.

1430

Mr. Harris: Time will tell, and the minister may want to reflect on those comments when a little bit of time passes.

Those of us who are concerned about northern Ontario want to be assured that when she announces policies, the impact on northern Ontario has been considered. Second, we want to know that the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) is doing his job and passing on those concerns on province-wide legislation.

That is why yesterday I asked the minister about the unorganized areas. Clearly, when she responded to questions, she had no idea of the impact. Second, she had no idea how they operated. She had no idea that she is responsible for enforcing things in her ministry’s jurisdiction in these unorganized areas.

Given all those wrong answers that she gave yesterday, I wonder if she would reflect on the statement she made in response to my question, did she consult the Minister of Northern Development or did he have input?

She said yesterday, “This was discussed at great length in cabinet, and the minister was there.” I wonder if the minister would like to reflect on that statement she made yesterday as to its accuracy.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I recall saying that it was discussed at cabinet. I do not remember precisely who was at cabinet, nor am I responsible necessarily to disclose that, but it was discussed.

The point that the member for Nipissing has to remember is that we specifically left time to discuss these detailed arrangements for all municipalities, all areas. That is what we have left ourselves time to do. I said in my original statement that we would be consulting with these groups, and indeed we will be.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Leeds-Grenville would like to ask a question.

CHILEAN WINES

Mr. Runciman: I may, as a matter of fact. My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. It is a timely question, given the Premier’s reception for foreign consuls last night, which was attended, I believe, by the Chilean consul.

In a recent news release, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario announced the expansion of imported products from several countries. The list of countries included Chile, where there are severe abuses of human rights. A report by Amnesty International details 50 new cases of torture reported since March 1987.

Mr. Luis Tricot, for example, a patient receiving regular medication for epilepsy, was arrested on September 3, 1987, beaten and given electroshock during the three-day period he was held. As well, two students arrested on April 9 were subjected to severe torture during the nine days they were detained. These are examples of victims who lived to report their nightmares and represent a small sampling of human rights abuses in Chile.

I would like to ask the minister-Premier how he can justify an increase in imported products from Chile in the light of its deplorable record with regard to human rights.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member alluded to the fact that we had a reception for the consuls general last night and indeed he is quite right; we did, we invited them all. The consul general from Chile was there, I believe, and from Panama and from many Eastern Bloc countries. They were all invited.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Cuba.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Cuba. They are all accredited here to Toronto and we invited them; we enjoy good relationships in most cases.

I must say I am delighted to see the conversion of my honourable friend the member for Leeds-Grenville on the road to Damascus about human rights and things of that nature. It would be nice if he paid the same attention to those matters inside our own country.

Mr. Runciman: At least I am not a hypocrite like you.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: However, I am not aware of the figures the member cites with respect to importation of any products from Chile, and indeed the government does not have a policy in that regard to limit them.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: You may want us to ignore interjections, but the honourable member called the Premier a hypocrite. That is specifically unparliamentary. We will follow your ruling, of course, but I feel I should bring it to your attention.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would like to inform all members that I have been waiting to make some comments on a similar matter that took place on a previous day. I listened very carefully and, following question period, I will make those comments. I hope all members will listen carefully.

Mr. Runciman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: If you are going to consider that, I would ask you to also consider the Premier’s comments about my conversion with respect to human rights.

Mr. Speaker: We are all here as honourable members, and I wish we could all control ourselves and ask reasonable supplementaries. Would you do that now?

Mr. Runciman: This recent move by the LCBO makes me wonder how concerned this government is about developing a stand on human rights that is consistent and treats all countries equally. I want to ask the Premier if the government, after a review of global human rights records, will develop an importation policy that is consistent for all countries, or whether the government’s prime concern is to be trendy and do what is popular at the moment.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the point the honourable member has raised. We have not applied our minds to that question. As he knows, we have a policy with respect to South Africa and we have done that. I guess my honourable friend thinks that should be extended to Chile, and perhaps he has some other countries in mind he wants to bring to our attention. I am always interested in members’ views on these subjects, because I think they are important issues and we all have to express our own points of view on them.

There are lots of fights for human rights that are very important around this world, sometimes indeed inside our own province. It is funny; it always seems to me, when we have a country that speaks two official languages and we discuss these matters, that some people in the province are less ambitious about standing for the rights of our own citizens. Indeed, I think my friend may want to examine his own conduct in that particular regard.

Mr. Runciman: That is a sleazy comment, nothing less.

In 1983, a special report on human rights, issued by the select committee on the Ombudsman, which I chaired, recommended that the terms of reference of the committee be expanded to monitor human rights issues and advise the House on appropriate courses of action. The inconsistency displayed by the government with regard to human rights issues could have been avoided if the recommendations made in that special report had been adopted.

Will the Premier today commit himself to adopting those recommendations, or will he continue to recognize human rights violations only when there are political points to score?

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr. Wildman: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, and may I say that I do so with the genuine understanding that all members of this House believe in democracy and are opposed to torture.

I would like to give the Minister of Agriculture and Food the opportunity to respond fully to the question I asked earlier this week when I asked for his position with regard to the free trade deal signed by the federal government, now being further negotiated with the United States. I know it was the last question in question period, and we ran out of time. The minister did not have the opportunity to tell us what his position was; so I would like to give him the opportunity now to make it clear whether he supports the resolution passed by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture at its convention with regard to free trade.

1440

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I am not so sure the member should be so concerned about my position on free trade as he should be concerned about the position of the agriculture and food industry on free trade. As I tried to tell him the last day when he asked the question, a study that was done revealed that there were certain sectors of the agriculture and food industry that would probably gain from free trade. There were other sectors of the agriculture and food industry that would lose considerably in this deal. The report shows that, on balance, this deal would not be beneficial to the agriculture and food industry.

Mr. Wildman: I think all of us in this House who are interested in agricultural issues are aware of the various positions and effects that might result from a free trade deal with regard to various commodity groups in the province. I would like to ask the minister if, now that he has told us what his understanding is of the various commodity groups’ positions, he could himself tell us what his position is. Is it that he would prefer not to tell us what his position is?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: My position coincides with that of the study that was done which, as I indicated, revealed that, on balance, this deal is not in the best interests of the agriculture and food industry. There are some sectors that will benefit, but there are other sectors that will not benefit. If you consider it as a whole, there are more sectors of the agriculture and food industry that will lose, and lose substantially, under this deal.

I will also go on to say that at the agriculture ministers’ conference yesterday, I sat rather amused to hear most of the agriculture ministers talk about the concerns they have about this trade deal for the agriculture and food industry, knowing that they have premiers in those provinces who are supporting the deal almost to the nth degree. I sat there and I kind of chuckled because they were sharing exactly the same concerns we have about how the safeguards will work, how the dispute settlement mechanism will work and how the import control list will work and what will be included on the import control list. They said it all yesterday in the agriculture ministers’ conference, and yet their premiers have come out full force in favour of free trade. It struck me as rather ironic.

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

Mr. Runciman: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The minister, through the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, allowed for taste-testing of 1987 Beaujolais Nouveau -- is that pronunciation all right, Ian? --

Hon. Mr. Scott: So far. You had better check with Noble Villeneuve, not me.

Mr. Runciman: --in three LCBO stores recently. At the same time, the LCBO has refused to allow the Ontario wine industry to exercise the same privilege, despite receiving requests from at least two Ontario wineries. Will the minister explain to the House how he can justify this blatant discrimination against the Ontario wine industry in favour of foreign wines?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am not aware of the specific requests from the individual wineries. This is a decision that has been taken by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. I can tell the honourable member that I will look into his concerns in an effort that we can in the future establish a policy that will be consistent and consistently applied. Certainly, in the whole area of wine-tasting, there are individual requests. It seems to me, whether it is location or whether it is one kind of wine or another, with respect to the policies in the past, one of the problems we have had with the LCBO over a number of years is the inconsistent application. One of the things we are working towards, as the honourable member would know, is a more consistent application of the policies. Certainly, I share his concerns in terms of their application between foreign and domestic wines.

Mr. Runciman: In areas where this government has no jurisdiction, such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the government claims to be the great defender of the Ontario wine industry. On the other hand, in areas where the government has jurisdiction, it is the great discriminator against Ontario wines.

This minister is the Great Pretender. In fact, he is the greatest pretender since the Platters.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: You are dating yourself.

Mr. Runciman: I thought it was pretty good.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Runciman: Is the minister prepared to give an unequivocal commitment to allow taste-testing for the Ontario wine industry so that it may be allowed on a level playing field when competing with foreign products?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: There is my friend the member for Leeds-Grenville, a member of a party that is prepared to sell the Ontario wine industry down the drain, whose party is prepared to have a wine industry and a grape-growing industry that would no longer exist; and he is worried about whether we ought to have taste-testing or not.

What this government is worried about is having a policy that is equally applied and reasonably applied, but what we are most worried about is whether 10 years down the road we will have any wine industry to worry about at all. I can tell him this government is going to ensure that we will.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again, we will just wait until everyone is --

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

SALES TAX

Mr. Owen: I have a question of the Treasurer. Through the years, I have heard the minister criticize sales tax as a tax unfair to those of middle and lower incomes. The federal Minister of Finance, Michael Wilson, is now proposing an overall reduction of income tax but an expansion of the areas covered by sales tax.

Is the minister contemplating a shared arrangement on collection of sales tax with the federal government? If so, how is the minister’s philosophy of taxation fitting into the federal proposals of collection of sales tax?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The honourable member is correct in my past statements about the regressivity of sales tax. In spite of that, we now have a seven per cent sales tax in the province, which returns about $900 million per per cent, but we have attempted to eliminate part of the regressivity by having a tax credit system designed to assist the lower-income people who have to pay the tax at the same rate as even the members of the NDP. The government of Canada, in its proposal for strengthening the sales tax, has indicated that the idea of tax credits is one that does decrease the regressivity.

I am not keen about sales taxes at all, but I am keen about paying the bills. It seems to me that sales tax revenue will be a part of our revenue mix for the foreseeable future.

Mr. Owen: I know the minister is seeking an exemption for public sector procurements by municipalities, hospitals, colleges and universities in any shared sales tax. However, what protections will be assured to those with middle and low incomes that they will not suffer a further unfair burden in the collection of revenue to support government services once the federal government starts to collect sales tax for the province? What control or input will we have to further areas of increases contemplated by Ottawa?

1450

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The question is an excellent one, because those are just the things that I am considering.

Interjections.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: No. The interjections are incorrect, probably for the first time.

I want to say to the honourable member that the only reason we would consider co-operating or participating in a federal sales tax is if there were the safeguards for tax credits being applicable, to safeguard our own taxpayers in just the way the honourable member has described.

Mr. Speaker: Prior to question period, there was a point raised and I believe the Premier (Mr. Peterson) intimated that he wished to add further to a response to a question by the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton).

CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE

Hon. Mr. Peterson: This is just to repeat what I said earlier and so that my honourable friend can ask me a supplementary. He asked me a couple of days ago if there had been any negotiations or any agreements concluded between the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the provincial government. I made a quick survey around here with the ministers, and I was not aware of any. Unfortunately, on the basis of my ignorance, I think I gave the honourable member some information that was not correct.

There have been negotiations concluded, I am told. I am told they deal with police forces and others, between the ministries directly. They basically involve law enforcement and exchange of information. As I said to my honourable friend, it is viewed by all concerned that it is in the public interest not to make these public.

Mr. Hampton: My question to the Premier is this. The transgressions of CSIS are well noted. The watchdog committee set up by the federal government has stated point-blank, publicly, that this organization does not know the difference between somebody who is a subversive and someone who is merely interested in promoting peace or someone who acts within a legitimate trade union or someone who may just have dissident ideas about how political ideas ought to evolve in this country. This organization runs around investigating 30,000 individual Canadians and does not really care that what they may be doing is legitimate.

Manitoba, Quebec and British Columbia have all told CSIS to take a hike, that they cannot be trusted, that they infringe on individual rights. What is Ontario going to do to equally tell CSIS to take a hike, that it should not be running around looking at individual trade unionists in Ontario --

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. Hampton: -- and peace group activists, investigating --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The problems the member ascribes to the federal government are probably correct. They apply in more than just one area of the federal government, not just CSIS, but are rampant throughout. We still have a responsibility, however, in our country, with our levels of jurisdiction, to try to co-operate where possible. It is their responsibility, not ours, to the extent that they are, hopefully, using their power properly. We try to co-operate. We have not come to the conclusion that it is serious enough to use the member’s description or take his advice on how to handle the situation: but if that comes about, then we can deal with that in the future.

HOURS OF WORK

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Currently, the only protection for Ontario workers regarding Sunday hours of work is the length of the workweek and overtime provisions in the Employment Standards Act, as well as provisions in the Employment Standards Act for retail workers and constraints under the Retail Business Holidays Act, which the government has said it will not enforce. Also Bill 51, introduced yesterday, is not likely to be enforceable.

Does the minister not agree that workers in Ontario would get more protection if the main and straightforward recommendations of the Donner task force on hours of work and overtime pay were implemented, specifically the two that change the trigger level of hours for overtime pay from the current 44 hours to 40 hours; and make overtime voluntary, with a right to refuse after 40 hours a week instead of the current 48 hours? The minister, I know, has been reviewing this report since June 1987. Could he tell us when his views on these three recommendations are to be tabled and when he plans to table amendments in this House?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: That is a very good question from my friend the member for Hamilton East, and it does give me an opportunity to make another reference to Bill 51, which he says was introduced yesterday in this House. The fact is that Bill 51 does offer additional protection to retail workers, and I think he should list that in the protections he listed.

We are now looking at a number of alternatives, certainly including the alternatives suggested in the Donner task force report and, as I have said in this House on a number of occasions, initiatives that would respond to the policy on Sunday openings. I cannot give him a specific date when we will be bringing in our formal response to the Donner task force report. Mr. Donner has recently reported to me on the second phase. These documents are now in the hands of officials. The first phase is just about to be printed and distributed widely among the public.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am sure the minister is aware that some members of the Donner task force are wondering when they are going to see the recommendations. In chapter 13 of its report, the Donner task force noted that, using conservative assumptions, reducing hours worked to 40 hours per week would likely reduce unemployment by 66,000 people.

The Minister of Labour has had an opportunity to introduce changes to the Employment Standards Act that would help protect workers such as those in the retail sector who in many cases are asked to work long hours, and limiting overtime would also create jobs.

Why will the minister not proceed with such beneficial changes instead of giving us a bill that is likely to be unenforceable and is obviously a fly-by-the-seat-of-the-pants bill in this House?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: That is a very strange comment indeed from the member for Hamilton East, particularly with reference to Bill 51, which does not go all the way and which perhaps does not go as far as the member for Hamilton East would like it to go.

It was one year ago to the month when the exact predecessor of Bill 51 -- then called Bill 185 -- was introduced in this House and that very member stood up in this House and called it a useful bill that should be passed. This time, for some unknown reason, when this House wants to quickly offer additional protection to retail workers, my friend the member for Hamilton East gets up and says, “The bill will do no good.”

CREDIT UNIONS AND CAISSES POPULAIRES

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions.

I wonder if the minister could advise this House whether the decision that has been made with respect to grouping both credit unions and the caisses populaires in the government’s proposed $75-million stabilization fund is final. If so, could the minister explain why he is pursuing that course, in view of the fact that both groups want separate funds, in view of the fact the minister’s proposal will penalize the 52 caisses populaires and in view of the fact that the caisses said they neither need nor want the money?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The situation regarding credit unions and caisses populaires has been going on for a year to 18 months. My predecessor, having established the need for a policy to assist some of the caisses and provide a program that would give mutual protection and insurance, travelled all over the province visiting not only the credit unions but the caisses populaires in all parts of the province.

It was the policy -- and it remains unchanged -- that such a program of mutual support must involve the credit unions and the caisses populaires that are solid and strong in a program that is going to support those that have been less fortunate and perhaps less well administered over the last few months and years. The policy of grouping them together for mutual strength remains unchanged.

Mr. Villeneuve: The Liberal front benches have been requesting a question in French, so here goes.

En dépit de ce que le ministre vient de nous dire, il sait très bien que les caisses populaires en Ontario sont bien gérées et très stables financièrement. Les caisses populaires ont déjà leur propre fonds de stabilisation. Le projet de loi reconnaît clairement que les caisses populaires, comme groupe séparé, ne désirent recevoir aucun argent sous les conditions que le ministre a déjà énoncées.

Le ministre peut-il reconsidérer son programme d’établissement d’un fonds commun qui ne rapporte aucun intérêt aux institutions, et tenter de représenter dans son Cabinet et traiter les caisses populaires séparément des «credit unions »?

1500

L’hon. R. F. Nixon: Je voudrais remercier le député de sa question.

In case that is not sufficient, I am aware that the caisses populaires are unhappy with their inclusion in the general program. I would say that my predecessor, in establishing this policy, did so only after the most careful consultation and consideration. While I would like to tell the honourable member that we are prepared to start at square one and discuss it again, I hope that will not be necessary. I believe the program, as it is established, gives strength to the whole credit union/caisse populaire movement, which is extremely important in all parts of the province but, I agree, particularly important in those French-speaking communities which have such an effective and strong tradition and administrative experience in this regard.

STABILIZATION PAYMENTS

Miss Roberts: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The minister will be pleased to hear that the farmers in my riding appreciate the retroactive funding that was made by the province in 1986 to stabilize the 1985 depressed potato prices. The minister will also be aware that to this point in time, the federal Minister of Agriculture has not lived up to his commitment also to offer potato stabilization to Ontario growers, while New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island last week were promised federal potato assistance by the Prime Minister. Can the minister advise the House whether he has recently pursued this discrepancy with his federal counterpart?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I am sure that very excellent question arose out of the honourable member’s concern that Ontario was not mentioned in the recent announcement from the Department of Agriculture that both the Prince Edward Island potato growers and the New Brunswick potato growers would receive a stabilization payment for their 1985 crop.

I think the honourable member knows that the Ontario potato growers and I have worked very closely with the federal Minister of Agriculture. We have had numerous meetings with him to try to convince him that our growers are just as entitled to stabilization as are the PEI and New Brunswick growers. With my tenaciousness, I pursued it again yesterday with the honourable Minister of Agriculture, and I am pleased to announce that Ontario potato growers will be participating in the 1985 stabilization program.

CHILD CARE

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Premier. In the throne speech that was read in this House in April 1987, the government committed itself to require the provision of child care spaces in all new schools. The Treasurer (Mr. R F. Nixon), in the presentation of his budget in 1987, underlined that commitment by saying, “planning is under way to provide child care spaces in all new schools.” Can the Premier tell us whether that is still the position of his government?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Yes.

Mrs. Grier: In my riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore, the Etobicoke Board of Education has received approval from the Ministry of Education to tear down an old school and build a new one on the same site. Officials and the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) have ruled that this is a replacement school, not a new school, and that the ministry is therefore not required to provide child care spaces. Can the Premier tell us whether he agrees with the position taken by his officials?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member has provided her own answer to the question, obviously. The member obviously disagrees with this ruling with respect to replacement, and I understand the honourable member’s position on that. It is certainly something that can be reviewed. I am glad she brought this to my attention. I was not aware of it, but it does not appear from what she tells me that there was any violation of the rules that were set in place: it is just that she happens to disagree with it. We will look at it and if there are any changes, we will get back to her.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG ADDICTION

Mr. Pollock: I have a question for the Minister of Health. In the fall of 1985, a request was made to the Minister of Health for funding for a substance abuse day treatment program, involving the counties of Peterborough, Haliburton, Victoria and Northumberland. This was denoted as priority one by the district health council and received strong local support, but the request was turned down.

In September 1987, another proposal for funding was made by the Four Counties Addiction Services Team, FourCAST, for a similar program. Can the minister tell this House if this worthy program will receive the funding that is so rightly needed?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I thank the member for the question. It gives me the opportunity to say that I personally and the Ministry of Health are committed to drug addiction and abuse programs across this province. The process for review of new and expanded programs and initiatives, as I understand it, is through the local district health councils. I am not aware of the specific proposals the member has mentioned, but I would be pleased to get that information and discuss it with him.

Mr. Pollock: I am sure the minister is well aware of the distressing situation that exists in this region with regard to both alcohol and drug abuse and that existing addiction-related services are limited to self-help groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous.

The proposal by FourCAST has also received much local support from organizations including the Peterborough County-City Health Unit, the Salvation Army, the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation and the Peterborough Young Men’s Christian Association, along with numerous doctors and other concerned community groups.

In the light of these facts, can the minister give us the assurance that, unlike the proposal made in 1985, the request for the funding of this new program will receive the utmost consideration from her ministry?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The allocations within the ministry to alcohol and drug abuse and community mental health have been significantly improved over the past two years, as an example of the commitment within the ministry. The allocation of resources is something in which I am extremely interested.

I believe that the recommendations of the district health councils and the consultations with groups, such as the one that Robert Graham is heading up, to look at a comprehensive approach to community mental health are very important in ensuring that we have that kind of consultation with the communities as we determine the priorities for the programs established.

Let me state again my own personal commitment to alcohol and drug abuse programming in this province. I will be pleased to look into the specific applications that the member mentions.

OVERCROWDING IN SCHOOLS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is to the Minister of Colleges and Universities in regard to the problems of overcrowding at our post-secondary institutions. The minister knows that today there has been a strike held at Trent University to protest the terrible overcrowding in the Bata library. She has seen that and understands how inadequate it is to meet the needs of the students at Trent University at this point.

Can the minister advise the House how serious this problem of overcrowding is around the province and why government policies have led to this impasse in Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I will not deny that this government inherited a long legacy of capital funding needs when it assumed the government role, and I think the House is aware that the government has been trying to meet those capital needs over the last two years. There are still capital needs that exist. I am familiar with the situation at Trent and I am aware of its concerns.

I can only stress the fact that we have doubled our capital funding. We now have some 22 major projects under way and we are trying to meet the capital needs on a priority basis. We will be looking at priorities for the following year and making announcements on capital funding some time early next year.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I had really hoped the minister might be able to tell us just how serious the problems were and to enunciate them for us.

I am sending across to her today, just off the press, the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations’ Forum newspaper, which actually has photographs in it from a first-year anthropology class at Sidney Smith. On Wednesday night we will see students sitting in the aisles, obviously against the Ontario Building Code, in another psychology class in the same university.

I also would like to let the minister know, as she possibly does know, that York University says it requires, just to meet its present student needs, an extra 41 seminars, an extra 23 classrooms, an extra four lecture halls.

1510

I wonder if she can tell us exactly how serious the problem is across the province and whether she is going to meet the Council of Ontario Universities recommendation for the amount of money it should be receiving for capital to meet the overcrowding problems there now and those that will be there, much more significantly, as she knows, next fall.

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I can only reiterate that we are aware of the capital needs not only at Trent University and York University but also at a number of universities. We have to recognize that when we talk about overcrowding, we are talking not only about physical spaces when we look at the university situation, but also about the number of courses that are scheduled, the number of sections of courses and the number of students in particular classes. A large number of factors comes into determining overcrowding situations.

We are working with the whole question of both operating grants and capital grants and we are doing so as fully as we can. We will meet capital needs on a priority basis within the budget we have for that.

RED MEAT INDUSTRY

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. How does he explain to the red meat producers in Ontario the stand of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) on free trade?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The Premier was quite right in the stand he took on free trade based on the study he has a copy of, as I do, indicating that the free trade deal is not beneficial to the agricultural and food industry as a whole.

As I have already indicated many times, yes, there are sectors that feel they stand to gain from this free trade deal. The red meat producers do because the import restrictions would be removed. But as far as other sectors of the economy are concerned, we just talked about the wine and grape growers a little earlier on. This kind of deal is devastating to them. The chicken producers are not happy with the deal because of the increase in the global import quota coming in from the United States. The fruit and vegetable growers have no idea how effective the safeguards will be to replace the removal of the seasonal tariffs.

I could go on and on. When we consider all this, it is obvious that the Premier is right when he says the deal is not in the best interests of Ontario citizens, and that includes the Ontario agricultural and food industry as a whole.

Mr. Villeneuve: The minister did mention some areas, but my question specifically was on red meat. For every hog that is grown in Ontario and goes to the United States, that is $10 out of the producer’s pocket. The cattle industry is being threatened. How does the minister explain that to our producers when it is costing them money and the Premier’s stand is going to continue and will cost them more?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I do not think that is necessarily the case. We have seen different trends taking place over the last few weeks and months, some of them starting with the stock market crash, if you want to call it that. The Americans are having a little different attitude. Do not ever think, with Canada being the largest customer they have and Ontario being the third largest customer they have, they are going to act to try to alienate Canada and Ontario as customers.

I happen to think the red meat producers will continue to export into the United States and import from the United States, as they have been doing in the past despite any kind of free trade agreement.

STEEP ROCK RESOURCES INC.

Mr. Hampton: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. He will know that his ministry is carrying on negotiations right now with Steep Rock Resources, a mining company which closed down its operations in Atikokan, leaving behind it a dump with polychlorinated biphenyl compounds and a generally wasted environment.

His department is carrying on negotiations right now with respect to perhaps purchasing the site again. Can he assure this House that no money will go to that corporation for that site from the Ministry of Natural Resources?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The member is absolutely right that those negotiations are ongoing. They are not quite as simple as the member might describe. The polychlorinated biphenyls that are on the site of course are the responsibility of the company and those negotiations are taking that into account.

The thing we have as a difficult situation here goes much broader and deeper. There is going to be required, over many years, continuous pumping to keep the water table down. It had been diverted through that area. I cannot really give the member a full acknowledgement of the resolution of this problem but I certainly would be most willing to share his concerns.

Whatever information I have in detail, I am very prepared to share with the member in any way he chooses to do it. Whether he would like to meet with some of my people who are negotiating to see what we are trying to achieve or otherwise, I am very willing to share that with the member.

MOTION

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that the membership of the select committee on constitutional reform be as follows:

Mr. Beer, chairman, Mr. Allen, Mr. Breaugh, Mr. Cordiano, Mr. Elliot, Mr. Eves, Mrs. Fawcett, Mr. Harris, Mr. Morin, Mr. Offer and Miss Roberts.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

THEATRES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved first reading of Bill 54, An Act to amend the Theatres Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I want to introduce a bill that would bring the management structure of the Ontario Film Review Board in line with other public agencies, boards and commissions. Under this amendment to the Theatres Act, separate individuals will be appointed as chairperson of the board and director of the theatres branch.

UPHOLSTERED AND STUFFED ARTICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved first reading of Bill 55, An Act to amend the Upholstered and Stuffed Articles Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: What is this going to do for the people of Windsor?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I would like to give a brief explanation of this very important amendment we are reintroducing today.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Oh, stuff it.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I say to my friend the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) that I am surprised he has not had any comments on the courthouse.

Mr. Speaker: The explanation is?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: In addition to a few minor housekeeping changes, the amendments include a substantial increase in penalties that may be levied for contravention of the act’s registration, labelling and other requirements.

OPERATING ENGINEERS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved first reading of Bill 56, An Act to amend the Operating Engineers Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I have a brief explanation of this bill which we are reintroducing for first reading today. The act will allow engineers certified by other Canadian provinces to apply for an Ontario certificate at their current levels of education and expertise.

1520

OSHAWA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ACT

Mr. Breaugh moved first reading of Bill Pr10, An Act respecting the Oshawa Public Utilities Commission.

Motion agreed to.

GENERAL HOSPITAL OF PORT ARTHUR ACT

Mr. Kozyra moved first reading of Bill Pr30, An Act respecting the General Hospital of Port Arthur.

Motion agreed to.

ENERGY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Wildman moved first reading of Bill 57, An Act to amend the Energy Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Wildman: The purpose of the bill is to include wood-burning furnaces, stoves and other devices in the definition of “appliance” and accordingly make them subject to regulation under the act. Hopefully, it will help to cut down the incidence of serious fires in northern Ontario.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

Mr. Charlton moved first reading of Bill Pr67, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Motion agreed to.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 30, the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) has given notice of dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) concerning the impact of Sunday store openings on northern Ontario. The matter will be debated at 6 p.m.

ORDER OF QUESTIONS

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: During the question period today when we were doing the rotation -- it is my understanding that when a minister is going to answer a question that has been previously asked, the rotation is considered to be one of the rotations from the Liberal Party, or that is the process we have followed in this place in the past. There were two rotations taken up by the Liberal Party by allowing a member to ask a question and then the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to answer a question.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the point of view that the member expresses. I remember some time ago reviewing this and there is no tradition. Actually, the request to respond to a question can come at any time and it has been my understanding that it has not been considered that.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I will check the process that we used in the spring, but it is very clear to me that in the spring you did follow that process, that notices were given to you for answering questions previously asked.

Mr. Speaker: I am not here to debate the matter. Certainly, whenever possible, I tried to work it in when there was not a member of one party asking questions. I tried to work it in as well as I could.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order: I do not think the Premier knew exactly the rules and how to get the information forward that he wanted to get forward. It struck me that he was rising to correct the record, which certainly a member is entitled to do, and I thought he did that.

If, in the opinion of the Speaker, he was rising under some other mechanism, which I do not think he did -- I believe it was on the point of order of the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) who insisted that it be treated that way so that he could have a supplementary question, which surprised me. I am not sure it was correct on your part, Mr. Speaker, given that there may be a precedent for the future that an opposition member can tell the House how to treat a correcting of the record by the Premier.

In my opinion, it ought not to be a precedent, and I do not fault you, sir. The member for Oshawa made the suggestion, the Premier adopted it and away we went, but it was highly unusual.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE BOARD ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 2, An Act to establish the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board and to provide for the Review of Automobile Insurance Rates.

Mr. Speaker: When the debate adjourned, the member for Welland-Thorold was debating. Do you have any further comments?

Mr. Swart: I had just been making some lead-in remarks to the bill when I finished my comments yesterday. I have two preliminary things to say before I get back on that particular issue.

One is that I want to make a correction of figures which I put on the record yesterday. I stated that the $765 million net profit the insurance companies made was in the second quarter of this year. I should have said it was in the first two quarters of this year. That was in the context of showing that it had gone up from $262 million last year and I want to correct that.

The second comment I want to make is that if the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. R. F. Nixon) wishes to loosen his tie and unbutton his shirt, it is OK with me. I know in the question period he was having some difficulty, apparently, from the comments that were made.

Yesterday, I related the three-year history leading up to this bill and this debate that is going on now and the convolutions that the government went through. I related them in some detail. I documented that what the government had done in bringing in this bill is contrary to what Slater recommended; it is contrary to the statements of the former Minister of Financial Institutions in this Legislature; and it is contrary to the philosophy of the Liberal Party as stated in this House very often by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Treasurer and many other people.

I also mentioned the rejection of the public auto insurance concept without ever examining it, in fact going so far as to refuse to examine that concept at all as an alternative for the people of this province.

Third, I documented the close ties, in fact the actual integration of the insurance election campaign with the Liberal election campaign. I have often heard the comment, and I guess I have viewed that sometimes, that when two individuals or two groups are extremely close, they are in bed together. I want to tell members that those two groups, the insurance industry and the Liberal Party in the last election, were in bed together in a single bed. That is how close they were together in the last election.

1530

Certainly any objective examination will determine that this bill is here to help the insurance companies, not the motorists of this province. Since I spoke to the members yesterday, we have had some additional documentation in this morning’s Toronto Star, which recorded quite prominently the statement the Minister of Financial Institutions made yesterday about the rate increase.

We have comments by Jack Lyndon. Jack Lyndon is the president of the Insurance Bureau of Canada. I guess you could call him the top dog in the insurance industry. He made this comment about the four and a half per cent: “I’d be concerned that some people in the industry may see it as not enough, but I hope those people will hang in there.”

The next part is rather interesting. He said: “The rate review board, whether you like it or not, could be a good thing. In the meantime, this increase is at least a token of good faith.”

When you have the top man in the insurance industry saying that kind of increase is a token of good faith to the industry, I guess the opposite is true: It is a token of bad faith to the motorists of this province. I am going to go into that a bit later. Even Mr. Lyndon’s remark that the rate review board is a good thing is in itself a clear indication that, as Dr. Slater said, it is going to benefit the industry with more profits. It is not going to help the motorists of this province in any way.

I thought it was rather significant, too, that late yesterday afternoon, when the minister read his introductory remarks on second reading into the record, he sent me not only those remarks but also a press release. The second paragraph in his press release, talking about Bill 2, reads “This legislation constitutes substantial reform for the automobile insurance industry. “ It is a reform for the industry. I would like to see reform for the motorists, I would like to see reform for the motor vehicle owners, but this is going to provide reform for the industry.

I do not know how many more examples we need to quote to show that this is an industry bill. It is a bill to help the industry, this insurance industry, not the --

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It controls. It controls the rates.

Mr. Swart: Yes, undo your tie and loosen your collar there. He obviously wants me to go over these again.

The member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Kwinter), who was the minister at the time, said that if they had had a rate review board for the past five years, people would be paying eight to 39 per cent more than they are at present. That is helpful to the industry, I would think.

Dr. Slater, in his report, said he could not recommend a rate review board, because at best it is cosmetic and at worst will increase rates. Let the minister read it himself: It is against his philosophy.

Now we have the president of the Insurance Bureau of Canada saying he likes the rate review board, and we have the minister himself saying -- of course, a different interpretation can be put on this, but I think the logical interpretation is that this bill is “substantial reform for the automobile insurance industry.” It does not say “for the automobile insurance business.” It is substantial reform for “the industry.”

Well, there are five documents, and pretty substantial documents, that show this is not going to do any good, that in fact it will be beneficial to the automobile insurance industry.

With those remarks I want to get into where I left off yesterday, which, of course, was in the documenting of this extremely close tie, working hand in hand, hand in glove, the Liberal Party and the insurance industry in the last election. As I say, there is no question; we fully documented that.

So the Liberal government here got their great majority. They may think that some part of it was due to the phoney moves they made on the insurance issue before the election and the great support they had from the insurance companies and many brokers -- so far the whole insurance industry -- during this election campaign.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: We got support from the voters. That is where it counts.

Mr. Swart: Oh, yes, but I have a document here. The insurance brokers in one city, the city of Hamilton, raised $200,000 for this last election campaign. I suspect that had a bit of bearing in Hamilton, although they did not do so well in Hamilton; but I have the statement about $200,000. That was, of course, very, very substantial. If the minister would like to keep interjecting on that issue, I would be glad to provide some more documentary evidence on this close tie that they had.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: You are going to provide it, anyway. Give us the whole load.

Mr. Swart: But I want to say to the minister and to those people over on the other side of the House that I doubt very much if those moves they made and even that close tie had much to do with the success in the election. The current Minister of Financial Institutions indicated today, in the answer to my leader’s question, that oh, yes, the Liberal Party had got in that election -- that was what they had approved -- the auto insurance system, that the Liberal government was defending, protecting and making certain new proposals for their defence and protection.

I doubt very much if that is correct. I think they underestimate the intelligence of the electorate. The electorate knows what they have done. In fact, they got their big majority in spite of what they did or did not do on the auto insurance issue.

A few days after the election -- in fact, it was on September 17 -- Duncan McMonagle of the Globe and Mail interviewed some of us on what happened in the election; in particular, he interviewed me about the auto insurance and what effect it had on the election. I suggested to him that I thought we would have probably lost a lot more seats if it had not been for our stand on the auto insurance issue, and that was quoted in his article in the Globe and Mail.

Then he talked to the then minister, the member for Wilson Heights, and this is what he had to say: “‘Without car insurance, they’ -- the New Democratic Party -- ‘would have fared far worse at the polls, I am convinced of that,’ Monte Kwinter, Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the target of much of the NDP attack, said in an interview yesterday.”

So what the member for Wilson Heights was saying, in effect, was, “The public was unhappy with us.” That is what he was saying. He was saying, “We lost votes to the NDP because of what they had done or had not done on auto insurance.” That is what the minister said. I give him full marks for his honesty in making those comments, and I think they in fact were very objective.

Of course, now they are not going to be able to deliver after this close relationship, even if they wanted to. Even if they could somehow overcome that philosophical block, they still will not be able to deliver the goods of low-cost, fair and efficient public auto insurance -- ever. They are too closely tied to the vested interests in the insurance companies.

1540

You know, there is a country song that I heard someplace, probably on my car radio. I do not remember the exact words, but it is something about some person who had compromised himself, and he said, “You have to pay the fiddler, and today is the first day the instalment is due.” That is close to the main theme in it and to one of the verses.

I want to say here today that this Bill 2 is the first instalment. It is the first instalment that the government is paying to the insurance industry for the compromise it made. In fact, now there are two instalments being paid at the same time. The other one was the $125 million that the Minister of Financial Institutions announced yesterday would be taken out of the pockets of the motorists by a 4.5 per cent increase and put into the pockets of the insurance companies. Yes, two instalments have been paid.

Of course, the rejection by this government of the comprehensive investigation of a comparison of the public plans in the west with the system we have here, that is one of the instalments as well. Oh, yes. They just cannot bring themselves to make that comparison, because, as I said yesterday, if you do make that in-depth comparison, you have to have a report and that report has to be public. Then the people of this province would know the tremendous benefits they could have, the three quarters of a billion dollars a year in savings and all of the discrimination, all of the injustices that could be eliminated.

The motorists of this province in the next few years will come to realize the number and the magnitude of the further instalments that those on that side of the House owe to the insurance industry. Of course, the instalments are not paid by the government. Oh, they are in this bill -- that is true -- but ultimately, their instalments are all paid by the motorists and the vehicle owners of this province. It is not just the automobile drivers who have the pleasure of driving back and forth to work. It includes the bus companies and the motor coaches in this province; it includes the trucks in this province; it includes the taxis; it includes all kinds of commercial vehicles in this province. They are going to be paying those instalments that this government has to pay now to the insurance industry because of what it did for them in this last election.

I want to say that not only does this bill that we have before us, Bill 2, not do anything to help the motorists, it in fact makes it worse. You know, when we travelled through this province starting a year ago last spring to hear from the people who were suffering the injustices of horrendous rate increases and all kinds of discrimination -- my colleague the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) was one of those who travelled, and my colleague the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom) was at some of those hearings -- we identified nine major problems in the system that we have in this province.

The first of these is the excessive premiums and the escalating rates. Of course, they are going to be worse under this bill, for a variety of reasons, and I will go into it a little more fully just a little later. One reason a lot of people are going to have rate increases -- and there is no question about this -- is solely that they do away with age, sex and marital status -- if they do. I am not convinced yet that the government is going to do that. In fact, when you read yesterday’s --

Mr. J. B. Nixon: Read the bill.

Mr. Swart: Pardon?

Mr. J. B. Nixon: Read the bill; that is what it says.

Mr. Swart: No, it does not say that at all. Maybe the member should read the bill himself.

I know I should ignore interjections, Mr. Speaker, so instead of replying to him, I will just simply say in my speech that anybody who has read the bill knows there is not a word in the bill about the classifications. There is not a word in the bill about doing away with age, sex or marital status. All we have is the word of the government that when these classifications, which are going to be done by order in council --

You have read the bill, Mr. Speaker. You know this, and perhaps even the minister will know that within the bill itself it does not mention a word about doing away with discrimination. There will be an order in council, a regulation at a later date. The Lieutenant Governor in Council will set the classifications; that is what the bill says. I commend to all people in this House that they read the bill so they know in fact what it does say.

I do not know, but if it does -- this is the point -- there are no savings in what is proposed here. We are not changing the system. There are not going to be any savings. If that money is no longer available from those high rates to young male drivers, if that money is no longer available because of marital status, they have to get it someplace else, and of course, who is going to have to pay? The mature drivers or the young female drivers are going to have their rates raised, and raised substantially, because of this change.

All they are really doing is taking that unfair burden of those excessive rates off the young males and perhaps some in the marital situation, off innocent people, young males who may never have had an accident and are still paying three to five times the rate of an adult. They are taking that burden off that group of innocent people and putting it on another group of innocent people, the good drivers in the mature age or the young female drivers, simply because the minister will not even consider another system, like the public auto insurance system, which can reduce rates for everybody by 20 or 25 per cent at least. Any study would show that this would be the case.

All they are doing is shifting this unfair burden from one group of innocent people to another group of innocent people. As I say, this extensive system will remain. As the Minister of Financial Institutions well knows, Woods Gordon did an exhaustive study back nine years ago and found out in that study -- and it is available to the new members here; I suggest maybe they read it. It was a report on insurance law, I believe. In any event, I have forgotten the name of that report, but people here can get that report; they can read it.

What was it? What was the official name of that report that was done by Woods Gordon?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It’s the Woods Gordon report. You know the one.

Mr. Swart: The minister does not know, either, but it does not really make any difference. The members can easily find out -- company law. Yes, it is the first report on company law and it deals with insurance. In fact, there are two volumes of it.

It did a comparison between the western plans and here over the previous five years, and it showed that the total expense of operating the insurance system in Ontario was 41 cents on the premium dollar. Of every premium dollar that came in, they spent 41 cents on expense. In the western plans the average for the three western plans was 21 cents. That saves 20 per cent on the premium dollar; 20 cents on the premium dollar; 20 per cent you could reduce premiums by.

Of course, we have asked for this to be done again but the government will not do it. They do not want those kinds of up-to-date reports floating around. It is dangerous to their case. Mr. Speaker, you will recognize that it is exceedingly dangerous to their case. So we did it ourselves. We contacted Stan Griffin.

1550

Mr. J. B. Nixon: How about Slater who went out there?

Mr. Swart: Mr. Slater did not go out there. He was not empowered by the -- I will not interject.

This is another thing: Any thoughtful and reasonable person would think it would be a good idea to do this comparison. Mr. Slater would have liked to have done the comparison but he was not authorized to do the comparison. Even though there may have been a million bucks spent on it, he was not authorized to do the in-depth comparison. But we have done one and I want to quote the source: Stan Griffin, a researcher at the Insurance Bureau of Canada has provided a detailed breakdown of the numbers presented in IBC’s June 4 press release regarding the losses in Ontario’s auto insurance industry. They claimed they lost $330 million.

He provided us with all the details of that. Do the members know what the end result of that is? Out of the premium dollar they receive, they now spend 42.5 cents on expenses, on operating the system. I will even detail that. There are 11.6 cents for commission fees; 11.4 cents for overhead; 9.7 cents for claims adjustment; 6.5 cents for loss reserve development, and 3.3 cent for taxes. That adds up to 42.5 cents that they spend all together on administration.

We have all the details broken down here, and I will be glad to show this to anybody who would like to see it. That is worse than it was 10 years ago. Quite frankly, it is worse because their cost of claim settlements is up. More people are suing them. There is no secret about it. But also there are no inefficiencies in at all, as Slater pointed out.

Then we get the annual reports from British Columbia and from Manitoba. I have them here and, again, anybody can look at them. They are fairly simple to understand. They are for the year 1986. They list all the details there. Do members know what they add up to? In Manitoba, they spend 20.4 cents of every dollar on total expenses compared to the 42.5 cents of the private industry here in Ontario. In British Columbia, with the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, they spend 20 cents on total costs of operation.

During the last election we had insurance companies saying, and it was repeated by the Liberal candidates all across this province: “Of course, they have to pay taxes here. They do not pay any taxes out in those provinces.” I want to tell members that in Ontario it pays slightly higher taxes. It pays 3.3 cents of the premium dollar on taxes. But in Manitoba it is 2.6 cents on taxes, and British Columbia does not levy any premium taxes on either the private or the public sector, whether it is automobile insurance or property insurance. That is the decision the Social Credit government made out there.

Just look at that difference. For Manitoba, it is 20.4 cents out of each dollar; in Ontario, it is 42.5 cents; in British Columbia, it is 20 cents on the dollar. Ontario is 42.5 cents.

I think members might like to know some of the contrasts. This is all the costs of administration of the insurance companies themselves. For instance, in Ontario, it is 11.4 cents on the dollar that they spend. That is what it costs. Of course, you have those buildings here and all the general managers and divisional managers and so on. Do the members know what it is in Manitoba? It is 3.7 cents.

They talk about private enterprise being efficient. A lot of private enterprise is efficient, but surely you have to look at the facts if you want to do an examination. In British Columbia, it is six cents on the dollar, in Manitoba 3.7 cents and in Ontario 11.4 cents. That gives members an idea of efficiency.

Again, in British Columbia, the commissions that they pay for marketing amount to six cents on the dollar. In Manitoba, it is four cents on the dollar. In Ontario, it is 11.6 cents on the dollar.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Who is this consultant who knows all these numbers?

Mr. Swart: Call Stan Griffin of the Insurance Bureau of Canada. He is a researcher.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Those are his numbers, are they?

Mr. Swart: Those are his numbers for the private industry here. I have the annual reports and perhaps the minister would like to look those over now.

Mr. Hampton: I dare you.

Mr. Swart: I want them back but I will send them over to the minister.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Can the histrionics.

Mr. Swart: Histrionics! Damn the facts is what the minister is really saying.

Mrs. Marland: He did not say “damn,” he said “can.”

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I said “can,” not “damn.” l would never say “damn” in the House.

The Deputy Speaker: The member is continuously ignoring the interjections, I presume.

Mr. Swart: Yes, I have come to that conclusion, just as you were calling me to order, Mr. Speaker.

Members cannot deny these facts. They are in the annual reports. We get it from researcher Stan Griffin of the Insurance Bureau of Canada. They are factual. They are almost the same now as they were 10 years ago. Yet, even though a layman such as myself can get access to all of these, the government over there that says there are hundreds of millions of dollars being spent each year on research will not even avail itself of this information. They do not want it, they reject it, it hurts their tastes. People will know too much.

I will go on about these excessive premiums and escalating rates which are really so unnecessary and this whole matter of the effects of eliminating age, sex and marital status discrimination. If one believes what one reads in yesterday’s paper from the insurance companies, it is going to be a horrendous increase.

Cliff Fraser, vice-president of the State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., says, “The change will mean a jump of up to 50 per cent for women under 25 years of age and perhaps 10 per cent for drivers 25 and over of both sexes.” Mind you, quite frankly, he does not know what he is talking about. He is looking at the case of Montana. In Montana, they did not eliminate the age factor. They eliminated the discrimination bases of sex and marital status, so everybody under 25 there pays the same rate. When the males got a substantial reduction, the females went away up.

I hope when the minister replies he will answer this, because I have some real concerns reading the paper in the last two or three days, because all these insurance companies are indicating in effect that they are going to eliminate the sex, but not the age.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: You may be in favour of eliminating sex.

An hon. member: We are not in favour of eliminating sex.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: You are in this House, Mel.

Mr. Swart: If we were not in this House, I would say to the member that nature takes its course in time.

They eliminate rates based on sex, age and marital status and, if the minister has read the articles in the paper, several insurance people are saying young females are going to get dramatic increases, much more than any other group. The only way they can do that is if they leave the age category in the rate making and leave the under 25s and balance off between the males and the females.

1600

I do not ask the minister very often to report on something but I hope when he does get up to make his reply on this -- or perhaps whoever does make the reply for him -- he will assure us that those young females are not going to pick up any more of the load than the average driver, the average motorist, that in fact he is going to eliminate fully the age factor in the rate setting.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Up to age 59.

Mr. Swart: Well, the minister will have to keep moving it up a year, I say to him, or he will soon be out of it, if he is not already.

We are going to have this increase which is going to be applied to the rates because of the innocent people having that excess burden taken over by another group of innocent people. That is a large group and they are going to have to pay extra in their rates.

Of course, another reason the rates here are so high, and will continue to be so, is that there is no compulsion that the interest on all the investments be returned to lower the rates. That is law in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. All the insurance companies have huge investments. I am sure all the members know that.

After three years, less than half the money collected three years previously in this province has been paid out in settlements. That money builds up and there is a huge return. Even in the public systems there is a huge return. In fact, in British Columbia last year -- it is nice to have the minister come over to this side. If he looks at those financial statements, and I hope he will, there are little pylons there that indicate the breakdown. Perhaps the minister can just look at them.

He will notice in the British Columbia one that the interest on investments last year reduced rates by 18 per cent, and in Manitoba it was just about the same percentage that they were reduced by. But not in the system we have here. In this province they do not have to return that at all. That is a part of their profit, or they can use it for whatever they like.

Of course, the bill we have before us, and it is dangerous, is going to provide for profit, if we can take the word of the member for Wilson Heights for it. Last spring, when he was the Minister of Financial Institutions, he was questioned by the Progressive Conservative leader, I think, at that time, about what he meant when he said he would provide for profit of about three per cent.

The Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) knows that the insurance industry of Ontario said it lost $330 million last year. They say the year before they lost over $500 million. This is exactly what the then Minister of Financial Institutions meant when he said that if he had had a rate review board in place -- and the rate review board in this bill provides for a reasonable return -- then it would have had to move the rates up.

The minister was right. Anybody who looks into it knows he is right. He said that if we had had this rate review bill over the last five years, the motorists would now be paying from eight to 39 per cent more. That is what this bill is going to do. Let us move on from that. I think it is perfectly clear that this bill is going to increase rates and is going to help the insurance companies.

The second thing we found when we went around was the arbitrary cancellation or refusal to renew insurance. Companies at the present time can just cancel insurance whenever they feel like it. Cancel insurance, give a refund. There is no law against that. And do you know what, Mr. Speaker? This bill does not have anything in it either that prevents that from taking place. They still will be able to cancel insurance whenever they like.

Let us all look at the scenario of what would take place if they abolish age, sex and marital status. There is nothing here that says insurance companies have to write a certain percentage of the business for the higher risks; nothing in here. If an 18-year-old male in his category is three times as great a risk as a male who is 40, do members think insurance companies are going to voluntarily write his insurance? Of course, they will not.

There will not be a young male in this province who will not have to go to the Facility Association to get his insurance. They are not going to write high-risk policies; they will only write low-risk policies. There is nothing to say they have to write the high risks. How are we going to handle that one, Minister of Financial Institutions?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Address the chair.

Mr. Swart: Through you, Mr. Speaker, how is the minister going to handle that situation in this bill?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Rate regulations.

Mr. Swart: Rate regulations. In other words, we are going to establish a category for those. But what is going to prevent an insurance company refusing if a young man -- for example, my grandson, who is 18 years old -- walks in and says he wants insurance? “You are 18 years old? No, I am sorry. We do not write insurance for 18-year-olds.”

Where does he go? He goes to another insurance company: “We do not want those either.” So where do they get their insurance? They go to the Facility Association to get their insurance, and they will all end up there. We will have the situation existing that there will be arbitrary cancellation, there will be refusal to renew if the insurance companies think someone is a bad risk. They will not accept any new bad risks. That is what the situation will be.

We found all kinds of discriminatory rate increases applied for really frivolous reasons. In Welland, almost two years ago now, there was a hailstorm that had hailstones as big as baseballs that went through one part of that city. It smashed the windows in the homes, dented the aluminum siding, dented the cars and even smashed some windshields on cars.

I had at least 25 people come into my office to tell me they had their insurance cancelled because of the claim they put in for the hailstorm damage. Some of them had some other damages as well; some of them had lost points. But it was the hailstorm and the damage caused by it which made the insurance companies cancel their insurance.

There is nothing in this bill which addresses that problem at all. I suppose the regulations could possibly address that, but the bill itself does not address that problem at all.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: There are regulatory powers in the bill.

Mr. Swart: I want to see that. The regulatory powers, as we well know, will be the essence of this bill. In this party, we are not going to accept a bill whose whole essence is left in the hands of the government. The way they have handled it to this date, we are not going to accept that kind of bill. There is nothing in the bill to cover those at all.

All drivers in the household penalized because of one driver’s record: We had all kinds of people come to our hearings to talk about this. The bill per se does not address that problem either.

Good young male drivers, good records, victimized by rates three or four times the average: The bill does not address this. Again, of course, classification may, but why do we not have it in the bill? If we really believe there should not be discrimination on those grounds, why do we not put it in the bill? Why do we not do it in this Legislature? That is where it should be done.

I know when the Liberals were in opposition, when they were on this side of the House, they used to complain about the Conservative government on that side and the bills leaving too much to regulation. I think the members remember that. Here is a bill that has no meaning without the classifications.

1610

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The purpose of the bill is to establish the board.

Mr. Swart: The board does what, if we do not have classifications?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Independent regulation of public rates.

Mr. Swart: The board does nothing. The duty of the board is to establish rates for the different classifications. If we do not have any classifications, it has nothing to do.

The Deputy Speaker: A point of order?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I hesitate to interrupt the honourable member. In a sense, it is a point of order.

Some of the honourable members feel it would be out of order if the minister were not in his place to hear all the remarks made by the honourable members who want to contribute to the debate. I just want to tell the member and anybody else in this throng who is interested that I have to return to my office briefly and I shall return.

Mr. Swart: It is going to make it difficult. It does not matter what you are doing, you have to have a target.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: There are always your colleagues in the party. There are three of them here.

Mr. Swart: Somehow or other, we will continue.

I want to say, very seriously, because we are going to be moving this when this bill gets into committee: if you really believe this, you put it in the bill. If you really believe rates should not be based on age, sex or marital status, you put it in the bill. You do not leave all those details to be done by regulation. So that is what we will be doing when the bill gets to committee, whenever it does: I understand we have six or seven more speakers on this side who want to speak for as long as I am. Is that not right?

Another thing we found as we did this tour, and the members will all be aware of this because I raised it in the House a number of times, was the growing number of people driving without insurance. Two years ago this past fall, the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia was doing a survey in all of North America on the number of people in various jurisdictions who were driving without insurance. The Liberal government notified ICBC at that time that there were an estimated 185,000 people -- granted, estimated -- driving without insurance on the roads of this province. What does this bill do to resolve that problem? That is a major problem. It does nothing at all.

Before I leave that issue, I should say that when compulsory insurance is left in private hands, there is simply no way of enforcing it. If there was a way, the Liberals would have done it. The Conservatives before them would have done it. You cannot enforce it.

You have all those people driving without insurance. If there were 185,000 driving two years ago without insurance, I want to say there are a lot more than that now. A number of people have called me and told me anonymously they had a bad accident or a careless driving charge, and they said: “I have no assets. I have nothing to lose. I am going to drive without insurance.”

You can say there is the unsatisfied judgement fund that people can sue if somebody runs into them, but I think anybody who has had dealings with that knows the difficulty of collecting from it.

It is a very bad thing to have 200,000 people on the roads of this province who are driving without insurance. This bill does nothing at all for that.

Because Ontario’s no-fault coverage is extremely limited, there are long delays in compensation and unfair settlements to accident victims. There are about 179 insurance companies now selling insurance in this province, and they are spending their time and the motorists’ premiums fighting each other to see who should pay or who should not pay. So there are all these great delays for many of the people in Ontario in getting any settlement. As I have already said, in the claims paid out there is, on average, a waiting period of three years from the time of the accident. That is in dollar terms; I want to make that clear. Of course, by and large, the more money involved in the settlement, the longer it takes to settle it; and in dollar terms it takes an average of three years.

Do you know what I could never understand? New drivers of any age being charged prohibitive premiums. The bill does not do anything about that.

I have -- I do not think she would mind me saying so -- an assistant by the name of Fran Bates who is in her mid-forties. Fran had never owned a car or had never had a driver’s licence until about two years ago now. She decided that she had the money and she wanted to have a car. She went out and she bought a late-model small car. She took her test, passed her test, got her driver’s licence and went out to get insurance. On that small car, because there is a double whammy against her, she was a new driver and she was a new car owner -- and she checked with 20 different brokers -- she had to pay $2,640 for her insurance for one year. She has never had an accident, never had a scrape since then.

Mr. Callahan: She was driving you around.

Mr. Swart: No, I want to say it is likely the same in my office as it is in the member’s office. We drive them around, sometimes I think almost around the bend.

This is typical of the kinds of injustices that exist, and there is nothing in the bill to correct this. There may be in the regulations again, but there is nothing in the bill at all to correct that situation.

Do you know another interesting thing? Breaks in coverage: if you have a year’s break -- or as we have had in committee an example of about three-months’ break in coverage -- if you sell your car and you do not get another car for a year, then you have to pay 40 per cent more in your rates because you had that break in coverage.

I had the classic example, I guess, of a man here in Toronto who worked out in Alberta and the economy collapsed out there. He came back here. He sold his house out there, he sold his car. He came back to Toronto and this man got a job driving a van, a delivery truck, and he drove the delivery truck here for one year. He had no accidents, he had a perfect record while he was driving here that year. Then he went and bought a car and went to get his insurance, and he had to pay 40 per cent more because he had that break in coverage. Even though he had been driving a delivery truck and had a perfect record doing it, he had to pay 40 per cent more. That is the kind of justice we have in this system.

Of course, the final one that we found was inadequate compensation. We have here in this province very little in the way of no-fault coverage. Actually, unless they have some sort of voluntary coverage elsewhere, only about 40 per cent of the people are adequately covered if they are involved in accidents -- only about 40 per cent. We saw a lot of those people when we went around this province. If it was a one-car accident and they had a fairly serious injury, if they did not have compensation on the job they got $140 a week. You know how far that goes in today’s society. They could have taken out more accident coverage, of course, but there is no guaranteed coverage for those people.

1620

Let us make it clear that all these problems that exist -- as I say, we documented these nine or 10 when we went around at these public hearings -- are solely the fault of this government and the insurers in this province. Over these last years, there has been nobody else involved. Only two groups had control, and the Conservative government before, and this one, largely kept hands off the insurance companies. These injustices did not just happen. The insurance companies applied them against these innocent victims. That was insurance company policy, all the insurance companies. That was their policy and the government did nothing to intervene to prevent it, although it had the power to do so. Let us make that perfectly clear.

The situation we have in this province today -- there is not a person in this province, including the insurance companies which admitted all these things about six or nine months ago when an election was imminent and said: “Trust us. We’ve reformed.” The Co-operators came out with a great big ad that said, “We’re going to do all these things now that we haven’t done before.” They have applied these injustices and they have applied these excessive rates. The government of Ontario in fact has been a party to it.

Now this government says: “Trust them. They are going to resolve it.” The Minister of Financial Institutions speaks very warmly about these insurance companies. To go on with this bill and to go on with these insurance companies is something like a battered wife going back for more; but here it is not the battered public that is returning for more, it is that government over there that is sending those battered motorists back for more. That is what this bill is all about.

All of these problems, every one of these problems, simply do not exist in the three western provinces that have had public auto insurance systems. For instance, excessive rates: in BC, the rates are $482 now. Again, we have no less a person than the president of the Insurance Bureau of Canada who said he could not find fault with these rates which had been developed. In Manitoba, it is $405; in Saskatchewan, $251; and in Ontario, the average rate is about $640. It was that until yesterday. The first of the year it will be about $665. Ontario’s rates are one third higher than the highest of all of those western provinces.

Every study that has been made, except by the Fraser Institute and the insurance industry itself, verifies these kinds of contrasts between the rates out there and the rates in Ontario. Under the driver-owned public system, everyone saves. Everyone could have a reduction in rates and these burdens would not just be shifted from one innocent group to another, as they are in this province.

Let me just deal with these same 10 problems that we found. Artificial cancellation of rates: all kinds of people complaining about their insurance being cancelled. That does not happen in any of those provinces. The only time you lose your insurance is if you do not pay for it or if you build up the points and lose your driver’s licence. That is the only way you lose it. There is no other way of losing your insurance out there. The insurance company there never cancels it unless you lose your driver’s licence; then it is cancelled and your driver’s licence is cancelled.

What about the discriminatory rates for frivolous reasons, like the hailstorm I mentioned? It does not happen out there. The rates they pay are based on their driving record and nothing else. They have got to lose points for speeding or being involved in accidents where they are at fault before they pay penalty rates. They have to prove they are a bad driver before they pay penalty rates and then they pay it on their driver’s licence, they do not pay it on their car. The car is not at fault, as a rule; it is the driver. It is applied, and they can pay in Manitoba, just before they lose their points they may be paying $600 extra for their driver’s licence, but the rate on the car is the same. There is no arbitrary cancellation for frivolous reasons; such as all drivers penalized for one driver’s record, as they are here in Ontario, where because a woman’s husband happens to be a bad driver the woman will have to pay a lot more.

I was on a hotline show up in the town near Kenora, just east of Kenora; in any event, I was on a hotline show up there. A man came on the show. He gave his name -- I guess he was legitimate, I never met him before and I had never seen him -- he came on the show to tell me that he had lived in Winnipeg for 20 years and he had decided to come down there because he wanted to get a job in the paper mill there at that time, so he had moved --

Mr. Charlton: Dryden.

Mr. Swart: --to the town of Dryden. He wanted to get a job in the paper mill there so he had moved down.

When he left Manitoba this man was paying $325 for the insurance on his car, and his wife was paying $275. Last year, before he left Winnipeg, and some months before he left Winnipeg, one night, he told me on the call-in show, he had too much to drink so when he got out on the road he decided he should not drive. He pulled well off to the side of the road, took the keys out of his car, put them in his pocket and went to sleep.

The police came along. He ended up being charged with impaired driving. He was convicted of impaired driving, as he should have been. I am not arguing that he should not have been convicted of impaired driving. I think he lost his licence for three months but then he had to pay an extra $375 or something of that nature on his driver’s licence when he went back driving again. He appealed it. I must tell this whole story. They have a board out there. If you think there is an injustice, you go to that board. The board listened to him and because he had pulled the keys out of his car and had them in his pocket, and his car was well off the road, it said, “Well, your insurance should not be increased;” so they dropped it down to the $325.

He came down to Dryden, and he told me on the phone he went to get his insurance, and they checked the record. He had to pay $2,600 for his insurance in Dryden; but that was not all. His wife went to get insurance too, and because he had that record out in Manitoba on his driver’s licence, she had to pay $1,400, up from $275 to $1,400 because she was the spouse of a person who had an impaired driving charge.

It does not happen in those western provinces. The person pays on their own record. Is there not something fair about that? Do members not really think that a person should be innocent until they are proven guilty themselves? Is that not the kind of justice we want here? But under the insurance system we have, you are guilty if some other member of your family is guilty, you are guilty too and you have to pay the price.

Young male drivers are penalized three to five times the rates of older drivers; that does not happen out there. Once again, it is on their record and they have to prove they are a bad driver before they pay the extra.

Growing numbers of people are driving without insurance, the fault we found here, and that does not happen out there. They get their insurance with the plates for their car, and if they have up-to-date plates on their car, they have insurance; so nobody is driving there without insurance. Does that not make a lot of sense? It really does make a lot of sense. That is what they can do under a public driver-owned plan such as they have in those western provinces.

1630

Long delays in settlements and unfair settlements: I cannot tell members that the settlements out there are vastly quicker than they are here, although the Toronto Star did an investigation of Saskatchewan back about 10 years ago and found that the average time of settlement was half of what it was here. That is logical. You do not have insurance companies fighting each other. You have one insurance company.

It was rather interesting that the Co-operators, in the last election, put out a statement to all of its members -- and I have it here -- talking about no-fault, because they have a much larger degree of no-fault in Manitoba than we have here. I would like to read this, because it is just indicative of the total distortion -- yes, Madam Speaker, lies -- put out by the insurance company in the last election. I want to quote from the Co-operators:

“These plans” -- and they are talking about the western plans -- “are not no-fault to any greater extent than Ontario. They operate under the same system of law as does Ontario, and all accidents are subject to tort law.” So far, that last sentence is true; the previous one is not. Then they say this: “Injured persons there have access to no-fault benefits but in no case are the no-fault benefits greater than the accident benefits available to Ontario motorists under this section of their policy.”

We know what they pay here: $140 is the maximum you can get if you are injured and cannot work. Do members know what it is in Manitoba? It is not adequate, but it is $300. I always thought $300 was more than $140.

Out there in Manitoba, death benefits are two and a half times as much. Do members know what the rehabilitation is out there now? It is $100,000 on no-fault rehabilitation to a person injured in an accident. Do members know what it is here? It is $20,000. I always thought $100,000 was more than $20,000, but I guess not, according to the Co-operators, which was leading the fight against public auto insurance. They say not. There are all kinds of other benefits that are greater out there as well, although they are not adequate out there. We are going to be taking a look at no-fault here in the not too-distant future.

Are new drivers of any age charged prohibitive premiums, such as I was saying about my legislative assistant here at Queen’s Park? No. It is all based on your record. It does not matter whether you are a new car owner or a new driver. It does not matter whether you are 18, 38, 58 or 78. You will pay the same rate unless you have a bad record.

Are there breaks in coverage for an automobile if you do not have coverage, if you sell your car and do not have it for a year? Of course not; there are no penalties paid out there.

Inadequate compensation? It is better out there than here because of the higher no-fault and the fairer settlements they have.

Even these comparisons do not tell us how bad the proposed system in this bill is or will be. What is it going to cost to operate the review board we are going to get? What is it going to cost the people of Ontario? If, as the legislation provides, it is perhaps charged to the insurance companies, what is it going to cost? I bet it will cost $1 million a year, maybe $2 million, maybe $5 million, to operate this so-called rate review board.

What about the time spent on the hearings? How are they going to investigate 179 hearings? My assistant spoke to the Ontario Energy Board, which of course does the hearings on Ontario Hydro and Consumers’ Gas, Union Gas and Inter-City Gas. They tell me that each one of those hearings that they have for each of those companies takes 20 to 25 hearing days, or four to six weeks that the board is involved in those.

We have 179 companies in Ontario selling auto insurance. What does it mean? It means, of course, that they will do only a very skimpy investigation or they will have to have several boards sitting all the time to be dealing with the applications for increases. That is what it means.

It is going to be more difficult to find out the profit of most of the auto insurance companies than that of Consumers’ Gas or Ontario Hydro because they sell two or three kinds of insurance. They sell property insurance and liability insurance, and all the money goes into a pool and it is invested. How are they going to find those things out? It is going to be much more difficult in 179 of those.

What about the availability of the statistics on which you are going to base this? Do members know the last year for which the superintendent of insurance now has a report? Would anybody here like to guess? I have called, I suppose, or my staff has called 10 times in the last six months to try to find when the report is going to be out for the year 1985. The last report the superintendent of insurance has out with all the statistics in it is for 1984. Are we going to be dealing with information that is three years old in setting the rates next year? If you follow the pattern of the superintendent of insurance, that is what you will be doing. That is a great system, is it not? Boy, that will really be effective.

What about the conduct of the hearings that are going to take place? At the present time in Ontario there is no funding for the consumer groups that take part in these hearings. So when you come to a hearing on Consumers’ Gas, for instance -- I have been there several times myself. In fact, I can say that in one of the reports they made on cutting down the gas rates, they gave the bulk of the credit to the NDP right in the written report. I am sure the person who wrote that report is not there any more, but they did. And we spent a day there. Of course, we had spent days trying to get evidence.

At these hearings, it does not matter whether it is Bell Canada, whether it is Ontario Hydro or whether it is Consumers’ Gas, you will have hordes of people there for the company. They can afford it. They have a lot at stake. Bell Canada said that one time. They spent $2 million on a hearing. And they said, “We can’t afford to be cheap.” They have a lot at stake, and who will be there opposing them? Some consumers’ association? Sure, doing a good job. How can they afford to spend a whole year, every year, at these hearings?

There will be only one side heard. In fact, Dr. Slater stated that in his report. He said that is one of the problems with these rate review boards, as it is in the United States where they have them. The board hears only one side, yet there is nothing in this bill to fund the consumer side -- nothing at all.

So when they go to the board they will get what they want, because the board will probably be in sympathy with them in the first place; but even if it is not, if it is trying to be impartial, it is going to hear only one side of it.

I say simply, it will be a bureaucratic nightmare with no improvement in rates and only modest improvement in fairness if age, sex and marital status discrimination is limited; and as I already said, that is not included in this bill.

When this bill gets to committee -- and I realize the situation within this House: the government can do as it likes with these kinds of things. If they want it to go to committee, it will get to committee. It will not be defeated here, of course. Even though we will vote against it, it is not going to be defeated here.

We will try to see to it that this bill really is not a total farce. We will be moving amendments at the appropriate time. One of these amendments will provide for the act to be an interim measure to deal with rates until a publicly run automobile insurance system is established in this province.

We will move to disallow rate classifications based on age, gender, marital status, the driving or claims record of other members of the insured’s household or family and breaks in coverage. We will move to put that in the bill, where it should be, instead of leaving it to regulations, which can be changed any time at the whim of a minister or of cabinet.

1640

We will ensure that no one pays more for insurance in 1987 than in 1986, unless there has been a change in classification; they must provide rebates where appropriate. We will move to establish funding and standing for groups representing consumers. And we will move to provide for a 90-day notice of an insurer’s intention to make changes in coverage or premiums, or to cancel or not renew, with written reasons; and further, to allow appeals of such actions to the board.

As I say, we know what the odds are in getting these amendments passed. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) made the government’s position, I guess, about as clear as crystal when he arrogantly said the other day -- if I remember correctly, it was Monday of this week in answer to my leader’s question on how he could explain presiding over a Worker’s Compensation Board that ends up cutting down, cutting back and hurting workers who are injured; do the members remember the minister’s answer? “By virtue of the fact that we elected 95 members.” That was his answer to that. I want to say that the Liberal government is going to come to regret that statement -- make no mistake about it -- because it is arrogant.

Before I finish, I want to remind the House of the statement made by the Minister of Financial Institutions when he tabled Bill 2 in the House, and I quote: “I would like to remind the members that in a system where automobile insurance is mandatory, government has a duty to ensure that consumers receive fair coverage at a fair price.”

That was a statement he made on November 4. This is the same minister who refuses to investigate the alternative, the public insurance plan, the same minister making that kind of statement in this House that he has an obligation, a duty, to ensure that consumers receive fair coverage and at a fair price. Yet he refuses to investigate what all the Liberals and the Conservatives and the Social Credits in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia say are excellent plans, far superior to the private system. All the Liberals and Conservative say that out there.

Well, I want to say that this Liberal government will come to regret that statement, too, because it is hypocritical, and some day it will be called upon to live up to it.

I want to say the day has passed that the government can fool the motorists about the vastly superior plans in the west, even though it will not do the independent and full comparison and issue a public report. There are too many people who have lived in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia or visited there and are telling their friends here about that kind of insurance.

I was sitting in my office at noon today and I had a phone call. It was a woman. She said: “I saw you on television the other night talking about insurance.” She said: “You know what is wrong with you people in the NDP, as I see it? You do not do enough comparison with those western plans.” She said: “We lived in Manitoba all our lives. We just moved down here a little while ago. I am paying three times as much for my insurance as I was when I was out in Winnipeg.”

I said to her: “Well, I know. We try to do the best we can but, of course, we have got a Liberal government that will not even investigate these sorts of things.” They know, too, how superior these plans are. That is, of course, why they will not investigate it and make a report. So I said: “I occasionally raise cases in the House. How would you like to drop me a letter and give me the exact facts and details?” So members will see me up here in the House reading a letter from that woman in the next few days, as soon as I get that letter.

Yes, there are an awful lot of people who know about the benefits of these public plans in the west, and the government is not going to fool them. There are more and more people who know about it. The government takes polls, too. It knows that the percentage of people in this province who support public auto insurance has gone up from something like 33 per cent to over 50 per cent in just two years’ time. I tell members, it is going to spread.

Most people know that those western auto insurance plans were all initiated by the New Democratic Party. Most people know that. Everybody knows they were initiated by the NDP over violent opposition from the Liberals, the Conservatives, the Social Credit and the insurance industries in those provinces. They have proved so successful that successive Liberal and Conservative governments have not only kept them but praised them.

As I said in this House yesterday, Mr. Vander Zalm, the Premier of British Columbia, further to the right, I guess, than any other Premier in this whole nation, said he was going to sell off all the public institutions. He even said he would sell off the Legislative Building, but he is not selling off the public auto insurance. He knows what would happen in the next election.

Driver-owned public insurance is similar to medicare. In the west, in Saskatchewan, when the NDP proposed to initiate medicare there, the Liberals and Conservatives fought viciously against it. There was a picture in all the papers of Ross Thatcher, then the Liberal Leader of the Opposition, kicking the door of the Legislature so he could get it open to rescind that horrible medicare bill the NDP had passed. Do members remember that? There was strenuous opposition, along with the doctors and the insurance companies.

Where do the Liberals stand now on medicare? Are they in favour of it? Where do they stand? They had it forced on them. They fought against it and they had it forced on them here in this province and in the rest of the provinces across this nation because the polls showed 65 or 70 or 75 per cent of the people in this nation wanted medicare. They put it in reluctantly. I remember. I think it was the Conservative leader, Mr. Robarts, who said, “They will get medicare in this province over my dead body.” We got it in this province. We got it because it was right. Those people either support it now or do not have the courage to say they do not.

It is the same with public auto insurance in those western provinces. The Liberals and Conservatives do not campaign against it out there. They do not say a word against it, because they know how well it operates and they know how much the people want it, just as with medicare.

I say the same thing is going to happen in this province with regard to public auto insurance because it is right and because it is popular. Those folks over there will only hold back the tide so long, and then they will either bring it in or they will be told by the voters of this province to move out and let this party, as the government, bring it in. Oh, they will laugh at that one, but mark my words: They will remember it if they do not bring it in.

Progress is well under way. Did members read the report in the Toronto Star this morning about what the Consumers’ Association of Canada spokesman said? It says: “‘There’s a very strong possibility’ that it will take a stand in support of public auto insurance for Ontario. British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan already have government-run auto insurance and the association has found consumers are very satisfied with it, Delaney said.” That is part of the move.

I also have a letter here, if l can find it, from a municipality that has passed a motion calling on the government to investigate public auto insurance: the corporation of the town of Onaping Falls. They address this to the deputy clerk of the town of Valley East; that is a pretty good-sized place, the town of Valley East.

1650

“In response to your letter of October 23, 1987, this is to advise that the following resolution was passed at a council meeting held November 4, 1987: ‘That the letter from the town of Valley East seeking support to solicit the provincial government to investigate and conduct a feasibility study of government-controlled auto insurance policies in order to implement reduced reasonable rates for all ages be received and endorsed. Further, that a copy be sent to Mr. Floyd Laughren, MPP, and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.’”

The member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) does not need it. It is those people over there who need it. He has been convinced for 20 years.

What I want to say to the members here today is that they should make no mistake about it: we in this party are going to keep up this battle for a public auto insurance system. l suppose that if anything would convince us we should, it would have to be the action of the Minister of Financial Institutions last evening.

I talked to a reporter today. He said, “They deliberately tried to hide that statement about the 4.5 per cent increase in the middle of the minister’s opening statement on debating second reading of Bill 2.” He said, “I did not find that out until 10 o’clock.” A statement like that takes $125 million more out of the pockets of the motorists and puts it in the insurance companies’ pockets and the minister does not even make a statement in the House. He hides it in the debate on Bill 2. He is ashamed of it; of course he is ashamed of it, that is why he did not make that statement here in this House.

Perhaps I will be asking this question of the minister before too long: what study did he do to ensure that the insurance companies needed this $125 million extra? After all, the insurance companies’ profits for 1986, casualty and property insurers -- and as the members know, auto insurance is the big one -- were over $1 billion. That was one third more than they had ever made in their history. Then in the first two quarters of this year their profit was up another 52 per cent: $765 million net profit in the first six months of this year.

We have a situation where the insurance companies increased their rates at will until April 23.

Mr. Haggerty: My company did not do that.

Mr. Swart: His company may not. There are some companies that may be a little selective where they increase rates. They might not be so apt to increase rates to their close friends who have helped them out so much in recent months. But the average increase was six or seven per cent during the first four months of this year. Now they are given another 4.5 per cent. That is over 10 per cent. Why did they get that money? Was there some study that showed they were about to go broke?

Mr. Haggerty: Are you against farmers’ mutual insurance?

Mr. Swart: I am for insurance where the people control their insurance system, where they decide they do not want discrimination and where they decide they are only going to pay reasonable rates for their insurance. That is the kind of insurance I want.

Here we have this new addition which certainly adds incentive for us to keep up the fight.

The critic for the Conservative Party likes to raise the issue in this House that somehow or other those western plans this coming year are going to have a 22 per cent increase in British Columbia --

Mr. Haggerty: So the papers say.

Mr. Swart: We do not know yet. The papers said 25, but it is going to be less than that in Manitoba; 10 per cent in Saskatchewan. After you add those all in, the average rate in BC, which has the highest rates, is still 38 per cent below what we have here.

In the last six years, the increase in rates in British Columbia has been 35 per cent. The increase in rates in Manitoba has been 37 per cent; that is including these raises. The increase in rates in Saskatchewan has been six per cent over six years, or one per cent a year. Quite frankly, you cannot compare Saskatchewan totally with here. But over the last six years, the increases in Ontario have been between 65 and 70 per cent: a 65 to 70 per cent increase here, while out there, including the new rate increases, it is 35 per cent. Anybody who does an examination knows the real difference.

I want to say that this noncaring government is going to pay the price of putting the giant private insurance companies ahead of the motorists. They come first. It is going to pay the price of a bill that only shifts burdens from one group of innocent people to another group. It is going to pay the price for stealing $750 million annually out of the pockets of the motorists to preserve its insurance friends and their insurance system in this province.

We are voting against this bill because the government puts forward this bill as being the full answer to the auto insurance problems in this province. Even the minister knows that it is not going to be successful in any way in protecting the motorists of this province from increased rates. It is a hoax. We will not be part of a hoax. This bill deserves to be defeated and replaced by one providing a driver-owned public system for Ontario.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: I will be speaking later during this debate, but I just wanted to make the comment and remind the House and the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) of what occurred on May 6, 1986, when the then Minister of Financial Institutions tabled the Slater report, which my friend has referred to. He said, among other things: “The Slater report, if implemented, will make some improvements to the present system, but overall it is a pathetic answer to a horrendous problem.”

So I find it passing strange indeed that he now tells us to listen to the counsel and advice of Dr. Slater. I will do that and remind my friend of what Dr. Slater said in recommendation D-41: “The government of Ontario should NOT” -- in big capital letters -- “establish at this time a government insurance corporation to deliver auto insurance services.” So, indeed, we listen.

1700

Mr. Fleet: The lengthy oration by the member for Welland-Thorold is such that we cannot reply to every distortion and misstatement of fact that he set out in a mere two minutes. I would like to say, though, that some of the suggestions he made are more than passing strange indeed. He complained because in the Slater report the insurance companies did not have enough data. Now, even though there is a lack of data, admittedly, as far as I can determine from the member, he is sure he knows the solution.

I recall during the election the way his honourable leader dealt with data. His leader came to the riding of High Park-Swansea and dealt with an auto dealership. I am sure all members here will remember that; it was in the headlines. They were trumpeting all the complaints. It turned out that the New Democratic Party could not even bother to collect the facts which the insurance company then supplied the following day.

It is not so much whether they want to prefer one side or the other but whether they even want to listen to both sides. If they do not listen to both sides, they are never going to understand this. The reality was that the NDP had its facts wrong then and it has done it again today. They are not interested in fairness; their ideological bias precludes them even hearing both sides of the argument.

Mr. Polsinelli: I would like to compliment the member for Welland-Thorold, a member of the New Democratic Party, for his eloquent, verbose, yet contradictory speech.

I was listening to some of the things the member was saying, and at one point in his dissertation he indicated that his party would be proposing an amendment to the bill, that amendment being that this would be an interim measure until we could bring in a publicly run auto insurance plan. That implies there is something good in this bill. Why would he introduce an amendment if this were an interim measure until we could bring in a publicly run program, if there was not something good in this bill?

Yet at the end he tells us he is not going to vote for it. He should make up his mind. Is it a good bill or is it a bad bill? If it is a good bill, if the government is not prepared to bring in a publicly run program, he should support it because it deals somewhat with the problem. If it is not a good bill, he should not be introducing amendments.

Mr. Laughren: I wanted to congratulate the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Fleet), who is just about to take his seat, for clarifying any ideological questions that might still be left hanging out there about where the Liberal Party stands on this bill and on this issue.

Mr. Hampton: Foursquare with the insurance companies.

Mr. Laughren: Yes. The member for High Park-Swansea, when challenging my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold on some of his numbers, said that it did not take long, when the NDP came out with its numbers during the election campaign, for the insurance industry to make the corrections.

I am assuming the member for High Park-Swansea is assuming that the numbers the insurance industry gave to correct my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold were the correct numbers. I assume that is what the member for High Park-Swansea is assuming. It is very strange when a government, in challenging an opposition member on numbers, simply accepts the industry numbers.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I know you would join with me in congratulating my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold for one of the finest speeches we have heard in this chamber for many a day.

Mrs. Marland: My purpose in rising today is to make a statement which certainly goes across party lines, and that is to very sincerely commend the member for Welland-Thorold. I have had the privilege of sitting in this House for only two and a half years at this point, but I have a great deal of respect for the few members who are able to be so spontaneously articulate and compassionately committed to their point of view.

Although, of course, I philosophically do not share the content of most of the comments by the member for Welland-Thorold, I do respect very much his sincerity and his very professional delivery: He dealt in his delivery in the past two days with a lot of interjections, and I know that is difficult when you are sincerely committed to the point of view and the opinion you are trying to present in this Legislature. His esteem and his representation on behalf of those people whom he serves in this Legislature, I certainly wish to commend and regard very highly.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Does the member for Welland-Thorold wish to reply?

Mr. Swart: Yes, I do. I thought I saw a member rising over there.

Mr. Laughren: How long does he have?

The Acting Speaker: I guess there is no time left. There were five speakers, I believe.

Mr. Swart: I will be very short.

The Acting Speaker: The member has two minutes.

Mr. Swart: Yes, I know. I will not use any more than that.

My colleague on the left here -- forgive me, I have not got all the ridings straight -- my colleague physically on my left said the Slater report was pathetic. Basically, I agree with that statement myself. Any report that does not recommend public auto insurance is pathetic, is not done properly.

To the comment of my friend over here who talks about the rates, refuting our rates, I ask whether he knows the rates we put out. I have it in writing. Does he know what Jack Lyndon, the president of the Insurance Bureau of Canada, said? He says, “Those rates seem about right to me; I cannot argue with them.” Those were our rates we were using.

What higher authority could the member get than that? I might get a higher authority, but the president of the Insurance Bureau of Canada, certainly one of their gods, says that. They must be willing to accept that.

The member talks about a contradictory speech. Well, I do not think anybody can call my speech contradictory. There was one theme all the way through it. Do the members want me to tell them what it is?

Interjections.

Mr. Swart: Then they say we have to vote against it and we cannot move amendments. I want to say that even though that bill is no good, if they adopt our amendments it will be a much better bill. I know who runs this Legislature, and I say to you, if we get those through in committee, we will have a better bill than what those people brought in.

Mr. Charlton: It gives me pleasure to rise in this debate following my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold. I do not know, Madam Speaker, if you have watched the process, and you probably have over the last few weeks, of speeches and then comments that follow the speeches -- the comments and questions. I think you should probably take note of the fact that when a speech says little or nothing of significance there are very rarely any comments or questions. I would judge by the number of Liberal puppets who were jumping up like fleas this afternoon to comment on my colleague’s speech that there was a great deal of significance said over the course of the last two days.

Mr. Callahan: There won’t be any questions of you.

Mr. Charlton: I hope not. I do not take pride in having fleas jump up to make comments about me.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Charlton: Earlier, we had the member for High Park-Swansea, during the course of my colleague’s speech, when he was making remarks to the Treasurer about the fact that there was nothing in this bill -- all the guts were going to be in the regulations, the Treasurer kept saying; and I challenge the Treasurer to table the regulations, because that is the only way this Legislature can effectively deal with what this legislation is all about -- the member for High Park-Swansea made some comment that if the regulations were not adequate we could deal with them in the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

I would suggest that the member for High Park-Swansea should take some time to learn just a little bit about how this place operates around here. The regulations and private bills committee has no authority to do anything to fix bad regulations that come out of the executive council. The committee has the authority to look at regulations --

1710

Mr. Fleet: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: In fact, the standing orders indicate what the regulations committee has the power to do and both the member for Welland-Thorold and myself sit on that committee. In the circumstances, it can rule on regulations and report to this body. It is a mischaracterization, with the greatest of respect to the honourable member speaking, to say that the committee does not have the power.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order. I ask the member for Hamilton Mountain to continue.

Mr. Charlton: I repeat that I have also been a long-time member of the private bills and regulations committee and the committee has no authority to fix problems in regulations. It has the authority to recommend to this House. This House has the authority to recommend to the executive council, but if the executive council has made up its mind that it does not want good, strong and decisive regulations, there is no authority for any committee of this House or even for this Legislature to change that. There is no authority anywhere. It is time the member learns the rules before he starts deciding how he is going to apply them.

During the course of this debate there have been a number of challenges thrown across the way. I assume that all members of this House ultimately would prefer to see the decisions we make on questions like auto insurance made in the light of day and in the light of facts, not in the light of emotion and not in the light of unknowing -- I cannot think of the right word I am looking for -- and unuseful ignorance of the facts.

We have a situation where there has been a number of studies done, as my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold has said, comparing the auto insurance schemes in western Canada with Ontario; and a number of other provinces, for that matter, not just with Ontario.

In all of the dozens of studies that have been done -- with two exceptions, studies that have been done by the insurance industry itself and one study that was done by the Fraser Institute -- the proposition that has been put repeatedly over years and years by my colleague from Welland-Thorold has borne true. Those are facts. First, I challenge the members of the government party and the members of the executive council to sit down and look at the facts in those studies and second, I repeat the challenge my colleague made that this government commission a study of its own comparing auto insurance rates and the viability of auto insurance in Ontario against the three western plans.

If they are so sure that what we are saying is not true, that what we are saying will not work, why would they possibly be afraid of doing the study? How could they possibly object to seeing the facts which they believe are going to prove their point? How could anybody object to knowing they can demonstrate factually that what they feel instinctively, is right, that what they believe, is right? How can they sit there and say they are right but not be prepared to look at the facts to prove it?

Mr. Farnan: Fear.

Mr. Charlton: My colleague says “fear,” and that is exactly right. There can be no other explanation.

My colleague also mentioned the task force that we had go around this province. I participated with my colleague from Welland-Thorold in that task force and we spent literally hundreds of hours listening to individuals, to companies, to tow truck companies, to cab drivers, to municipalities, to school boards: you name it and we listened to them in depth and in detail. We received, in huge volume, evidence of the faults that exist in this system, so many faults that those people yell do not exist. But we have the evidence in black and white, notices from insurance companies setting out cancellations, setting out discrimination, setting out unwarranted rate increases.

We have spent a lot of time debating this issue over the course of the 10 years I have been here and we will probably have to spend a lot more time debating this issue before it is finally resolved in Ontario, much as we did in the early 1960s with medicare. We all now have medicare and those people over there, who in the early 1960s opposed medicare, now brag about the benefits of that plan to the people of Ontario.

An hon. member: Don’t paint us all with the same brush.

Mr. Charlton: Why should I not? I know how the member is going to stand up and vote on this bill.

An hon. member: Don’t be so sure.

Mr. Charlton: Does the member mean we might actually convince some of them to vote against it or to vote for our amendments?

In interjections earlier in the course of this debate and even during question period today, the Treasurer made comments that the people of Ontario decided what they wanted in terms of auto insurance in the election. I never heard so much garbage in my entire life.

I remember the plethora of positions that party took over the course of the past year on auto insurance. I remember capping bills being introduced in this House last spring at the same time as the Premier was saying in the Niagara Peninsula, “I’m not ready to say it should be public auto insurance, but I’m not ruling out public auto insurance.” He left the impression with the people of Ontario that at the very least he was going to look at public auto insurance and find out the facts. That is the impression the Premier and other cabinet ministers over there left scattered around this province.

Mr. Swart: The impression they wanted to leave. It was good politics.

Mr. Charlton: Wanted to leave, because they did not want anybody to be sure of exactly what their position was on auto insurance. Why not? The former Minister of Financial Institutions on September 17 said it all. He said, “The auto insurance issue was a major issue out there and the NDP took votes away from us because of that issue.” In the ridings where we had the opportunity to make the positions clear, the voters did not defeat New Democrats; they elected them.

Let me go back for just a few moments to the question of legislation that sets up a board, and then all the purposes, regulations and guidelines under which that board will have to operate will be dealt with in regulations rather than in the legislation.

I listened this morning in the private members’ debate to the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black) on a motion from one of our Conservative colleagues to set up a tourism board in Ontario. He got up and said: “This is meaningless. You are setting up another board. What is it going to do? What is the impact of this board going to be? What is it going to accomplish?” He said that there was nothing there, that there was a good intent perhaps, but there was nothing of substance there. The Liberal member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay got up and stood in this House and said: “It’s all a sham. This is the old Tory trick of setting up boards to create jobs for Tories.”

Mr. Cousens: Oh, come on now, don’t start.

1720

Mr. Charlton: I am telling them what the member said in the debate this morning. As it turns out, the process he was describing is exactly the process we are engaged in here this afternoon, a bill that sets up a board and does not tell us exactly what the board is going to do or how it is going to do it and what the outcome will be. “Leave it to us. We will do it in the regulations.” I want to say to the Treasurer that I may not have been around this place for as long as he has, but I have been here long enough to know that when I hear those words I have real problems to look for.

Could one imagine the Environmental Protection Act that set up the Environmental Protection Board or the Environmental Assessment Act that set up the Environmental Assessment Board as legislation that had no meat, like this legislation, legislation that left it all to regulations to determine how the Environmental Protection Board or the Environmental Assessment Board was going to protect the environment in Ontario?

At the time we passed those pieces of legislation, the party that is presently the government was in opposition and it would have screamed blue murder through the ceiling of this place. They probably would have broken the skylight two floors above this ceiling if we had had environmental legislation that set up the board and did nothing else.

If we had a piece of legislation before us that contained whatever is presumably going to be in the regulations and we could see it and it made sense and we could understand how it was going to work for the benefit of the people of Ontario, even though we might not agree it was the ultimate solution because we have put out our position in terms of what our ultimate solution is, if we had a bill that contained the facts of the regulations before us so that we could see how it was going to work to benefit the people of this province, we would have to consider supporting it. We do not have that.

The member for Yorkview (Mr. Polsinelli) got up and made comments a few moments ago. He said, “If you can support this bill with your amendments, why can you not support this bill as it stands?” Because it is empty as it stands.

Mr. Polsinelli: We’re talking about it being an interim measure.

Mr. Charlton: An interim measure to a goal that we can support.

Mr. Polsinelli: For it to be an interim measure, there has to be something there that --

Mr. Charlton: No, the amendment to the bill which would set up public auto insurance in this province is the interim measure we are prepared to support.

Mr. Polsinelli: That is not true. That is not what the member for Welland-Thorold said.

Mr. Charlton: That is what he said.

Mr. Polsinelli: He said that this would be an interim measure --

The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable member will have time to make comments and ask questions later.

Mr. Polsinelli: I am just correcting him.

Mr. Charlton: He is doing a bad job of even correcting himself.

We have a situation where we have a bill that is a box and it has nothing in it. We would like to see something in it that can be judged by somebody in terms of its value, in terms of its content, in terms of its direction and in terms of what it will accomplish. We have none of that in this piece of legislation. We have a piece of legislation that sets up a board and states an intent that this board will review premium rates; nothing more. We do not even know what the powers of this board will be once it has reviewed those rates.

The Treasurer says, “Regulate the rates.” What does that mean? We all know that there are all kinds of bodies already in existence in this province that have the power to regulate in some fashion, but even those boards that have the power to regulate have that power to regulate defined in some way.

The Ontario Energy Board, which my colleague referred to a number of times, regulates the rates of the natural gas distributors in this province, but its ability to regulate is defined. I cannot quote off the top of my head the exact definition of their ability to regulate, but they have to ensure that a certain amount of profit is earned by those natural gas distributors. So there is a definition to the ability to regulate. They cannot regulate above or below that.

What is the definition of the Treasurer of the pronounced ability to regulate that this board will have? If he tells us, we can talk about it, but if he keeps it hidden, we will distrust him.

As my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold also said, there is nothing in this bill and nothing in any of the indications of statements that have been made by ministers of the crown -- either the present Minister of Financial Institutions or his predecessor -- that indicates this government is prepared to eliminate the discriminatory practices of the insurance industry in Ontario. I am not going to go through the process of describing to this House all of the kinds of discrimination that my colleague went through. I do not think that is necessary. But I want to use a couple of examples of it because they are the examples that get focused on most often.

I am doing this because I want members to understand the insurance industry’s view of these very discriminatory practices to which I am going to refer so that they can understand what it is we are up against in terms of even trying to regulate the insurance industry in the first place.

We have had all this talk about discrimination against young drivers, most specifically against young male drivers, 16 to 24, and we have had all this debate about what the statistics show in terms of their driving and accident records. Nobody disputes any of that. It simply becomes a question of what we do with those studies and those facts, how we view them and how we determine they should be used in auto insurance.

Do we do as the auto insurance industry presently does and say that because the statistics for 16- to 24-year-olds are awful, all 16- to 24-year-olds are guilty and penalize them all? Or do we do as has been done in a number of jurisdictions and say: “No, every driver, whether he is 16, 42, 63 or 78 will be judged on his or her own performance as a driver? He or she will be judged if he or she has a good record and judged accordingly, or he or she will be judged if he or she has a bad record and penalized accordingly. “

Here is how the auto insurance industry, this industry that the government is trying to somehow make understand social concerns -- these companies are interested in profit, nothing else. That is what they are in business for. That is their job.

Listen to the kinds of attitudes they have towards questions like this. This is in a speech by the president of the Insurance Bureau of Canada: “We in the insurance business, and most people in general, feel that it is a shame when a good young driver has to pay so much for insurance.” This is referring to the good young driver now, not the bad one and not the statistics. “We feel it is a shame when a good young driver has to pay so much for insurance, but we have all seen the statistics. We have all seen some young men driving like maniacs and lunatics. We were young ourselves once and we know that we tend to slow down when we get married and get a bit of responsibility.”

Is the government going to be able to convince this guy that, no, he cannot use statistics to do rate categories, that he has to judge each driver individually and independently?

He goes on to say, “It is a real tragedy that young men have accident records like they do, but it is not the fault of the insurance industry.” How is the government ever going to make this individual responsible in our society? It cannot do it, because he knows also what the stats show. The stats show that when you can use rate categories and penalize them all, you make more money. It is a simple fact of life.

1730

“Insurance rates have been going up in Ontario but it is not the fault of the insurance companies. I recently asked two of Canada’s largest insurance companies to compare insurance rates in Toronto and Calgary,” and it goes on and on.

It goes over to the next part of his speech where he says -- and this is how people in the insurance industry view good times, this is how they view a boom in our economy, growth, prosperity -- just listen to this: “We in Ontario are having boom times. Our streets and highways are crowded.” Members can just see them, can they not? “Our streets and our highways are crowded.” Ha, ha. “People are buying newer and more expensive cars and driving them more and they are getting into more accidents and the accidents are more expensive.” That is what prosperity is all about to insurance companies.

Are these the people the government wants determining how it is going to deal with its auto insurance? Really, are these the people it wants making its decisions for it? There is not an ounce of social understanding or social conscience anywhere in that industry.

Mr. Polsinelli: How come you guys have it all?

Mr. Charlton: There is probably even a little bit of it over there. I saw a head nodding yes when I said, “Shouldn’t drivers be judged on their individual records?”

The guys opposite have a little bit of social conscience too but they do not have the guts to put it up front. They are prepared to allow that principle to go down the drain because they want to protect these kinds of people, the kind of people who applaud when there is a booming economy and people are buying more expensive cars because they are crowding the roads and the accidents get bigger and more expensive. That is what they take glee in.

We are sitting here trying to figure out ways to prevent that, and that is what they are taking glee in, sitting there rubbing their hands together. They do not want to help us to stop that carnage. They could not care less. That is the kind of industry the government is telling us we can somehow regulate to make fair.

If my friends opposite really believe that, then they are exceptionally naive, because it cannot be done, any more than we can get rid of organized crime by regulation. We cannot do it. Maybe we cannot even get rid of organized crime by going out there to get rid of it, but at least with the insurance industry, we know we can get rid of private, unfair, discriminatory auto insurance if we want to.

The kind of really outrageous discrimination that the private auto insurance sector in Ontario provides is so perverse that for every kind of discrimination that is exposed publicly and about which pressure is put on them to back off from, they come up with a new one. Do the members remember the comments l read earlier about how the young driver gets more responsible when he gets married? I remember not too long ago when that was the key issue, “I have to wait until I am 25 or I get married to get a reduction in my auto insurance rates.”

Just a few short years ago, somebody in the auto insurance industry said, “Well, hey, if young, male, single drivers are irresponsible and we can charge them more and get away with it, why don’t we have a look at what happens when they get divorced and maybe we can grab them again?” Do members think they would do that? How many think they would do that? Let them raise their hands.

I want to tell members that is what they have started doing. It does not matter whether you are still under 25 when you get divorced or whether you are 36 or 42 or 58, if you get a divorce, most companies operating in Ontario are going to increase your premiums because, all of a sudden, after 20 years of being responsible you have become irresponsible again.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: Vote with us and change that.

Mr. Charlton: If the member tells me how he is going to change it, I may consider that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the member for Hamilton Mountain would direct his comments through the chair, please.

Mr. Charlton: Through the chair to the member for York Mills (Mr. J. B. Nixon) because he was out of the House, we are prepared to consider this bill and to consider supporting it if we can see what the devil it is going to do. We cannot see it in the legislation. Table the regulations. Let us go through in detail what it is the government is going to regulate, how it is going to regulate, what power it is going to give the board, what it is going to allow the board to do. But do not tell me to have faith that the government is going to do it right, because I am not going to have faith that it is going to do it right. I have been burned too many times in this place at that game.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Oh ye of little faith.

Mr. Charlton: Oh yes.

Interjections.

Mr. Charlton: Maybe we can get some more heads nodding again. Do the Liberals think it is appropriate that we should be raising people’s insurance rates because they have become divorced?

Mr. Polsinelli: Let’s take a vote.

Mr. Charlton: That is right. Tell us how this legislation is going to stop that kind of discrimination. It is not. They do not have the guts to do it. If they had the guts to do it, they would put it up here in front of us in black and white so that we could see that this legislation was real and was going to accomplish something. But they do not have the courage to take on the insurance companies, so they set up this bill that creates an empty box.

Just as the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black) said this morning, when he was responding to the resolution from this side of the House, from the Conservatives: “It is an old Tory trick to set up boards that don’t have any power and don’t have any authority and you cannot define what they are going to do. That is an old trick for job creation.”

Mr. Polsinelli: That’s the second time you have said that and only one part of the House that is getting offended.

Mr. Charlton: They should get offended hearing that kind of comment coming from the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay and seeing this kind of legislation here from the same party.

It is a piece of legislation which sets up a box, a board. It is an empty box. It has no content, no definition. We do not know what it is going to do. The Treasurer says it is going to regulate rates. How is it going to regulate rates? What are the parameters? What will be its authorities? Will it be allowed to roll back unfair rates or will it just be allowed to make unfair practices public? I think that is probably closer to the truth. It will be allowed to make unfair practices public, and the Treasurer smiles.

Mr. Speaker, you have been around here for even longer than I have, and you have listened to the debates in this House over the years. You have heard the debates both for the last two and a half years and for eight, 10, 12, 15 years, maybe even 20 years before then, when the government party, the party over there, was sitting over here and taking precisely the same position we are taking now.

They should not give us hollow legislation. They should tell us what they really intend to do. They should put the guts in the bill where the Legislature can debate them; not only where the Legislature can debate them, but also where in a committee of this House we can actually talk to the public and perhaps even to the insurance industry about what the real impact of the guts, the regulations, will be. Let us have something useful for our public hearings, because we have absolutely nothing to go to them with right now, not in this bill.

1740

I go back to comments I made earlier about our task force. If a committee of this Legislature could sit down and listen carefully and thoughtfully to the kinds of evidence that were brought before our task force, some of the members might at least start to understand the extent and scope of the problem we face. It is not just in auto insurance; that just happens to be the grossest manifestation of the problem.

It is there in liability insurance and, to some extent, we dealt with that. The government allowed municipalities, school boards, hospitals and other institutions to set up funds to self-insure, to protect themselves from the gouging that was going on in liability insurance.

The municipalities, the school boards, the institutions and the hospitals went out and investigated that possibility. What did they find? They found it works, and they proceeded to do it.

Can anybody over there tell me what the difference is between what the government allowed the institutions to do and what we are proposing?

Mr. J. B. Nixon: I can.

Mr. Charlton: No, I do not think the member can. I will be happy to meet him anywhere, any time. There is nobody over there who can tell me there is any significant difference between public liability insurance for school boards and public auto insurance for the drivers in Ontario.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: There is a big difference.

Mr. Charlton: I do not think so. I do not think any member over there who was prepared to sit down and really look at the facts would find any difference, either.

If this government was really committed to finding the best deal for the drivers in Ontario -- and we are not talking about just individual drivers: we are talking about people who depend on their vehicles for the business they are in; we are talking about the whole transportation sector; we are talking about cab drivers; we are talking about tow-truck companies. The government could even, in its study, sit down and define what the best economic approach might be, in terms of business stimulation. It does it with everything else, or tries to.

Why are we afraid to look at the facts? Why are we afraid to do the study? If the government really believes what it says in this House that it believes -- and I repeat what I said earlier -- it would not be afraid to let us see the facts that support its position.

The only conclusion we can come to and the only conclusion, ultimately, the public can come to, is that if the government will not do a study and it will not make it public, it really does not believe itself when it says it will not work, because it is afraid to find out.

In wrapping up my comments today, I want to go back to what it is that the people of Ontario really want. I can say, as others will say, that what the people really want is public, driver-owned auto insurance, as we have in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. But I am not sure, even yet, if that is the answer you would get if you did a proper scientific poll in this province or if, in fact, you had a plebiscite.

I do know that what the people who drive in Ontario want is the best, most sensible and most affordable solution they can find. They would be interested in seeing the comparison study as well, whoever’s point it proved, because they do not want to make the wrong choice of what they ultimately end up with. They certainly do not want an empty box.

Even if this government is sincere -- and to the Treasurer, I still am very sceptical of this government’s ability to seriously take on and regulate the auto insurance industry -- when you end up with a piece of legislation where none of the guts are in the legislation, and you end up with another government five years down the road that is not quite so sincere or is even closer to the auto insurance industry -- and regulations can get changed overnight by order in council, just like that, no debate, no nothing, and all of their sincerity and all of their good regulations are gone, finished, ended.

They send it off to the regulations and private bills committee and it says: “That was a nasty thing to do. These regulations are no good, they’ll never work.” It sends a report to the House and we have a debate on the report in the House, but we have not rid ourselves of those new bad regulations, have we? We are still stuck with the new bad regulations the members of the executive council passed, because they are the only ones who have the authority to create or change regulations.

Why does the government put us in the position of having to debate an empty box? They should table the regulations. Let us see what it is they are proposing to do, other than set up a board which they verbally tell us is going to regulate rates.

Now we have a situation where, as my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold has said, insurance companies cancel insurance without warning, without notice, without explanation.

We did a survey not too long ago. Some of the people across the way, when my colleague was making the comments, disputed it with their interjections. We had 17 insurance brokers who would not quote for drivers under 21. We had another two who would not quote for drivers under 25. And yet when my colleague said that if the Liberals proceed along the road they are going they are going to end up with all of the drivers under 25 on Facility Association rates, the members all boo-hooed and bah-haaed.

That is precisely what they are going to do going down the road they are going. Every single, young, male driver under 25 years of age is going to get pushed out by the private insurance companies in this province and pushed on to Facility rates, and the minimum, no matter what their driving record is, is going to be $2,500 a year. That is where the government is pushing the young people of this province if it continues down its present path.

We had some discussion about no-fault. Remember last spring? Because the debate was revving up and because the public was listening to the debate -- the public, which obviously the Liberals are not listening to very well now that they have their majority --

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It was an issue in the election.

Mr. Charlton: Yes, and I addressed that earlier. Unfortunately, I guess the Treasurer was not back yet.

Sure it was an issue in the election, and what did they do with the public? They took five balls and they got them all going at once. They introduced two pieces of legislation in the House while the Premier goes down the peninsula and says, “Well, I haven’t accepted the idea of public auto insurance yet, but I haven’t written it off either.” And then you get the statement he made on September 7 that my leader quoted this afternoon, where he said, “We’ve got specific plans to reduce auto insurance rates in Ontario.”

What did that mean to the public? The Treasurer may have known that it meant, “We’ll reduce the rates for those under 25 by 10 per cent.” He may have known that is what the Premier meant, but the public in the province did not know that is what the Premier meant when he said, “We have got specific plans to reduce auto insurance rates in Ontario.” What did the people vote for? They voted for a smokescreen where there were clear indications that the government was prepared to do something far more substantial than what it is now putting before this House.

1750

In the last few minutes they have just pulled me very close to offending the Speaker and the entire House, but I managed to miss the words.

Interjection.

Mr. Charlton: Most of us who do it get pulled into doing it by the kinds of shenanigans across the way.

What is it that the people of Ontario voted for? I am suggesting that the people of Ontario, from all of the indications they had from this government and from the position that this party took, clearly voted for lower auto insurance premium rates in the province of Ontario and for public auto insurance if that would provide those lower premiums.

Mr. Callahan: During the election, they didn’t know about the increases in Manitoba and British Columbia, did they?

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, there is a member down at the other end making interjections again. Perhaps you could ask him to be quiet, because he has not even taken the time to understand those announced rate increases; increases which, substantial as they might appear to his unknowing mind, are substantially lower than anything that has occurred in the past six years in this province, because most of those provinces have not had increases for three, four, five or six years. Some of them have in fact had negative increases. And now, yes, there are some things happening.

Mr. Callahan: There was $181 million in BC in 1986 in subsidy by the government.

Mr. Charlton: An average six per cent increase over six years in the province of Saskatchewan; one per cent a year.

Mr. Callahan: Saskatchewan had a $72-million subsidy in 1982.

Mr. Charlton: There are no subsidies in the Saskatchewan plan.

Mr. Callahan: That is what it says.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Hamilton Mountain.

Mr. Charlton: The member does not listen. He does not want to listen. He does not want to understand the facts. That is fine.

Interjection.

Mr. Charlton: Yes, in six years in Manitoba we have had a 36 per cent increase. In six years in the province of Ontario we have had a 70 per cent increase. Take your pick, my friends.

Mr. Polsinelli: What is happening in Saskatchewan?

Mr. Charlton: Saskatchewan has had a six per cent increase in six years, or one per cent per year.

An hon. member: They always lower it before an election.

Mr. Speaker: This is certainly not question period. The member for Hamilton Mountain.

Mr. Charlton: Obviously, the members opposite do not like to understand facts, do not want to understand facts and would rather pay higher premiums in the province of Ontario than understand the facts. It is unfortunate that we have to have a debate where members do not want to listen and do not want to understand facts.

You know, in any math class I have ever been in, six per cent over six years is better than 70 per cent over six years, 20 per cent over six years is better than 70 per cent over six years and even the worst-case scenario, 36 per cent over six years, is better than 70 per cent over six years. That is what my math teacher would tell me. That is what the member’s math teacher would tell him.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Charlton: Well, perhaps the more we have to listen to some of that kind of comment, the more we will be sure that what we had was a victory because we did not have to end up with those clowns.

Mr. Speaker: Would the honourable member continue his remarks on the legislation and disregard the interjections.

Mr. Polsinelli: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Since you have already called the member to order, I would like to bring to his attention also standing order 19(d)3, which deals with needless repetition. I believe the member has been doing much of that in the past 40 minutes.

Mr. Charlton: The member for Yorkview is correct. It is because of the silly attitude that has been taken here and the questions that have been raised about comments that I have already made that have forced me to repeat them. The Treasurer comes into the House, having been absent, and makes comments about things I have already said, and I just have to make sure he understands the answer to his questions. If the member does not want repetition, he should not ask for repetition.

My colleague from Welland-Thorold made comments about the joint campaign of the auto insurance industry and the Liberal Party in the last campaign. He also mentioned the $220,000 the auto insurance brokers raised in the city of Hamilton alone to fight the New Democratic Party in the last election campaign. Did government members know that that $220,000 the insurance brokers raised and spent in the city of Hamilton alone was more than all of our candidates and all of their candidates in the city of Hamilton put together spent? That is the powerful alliance the government likes to feel close to. That is the powerful alliance that promotes the democratic process that those members are lining up with, and they feel comfortable about that.

Mr. Mackenzie: It did not work in Hamilton, either.

Mr. Charlton: It did not work in Hamilton, because the people in Hamilton, fortunately, like facts, not bunk.

Interjection.

Mr. Charlton: Yes, I imagine the people right across the province like facts; they just did not get them. Do my friends think the insurance industry went into communities in the province where there was not a strong NDP challenge, where the auto insurance issue, therefore, was not perhaps as predominant as in some communities, like Toronto and Hamilton and others? Do they think it bothered to spend the kind of dollars I have suggested in Northumberland? Of course not.

I go back for a few moments to our task force and some of the things we found on that task force. My colleague from Welland-Thorold went through the seven or eight basic things that the task force found in terms of problems with auto insurance. We have already talked about the young male drivers and we have talked about the other kinds of discrimination, like divorce and so on. He also mentioned a number of people who drive in Ontario without any insurance at all. He also mentioned how in the three western provinces they do not have that kind of rate of public disobedience and public danger.

I have a friend who was in an accident just a few short months ago.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I know the honourable member has been keeping his eye on the clock. He may wish to adjourn the debate.

On motion by Mr. Charlton, the debate was adjourned.

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

Mr. Speaker: I would also like to inform the House that earlier I stated that there would be an adjournment debate. However, I believe there is agreement that will take place on Tuesday, December 8.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: Before we adjourn, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.

Commencing Monday, December 7, and continuing each afternoon, we will deal with second reading of the legislation in the following order as time permits: Bill 2, the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board Act; Bill 46, the Unconditional Grants Act; Bill 19, the Race Tracks Tax Act; Bill 20, the Employees Share Ownership Plan Act; Bill 21, the Ministry of Revenue Act; and Bill 51, the Employment Standards Act.

On Thursday morning we will consider private members’ ballot items standing in the names of the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) and the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens).

Of course, any changes or additions to this order will be announced following the usual House leaders’ consultation.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.

December 3, 1987

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

TOURISM ADVISORY BOARD ACT

HERITAGE BUILDING FUND

TOURISM ADVISORY BOARD ACT

HERITAGE BUILDING FUND

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

RENT REGULATION

CREDIT UNIONS AND CAISSES POPULAIRES

ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WITH BRAIN INJURIES

CHILEAN WINES

ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE

SIMCOE CHRISTMAS PANORAMA

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TECHNOLOGY FUND

PREMIER’S COUNCIL ON HEALTH STRATEGY

COURT FACILITIES

UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS PROGRAM

RESPONSES

PREMIER’S COUNCIL ON HEALTH STRATEGY

UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS PROGRAM

TECHNOLOGY FUND

PREMIER’S COUNCIL ON HEALTH STRATEGY

COURT FACILITIES

TECHNOLOGY FUND

COURT FACILITIES

UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS PROGRAM

PREMIER’S COUNCIL ON HEALTH STRATEGY

TECHNOLOGY FUND

UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS PROGRAM

CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

CHILD CARE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

CHILEAN WINES

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

SALES TAX

CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE

HOURS OF WORK

CREDIT UNIONS AND CAISSES POPULAIRES

STABILIZATION PAYMENTS

CHILD CARE

ALCOHOL AND DRUG ADDICTION

OVERCROWDING IN SCHOOLS

RED MEAT INDUSTRY

STEEP ROCK RESOURCES INC.

MOTION

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

THEATRES AMENDMENT ACT

UPHOLSTERED AND STUFFED ARTICLES AMENDMENT ACT

OPERATING ENGINEERS AMENDMENT ACT

OSHAWA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ACT

GENERAL HOSPITAL OF PORT ARTHUR ACT

ENERGY AMENDMENT ACT

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ORDER OF QUESTIONS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE BOARD ACT (CONTINUED)

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE