The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HAILEYBURY SCHOOL OF MINES

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): This year, Northern College's Haileybury school of mines is celebrating its 80th birthday. The year marks an important page in the history of the school of mines.

Mining subjects were first introduced in 1912 in conjunction with the Haileybury High School. In 1917, a building known as the Mill was built. The building was equipped by the many mines of northern Ontario for the treatment of gold and silver ores. By 1929, the accommodations had become inadequate, so a modern structure was built and opened by 1931.

The school was closed in 1943 due to the Second World War and low enrolment. In 1944, the provincial government passed legislation to operate the school as the Provincial Technical Institute of Mining. In 1945, the institute was opened with a high-level course of study in mining subjects and considerable new equipment for hands-on work.

In 1967, the mining institute was incorporated into the Northern College of Applied Arts and Technology, which has campuses in Kirkland Lake, Kapuskasing, Moosonee and South Porcupine. Many Timiskaming residents, as well as people from all over the world, have received quality education at the Haileybury school of mines. This has helped to make the school world famous.

During the week of October 1, the school will be officially celebrating its birthday. I would like to take this opportunity on behalf of myself and the province of Ontario to congratulate the faculty and the students, and I wish them all the best for the next 80 years.

RECREATIONAL LAND

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources, and it concerns a policy that will have a detrimental impact on senior citizens and others on fixed incomes.

Minister, you recently announced rent increases for recreational lots on crown land, including recreation camps for fishing and hunting, summer resort leases and cottage leases in provincial parks. Your new formula will result in annual increases of 15% or $100, whichever is greater, until the rent based on market value is achieved over the next five years. In Algonquin and Rondeau provincial parks your new formula will virtually double these fees from the current average of $1,200 to $2,450 by the end of the five-year period.

I find this annual 15% tax grab to be completely unwarranted and unacceptable at a time when the annual rate of inflation is hovering around 3%. Your new formula will have an injurious impact on leaseholders who are senior citizens, as well as many others who are struggling to survive on fixed incomes.

I urge you to reconsider your new formula that will result in annual 15% rent increases for recreation lots and crown land. Instead, you should implement a more moderate policy that truly reflects responses to the troubled economic times facing the people of Ontario.

Your cutbacks in tree planting, cutbacks in the conservation officers, your cutbacks in the fish habitat -- Minister, you're destroying the Ministry of Natural Resources.

GLENN GOULD

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): The 10th anniversary of the death of Glenn Gould at the early age of 50 has been the occasion for tributes and special events. I would like to take this opportunity to add a few remarks in the Ontario Legislature.

Gould was born in Toronto and was an outstanding musician and pianist. His virtuoso interpretations of Bach are particularly famous for their technique and his distinctive interpretations.

It was in his character to go his idiosyncratic way. Beneath apparent eccentricity was a consistent wisdom. In 1964, he made a deliberate decision to stop being a concert artist, feeling that performance was better done through recordings. He still maintained himself in the forefront of pianists of his time, evidence of his capacity to continue his horizons and those of his audience. He was evidently ahead of his time, relishing McLuhan's electronic village and using media to communicate his thoughts on music and much more.

He was a creator for television and radio, and in the past two weeks we have been able to hear on CBC radio his documentaries. They clearly show his insight into his surroundings and his vision of Canada as a northern country.

The increasing interest in his life and works, which has been very much helped by the Canadian Broadcasting Corp and by our Ontario Ministry of Culture and Communications, which supported the 1992 Glenn Gould Conference, appropriately enough on "Music and Communications in the 21st Century," bears testimony to how much his life and works fit our electronic age.

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Kidney dialysis patients in the Niagara region and the dedicated staff at Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines are still confronted with the appalling conditions in the kidney dialysis unit at Hotel Dieu, while funds from the Ministry of Health are allocated elsewhere in the province.

To accommodate the close to 100 patients, the unit must operate from 8 am until 11 o'clock at night, six days a week. The facilities are clearly overcrowded and inadequate. The equipment is outdated and the area utilized is far too small.

I had an opportunity, along with the other members from the Niagara region, to tour with Dr Manning and other medical and administrative staff this particular unit at Hotel Dieu. We came to the conclusion that only the dedication and commitment of the staff allows this essential, life-preserving unit to continue to operate.

I've raised the plight of kidney dialysis patients on numerous occasions in the House and elsewhere. I will continue to focus attention on the intolerable situation until the Hotel Dieu Hospital receives its fair share of the Ontario health care budget to meet the genuine and urgent need at Hotel Dieu.

As Jack Leake, one of the patients, said: "The Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines has operated the regional life support program for dialysis in the Niagara Peninsula since 1974. I've written numerous letters to Premier Bob Rae and the Minister of Health. We are now in need of the $49 million to be spent for dialysis, bone marrow transplants, chemotherapy and heart surgery." All they want is their fair share of that allocation.

1340

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I read with great interest the Minister of Transportation's statement, reported in the press today, that he's preparing draft legislation to introduce graduated licensing into Ontario.

Considering that I and my fellow caucus member David Turnbull, the member for York Mills, have been lobbying your government through petitions from our constituents and questions in the House to make these changes for more than a year, I suppose I could congratulate you on your quick reaction, but that would be premature. I regret that you've taken as long as you have to admit that there's a problem and that you have taken this long to once again only give lipservice to the idea instead of releasing the draft bill. An inordinate number of new drivers are involved in accidents on Ontario roads, and we must bring changes to make our roads safer for everyone.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Forty-two years.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Tilson: Your inaction to date on this legislation has cost lives in Ontario, Mr Minister. If you had introduced graduated licences when this government fell into power over two years ago, you could have saved more than 2,400 lives in Ontario. That's almost four deaths a day caused by inexperienced drivers on the road in situations that could be avoided with tighter legislation.

Some 40% of the deaths on the roads involve inexperienced drivers, Mr Minister. It is time for you to stop saying that you will act on this problem and actually do something. Let's see your draft legislation. Move forward and deal with saving lives in Ontario. Why not encourage your party to set aside its job-killing legislation, such as Bill 40, and focus instead on life-saving legislation, such as graduated licensing?

WASTE REDUCTION

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): This is Waste Reduction Week all across Ontario, and I would like to take a few moments to inform the House on what is happening in my riding of Cochrane North. Many people believe the north to be a pristine wilderness with an abundance of good, clean drinking water, plenty of fresh air and people living in harmony with their environment. Sadly, this isn't always the case.

Northerners create garbage just like people in southern Ontario. We too are concerned about landfills taking over our land, mill and factory emissions polluting our air, and toxins poisoning our drinking water. We realize that our land has a limited amount of resources. While we must get the maximum utilization of these resources, we also must maintain the balance of nature.

I'm proud to say that many of the towns in my riding are working on the 3Rs principle: reduce, reuse and recycle. Community action groups are educating people on the importance of the 3R program all over Cochrane North. In Smooth Rock Falls, the Minister of the Environment has granted money to supply 100 composters to houses to divert household waste from landfills. Kapuskasing has organized a committee to look into starting the blue box program. Spruce Falls Inc in Kapuskasing is spending $38 million on a water effluent treatment process, to ensure water in the area isn't affected by the paper mill.

The challenges of recycling are even greater in the north than in the large metropolitan areas due to the economies of scale. Nevertheless, the people of Cochrane North are concerned about their environment and are working hard to preserve the land and resources for everyone's use.

MISSISSAUGA YES COMMITTEE

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Today at 5:30 in the Sussex Centre in Mississauga, there will be a kickoff rally for the Mississauga Yes committee. I'm proud to tell everyone in this House that the buttons they were wearing yesterday and I'm wearing again today were distributed by that committee. The red and white ribbons that many members of all three parties have been wearing were the brainchild of that committee. It's a campaign that we hope will spread right across Canada.

This summer I had the pleasure of being in Kenora during the Olympics to witness the gold ribbon campaign that was put on in the city of Kenora for Michael Smith. It was very, very effective and I believe this red and white ribbon campaign can be equally effective if it spreads right across Canada. We in the Yes committee in Mississauga will be urging people in our community and indeed everywhere to tie a red and white ribbon on the tree, on the lamppost, on their antenna, on their doorknob, to wave it for Canada and to say Yes.

To show the non-partisan nature in the way our community is working together, Mr Des Morton, the Canadian historian, who is known to everyone in this House, is our honorary chair. Mr Tim Peterson, Mr Dick Clewes and Mrs Jean Foster are the acting chairs representing all three parties. It's truly non-partisan and we all hope to lead Mississauga to a Yes for Canada.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): The UN General Assembly has designated October 1 as International Day for the Elderly which is today being observed for the first time throughout the world. Today we join in paying tribute to the many contributions of the elderly to our society. Today we may also reflect on how the needs of seniors are being met by this government. But if Ontario seniors were to grade the NDP on its handling of their needs, the final mark would be quite unacceptably low.

After completely ignoring any reference to seniors in the last throne speech, the NDP proceeded to drastically cut from the Ontario drug benefit program drugs used by seniors, such as Trental and Persantine. The Ontario tax grant, brought in by the PC government to address rising education taxes paid by seniors, will be cut by the NDP which will take $100 million in total from the program. Ontario seniors won't receive any assistance from the NDP Fair Tax Commission while at the same time being hit by hidden tax increases.

The NDP also announced budget cuts to municipally run homes for the aged to the tune of $27 million. Seniors are still waiting for changes to long-term care reforms which appear to be on indefinite hold. Finally, the NDP Health ministry has changed residency criteria for OHIP benefits from four to six months without advising seniors.

On International Day for the Elderly, Bob Rae should remember that seniors deserve to benefit from their years of sacrifice, hard work and many contributions to society. On this day, however, Ontario seniors give the NDP record on their needs an F, which stands for "forgotten." Seniors say, "Bob Rae, if you're going to forget us, you can also forget our support during the next provincial election."

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): It's with a lot of pleasure that I have an opportunity to rise in the House today in order to tell members of the Legislature and other people watching of a great initiative that has been undertaken by this government by the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, the Honourable Shelley Martel, and the ministry.

We started working with a concerned group of people who are involved within the mining industry throughout northern Ontario in an organization called Save Our North. About 12 months ago, they challenged this government to move on five initiatives, to move forward on a number of issues in order to make the whole situation in mining a lot easier for mining companies and mining juniors, in order to bring on line the amount of reserves that we need within our resource base to keep the mining industry the key player that it is in our economy.

A number of those things that we have announced in the House we've already moved ahead on, namely, the one-window approach to permitting within the mine system. We're looking at some legislation in order to enable the whole situation on how mining companies interact with government much easier.

We announced on Monday the release of a document on mining incentives for the mining industry. That document, which was prepared through the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines in consultation with the private sector, looks at finding better and smarter ways of utilizing government taxpayers' money to be able to assist the mining sector in order to find which way we can get the biggest bang for our buck.

The paper was released in Timmins on Monday. I would like to quote some of the comments that were made by someone from within the industry about this particular thing:

"'This is a new approach that could work better than flow-through,' said Parry. 'This program rewards successful over unsuccessful and that's a huge advantage. It's rewarding success over activity. It's pretty astute.'"

I want to say that because it was a long time coming, took a lot of work and received good cooperation among all people and between the private sector and the government.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would like to inform members that we have some very special guests with us today, a visiting delegation which includes two speakers of the provincial assemblies of Pakistan, accompanied by the consul general of Pakistan, and Mr Loftus who was the Speaker of the Wisconsin House for some 10 years. Welcome to our assembly.

We also have, seated in the members' gallery west, Mr Ross Young, a member of the Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island, and Mr Velshi, who is the former member for Don Mills. Both of you are most welcome to our chamber this afternoon. Please welcome them.

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

DESIGN EXCHANGE

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology): Earlier today, my cabinet colleague Karen Haslam and I announced that the Ontario government is providing $2.5 million to help create a home for the Design Exchange here in Ontario.

This new facility will contain an auditorium for exhibitions, a design shop, a new product centre and a resource centre. It will be located at the Ernst and Young Tower, which includes the former Toronto Stock Exchange building.

Through our support, the Ontario government is recognizing the importance of design as a cornerstone of Ontario's future economic growth. Indeed, design was highlighted in our government's recent industrial policy framework as a key component in moving our economy towards higher value added activities.

This is why Ontario's contribution to the Design Exchange is being funded through our Jobs Ontario Capital fund. Through this $2.3-billion fund, we are investing in important infrastructure projects that will create jobs today and over the long term.

In the case of the Design Exchange, our investment will create over 100 direct and indirect person-years of employment in construction, a sector that has been particularly hard hit by the recession. When the centre becomes fully operational in 1993, it will employ 14 permanent, full-time staff.

Beyond these immediate benefits, we believe that our support for the Design Exchange will prove to be a long-term investment in the province's capabilities to carry out continuous innovation.

Our recent industrial policy aims to encourage innovation in this province. This means we have to work smarter. We have to create goods and services that people truly want to buy, products and services that have design appeal.

Design appeal can mean many different things: clever function, outstanding beauty or economic sense. But most of all, design creates products that satisfy consumer needs. In short, more and more discriminating consumers are demanding well-designed products and services. Good design can help to create these products and services of the future.

There is no question that design adds value. For example, a study by the Industrial Design Society of America showed that every dollar spent on industrial design generated an average of $2,500 in increased sales.

Ontario is not alone in recognizing the importance of design. We fully expect that our federal government and the private sector will join us in supporting the Design Exchange. In addition, the city of Toronto is supporting this project through an innovative agreement of its own. For our part, the Ontario government will continue to work with our design sector to build awareness of Canada's design talents both here at home and abroad.

The challenge now is to build on our success from the past and make excellence in design a recognized quality in all that we produce. The promotion of Canadian design not only represents good public policy, but good business sense. In future, I believe the same will be said of Ontario's investment in building the Design Exchange.

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): It is a pleasure for me to join my cabinet colleague Ed Philip in announcing a $2.5-million grant under the Jobs Ontario Capital program to launch the Design Exchange. It is a recognition, both of the economic significance of culture and the integral importance of design to industry, that the two ministries are partners in today's announcement.

As my colleague has said, this centre will serve as a catalyst to encourage and support the effective use of design in Ontario products and services. In turn, it will help create much-needed job opportunities for the design sector throughout the industry. We are all aware of how tough the recession has been on the Ontario economy, particularly our cultural industries.

The Design Exchange will help create much-needed jobs for architects, industrial designers, software specialists, engineers and artists. Investing in good design not only makes us a more successful society, but it improves our lives and enriches our experience.

The Ministry of Culture and Communications is committed to initiatives that support economic renewal through our cultural industries. This grant from the Jobs Ontario Capital program will help ensure that our talent and ingenuity in design are recognized worldwide for outstanding goods and services.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Statements by ministers? Responses?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to respond to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and just say to him that if he believes this is going to be a significant step forward in the economy of Ontario, he's dead wrong.

My concern is that the government continues to say the Jobs Ontario Capital will create new jobs. The minister knows that the Jobs Ontario Capital fund was created exclusively by cutting back capital in other areas. You've only got to look at the budget. You cut capital in every single area and created a budget of $500 million. There is no new money; statement, end of fact. All it is is a public relations exercise where they've cut the capital, put it into a fund, hired an advertising agency and then gone around making these announcements. You are doing nothing to get the Ontario economy going again.

All the people in the province simply have to look at this page in the budget to show that they are spending exactly the same money on capital this year as last year. The only difference is they cut $500 million out and set up this special fund.

As I said before in the House, the only new job created here is the advertising agency. The government has gone out and hired an advertising agency to try to make itself look good.

You've announced 14 jobs today, and we appreciate that. Yesterday, I think, in the province of Ontario there were well over 500 people who lost their jobs due to layoffs. I have here the record on plant closures. There are four pages here just to the end of August this year of plant closures in the province of Ontario.

The people of Ontario are looking for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology to come forward with some proposals that are going to stop these plant closures rather than spend this time today making an announcement that the Minister of Culture and Communications could have just as easily made herself and to spend his time slowing down these dramatic layoffs.

You talk about capital spending. If we look at what's happened in the construction trades, in August 1992 there were 15% fewer people working in construction than there were a year ago. We see that the unemployment rate in the province of Ontario is at record levels. We see right here in Metropolitan Toronto unemployment higher than in the rest of Canada. We see in the rest of Canada the unemployment rate dropping in August. What's happening in Ontario? It is going up dramatically.

If you will forgive us for calling this a cynical announcement, there is no new money in the Jobs Ontario Capital fund. It is simply repackaging of old money, and we would urge the minister to get on with some real economic renewal programs in the province of Ontario and help get those record numbers of people back to work.

Unfortunately, I understand that perhaps later today we may be hearing that another 400 workers from de Havilland will be laid off. We see the minister today announcing 14 jobs, and we understand that's a step, but during the time he's making this announcement, 400 more people in this province are out of work. It's time to get on with some action by this government to solve this unemployment problem.

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): Recognizing the economic limitations of this initiative that my colleague has so aptly pointed out, I want only to say that the concept of a Design Exchange is one that I rather like. I like the idea that we will provide more help to Ontario designers and artists to get their designs into production and marketed. I like the idea that we're going to do that in a way that I hope will benefit Ontario artists and other creative Ontarians, Ontario designers of computer software and medical equipment and Ontario architects and engineers.

Two notes of caution: I hope the minister will ensure that Ontario artists benefit from this initiative, not only designers of readily marketable industrial goods but also Ontario artists. To us, it often seems that the major thrust of this ministry is cutbacks and cancellations and layoffs, and the Art Gallery of Ontario doors are still closed. However, it is nice to see something tangible coming forward, something that will benefit Ontario artists, I hope.

Let's have more of this kind of initiative, more real hands-on help to Ontario organizations and agencies and Ontario artists and promoters of Ontario culture.

1400

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I suspect that until the $2.3 billion is used up, we're going to have these announcements. My recollection is $2.5 million; tomorrow we'll spend some more money.

The fact of the matter is that the only investment being done in Ontario is when the government is involved. There is no new investment coming from the outside. As has been mentioned, 100 jobs will be created. The fact is that you're losing 500 a day. You're down 400 today alone, Mr Minister. Your labour legislation, according to estimates, will drive out $8 billion to $10 billion. That's four times the total amount you're going to spend in the entire Jobs Ontario Capital funding; four times that will be going out of this province because of your initiatives.

The fact of the matter is, Mr Minister, that you're overtaxing, you're overregulating, you're overlegislating, you're overgoverning. The fact of the matter is that industry is leaving this province in record numbers. This Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology should be embarrassed by the fact that under his direction we are losing more jobs than at any other time in our history. This is a disgrace.

I say to the minister that if you're going to get going, what you need to do is get this economy going by reducing some of the impediments to business and by getting some investment climate so people will want to come here. You're not going to be able to create the jobs to get the 500 we're losing today with all-government money. At the same time this minister is making these announcements, the Treasurer says we're going to increase taxes. That will do more to drive investment out than any of these announcements.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I suppose the most discouraging part about this announcement is that this is billed as one of the cornerstones in the revitalization to the economic woes of this province.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): No new money.

Mr Stockwell: There is no new money. It is money that's simply being recycled through the budget process. This minister and the Treasurer certainly know that.

What really is discouraging is that the two ministers stand up to make a much-ballyhooed announcement about 14 jobs. Five hundred jobs a day are being lost and two ministers stand here -- we can't find them when important announcements need to be made -- two ministers seem to find the time today to announce 14 jobs.

The people in this province --

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, 500 jobs a day; thousands and thousands of people are out of work. The economic cornerstone they're hoping to build on represents a design centre in downtown Toronto that when completed will employ 14 people. That's what the people in this province have to look forward to in the way of leadership and growth from this provincial government.

If these two ministers were to put themselves in those unemployed people's shoes, maybe then they'd understand just how discouraging, just how disappointing this kind of announcement is.

The Speaker: Further responses?

Mr Bradley: I'll respond some more.

The Speaker: That's very kind and generous, but the rules don't permit it. It is time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LAYOFFS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I came into the House today wanting to reflect on the fact that the people of this province woke up to more bad economic news today. My question was going to be somewhat different because I wanted to address that sense of desperation that people are feeling and the fact that the morning's news simply added to that sense of desperation.

My first question today will now be to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, whose announcement, the announcement that has just been made, speaks to no comfort for those people who are feeling a sense of desperation. But beyond that, I'm sure the minister must have been aware that as he was coming into the House to make that particular statement, there was news about yet another layoff: 400 workers at de Havilland who are about to be laid off. This is a company that this government has had some very direct involvement in.

Why has this minister come into the House today to make a statement that simply plays on the periphery of the deepest concerns that people have and refuses to make any kind of statement at least acknowledging a further loss of 400 jobs in this province?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology): There is, at the present time, a gap in the orders at de Havilland. De Havilland is alive and well, and it was thanks to the policies of this Treasurer and this ministry that we were able to save the company and not have it go down the drain the way the Conservatives and the Liberals would have done if they'd been in power.

Mrs McLeod: My question to the minister relates to the fact that we keep seeing statements by this government trying to tell people in this province that everything is rosy and that everything is fine: Another 14 jobs have just been created and a little bit more money has been shuffled around within the capital budget so there'll be some short-term job creation.

My question to the minister is, when will he and his government start to acknowledge that we have some very fundamental economic problems and that for every 14 jobs they can find to announce in the House there are another 370 jobs being lost every day? When will they acknowledge that fact and when will they acknowledge that their industrial strategy is not creating one single new job?

Hon Mr Philip: The honourable leader of the Liberal Party, the honourable leader of the official opposition is the first to recognize that we have faced the problem of an economic crisis across North America, and indeed a recession around the world. But it would be nice if she would at least recognize that it's more than 14 jobs that were created with this announcement. It is a policy that for the first time there's an industrial policy for this province, which she failed to create, that will create competitiveness, which she failed to create and which her government failed to create.

Let's look at exactly what is happening. The fact is that Ontario continues to attract investment and companies and is successfully competing in the global marketplace.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Nobody takes that crap seriously.

Hon Mr Philip: I know the member for Oriole, with all her noise, doesn't want to hear good news, but I intend to tell it anyway for the sake of the members who would like to hear it. Glassco --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister take his seat, please. Before proceeding, I would ask members that despite the emotional impact of the issues being raised, members would please exercise some restraint and allow people to place questions and allow people to respond to those questions.

Hon Mr Philip: The leader of the official opposition started off this session by saying that she wanted to provide constructive opposition. I haven't heard one constructive idea from those people on how we can rebuild the economy.

1410

Mrs McLeod: Let me assure the honourable member opposite that at any point at which we change seats we will offer the constructive alternatives that will really deal with the economy of this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs McLeod: The government House leader talks about copouts. It seems to me it's a copout when the people responsible for providing leadership in economic times keep saying to the opposition, "What would you do?"

If I had not been provoked by the specific comments, what I wanted to come back and say to this minister is, in all seriousness, how can he possibly put so many empty words into the faces of such very desperate people? Surely the minister realizes that the people in this province are without jobs, that they're losing hope daily.

Yesterday I talked to two families in Windsor, where the unemployment rate is 14.3%, and those two families that have had long-time businesses in Windsor told me how close they were to bankruptcy after all these years. They really reflected for me that sense of desperation. In the face of that desperation, all we get from this minister and all we get from this government are announcements and reannouncements of programs that don't actually create any new permanent jobs for people.

In responding to the minister's statement, our critic has very clearly indicated, and we can take the minister chapter and verse through the budget --

The Speaker: Will the member conclude her supplementary, please?

Mrs McLeod: -- to show that the Jobs Ontario Capital fund that he has reannounced today does not create one new job. It simply moves money from one place to another. I would ask the minister, how can he keep misleading the public by trying to tell them that these programs are actually creating new permanent jobs?

Hon Mr Philip: As I pointed out in estimates to the critic from the Liberal Party, this minister has provided in this year's budget 96% more direct assistance to business to rebuild from the recession than her government did during the last year in which it was in power.

Some $300 million in assistance through our development corporations to small businesses across the province, that's what we're doing, and I say that's doing an awful lot more for rebuilding the economy in this province and for rebuilding businesses and for creating jobs than the doom and gloom she preaches all the time. What is that doing for jobs?

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs McLeod: My second question is to the Minister of Labour, because I want to ask this minister about his government's latest misinformation campaign.

The minister released a press release yesterday on amendments to the labour relations proposals, and I have to say that no matter what the press release says, Bill 40 is still not going to address the concerns we hear from people across this province. This bill is still going to jeopardize the ability of employers to survive a labour disruption. It still threatens the delivery of critical services in the province and it still discourages investment and jobs.

I ask the minister why he and his Premier are so convinced that the statement I just made is not true, that this legislation is not going to discourage investment, is not going to cost jobs. Why do they keep refusing to do their own job impact studies? What are they both so afraid of?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I want to tell the leader of the official opposition that I'm not afraid of anything she's raised. We think that what we're doing is the answer. We don't think this country can go down a low-wage route, which is what she is suggesting. We think there has to be an involvement, in the province of Ontario, with workers as well as business, and that is essential if we're ever going to begin to turn around the kind of economic situation we have.

Mrs McLeod: The government has now tabled all the changes it seems prepared to make to the bill and it is difficult for us to find anything that's truly significant in those changes. We're also only too well aware that it has always been this government's intention to ram this piece of legislation through this House this fall.

I would say to the Minister that I believe the consultations this government conducted were a total sham from start to finish. The minister himself did not bother to attend the committee meetings and listen to what the groups had to say. The government set the date for the passage of the bill even before the hearings themselves began. The committee got to hear from only one in five who wanted to make representations to the committee because of the strict time limits the minister imposed, and now the minister has introduced a package of amendments which are just simply tinkering with the bill.

I ask the minister, how can you deny that these public consultations were simply a sham, that your amendments are merely tinkering and that you had absolutely no intention of making any significant changes to this legislation, that you intend simply to ram the bill through the House?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the choice of words of the leader of the official opposition is unfortunate, and it's adding to some of the problem we have and some of the false campaign that's been spread across this province over what might happen as a result of this legislation.

The business ads she seems to rely on are based on a bill that does not include many of the things the information in those ads is based on. I can also tell her very clearly that I don't think we could have moved any changes, other than withdrawing the bill totally, that would have got one word of congratulations from anybody on that side of the House. Therefore, I think we have to proceed with what we see, as a result of our consultations, as being the proper approach to the situation in Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: The minister of course completely failed to address the question, which was, how do you deny that the consultations were a sham when you and the government House leader had already closed off debate and set a date for passage of this legislation before the hearings even started?

As the minister indicates that he questions whether we would support any changes he might have proposed, let me raise one of the specific changes we believed was responding to the concerns we heard from both business and workers. One of those issues was raised consistently by people who appeared before the legislative committee, and it was the need to protect the rights of workers and employees during organizing drives and strike votes.

If the minister were being fair, I think he would acknowledge that there are many groups and individuals who believe that a mandatory secret ballot for certification is essential to provide a fair and democratic process and to ensure that employees are not coerced or intimidated by a show-of-hands vote. Clearly, these voices have been ignored by the minister. Clearly, this was one of the amendments this government could have brought in if it had been listening.

I would ask the minister whether or not he cares about the business impact, whether or not he cares about the job loss. If he is committed to workers' rights, if he believes in the democratic process, if he has indeed been listening to the concerns that were being raised, why would he not introduce an amendment which would go a long way to protect the rights of workers and allow them to vote freely and without fear for or against a union?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Very frankly, I'm not sure just what credit to give to that comment, given the fact that you've said it was a totally useless exercise in consultation. This minister attended meetings with 330 groups around the province.

Interjection: Handpicked.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Handpicked? The majority were business. We'll tell the business people at those hearings.

The member knows that the minister doesn't usually sit in once you get into the standing committee of the House, although I had no difficulty if I had been requested to do so.

I want to tell you also that in terms of the vote, that's not been the approach in Ontario since the Tories brought this legislation in 40 or 50 years ago, and I don't know why we'd take a step backwards in what we have in the way of labour legislation in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): This is the first time I have ever heard a minister of the crown say that moving to improve the democratic rights of workers is a step backwards. Shame on you. The one opportunity where you had the chance to take a positive step forward, you did not do so.

The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?

Mr Harris: My question is also to the Minister of Labour. Minister, yesterday when I asked the Premier about your job-killing legislation, the Premier said, and I now quote from Hansard: "There's no threat to jobs in this legislation; everybody knows it." That was the direct quote from your Premier.

Minister, I don't believe the Premier's statement is correct. Can you produce in this House today one shred of evidence that will back up the Premier's claim that there is no threat to jobs in this legislation? Do you have one shred of evidence, other than the Premier saying so, that will back up the claim and restore some credibility to your Premier's statement of yesterday?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think it's unfortunate that the leader of the third party puts the working people of this province in such a lower position --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: What he is saying --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the minister take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The Minister of Labour.

1420

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I want you to know that I agree with my Premier's position. I think one of the things that's wrong in this province is that in a very tough economic situation we have not decided that one of the important things we have to do is involve the workers themselves in the decisions that affect them and give them some input, some empowerment in making the changes that may need to be made in the province of Ontario. That's exactly what's behind the legislation we have before us now. I think it will mean a real improvement in our ability to compete in this province.

Mr Harris: We've heard you tell Bob White, we've heard Bob White tell Bob Rae, we've heard the three Bobs all tell each other that you believe something to be so. I asked you if you had one shred of evidence from anybody other than one of the three Bobs -- the Billy Bobs -- to support the statement the Premier made.

We know of two impact studies that both claim this legislation will destroy jobs and kill investment in Ontario. One was commissioned by the Liberals back in 1990; you won't even acknowledge that one. The second was done by the internationally renowned firm of Ernst and Young; you continually smear and discredit their study.

Minister, Ernst and Young estimates that 295,000 jobs will be killed by your legislation. Many who came before you at the hearings told you the same thing. You tell us that they're all wrong. Ernst and Young is wrong; all the other independent studies are wrong. Your Premier said yesterday, "There are no threats to jobs in this legislation." I'm asking you one more time: Do you have one shred of evidence, other than you three Bobs chatting among yourselves, that supports that claim?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I find it really difficult to understand why the leader of the third party would not believe that if we can involve, in a positive and productive way, the workers in this province much more effectively in the decisions that affect them and how we want business, we would have a more productive economy. I think that just goes without saying.

Mr Harris: Both you and the Premier, without one shred of evidence to the contrary, have smeared the one study that's been made public. You refuse to acknowledge the Liberal study, but the Ernst and Young study was an independent one. You call the Ernst and Young study "misleading" and "fearmongering." The Treasurer calls the Ernst and Young study "bogus."

This morning, the public accounts, the blue book, came out. Ministry after ministry list the consulting firm of Ernst and Young in their statements. In fact, Minister, your government paid out nearly $4 million in one year to Ernst and Young just for consulting services; 16 different ministries consulted with Ernst and Young, paying $4 million.

Can you explain to me why Ernst and Young have credibility with 16 different ministries, to the tune of $4 million, as appears in these accounts alone this year, but when they do a study you disagree with, even though you have no study of your own to refute it, somehow or other you dismiss the results as misleading, as bogus, as fearmongering? Can you explain why 16 ministries think their advice is pretty good, but on this study, when you disagree, it's bogus?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The survey -- and it was much more a survey than a study -- itself said it might be coloured by the respondents' opposition to the labour legislation, their desire to see that we didn't proceed with it. So I think there is a real question of credibility.

I can tell you also that the figures that are used, the figures you're now using, are figures that don't stand up, because they're based on a bill that had been changed dramatically months before that survey was finished. It just seems to me that it does not hold water, and I don't know why you continue to say that a study that was not a study but a survey of opinions of business people --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Because it's the only one we've got, Bob. Where's yours?

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West, come to order.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: -- is now the Bible for us in what we do in this province.

Mr Harris: My second question is also to the Minister of Labour. He keeps telling us he represents working men and women across this province; unfortunately, he's representing a shrinking audience, by the tune of 500 every day.

Minister, you and your Premier, whether you three Bobs understand it or not, have absolutely no credibility on this issue of the jobs that are being destroyed and the investment that is being lost with your legislation.

Yesterday you told us you had listened and in fact made changes to the legislation. In fact, when we got a chance to look at them, most objective observers have described your amendments as little more than window dressing. Some of yesterday's amendments actually involve no more than grammatical changes to the French translation of the bill; you've tried to count those to make it look a little better.

Could you tell me this: How have the changes you made addressed in any way the universal concerns that were brought by working men and women all across this province, by card-carrying union members all across this province -- I know not by the union leaders, but by the working men and women who pay their salaries, by the business community, by virtually all sides except the union leaders, the Bob Whites? We know they didn't want secret ballot rights. Can you explain why not one change was brought forward, if you were truly listening, to a fundamental, democratic right that the vast majority of card-carrying union members in this province wanted: the right to a secret ballot? Why did you not listen to that and bring it forward for certification and strike votes?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: If we can get away from the unfortunate and I think nasty character attack on union leaders in this province, I don't think they're as negative as the leader of the third party seems to think; I think most of them are ready to see major changes to try and deal with a tough economic situation. So that, as a matter of fact, is unfortunate.

In any event, I'd like to see the figures the leader of the third party is using in terms of this overwhelming demand by workers for a change in the legislation in terms of a vote that's been in place for 40 or 50 years. I certainly haven't heard it.

Mr Harris: I think you will know that one very reputable polling firm asked card-carrying union members, and I think 86% said they wanted the secret ballot right. Do you have a study done by anybody that shows their independent study was wrong? I ask the minister that again.

You know what you announced yesterday was nothing more than a public relations exercise. We understand that. I guess it was something you felt you had to go through to pretend you were listening. But you did not listen to shop-floor union workers; that is clear: There is no provision for a secret ballot. You didn't listen to business; that is clear: The provisions that most hurt them, you left untouched.

And what did this so-called "consultation process" cost? It cost $200,000 of taxpayer money for public consultations that you totally ignored. Minister, let me ask you this: Why did you waste $200,000 of taxpayer money and all the time and money of the private sector, union and individual presentations before the committee if you knew in advance you weren't going to listen anyway?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: There are suggestions, including suggestions in the changes -- and I don't intend to go into detail; they'll be discussed in the committee -- that came directly from some of the businesses and from some of the big businesses in this province.

I think it's unfortunate that the kind of categorization once again has been given that we've had from the leader of the third party. I don't think it's accurate, I don't think it holds up, and it certainly doesn't show an understanding of what people want in terms of changes in the province of Ontario.

1430

Mr Harris: By way of supplementary on the other question, the minister asked for evidence. Environics, a reputable polling company, said that 88% of NDP supporters and 89% of union members agree that the choice of union or non-union representation in the workplace should be decided by secret ballot. So you did not listen to 89% of card-carrying union members in this province.

I ask you then again, why did you spend $200,000 on a process which your own NDP committee Chair acknowledged was a sham? Halfway through he said, "There'll be no significant changes made." Now we know that was true, having seen your amendments yesterday. We know you ignored 89% of card-carrying union members, and you don't even have any advance on an impact study of your own to show for the 200,000 taxpayer dollars you spent.

Minister, this game you're playing with Ontario's economic future, with the jobs of our working men and women, with the future jobs for our children and the men and women who are looking for some hope from you, from this government and from this province has gone far enough. Ontario cannot afford your payback to the big union bosses against the objection of business, against the objection of virtually 90% of card-carrying union members.

The Speaker: Would the leader place his supplementary, please.

Mr Harris: I would ask you this, Minister: Before you destroy and kill more jobs and more investment, will you take a positive step we will all applaud -- if you're looking for something positive from the opposition in a suggestion -- and scrap this job-killing legislation dead in its tracks right now?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the member should understand that I'm not playing any games -- it's not my particular style -- and I don't intend to. I also find it interesting that you're now objecting to the $200,000 we spent on consultation when one of your arguments all along is that we haven't been willing to consult or haven't consulted. It doesn't make any sense at all.

I think the member should understand that there is a necessity to reach a level of cooperation and understanding between business and labour if we're going to get out of the mess we're in in this province, and that's exactly what we're aiming for.

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Treasurer and has to do with the status of this year's finances. The Treasurer will acknowledge that literally from the day he announced the Rae budget my leader and our party have questioned his revenue estimates. I know you don't agree with us. We've asked the Provincial Auditor, as you know, to examine it and give us an independent view on it.

I was interested a few short weeks ago, when you released your first quarter budget report, I think towards August 1, you said, "The 1992 budget remains on target." Treasurer, my question to you is this: I assume the budget is still on target. Can you confirm to the House today that the 1992 budget remains on target?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I am pleased to respond to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt on this the second anniversary of the swearing in of this government. The member asks about whether the budget is on target. I am not completely certain as to which components of the budget he is referring to.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: If you would let me complete my sentence, I will try. If the member is talking about our revenues and expenditures, more details will be provided when we bring down the second-quarter finances about the end of October, but generally speaking, while there are the traditional pressures on our expenditures this year, we are going to work very hard to make sure that we do stay on target with our expenditures as much as we possibly can, and I think we can. On the revenue side, at this point in time there does not seem to be a reason for altering the projections that were in the budget.

To answer the member as directly as I can, yes, at this point in time we are on target. However, as I said, there are considerable expenditure pressures, but we intend to control those.

Mr Phillips: The reason I raise it with the Treasurer is that at the time you release your quarterly report, the federal government, as you know, also releases its quarterly report, and there's a fair discrepancy, I think, Treasurer, in your numbers and what the federal government reports.

For example, you estimate that corporate profit revenues, corporate tax revenues, this year will go up by 5%. The federal government says, year to date, they're down by 32%. You estimate that your revenue from personal income tax will grow by a little more than 1%. The federal government says it is down by almost 4%. You say that your provincial sales tax revenue will increase by, I think, if I'm not mistaken, about 5%, and you cannot directly compare it, but the GST revenues are down by 18%.

I realize those are national numbers, Mr Treasurer, but the reason I raised it with the Treasurer was to give the Legislature some idea of this tremendous discrepancy between what the federal government's reporting, albeit national numbers, and what you're reporting. I'd like some assurance, Treasurer, that you have looked at the numbers and on the assurance you gave me earlier, that our revenues indeed are continuing to be spot on.

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't use the term "spot on" any more, but I would say that when the federal budget came down in the spring I did comment at that time that I thought the numbers in the federal budget were somewhat optimistic. I believed it then and I believe it now.

We don't have a lot of numbers now that can make direct comparisons to the numbers the member for Scarborough-Agincourt uses. However, I do know that the corporate profits he refers to were up substantially in the first quarter of 1992, albeit from a very, very low base, so I'm not taking a great deal of satisfaction from that number, other than to say that at least it's an increase over 1991, which as we all know was a disastrous year for corporate profits.

I think at this point in time we do appear to be reasonably on target, as accurately as you can be when you're dealing with the billions of dollars. It is my intention in the next week or two to lay before the Legislature an economic outlook which will lay out some of the numbers and some of the revised forecasts for things such as unemployment rate and job creation for 1992. Then that will be followed at the end of the month by the second-quarter finances, which will of course lay out the expenditures and revenues for the first half of the fiscal year.

1440

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): My question is to the minister responsible for bringing us Bill 164, the Minister of Financial Institutions. Mr Minister, after your retreat or your holiday in Honey Harbour you were quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying that the insurance companies' premiums would not be increased as a result of your amendments. Prior to that, some time ago, you said that rates would drop by as much as $45.

All the actuarial studies that have been prepared by the insurance companies, particularly the Insurance Bureau of Canada, have said that rates will in fact go up anywhere from 20% to 50%. In the studies by Mercer, which you tabled in the House yesterday -- and which, I might add, you've been hiding for four months from us, because I see the date on it is June -- Mr Mercer also says that rates will increase, that the costs will increase.

Having heard all that, Mr Minister, having heard your contradictions back and forth and the statements of Mercer, are rates going to go up or are they going to go down as a result of Bill 164?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Financial Institutions): It's unfortunate that the critic for the third party wasn't here when I made my comments during the debate yesterday, because I addressed specifically that question.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): They were brilliant. I was there; they were brilliant.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: Although obviously the member for Willowdale didn't hear them either, because he couldn't keep quiet long enough.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): We heard them.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harnick: Oh, really? That apology? That wasn't a statement; that was an apology.

The Speaker: The member for Willowdale.

Hon Mr Charlton: All of the estimates the member is talking about are exactly that. They are actuarial estimates of the cost of a product that hasn't been implemented yet.

Mr Harnick: Now they're estimates. Yesterday they were figures.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: I note that the member had to correct himself when he talked about premiums and then had to correct himself to refer to costs. The Mercer study shows that the cost of our package will be about 4.5% higher than the cost of the Ontario motorist protection plan, a product which has been significantly overpriced in the marketplace for some time.

We still believe we can implement the new package for no cost. But I said very clearly yesterday during the course of the debate that although I wasn't prepared to see the industry get significant increases in advance, as the Liberals handed them in the last round, we would sit down with the industry and monitor the real cost, the loss cost to the industry, of this product and deal with it accordingly.

Mr Tilson: You know, you're the member who said we're going to have government-run auto insurance -- great promises.

Mr Minister, you've said that rates are not going to increase. That's what you've told us. In fact, some time ago you said that rates were going to decrease; they're going to go down by $45.

I look at Bill 164, and it looks like you're going to give your cabinet a lot more power. It looks like the cabinet is going to authorize the increasing or the decreasing of rates. I don't know what that's going to do to the insurance commission.

My question to the minister is: Do you intend to put forward government controls on what amount insurance companies can increase or decrease their companies' -- are you going to put that sort of control on that you did with respect to rent controls in housing?

Hon Mr Charlton: It is not our intention at this point.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr David Winninger (London South): My question is directed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Minister, last week you came to London to hear upwards of 60 submissions from the public regarding the London annexation proposal. You heard concern expressed regarding the protection of valuable environmental land, environmentally sensitive areas, agricultural lands, wetlands, wildlife corridors, heritage sites, valley lands and floodplain lands. You also heard about the need for comprehensive social planning, including affordable housing, social services, child care, health services and impaired transit. Minister, what are you planning in response to the constructive suggestions you heard in London last week?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I appreciate the question and I appreciate the participation of all the local members last week in the hearings, both in our caucus and in the Conservative caucus, and the member is quite correct: There were a lot of very positive suggestions I believe can be incorporated into the legislation after we complete second reading and have the public hearing process here in Toronto and the clause-by-clause consideration of the legislation.

I agree with the presentations that were made last week that say that we need to strengthen the provisions of developing a social plan, the idea of a rural advisory committee, the idea that we have to improve the protection provided in the legislation for protection of the environment, and also the whole concept of improved compensation for the county and specifically the issue of suburban roads. Those are major issues that I believe we can together address with the people from the county and the city.

Mr Winninger: Concern was further expressed on behalf of the employees of the London Public Utilities Commission that following the elimination of the PUC, jobs, working conditions, benefits and job classifications be preserved.

Minister, what steps will you take to ensure that the terms of employment with the city, including remuneration, seniority, pension, superannuation, benefits, vacation and holiday pay, will be no less favourable than those enjoyed by the employees while in the employ of the London PUC?

Hon Mr Cooke: That commitment was given to the public utilities employees both by the province and by the city of London. We're working on the regulations that will be attached to Bill 75 and I've invited the direct participation of CUPE, along with the city of course, to develop regulations that will provide those protections for the current employees of the public utilities commission.

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

Mr Charles Beer (York North): My question is to the Minister of Education and it concerns the provision of school capital.

Minister, in going back through questioning in June, I note that on June 10 you indicated it was your hope that by the end of that month you would be in a position to tell the boards what their capital allocation would be for the 1994-95 fiscal year. Subsequently, on June 30, at the end of an announcement on another matter, you stated, "I would also like to tell members that announcements on the 1994-95 capital allocations will follow during the month of July."

I know that today is October 1. Indeed, the Treasurer reaffirmed that a few minutes ago. I would like to ask the Minister of Education when he will be announcing the allocations for school board capital for 1994-95 so that school boards can get on with the planning they need to do. This is already over six months late in its announcement.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I think the member opposite is quite accurate in the description of the comments I had made and my anticipation at the time that I would in fact be in a position to make the announcements before the end of the last sittings of this Parliament. I expect to be in a position very shortly, over the next couple of weeks, to indicate to the House one of two things: either to make the announcements or to indicate a specific time at which the announcements will be made.

I can just say very briefly that over the summer we have been looking at the requests. We have also been trying to look at some other issues that are related to the capital financing, which I know the member is aware of, one of those being the issue of the use of multi-use facilities and the encouragement of some of those initiatives.

Quite frankly, we are at the point now of trying to make a decision as to whether we should proceed with announcing the capital funding for the three years forward, in the same way that we've done before, or whether to take a little bit longer and to contemplate some further changes.

Mr Beer: Frankly, the answer that the minister has given today, like the one that he gave back in June, raises far more questions than it answers.

I have here a letter from the Carleton Roman Catholic Separate School Board and I've had concerns expressed by, in particular, other growth boards in Peel, Durham, York, Niagara, London and St Catharines, all those areas that are experiencing growth, saying: "We need to know what the allocation will be because we have learned now that we can plan, given that the previous government had said, 'We'll provide you with those capital announcements over a three-year span,' and here we are, still waiting for the 1994-95 announcement."

What the minister appears to have said is that he might make an announcement, he might make an announcement about when he will make an announcement, but the announcement that he might make may not be an announcement about capital but rather an announcement that might tell us something else. Frankly, I don't think that is acceptable to the school boards.

My question then is this. Minister, can you make a commitment, not simply to this House but to the school boards and to the parents of school children in this province, that before the end of October you will make a specific announcement about capital allocation for new school construction and, secondly, that next spring, following the budget, you will in the normal fashion make the announcement for the 1995-96 school capital allocation at that time and not six months later or even longer? Will you make those two commitments today in this House, Minister?

Hon Mr Silipo: I can say to the member opposite that certainly between now and the end of October I'll be in a position to be much clearer about the directions we are pursuing. I want nothing more, quite frankly, than to be able to make the announcement about those allocations.

I understand the pressures that the member has alluded to with respect to some of the growth boards, but we are also looking at that issue in terms of how we can be the most helpful to school boards in that area and along that issue. I have a meeting coming up with the advisory council that is working with me in the refinancing process, and we have this issue on the agenda to discuss.

That meeting is set for October 15, so certainly I expect that between now and the end of October I will have something more precise that I can announce.

1450

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the Attorney General. When you announced the formation of a commission on race relations, you stated publicly that it was your opinion that the justice system was rife with systemic racism. Statements such as that slander the reputation of every judge, crown attorney, justice of the peace and police officer who makes up the justice system. I advise you as well that you're also slandering the very people who work for you.

Stephen Lewis at the same time said we actually know very little about race relations in the courts or the laying of charges or the granting of bail or, above all, correctional institutions. How could you come to this conclusion? I'd like to know on what authority you made that conclusion public.

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): To be clear, I was asked if I thought there were some systems in place within the traditional justice system in Ontario which might result in some people being treated differently from others.

I do believe that, and I gave as an example the way in which aboriginal people are treated in many northern communities and in some urban areas. We have a history of jailing far more native people than any other percentage of the population. We have had a history of jailing native people for failure to pay fines. We have a history of jailing native people for offences such as drinking.

When I was at the news conference, I suggested that our traditional justice system in Ontario has not been sensitive to native culture. It has not been sensitive to the way that native people have had to adjust to our society. I stand by those comments and I believe it is time that we took a close look at our justice system to see if it is sensitive, if it is aware, if the practices, the processes and the procedures we have in place have kept pace with a changing Ontario.

Mr Harnick: It's interesting to note that now that he has a chance to reflect on what he said, he is speaking with some qualification, and he's not generalizing about the very people who work for him who are owed an apology.

To go on, this commission that you've set up is designed to determine whether there's discrimination in the justice system. In order to present a clear and unbiased judgement of the justice system, is it not incumbent on the government and on you as Attorney General to release the crime statistics that we know exist, but have been hidden, so we know just who is entering the justice system and why?

Hon Mr Hampton: I would be pleased to engage in a debate with the member opposite as to what we understand by systemic discrimination. I want to point out to the member, and I pointed this out quite clearly at the press conference, that we're not engaged in an exercise of fault finding here, and I was very clear about that. We're engaged in a system of looking at the justice system in general in Ontario to see if there are practices, procedures and processes in place --

Mr Harnick: Tell us who was using the justice system. Just give us the statistics.

Hon Mr Hampton: -- that may treat some groups in a different way than others.

Mr Harnick: Then give us the statistics. We don't want your opinions any more.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Willowdale.

Hon Mr Hampton: If the member had taken the time to read the terms of reference of the commission, he would understand that the commission will be entitled to engage in academic studies, objectives studies to review information that is available from police forces and other sources and to review, if it wishes, whatever statistics, whatever information may be available, both from present-day and historical data.

SHORELINE MANAGEMENT

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Previously, as a councillor for the township of Hay, I participated in the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority proposed shoreline management plan, and now, as a member of the provincial Legislative Assembly, I have continued in that participation.

But over the last number of months, Mr Minister, I have received many questions, concerns, letters etc from residents along the shoreline who have made comments with respect to the shoreline management plan, specifically areas where they feel they're going to be too restrictive on their properties, causing property values to depreciate.

I would like to know if the minister has accepted the shoreline management plan as proposed, or is he still open to questions and comments from citizens like the people from Hay township, Stephen etc?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources): I thank the member for Huron for his question. I know this matter is of concern to many Ontarians, not just those in his own riding who own lakefront property. The Ministry of Natural Resources has been working with conservation authorities across Ontario for a period of several years to develop a policy statement establishing standards for mapping out flood and erosion hazards across the province. We are responsible for protecting the environment and minimizing threats to life and property.

I want to assure the member that the policy is in fact in draft form and that we are indeed accepting all comments and questions that land owners and others who are interested in the policy may have, and I'd be happy to receive as many as possible so that we can proceed on the basis of those concerns.

FOOD BANKS

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): My question is for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. The member for Hamilton West, now the Minister of Colleges and Universities, was a member of the standing committee on social development when it released its report on food banks in April 1990. The member for Hamilton West pontificated at that time, "New Democrats consider that it is . . . an injustice and an insult to scores of thousands of Ontarians who are able to manage their own affairs, that they should be driven . . . to resort to the private charity of food banks . . . ."

The students of the University of Toronto, the students of York University, the students of Ryerson, after scraping together the money for their tuition, are being forced to use food banks on their very own campuses. These students can't find part-time jobs because the New Democratic government can't manage Ontario's economy. Mr Minister, what message do you have for these students who find themselves in such dire distress?

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Colleges and Universities): I think all of us understand that it is a very difficult time for many people in our population. Social assistance recipients, for whom we have virtually doubled our social assistance moneys, are still finding it difficult to stretch those dollars and in fact are patronizing food banks. It's not surprising that other people on income support programs have the same problem.

But I want to assure the member that we have tried to expand the availability of funds and programs through the Ontario student assistance program. Last year we added $50 million to OSAP, $20 million the year before. Our dollars already on record are 19% up from what they were last year. Those dollars are helping all those students who have eligibility capacity to access that program on a needs basis. We are doing our best to try to meet those needs.

I've asked the ministry, this very day in fact, to conduct a survey of Ontario's universities and colleges to try to determine what those additional needs are, if there are some, and to look at how many universities are finding students having to resort to those circumstances, so I can get a bit of a handle on that problem. That's a very new phenomenon in Ontario's universities and we want to respond to it as best we can.

1500

Mrs O'Neill: I'm not sure that "as best we can" is going to do the job here. The Toronto Star of September 29 quotes Derek Sweeney, a director of the Daily Bread Food Bank, as saying that food bank officials have tried to discuss this very serious situation with government officials and they've been told that this is recession-based, that the problem will go away when the recession goes away. This is just a very callous response to a very serious situation.

Many of these students, and the minister knows this and made allusions to it, are sole-support mothers who are trying to upgrade their education, better their lives, do something for themselves and their children.

Minister, I'd like you to tell this House what the NDP government has as an action plan. You've told us you're going to gather facts, that you're going to try to determine needs. You know there are needs. These things would not be existing if there were not needs. Food banks would not be on campuses if there weren't real needs. Why do a survey?

I'd like to ask the minister what action plan he has when he gets these results he's seeking and what definite time lines he has to serve the students who are in a shameful and insulting condition on the campuses of this province.

Hon Mr Allen: I think that to call ministry officials' response to this question a callous response is not to take account of the facts that I just recited a few moments ago for the member. In fact, we are working very hard to deal with the issue.

First, we're looking at a significant reorganization of OSAP, and I would have to say that most of the options in that indeed respond to the need of sole-support parents, who you mentioned, for greater support in order to carry their studies through. I quite acknowledge that's an important problem with that particular group. Second, we're trying to find a one-window shopping opportunity for sole-support parents and for persons on social assistance so that they can better access OSAP and not have the runaround they've had under past governments, where they had to go to two different offices and they got two systems overlapping each other.

We're trying to solve those problems for those students, but that every single problem of every single student who has a financial problem of whatever source can be dissolved by the global problem is just simply a proposition that isn't totally tenable.

HIGHWAY BILLBOARDS

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. The minister has announced his intention to raise the fees for certain categories of field advertising signs from $45 to $60 in 1993, which represents a 33% increase. Other sign categories could see up to a 113% increase.

These sign increases affect small business and especially tourism in the north. These increases are nothing more than an additional tax on an industry which is clearly already overburdened by taxes. The ministry collects the $60 fee and the tourist operator has to put up the sign himself or herself, erect the sign. The tourism industry is devastated by a recession and this government's reluctance to address the overburden of taxes in this province. How can the minister justify a sign fee increase of this magnitude, which will hurt an industry which is already on its knees?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): The sign issue has been an ongoing impasse, and yes, a dilemma for each and every Minister of Transportation throughout the years. Simply put, some of the signs and their impacts, which the honourable member is so justly prepared to defend, have not come under revision since 1982. That's a full 10 years and yet the cost of administration --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Gouge them. Gouge those taxes.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Pouliot: -- vis-à-vis the program has gone on significantly each and every year.

Through normalcy, in order to honour the responsibility of having what you charge people responsible for advertising, a sum of money that comes at least close to the cost of running the program -- well, we're not quite there yet, but we know that these are very difficult times and that people should not be overburdened.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Pouliot: By way of conclusion, we're also very much aware, very cognizant, that as of yet they're not impossible times.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): I move that Mr Curling and Ms McLeod exchange places in order of precedence for private members' public business and that Mr Eves and Mr Tilson exchange places in order of precedence for private members' public business.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is from a number of people in my constituency. It says the following:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families.

"The amendments included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter -- 51 per year -- from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I would like to indicate my support for this resolution and hope that the government will take it into consideration and follow its direction.

CATHOLIC HOSPITALS

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I too have a petition from about 300 residents of the Kemptville Mountain South/Mountain North Gore area and it reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislature of Ontario of our concerns in regard to the effects which the widely publicized revision of the Public Health Act will have on our Catholic hospitals. According to the proposals presently tossed around for the revision, hospitals in the future will be run by elected boards. This will seriously affect the philosophy and management style with which Catholic hospitals, especially those owned and run by religious sisters, are operated. We want our hospitals to reflect our faith and our philosophy of life.

"We thank the Legislature of Ontario in advance for addressing this important matter."

I support this and have signed this petition and I submit it to the Clerk of the Legislature.

HIGHWAY NOISE BARRIERS

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislature for a sound barrier on Highway 401 facing Wright Crescent. This petition is respectfully submitted to the Ontario Legislature, comprising 307 signatures of concerned residents on Wright Crescent, Reed Drive and Reading Street in the riding of Durham West. It is a call to action for the installation of a sound barrier for the section of Highway 401 facing the homes on Wright Crescent from Westney road easterly for approximately one kilometre on the north side.

I attach my signature to this petition.

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"To oppose the building of a second secondary high school in the Kenora school district."

I would like to make a correction on a petition that I presented yesterday regarding the same. Rather than 700 people, there were actually 1,060 signatures on that petition, and to date this petition totals 1,190 signatures.

1510

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I have another petition, from the members of the Wesleyan Church in Winchester, Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"To the Ontario Legislature and the Lieutenant Governor re amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act proposing wide-open Sunday shopping and the elimination of Sunday as a legal holiday:

"We, the undersigned, register our opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"We believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardships on many families.

"The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter -- 51 per year -- from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

It was signed by 26 members of the Wesleyan Church in Winchester.

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has had a historical concern for the poor in society, who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has, in the past, vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos, despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario,

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly, along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

PENSION FUNDS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I have a petition signed by 176 members of the staff at the Mississauga Hospital. It reads:

"We wish to state our objection to the proposal made by the Ontario Treasurer, Floyd Laughren, to use hospital pension moneys to invest and to serve as collateral for high-technology and high-risk investments."

It is signed. It says "the names and signatures of hospital employees objecting to the Ontario government's proposal to use our hospital pension money," and I affix my signature thereto.

VIOLENCE

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there are for sale serial killer trading cards and board games in Ontario,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"To ban the sale of serial killer cards and board games in Ontario.

"We feel these items may encourage violence."

This is signed by over 100 constituents of mine, and I have affixed my name to the petition.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Northumberland county, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"We, the undersigned, call on the Ontario government to maintain and improve our ambulance service. Ambulance services are vital to our community's health and our way of life. We can't afford a reduction in service."

I have signed this petition.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I have a petition.

"To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That a stop be done about the price-fixing of gasoline by the major oil companies. From May 1, 1992, to the present, the price of gas has been jumping up and down. The price goes up on a Thursday or Friday and drops down on a Tuesday or Wednesday, just to go back up again the next weekend.

"It has gone from 48 cents per litre to as high as 59 cents a litre. If our government is at all interested in saving operating costs as well as jobs in Ontario, they need to have this price-fixing stopped now."

I present this petition, signed by over 200 of my constituents.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I hazard to guess at the number of people who have signed this petition, but in any case I will read it.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them;

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rules changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

I now affix my signature to this petition.

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition that's signed by about 100 people from around the province, and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalizing casinos and video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the abovementioned implementations;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government stop looking to casinos and video lottery terminals as a 'quick-fix' solution to its fiscal problems and concentrate instead on eliminating wasteful government spending."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition from 46 residents of Newbury, Wardsville and the city of London who petition the Legislature of Ontario, to set aside the arbitrator's report in connection with the London-Middlesex annexation, because it does not reflect the expressed wishes of the majority who participated in arbitration hearings, because it awards too extensive an annexation to the city of London and will jeopardize the viability of Middlesex county and our rural way of life.

I have signed my name to this petition.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario, which reads as follows:

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

It's signed by 18 residents of Middlesex county and I have affixed my signature to the petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): Another petition pertaining to Sunday shopping, addressed to the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of the province of Ontario "re amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act proposing wide-open Sunday shopping and the elimination of Sunday as a legal holiday:

"We, the undersigned, hereby register opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of a legal holiday in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"We believe in the need for keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardships on many families.

"The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter -- 51 of them per year -- from the definition of a legal holiday and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

This is signed by 24 members of St Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Spencerville, Ontario, and I have signed the petition.

ENVIRONMENTAL TAX

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a petition here, signed by many residents in my riding, many of my constituents, such as Seth Caskey and Claudette Pickett, and they state that they are not in favour of the environmental levy tax and they're against any levy to be put on soda cans. These cans are 100% recyclable and are currently being recycled at a very high rate. To impose any further tax on the can industry will cripple the canning industry and send jobs south of the border.

1520

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them;

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rules changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

That is signed by a number of residents of the province of Ontario.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LABOUR STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS CONCERNANT LE TRAVAIL

On motion by Mr Owens, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 82, an Act to amend the Employment Standards Act and the Workers Compensation Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur les normes d'emploi et la Loi sur les accidents du travail

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INSURANCE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LES LOIS CONCERNANT LES ASSURANCES

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 164, An Act to amend the Insurance Act and certain other Acts in respect of Automobile Insurance and other Insurance matters / Loi modifiant la Loi sur les assurances et certaines autres lois en ce qui concerne l'assurance-automobile et d'autres questions d'assurance

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Essex South.

Interjection.

Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): Does the member for Cambridge want to make a contribution at this time? Later on. Okay, I'm sure you will.

Yesterday afternoon, I took some time --

Interjection: Remo, who's their PA?

Mr Mancini: Who is the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Financial Institutions? Are we allowed to know?

Interjection: He has to be here.

Mr Mancini: Is the parliamentary assistant here? We know the minister is unfortunately unable to join us.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): Somebody should be here.

Mr Mancini: The parliamentary assistant is here. We thank him for his attendance.

Yesterday afternoon, I took a few moments to inform the Legislature and to remind the Legislature and to inform the public how it is that we came to be debating Bill 164. I reminded the Legislature and the general public who were watching of the many promises that had been made by the socialist NDP government. I reminded us all of how they unceremoniously broke that promise, how that broken promise caused turmoil within the New Democratic Party caucus itself and within the membership of the New Democratic Party, and how it more or less forced the minister's hand, to come up with some piece of legislation that in fact changes the present Ontario motorist protection plan so that they can go around the province and at least be able to say, "We changed the legislation that had been put in place," whether or not the legislation is being changed to the benefit of the people, whether or not these changes reflect in any way the promises that the socialist New Democratic Party made during August and September of 1990 and for at least two decades prior to that.

Well, that's not important at all because we heard from the minister himself yesterday afternoon. When questioned after his few comments to the Legislature, he basically told us and he told the listening public that it was all one big, happy mistake: "We thought we could nationalize the industry. We had no idea that it would cost upwards of $2 billion, anywhere from $1.5 billion to $2 billion, to nationalize the industry and to start a new crown corporation. We had no idea that 6,000 full-time jobs would be lost and 8,000 part-time jobs would be lost. We just made these promises because it was good socialist rhetoric, it helped us win votes, and it helped us discredit the existing legislation that had been passed" -- with full debate, I remind all the honourable members -- "so we just made these promises at the time and it was just one big, happy mistake. We're here to say that we're sorry, but all of those promises we made to you people about government-owned insurance and lower premiums for your car insurance, it was all just one big, happy mistake and we hope you don't hold it against us, but we really can't be held responsible." That basically was what we were told yesterday.

I'm sorry that my comments were interrupted by the adjournment of the House yesterday at 6 pm. I would have wished to make all of my comments in one period of time, but that was not possible. I promised yesterday that I would talk about the situation as it exists in the province of British Columbia and, if I get time, also the province of Manitoba, because there, past NDP governments have in fact nationalized the insurance industry, have put in place government-owned insurance. I think it's important for the people of Ontario and for my colleagues in the Legislature to know exactly what that has meant as far as rate increases are concerned to the premiums the ordinary driver in the province of British Columbia has had to pay. In order to be fair, I want to go back to 1979. I want to give a good spectrum of what the rate increases have been like.

In 1979, the rate increases averaged 10% to 12% in British Columbia by the government-owned crown corporation. In 1980 it was a further 10%. In 1981 it was 38%. In 1982 it was 20%. In 1983 it was 6%; 6% again in 1984. It was 2% in 1985. I'd bet $100 that was an election year. In 1987, 4.5%; in 1988, a further 22%; in 1989, 8.5%; in 1990, 4.8%. And in 1991, 4.5% and the GST. That is what the government-owned crown corporation has been able to provide the drivers of the province of British Columbia.

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): And it's still cheaper than Ontario.

1530

Mr Mancini: The former minister and the member for Cambridge says, "And still cheaper than Ontario." I hope it would be cheaper than Ontario because anyone who has had a chance to look at any of the information revolving around insurance knows that in a province where there are 10 million people you would have far more accidents and far more people needing benefits than in a province with maybe 25% of that population. And in a region as densely populated as Metro Toronto, with nearly three million people, one would expect a lot of car accidents and a lot of claims on that pool of money.

So the honourable member says it's cheaper in British Columbia, but that's all he has to say. He doesn't want to give an explanation. The 38% increase in 1981 was fine. The 20% increase in 1982 was fine. The 22% increase in 1988 was fine. All's well in the socialist Valhalla of British Columbia.

You know, that's not what those people across the floor told us. They didn't tell us rates would go up; they told us rates would go down. You and your colleagues -- and you were here at the time and you cannot excuse yourself -- stood here; told us rates would go down. You'd buy the industry; you'd run the industry -- rates would go down. Now you say rate increases are all right; it doesn't matter what they are. Well, the honourable member will have his chance.

I want to talk to the general public who are watching. I want to say to them that in addition to these outrageous increases the people in British Columbia were subjected to, the crown corporation has undergone two major labour disruptions, one of three months' duration and one of five months' duration, leading to serious reductions in service to the consumers.

You buy insurance from the government-owned crown corporation in the province of British Columbia, Saskatchewan or Manitoba. The employees of the crown corporation decide it's necessary, for whatever reasons, to have a strike and therefore they no longer provide services to the customers who have paid already in advance for that service. Unfortunately, as is sometimes the case, a vehicle accident occurs. What is the customer to do? They can't go to the crown corporation for service. They can't threaten to not pay any more of their premiums and go to a different company, because now there's a monopoly. They can't get anyone to look after their claims. They can't take their car to the body shop to get it fixed because they don't know who's going to pay for it. So what are the customers left to do during a five-month strike? Maybe during the course of these debates the socialist NDP members will have answers to some of these questions.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Should the minister or parliamentary assistant not be present during this discussion and debate?

The Deputy Speaker: He was here a minute ago. He's right here, fine. The member for Essex South.

Mr Mancini: Mr Speaker, we appreciate the attendance of the minister and/or his parliamentary assistant if they wish to attend. If they don't wish to attend, we're going to carry on just the same.

Government-owned insurance leads to political tampering and we had an excellent example of this in the province of Manitoba where they call their insurance corporation the Autopac. I'm told -- and there's documentation here to prove it -- that the NDP government concealed losses incurred by the Autopac until after a provincial election.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): They didn't do that. Did they really? That's outrageous.

Mr Mancini: They did, they concealed the losses. There was gross political interference, and after, they needed a 25% increase to in fact make up for the loss they had suffered. If memory serves me correctly, and I'm sure the NDP members will in fact recall this, prior to one election in Manitoba former Premier Howard Pawley had his crown corporation announce a 28% increase. He then rolled it back, but he got defeated anyway. That is another fundamental reason why giving the monopoly of car insurance to this government or any other government is wrong.

Car insurance premiums should be based on the amount of money needed to pay consumers benefits they deserve, to run the corporation, to make a profit, to pay the employees and to create a pool of capital for reinvestment in this province which we so desperately need. Every day in this chamber over the past 24 months that we've actually been sitting here we have heard from members on all sides of the House as to the economic devastation that is occurring here in this great province under the leadership, I may add, of the socialist NDP government.

Most of us know now that pools of capital are absolutely necessary to restimulate growth in this great province to reinvest in our future and in the future of every small and large community in this great province. Without pools of capital it cannot be done, and without profit it cannot be done.

So you see, Mr Speaker, that when I point out the fact that there's been political interference in these provinces that have government-owned crown corporations providing insurance, I point that out for a very valuable reason. It's obvious that we never want to put ourselves in a position where government's traditional role of helping and protecting the consumer becomes subservient to a political party's desire to get re-elected. That is exactly what has happened and is exactly what would happen here in Ontario.

Herbert G. Grubel, professor of economics at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, has reviewed the operations of the insurance crown corporation of British Columbia and has outlined as part of his study the subsidy and tax loss effects of public monopolies. He documents the following hidden subsidies and other similar benefits which have accrued to the crown corporation, and that goes directly to the heart of the interjection made by the member for Cambridge when he said that even though these increases may have been high and outlandish, the rates were still lower than in the province of Ontario. That may be true if we do not take into consideration the hidden subsidies given to the crown corporation.

Professor Grubel has pointed out that the receipts of sums collected as traffic fines in Ontario and in most provinces which go into general revenues, thus reducing tax rates, are used in British Columbia to support the crown corporation.

1540

In 1976 a loan of $181.5 million was given to the crown corporation by the government of British Columbia, I say to my colleague the member for Cambridge, to eliminate accumulated past losses. So out of the general treasury, out of tax dollars paid by people who drove or who did not drive, out of tax dollars paid by people young and old, $181 million was taken -- in 1976 dollars, I remind my colleague, not 1992 dollars. We can imagine that could be easily worth $500 million today, maybe $750 million. They took the money from the taxpayers, gave it to the crown corporation and said, "Here, wipe out your debts." Does the member for Cambridge still think the rates are cheaper in British Columbia?

On top of all of that, the crown corporation in the province of British Columbia fails to meet government requirements for private insurance company reserves, so they're under less legislative burden. "The risk absorbed by the surplus in private industry is, in effect, borne by the government of British Columbia," Professor Grubel states.

"If the ICBC" -- that's the crown corporation in British Columbia -- "were to be privatized as of 1985," not 1992, but as of 1985, "an additional $11 million would have to be raised in order to meet the reserve requirements, thus necessitating a premium increase to cover that amount of shortfall."

So I say to my colleague from Cambridge, does he still believe that rates are cheaper in British Columbia than Ontario? It's obvious that the true social costs of operating the system have been kept under wraps.

Now this crown corporation in British Columbia has another advantage: There are no premium taxes, which are payable in all other provinces in Canada. The facts are, you buy an insurance policy here in the province of Ontario and I believe it's a 3% premium tax. It's right in the bill.

The former Liberal government gave the driving public a break and had eliminated that 3% premium tax -- had eliminated, I stress, that 3% premium tax. The socialists come into power and they put the premium tax back on and then said, "Well, it's the industry that's raising your premiums," while trying to keep it a big secret that they put the tax back on.

In British Columbia they don't have that premium tax. So I say to my friend the member for Cambridge, are the rates still cheaper in British Columbia now, with all this data that you're listening to?

There's one other difference between the private industry in Ontario and some of the other provinces as compared to the industry in British Columbia, in Manitoba and in Saskatchewan: They don't pay any federal income tax. They don't pay anything. No federal income tax.

We have the experience of other provinces. We have experts in the field. When my colleagues across the floor were making these promises, one either has to believe they knew all these facts and deliberately withheld that information from the general public during their extensive propaganda campaign or it leads one to believe they all chose not to take arithmetic when they were going through school, the whole gang of them.

I'm standing here looking at the member for St Andrew-St Patrick, a colleague of ours in this Legislature, and I know she took arithmetic. As a matter of fact, she probably taught arithmetic the old-fashioned way when one and one equalled two. I know that somebody, I'm not sure who, in the New Democratic Party must have kept this information away from her, because she could not have known all of this and still met the general public and told them, as the member for Cambridge was wont to do, that insurance rates were cheaper in British Columbia than in Ontario, and just by chance forgot to mention all the hidden subsidies. I want to give her the benefit of the doubt. I know that information was kept away from her, because I know she's an honourable member and she would not deliberately do that.

Now that they have these facts, I think they might all join the Minister of Financial Institutions in his famous words, "Well, it was all just one happy mistake." There was nothing purposeful in it. They weren't trying to win votes by telling the general public that a government-owned insurance company, a crown corporation, would provide better service at less cost. They were not trying to fool the public.

Mr Stockwell: Sure they were.

Mr Mancini: My colleague from Etobicoke says, "Sure they were." I'm willing to sit and listen to an argument as to why they were, but at the present time, I just can't believe that good people like the member for St Andrew-St Patrick would say those things, having all the facts in front of them. I just can't believe it.

We're at the crossroads here. We're at Bill 164. We know why Bill 164 has been introduced: because of the turmoil within the New Democratic Party caucus, because of the turmoil within the membership of the New Democratic Party.

I was just reading some old clippings.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Oh, no.

Mr Mancini: Yes, I was. Not really old, but in the calendar year 1992. There's a story here from the Hamilton Spectator, and I quote, because I certainly couldn't write headlines like this. There's no way I could write headlines like this. It says, "Ex-Choirboy's Tune Guaranteed to Set Rae's Teeth on Edge." They're referring to Peter Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold, who I understand used to be a choirboy.

Mr Ruprecht: What church was that?

Mr Mancini: I'm not sure what church, but he used to be a choirboy. He's telling the truth on the Premier, the cabinet and all the New Democratic Party members who are elected here. He's telling the truth. He's going out and talking about some of his colleagues.

He says of the minister, for example -- I would not say this of the minister, but Peter Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold, said, "He's learned real quick that if he didn't sing from the right hymn book he wouldn't get to stay in the choir," meaning the cabinet. So it's better to sing from the socialist hymn book whether it's right or wrong, it's better to do that than tell the truth, because you may be asked to exit the cabinet.

1550

Mr Callahan: They wouldn't do that, would they?

Mr Mancini: That's what Peter Kormos says. I wouldn't say it, but that's what Peter Kormos says.

It says here, in the Hamilton Spectator, February 10, 1992, "Kormos Keeps the Faith." You see, Peter Kormos is being honest about it. He knows that government-owned crown insurance wouldn't cost any less. He knows it wouldn't work any better. He knows it's not, generally speaking, in the interests of the people. But it's a socialist idea he believes in. He believes in that socialist economic agenda that you people espoused during the election campaign to be elected. He believed in that. I would not say this about Peter Kormos, but it says here, "Peter Kormos is bitter and disillusioned."

Mr Callahan: Oh, no.

Mr Mancini: That's what it says: He's bitter and he's disillusioned.

I've been spending part of the afternoon throwing figures around and, lest my colleagues opposite believe that I've made these up, I want to explain to them and show them where I've got this information.

The Minister of Financial Institutions, Mr Charlton, has the opportunity to be invited to speak on a number of occasions, and recently Mr Charlton, the Minister of Financial Institutions for the NDP government, was invited to speak -- on a Sunday, I may add -- at the general meeting of the Durham East NPD riding association. I want to tell you what Mr Charlton was quoted as saying, because it's important, highly, highly important.

Interjection.

Mr Mancini: I say to the Minister of Labour, I'll be at that point very soon.

Mr Charlton said, "The economy is getting worse, and there seems to be no relief in sight."

Mr Stockwell: There's insight.

Mr Mancini: And there's a person with optimism for the future, I might add.

Mr Charlton went on to say, "The public auto insurance plan will cost $1.4 billion to implement." That was the low expectation. "We had to consider the impact of spending that kind of money when so many other things needed to be done." Mr Charlton further stated, "But we had to look at the cost of starting the program up, the loss of jobs to start it -- 6,000 full-time jobs -- and the fact that the program would have totally dominated the government's agenda for the next two years."

Those are quotes from the Minister of Financial Institutions who yesterday said: "Well, it was all one big, happy mistake. Please forgive us." One big happy mistake. And after they've done all this backtracking, after they've revealed themselves to the public in a way that I would particularly find embarrassing, then they start threatening the industry.

St Catharines Standard, March 27, 1992: "NDP Issues Warning to Insurance Industry." Boy, they're really pointing their fingers at the insurance industry.

Mr Stockwell: What did they say?

Mr Mancini: "While Premier Bob Rae was widely quoted last September as saying 'The NDP will not revisit the issue of public auto insurance,' Charlton, the Minister of Financial Institutions, said yesterday: 'The Premier was only referring to the current term. Nothing is ever ruled out in perpetuity. Public auto insurance remains close to my heart in many respects,' said Mr Charlton."

Let's understand this. We cannot nationalize the industry today because it may cost them $1.5 billion to $2 billion, money we don't have. We cannot do it today because it's going to cost 6,000 full-time jobs and 8,000 part-time jobs. But the socialist idea is so close to Mr Charlton's heart that some day in the future he would be willing to rob the taxpayers of $2 billion and flush 14,000 jobs down the tube because it's close to his heart.

To all who are listening, that should be warning enough in itself that the NDP will always put its socialist ideology ahead of the people and ahead of anything that seems practical.

Interjections.

Mr Mancini: I want all the members to hear the whole story. It's important that we hear the whole story, Mr Speaker, if you will contain my colleagues in the Legislature only for a moment.

I was curious to find out why this government was so anxious, after having backed down on a major plank that got it elected and said, "No, we're not going to do it," to change the present Ontario motorist protection plan. I assumed there must be a lot of people unhappy with the plan. I assumed wrong.

I have a document dated July 8, 1992, three or four months old. It's on the letterhead of the Insight Canada Research firm, which is a well-known public opinion polling firm used by many newspapers in our province and in some instances used by the government, a very highly reputable firm, and it took a survey. It was asked to take a survey, and I want to give you the results of the survey.

Ontario drivers were asked whether or not they were satisfied with their car insurance policies. Eight in 10 Ontarians, 81%, said they were either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied. So I'm saying to myself, if there's no general outcry from the public to change the Ontario motorist protection plan, then why are they changing it? It's obvious. They're changing it because they need that political crutch to lean on, to say, "We changed the legislation that the Liberals had introduced," to save some political face. That's the only reason we have Bill 164 in front of us today. It has nothing to do with the driving public. It has nothing to do with whether or not they want to improve the system. They want to save political face.

Mr Speaker, I want to tell you and the members of the assembly and the watching public why I am opposed to Bill 164, why I have asked my colleagues in the official opposition to vote against Bill 164, and we intend to do so. Bill 164 reinforces the anti-business attitude that is in place and that has been in place in this province since September 1990, an anti-business attitude which now permeates the whole government, an anti-business attitude which is forcing honest businesses to leave this province and is discouraging investment from outside of this province from finding a home here.

Bill 164 has put in place what the government calls withdrawal provisions. Is there anybody in this chamber who at one time or another ran a business or worked in some private business? I'm sure the answer is yes. How would you feel if the government of the day told you that if you decide, for whatever reason, to cease doing business in the province of Ontario, you would have to pay a fee and you would not be allowed to come back for three years, and it didn't care what the reason was?

1600

Under Bill 164, insurers seeking to leave Ontario or deciding to discontinue operation could face heavy penalties. Under the proposed bill, insurers must first apply to the Ontario Insurance Commission, run by the NDP, for permission to withdraw from classes of business. If the commission grants permission, a fee will be charged.

If passed, Bill 164 will ban an insurer and its subsidiaries and affiliates from re-entering the market for three years. Not only does this provision contravene the freedom of choice which we hold dear for anyone to remain in business, in this instance insurance companies, but it establishes, in my view, a dangerous precedent and sends a message to business that if you put your money in Ontario, if you put your capital in Ontario, it could be trapped in Ontario; confiscation of capital.

I hopefully assume that this will be proven to be unconstitutional, because no one in his right mind is going to invest in this province if these people pass a precedent-setting law such as the one that I've just described which exists in Bill 164, which says, "You cannot withdraw from business unless we say so, and when we say so, we're going to charge you a fee, but we don't know what the fee is going to be." It could be $100 million; it could be 15 cents. Why would you put your money in this province when it could be trapped and when it could be confiscated from you? That in itself, this provision alone in Bill 164, is reason enough to ask all of my colleagues and any right-thinking member to vote against Bill 164, but there's more. There's a lot more.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Remo, does that mean you're voting against the --

Mr Mancini: The Tories will have their chance to make their case.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Order.

Mr Mancini: Regulatory powers: Bill 164 --

Mr Harnick: We were a little worried; you were waffling.

Mr Mancini: The honourable member --

The Acting Speaker: Please be seated. As the honourable members know, the honourable member for Essex South has the floor. There has been a lot of discussion, a lot of interjection. If we could have a little bit of quiet and allow the member the time that he needs to make his case, I think that would be worthwhile.

Mr Mancini: I say to the honourable member for Willowdale, who has proven to be one of the better members in the chamber, that it's always good to have some sense of history before you decide on an important matter. I hope that during the last hour my honourable friend did get some sense of the importance of the history surrounding this piece of legislation.

Bill 164 grants tremendous power to the cabinet. That should be scary to anybody after watching these people in operation. Under the terms of this bill, cabinet would be allowed to prescribe a uniform, non-discriminatory risk classification system which automobile insurers must use -- not "can use" or "should use" but "must use." Cabinet would be allowed to prescribe rating factors and establish various benefits and conditions on which they are payable, as well as optional benefits insurers must offer -- not "can offer" or "should offer" but "must offer."

These expanded powers of regulation could be enacted immediately, without notice or consultation and without any public debate. Policy which affects millions of Ontarians should not be enacted behind the closed doors of the cabinet room, in secrecy, without public debate. That in itself is enough reason to vote against Bill 164.

The draft regulations regarding changes to the accident benefits schedule are also of great concern to myself and to my colleagues in the Liberal caucus. The draft regulations accompanying Bill 164 regarding changes to the accident benefits schedule outline a benefits scheme which lacks control, is unworkable and in my view undeliverable. They've made it so complicated that it's going to be an enormous task for the insurance companies just to deliver the product and the service they've been able to deliver over these many years in a very simple and straightforward manner. Claimants and insurers will have great difficulty in interpreting and implementing these benefits due to its complexity, but it's typical. Give an issue or a piece of legislation to the NDP socialist government and it'll make it so complicated, so bureaucratic, so tied up in red tape no one will be able to understand what they're supposed to do.

That is not a benefit to the driving public. That in itself, that alone, would be enough for me to advise my colleagues to vote against Bill 164.

Restoring the right to sue: I believe it's more important for people to have the right to sue for economic loss. I supported my party's position when the right to sue for pain and suffering was eliminated. I thought that was a fair exchange in keeping rates stable and at a price most people could afford. The New Democratic Party has decided to take away the right to sue for economic losses and it's instituted the right to sue for pain and suffering, but there's a catch. There's a $15,000 deductible.

Let's take a case in point. You or I, sir, are driving down University Avenue here in Toronto and unfortunately we're involved in an automobile accident. Our knee or shoulder is slightly injured. We develop some kind of chronic pain and it lasts for a period of time. We now have to decide for ourselves whether or not we should sue.

How do we do this? First of all, we have to believe in our own minds and be able to prove to a judge that our pain and suffering is worth more than $15,000. You have to go out and hire a lawyer. That costs money. You've got to give a little retainer in front -- that's how it works -- and we have to add that cost to the $15,000.

So we end up in court, and we win in court. We're fortunate in that we're able to prove that the pain and suffering in our shoulder or elbow or knee was in fact of some consequence. The judge says: "Fantastic. I award the individual in front of me $19,000 for pain and suffering. However," the judge says, "you must be reminded that there's a $15,000 deductible." Now it's $4,000, and because it costs at least $2,000 a day to have a lawyer in court with you, just for that day, you get a bill -- because this has taken a year or 18 months to accomplish, meetings, letters, negotiations etc -- and the bill, if you're lucky, is under $4,000. If you're unlucky, it's over $4,000.

So what have we given to the people? What have we given them? Very little, I say. Very little. We've asked them to lay a bet, to gamble whether or not they can prove in court that their injury is worth at least $15,000 plus the fees and expenses incurred by the lawyer. They've eliminated the right to sue for economic loss which was given to the driving public by the previous Liberal government.

1610

Let me give you an example of why it was more important to have the economic loss provision and the right to sue there than in the example I've just enunciated. John is a professional truck driver who was injured in a motor vehicle accident. He sustains a head injury which results, among other things, in the loss of vision in one eye. As a result, he loses his operator's licence and is no longer able to work as a truck driver. He is married and has three children to support. He is only 35 years old.

Anyone, under the present system introduced by the Liberal government, who sustained a serious and permanent injury, which this is, would pierce the threshold and would be permitted to sue for lost income over and above the standard weekly benefits that would be paid to John through his insurance policy. Under the NDP legislation, Bill 164, John would no longer have the right to sue for loss of future earnings. His benefits would be capped as stated in the legislation. He might be able to sue for pain and suffering if he could prove that it was greater than $15,000 worth, and despite anything he might receive for pain and suffering, he would never, ever be able to make up the difference in his lost income or in his potential income.

Linda is an electrician. As a result of a car accident, she sustains a spinal cord injury which leaves one hand paralysed. The injury is permanent. She's a single mother. Under the present legislation passed by the Liberal government, Linda could have sued for economic loss resulting from her accident, and if it was determined to be serious and permanent, which a paralysed arm would be, she would pierce the threshold and she would be compensated for her loss of career and future earnings. Under the legislation put forward by the New Democratic Party, Linda would not be able to sue for future lost earnings. She would receive for life the benefits as stated in the bill. She might be able to pierce the $15,000 deductible, she might not, but even if she did, court precedents in this area seem to be $200,000 or less, which is a lot less than she would have received --

Mr Harnick: What?

Mr Mancini: Yes, there have been some court judgements, and the highest that we've been able to find is upwards of $240,000, if the honourable member would check the facts.

Mr Harnick: Less their deductible of --

Mr Mancini: If the honourable member will check the facts. So in my view, having the right to sue for lost income is a far greater benefit than what the NDP has given in return for taking that right away. That in itself is enough to vote against Bill 164.

There are two other reasons as to why I would not support this bill. I have time to comment on only one of them, and that is road safety. Bill 164 makes no effort and no mention to promote road safety. The materials distributed when Bill 164 was tabled dealt extensively with the creation of a road safety agency, but the bill itself contains no road safety component.

I'm happy to say that yesterday the Minister of Transportation once again made some murmurings about the creation of this road safety agency, and I believe that's an excellent way of keeping people safe, of teaching people how to drive in a safe manner and keeping premiums as low as possible.

There are two minutes left in the time that I have to speak to the members of the Legislature and to the watching public. My time as a legislator, as the critic for the official opposition, has been limited to 90 minutes because the New Democratic Party thought it was okay to have as much time as necessary to speak when it was in opposition, but it's not correct for any other opposition to have all the time needed now that the shoe is on the other foot.

Mr Callahan: They've muzzled us.

Mr Mancini: They've now muzzled my colleagues in the Liberal caucus, who will only get 30 minutes each. On top of that, sir, the minister at any time can indicate that he's heard enough, whether or not my colleagues have had their 30 minutes, and say that as far as he's concerned the debates are over and let's get on with the passage of the bill.

Mr Callahan: Dictatorial.

Mr Mancini: Very dictatorial, I may add.

So that's fine. You've passed those rule changes. Everybody has supported you on your side of the House in taking our privileges away, in denying us the right to speak for our constituents, in denying us the right to put the other side of the opinion, the other side of the coin. You've denied us those rights. I ask the minister --

Interjections.

Mr Mancini: If I can just have my colleagues' attention, I ask the minister the following: to give the committee that is going to oversee the clause-by-clause review of this bill an adequate and appropriate amount of time, and to allow the committee to hear people from all over the province, even if it means that we have to travel to Windsor, to Kingston, to Ottawa, to Sudbury, to Thunder Bay and to other places I've not mentioned. We will not accept, nor should the public accept, a limited, time-oriented, geographically oriented clause-by-clause review of this bill. That's the very least that you could give to the public of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Harnick: It's rather interesting to hear the Liberals and the NDP deciding who can take more rights away from innocent accident victims faster. I think this is fantastic. I listened to the Minister of Financial Institutions, who brags that, boy, three times as many people are going to be able to sue under our scheme as under the Liberals' scheme. We've seen what the case law has done, and about 1% of innocent accident victims are entitled to bring an action to claim for their damages now. The NDP has just opened up a whole new vista. They're going to expand that by three times, so all of a sudden we're going to have a whole 3% who are going to get their rights back, with a $15,000 deductible and no economic loss. Isn't that fantastic? The NDP is only eliminating 97%, and the Liberals eliminated 99%.

I think everybody should just stand up and cheer for both of you parties, because you have systematically wiped out the rights of more innocent accident victims in two or three short years than was ever imaginable. To boot, you both are bringing in or are proposing or have brought in a no-fault plan that puts innocent accident victims at the behest of insurance companies. They go to the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board unrepresented because they can't afford a lawyer after they've been cut off from these enhanced benefits that you so graciously provided to them. What happens when they go to that insurance board? The insurance company shows up with a Bay Street lawyer who proceeds to kick the crap out of every innocent accident victim who goes before it, and you people, both the Liberals and the NDP, have the unmitigated gall to stand up and say, "Boy, we're doing it better than the other guy."

I think the whole bunch of you should be ashamed. You should all be ashamed, because what you've done to innocent accident victims, what you socialists propose to do, is absolutely, positively pathetic. You should be ashamed.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

1620

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Of course I listened carefully to the member for Essex South and I say that -- you guys just don't get it yet, do you? The reason why Bill 164 is bad is because Bill 68, the threshold no-fault system that the last government imposed on drivers and innocent victims here in the province of Ontario, is as bad.

Bill 164, I tell you, is the logical extension of what David Peterson and the insurance industry did to victims in the province of Ontario. Bill 68 was the knee-jerk response to the, oh, rather unplanned utterance of a Premier-to-be days before an election when he said -- remember David Peterson said he had a very specific plan to reduce auto insurance premiums. Well, he didn't have the slightest idea of what he was talking about. He knew that auto insurance was important to a whole lot of voters and he knew he'd better say something about it, so he set his little mandarins and his bureaucrats to work and they came up with half a dozen versions of various dogs' breakfasts.

Kruger, of the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board, said no way to threshold no-fault, just like Osborne had in 1987. Now mind you, that's the same Osborne inquiry at which the New Democratic Party made submissions, authored by Bob Rae and Mel Swart, in which the position of the New Democratic Party was clearly articulated, that we need a strong no-fault component. But as Bob Rae and Mel Swart told Osborne in 1987, and as New Democrats have believed for so long, we can never trample on or detract from the right of innocent accident victims to be fully compensated.

That's what Bob Rae and Mel Swart said in 1987. That's what they said in 1988 when they were in this Legislature. That's what the New Democratic Party said in opposition to a horrible, dangerous piece of legislation, Bill 68. I tell you, Bill 164 finishes what David Peterson didn't even have the gall to do to innocent victims in the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Callahan: After having heard that tirade from the most recent speaker, I'm not sure how he's voting, but I'd like to correct something.

I understand there was a comment made that the member for Welland-Thorold voted against his party in connection with the rules, those draconian rules that in fact prevent us from debating this as fully and fairly as that member did. I find it passing strange that the member for Welland-Thorold, who is the white knight who filibustered on about how he was going to return to the people that type of right to sue -- and he's now leaving the chamber; he can't listen to it, I guess -- would then vote in favour of his government's restrictive rules that in fact have muzzled this chamber, muzzled the opportunity of members to debate adequately on behalf of their constituents. Having done that, he has set the course for the Premier and the minister to bring into play this bill that is neither fish nor fowl and is a total shot in the face to the people of Ontario who believe the New Democratic Party and its Agenda for People about public auto insurance. They were going to bring in this public auto insurance, this panacea of socialism, and what do we see? We see a total turnaround.

I'm going to be watching very closely as the member for Welland-Thorold speaks, because I have concerns. He talks a great thing in the press, he talks a great idea when he's out on the hustings and yet he voted for these rules that in fact restrict us from debating issues. It's not just this bill but future bills. So I'm going to be watching very closely. I hope Mel Swart is and I hope the people of his riding are watching this flip-flop that may take place.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): The member for Essex South certainly cited a number of valid criticisms with respect to the bill. However, I can't stand here in this chamber and listen to them comment as to how wonderful their Bill 68 was.

The very first court decision has now come forward, the Meyer decision, as a result of a motor vehicle accident on June 29, 1990, and that court decision has established that the Liberal plan will not work. It simply won't work with respect to serious injuries.

Mr and Mrs Meyer were involved in a very serious accident and, as we all know, under the no-fault legislation, personal injury actions arising out of motor vehicle collisions are prohibited, except where the injured person has died or sustained permanent, serious disfigurement or permanent, serious impairment of an important bodily function caused by continuing injury which is physical in nature. The Meyer case has decided that and I will be speaking to that in my remarks. But clearly, that decision has established once and for all that the Liberals were wrong. They were as wrong as the NDP is in its bill. In fact, the NDP is worse than the Liberals. I will be reserving my comments at that time.

I simply can't stand here and listen to the member for Essex South boast as to how wonderful the Liberal plan is. These people were very seriously injured and they've lost their decision and they're going to get absolutely nothing because of a terrible Liberal plan that is insensitive to the injuries that people are sustaining in motor vehicle accidents around this province.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Essex South as two minutes to respond.

Mr Mancini: I've listened to the honourable members and I appreciate the points they have made. At this time I don't have anything further to add. I think I've very clearly enunciated the history of the car insurance saga in this province over the last five years. I think I've enunciated clearly why I and my party cannot support Bill 164. I think I've enunciated clearly why the present legislation is working and why it's superior to what has been put forward, and I'll leave it to the general public, who have been watching and listening and who are concerned, to make up their own minds.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Tilson: It's a pleasure to rise today and deal with the legislation that has been introduced by the New Democratic government, Bill 164, which is the Insurance Statute Law Amendment Act. This bill was first introduced December 5, 1991. It establishes a principle which I think we were all rather shocked to hear, a no-fault principle, which this party, when it was running for office and when it was in opposition, said it would never put forward.

Mr Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold, under the direction of his caucus, stood here and kept this place in a state of limbo while he talked about how they were so opposed to no-fault insurance. And what do we have now? We hear throughout all of their philosophical discussions, whether it be no-fault insurance or whether it be just the simple factor of no-fault, it's nobody's fault.

You start listening to some of the philosophies of some of the members of the cabinet of this government. The member for Cambridge, when he was the Solicitor General -- Mr Speaker, you will recall that the former Solicitor General got into a great deal of controversy over letters that he had written to a judge, trying to influence traffic tickets. He simply said: "It's not my fault. I didn't write the letter; I didn't see the letter. I don't know anything about the letter. But it's not my fault."

Then there's the current Minister of Housing when she was the Minister of Health. At that time, when she was Minister of Health, she blurted out a name that was confidential. She said it wasn't her fault. "My staff made me do it. My staff wrote the name down on the file, but it wasn't my fault it was blurted out." She had to resign and she resigned her place as minister.

The Minister of Northern Development has of course been the most controversial of all. She's the one of course who will go down in the history of this House as a minister who took a lie detector test to prove that she was lying. She of course took some shots at a doctor and she says that she had a bad day. It wasn't her fault. The devil made her do it, but it wasn't her fault.

1630

The Minister of Correctional Services -- the former minister of corrections; everybody seems to have been minister of corrections -- and this of course was over the Bell Cairn incident. It wasn't his fault. He didn't know anything about it, but it wasn't his fault. He didn't know. It wasn't his fault.

Then of course there's the Minister of the Environment. That's a pretty good one. She's establishing these superdumps around the province of Ontario, in the GTA, superdumps in areas that people simply don't want them, where it's inappropriate to have them, but she says: "It isn't my fault. It's the IWA's fault. They're the ones that chose it and they're the ones that are eventually going to establish these three sites." But it's not her fault.

Then of course there's the Premier. Everything is Mr Mulroney's fault or Mr Bush's fault or the world's fault, but it's not his fault that this province is going down the tubes. It's not his fault.

The Minister of Tourism and Recreation: Of course, he put out some government advertising involving bikinis, and he simply said: "I don't know anything about it. It's not my fault. I don't know anything about it, but it's not my fault."

The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Well, of course, when she was on city council she voted against gambling casinos. Now she's all in favour of them. She's going to support gambling casinos in the province of Ontario, but she says it isn't her fault. Floyd made her do it, because you've got to raise money in this province, but it's not her fault.

Now, the Minister of Government Services: He of course hired someone to do some construction work for his house and subsequently that contractor got a government service contract in Kingston. "But it wasn't my fault. The contractor did it. It wasn't my fault. I don't know anything about it, but it's not my fault."

Then of course there's the Minister of Culture and Communications, the member for Perth. The art gallery in Toronto has closed down because of lack of funding from this province to keep one of the greatest art galleries in North America alive, but it's not her fault. It's not her fault.

Mr Ruprecht: Who made her do it?

Mr Tilson: I'll tell you whose fault. It's the art gallery's fault, that's whose fault it is, but it's not her fault.

And then of course there's the chairman of the Constitution committee, you, Mr Chairman. Of course, you were caught up north blocking a road and you got arrested. I suspect you're saying, "It's not my fault. It's the Premier's fault. It's not my fault."

Then of course there's the member for Welland-Thorold, who's probably the most notorious of all members over there. He doesn't like gambling casinos, he doesn't like Sunday shopping, and he certainly doesn't like the no-fault bill that's come out. He doesn't like any of those things. He's a man of principle, but he's still sitting over there. He doesn't like any of those things. He's going to sit here in this House, and I'm sure he's going to somehow get half an hour of debate, the limited half an hour of debate. He probably should have a lot more, because I'd like to hear more of what he has to say. It's too bad that a former cabinet minister and member of this government is only going to be given half an hour to speak.

In any event, he's a man of principle, and he says it's the entire NDP's fault, the entire caucus's fault, for all of these things that he doesn't like. He's still going to stay over there, he's still a man of principle, but it's not his fault. It wasn't his fault that he got kicked off the cabinet because he posed fully dressed in the Toronto Sun. "It's not my fault; it's the Premier's fault."

The Minister of Housing: Of course, he's the one who says he hates landlords, the member for Windsor-Riverside --

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): The Minister of Housing?

Mr Tilson: I'm sorry, thank you, the former Minister of Housing, the member for Windsor-Riverside. He hates landlords. He brought in rent controls, and sure, the housing industry is going down the toilet, but I'll tell you who that was. That was the fault of the landlords. It's the landlords' fault. That was his position: It's the landlords' fault.

Then of course there's the Treasurer, the famous leak of the budget documentation earlier, the last budget leak of documentation. It wasn't his fault. It wasn't his fault the security was broken down, notwithstanding that they were surrounding buildings with police, spending all kinds of money on security. It wasn't his fault; it was the civil servants' fault. It was the people who run this House.

Mr Speaker, you're holding up the bill as if I'm off topic, and I'm telling you, it's not my fault. It's not my fault. I'm telling you that these people over here are supporting the principle of no-fault, and this is how their whole philosophy comes together in this legislation: It's nobody's fault.

The Minister of Financial Institutions says the best thing. We have drunk drivers crashing into people, killing people and maiming people, negligent people making people paraplegic, quadriplegic. It's not their fault; it's nobody's fault. We're all going to have to pay for those terrible things where people's lives have been literally destroyed by the automobile. A negligent driver, a drunk driver: It's not their fault. That's the philosophy of this government, it appears, with respect to no-fault.

I think we should spend some time on the auto insurance chronology. It started in May 1986, when the Slater task force recommended that the government consider limiting the right to sue in order to reduce the cost of liability insurance. The task force was appointed by the Liberal government to examine problems in the cost and availability of liability insurance.

Then in February 1988 the Liberal government passed the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board Act, which established a board to set car insurance rates based on a mandatory classification system. That's going to be dealt with. The government of course is going to say, "We're going to regulate the insurance companies even more."

My question today to the Minister of Financial Institutions was not a flippant question as to whether or not this government simply puts the thumb down on the insurance companies in the same way it put it on the landlords of this province. Without justification, they're going to literally put the insurance companies out of business. I think the plan to take over auto insurance in this province is still alive and well over there. I think that's how they intend to do it. They intend to put the insurance companies out of business.

The minister means every word he says when he says he's not going to allow rates to be increased. But we must look of course at the history. Of course the automobile insurance board act was established for purposes of setting car rates, and I will be speaking more to that shortly.

In April of the same year, 1988, the Honourable Mr Justice Osborne released his report on the car insurance industry. He recommended the existing system be retained -- no-fault benefits plus an unlimited right to sue -- but that accident benefits wouldn't be increased.

Then, in October 1989, the government introduced legislation for the comprehensive reform to the car insurance system.

In June 1990, the government's no-fault system, known as the Ontario motorist protection plan, came into effect. And of course it went on.

This government ranted and raved when it was in opposition, led by the member for Welland-Thorold and the Premier and a number of members who are still in this House, opposing that system and how dastardly it was and how it was going to destroy innocent people in this province.

Court actions would be allowed under this system only if the plaintiff could meet the threshold of serious, permanent injury or disfigurement or death. The member for Welland-Thorold -- and I'm not going to boost him up; he can talk on his own, if the House would let him -- is going to say, and has said, that you almost have to be dead to receive a benefit under the Liberal plan. The Meyer case which I started to refer to, which I will deal with shortly, established that, that you have to be almost dead to recover. So much for the Liberal threshold test, which certainly hasn't been improved; it's been made far worse by the NDP government.

1640

Then, in September 1991, the NDP government abandoned plans for a publicly run no-fault car insurance system, so it just reversed itself. So much for the Agenda for People. So much for their promises to the people of this province. A lot of people were relieved -- I, for one. I certainly don't want a government-run operation. There's too much government in operation. For once they made the right decision. They cited the costs of implementation, they said it was too expensive. But I believe it's still in their minds. I believe there's a group over there, including the member for Welland-Thorold -- I mean, he and I agree on one thing, but another, this point, we certainly don't agree on. It's too expensive. We can't afford it. Just look at British Columbia. The member for Essex South is right. We can't afford it.

Then, of course, in December the NDP government introduced its new car insurance plan, The Road Ahead, and that's what we're here --

Mr Harnick: It's paved with broken glass.

Mr Tilson: Yes, it is. It's paved with broken glass, and we're here to look at The Road Ahead.

We listened to the minister yesterday talk about how he plans to improve the system. He introduced a three-volume study which was produced in June of this year and presented to the House yesterday for debate in this House. Can you imagine? A very complicated actuarial report, and we are expected to digest that and debate that in this House. He had an opportunity in June, he had an opportunity in July, he had an opportunity in August and September, and now we get it four months later. He hides this report from us. This is what he's basing his story on.

Then, of course, we're going to have public hearings. His staff have made comments in the press that they're going to allow two days -- two afternoons, really -- of public hearings. Two afternoons? We could spend four days discussing this, reviewing this.

Mr Harnick: And what was his promise?

Mr Tilson: What was his promise? His promise was that we would have full public hearings. On this matter, the Liberals went around the province. Why can't you people go around the province?

Who's supporting it? No one is supporting it. The people from London, the people from Sudbury, the people from Ottawa -- there are cities all over this province that want to deal with it. So far it's been suggested that we spend two afternoons talking about this thing, and my guess is as well that closure will be put on this thing because many people want to be speaking on it.

Mr Harnick: No, they wouldn't do that. Not the NDP.

Mr Tilson: Well, we'll soon find out.

Mr Mercer's done very well. There have been a number of papers that we know have been prepared by Mr Mercer. Some of them have been made available to me -- not the plans, because the government simply won't make them available. There was one that he prepared called Funding Principles; he made $8,200 for that. There was another one, Interim Insurance Mechanisms; he made almost $6,100 for that. There was another one called Servicing Carrier Approach to Delivery: Auto Insurance; he made $9,100 for that. A Country Survey of Auto Insurance; he made $13,000 for that. Public Auto Insurance: The Case For and Against; he made $13,000 for that. Who knows what he made for this? The question is, of course, what did the government spend another $5 million on? I mean, government offices were going to be rented to run the government-run auto insurance. They reversed their position.

Anyway, we got this yesterday and we're expected to digest -- I'm up today and I was expected to digest this and make a presentation today. We're going to have two afternoons of hearings to review that and a very complicated bill. Actually, it's a very simple bill because it's all going to be done by regulation. We won't know what hit us.

I'd like to make a couple of comments on the report put forward by William Mercer. It's very difficult, and I hope we'll have more time in public hearings. I hope the government will reconsider its position and allow for hearings to go on around the province. I'd like members from all communities -- the legal community, the insurance community, the various --

Mr Harnick: Innocent victims.

Mr Tilson: Innocent victims, all the people. I'd like them to comment on this, because they're not supporting it now. Who's supporting it? The negligent drivers of this province are supporting it. That's the only people who are supporting it. I don't even believe you people are supporting this bill.

Let's talk about the premium costs. Mercer has estimated an average premium increase of $33 or 3.9% under this plan over the OMPP. The minister said there would be an average decrease of $45 or 5.4% under this plan over the OMPP. I'm afraid the minister is off by $78 or 9.3%. That's what he's off. He's not right. He's not giving us accurate information. Mr Mercer estimates that the total cost of benefits payable under Bill 164 will be 13% greater than under the OMPP.

This of course buttresses the industry's position that the benefit costs will go up while premiums are being forced down, according to the Minister of Financial Institutions. The insurance industry is going to be on pretty shaky grounds. What's that going to do for the industry? What's that going to do for jobs? Is the agenda to take over the industry really there? I suggest it is.

Mr Jack Kerr, an economist from the University of Toronto and the legal counsel for FAIR, made a presentation this morning. I think he produced a survey, I believe from Angus Reid, one of the pollsters, that talked about the overwhelming number of people who are opposed to this legislation.

You gotta listen. You're going to allow two afternoons to talk about this report, the bill and hear people from the public. I suggest this government take a long, hard look if it's going to be credible -- because so far it's got a lot to learn -- and go around this province and see. Maybe they should reflect, particularly after all the grief they gave the Liberals when they introduced Bill 68.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): They deserved every bit of it.

Mr Tilson: They did deserve every bit of it. I agree with you on that.

Mr Harnick: And you deserve it because you're breaking your promise.

Mr Tilson: Exactly. You're not keeping your promises, and I intend to get into your broken promises. I hope you make a speech to submit why in the heck you've broken your promise.

The minister has talked about his broken promises. He doesn't really care. He's just plowing ahead. He's doing as he's told; that's why he's minister.

Mr Kerr analysed the documents. When you get this handed to you the night before you're to make an address, it's very difficult to properly analyse it. It's going to take a number of experts from various communities to review this. The minister's had it for four months but we've had it for less than 24 hours.

In any event, Mr Kerr stayed up quite late at night, and if you heard his press conference, his comments were that the OMPP reduced benefits 43% on net to all victims over the previous system, the OMPP being the Ontario motorist protection plan. Bill 164 reduced benefits on net from pre-Liberal legislation by 36%. In fact, this translates into a net increase in benefits for victims over the Liberal plan but is still a decrease from the previous tort-based system.

The second point he made was that the Liberal OMPP allowed 5.8% of accident victims to sue for pain and suffering and economic loss, and this was only in the serious cases, notwithstanding the Meyer case. I think when we start analysing the Meyer case, those figures are completely wrong. The 5.8% represented 33% of the total cost to the system. This is Mr Kerr's analysis.

The most dastardly part of Bill 164 is that it removes the tort right to sue for economic loss, in other words, loss of future earnings. The pain and suffering awards are capped at $100,000 in 1978 dollars and hit with a $15,000 deductible under Bill 164. So according to both Kerr and Mercer, the net effect of removing the right to sue for economic loss and restricting the right for pain and suffering is a 15% reduction in total benefits and awards paid out. So much for improving the system, you people. Take another look at it.

1650

According to Mr Kerr's analysis, this means the consumer will be the loser. The very people we all represent are the losers, so it's even worse than the Liberal bill. Mr Kerr costed the ability to claim 80% of the current gross income under 164 versus the 90% of net under OMPP, with the following determination of benefits for various income levels. What he's trying to establish is that in fact this will be an increased benefit to the wealthy -- figure it out -- and a decrease for the poor, average-income earners.

Mr Bisson: You've got it wrong.

Mr Tilson: Well, I'll tell you, let's listen to it. But you say we've got it wrong. Mr Kerr has analysed it. I bet you, open that book, you wouldn't even understand it.

Mr Bisson: Oh, no, I don't know how to read.

Mr Tilson: You don't know how to read. Well, that's your problem.

Twenty thousand dollars equals 11% less than under the OMPP; $30,000 income represents 15.9% less than under the OMPP; $40,000 equals 18.4% less than under the OMPP; $70,000 income equals 30.7% more than under the OMPP; $80,000 income equals 46.1% more than under the OMPP and $90,000 income equals 62.2% more than under the OMPP.

If Mr Kerr is right -- I don't profess to be able to understand it any more than my friend who can't read, but this is very difficult, complicated stuff and I think there's going to have to be a committee to study this, because the minister clearly doesn't know what he's doing. We're going to have to look at this. What's it going to cost the consumer? Because if Mr Kerr is right, there's going to be an increased benefit for the wealthy and a decreased benefit for the poor income earners.

This is serious stuff. It's complicated and we're going to have to spend some time on it. It's unfortunate that these people have amended the rules to stop us from debating, probably to stop Mr Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold, from speaking. He had a lot to say against the Liberal government, and I suspect he's got a lot to say now, but you've effectively silenced him.

Now I'd like to talk a little bit -- I've mentioned the Meyer case briefly in my response to the member for Essex South and I think it would be useful just to spend some time on it, because it shows -- and I think the members over here if they haven't heard of this case should listen to it, because it probably will back up what their position was prior to the election. They haven't solved it. They've made it worse.

But this was what they were saying, "The Liberal plan is not going to work," and they're going to say it now. But let's talk about it. Let's talk about what the very first court decision had to say about that. This is the decision that recently came out of the Ontario Court (General Division), the ruling by Mr Justice E.R. Browne. This involved Johann and Margaret Meyer who were injured in a motor vehicle collision in June 1990. Their injuries did not impair their bodily functions beyond the threshold set out in the Insurance Act. That's what the judge said.

I've read the Liberal test to you, but I think most of us understand it in general terms. Probably we don't understand what these words mean when we start thinking about it, which means that if this bill passes, we're going to have pre-OMPP, we're going to have OMPP, all of which is going to the court, and then we're going to have the NDP ruling, which is going to go to the courts and it's going to be a mess. The suffering consumer is going to be the one who is going to lose while all these legal battles are going on as to what all these funny tests mean.

As a result of the accident, Mr Meyer, who is 70, suffered a fractured right kneecap that has prevented him from taking part in many of the activities he once enjoyed, such as certain gardening duties and swimming strokes. He has trouble kneeling and experiences some pain and discomfort, when walking, with changes in the weather.

Mrs Margaret Meyer is 68. Her injuries from the accident included fractures to the left knee and right wrist, soft-tissue injuries to the left foot and ankle and right shoulder, injury to her right middle finger and chest bruising. While still relatively active, she's unable to carry or work with heavy objects, such as a load of laundry, or swim the length and walk at a brisk pace for the distances she could before. As well, she still experiences pain.

Before the accident, Mrs Meyer had back and hip problems. The defence attempted to show that the symptoms she complained about would have been present regardless of the accident. It's quite clear that when you read what these people sustained, they were seriously injured. In any event, the judge said, "No, you don't meet the test." I'm not going to get into the legal part of it. I think that could be made available to you. The fact is that the case was thrown out.

Of course, when we listen to this case we remember the member for Welland-Thorold, who made the expression, "dead or near dead to recover," under the Liberal plan. Let's not forget that, because he's proving himself right. The Meyer case is proving him right. The Liberal plan is not going to work. Mr Justice Browne held that if the claims had crossed the threshold, Mr Meyer would be awarded $20,000 and Mrs Meyer $45,000. Under the old system, before the Liberal government introduced the threshold requirement, Mr and Mrs Meyer would have recovered these amounts in full. Under the OMPP, because of this threshold test, the Meyers get nothing for their pain and suffering. Not a penny, nothing.

The NDP, of course, under the guidance of the member for Thorold and the Premier, predicted the very injustice the Meyers experienced. They promised they would repeal this unjust law and they promised they would return to the full tort system. Broken promises. We've come a long way from that. It will be too late for Mr and Mrs Meyer. The Liberals have done that to them. They can thank the Liberals for that, but not for the countless other innocent victims who will be injured on our highways. I urge all of you over there on the government side to think about what you promised the people of this province and to honour those promises.

The member for Welland-Thorold is obviously quite visibly upset. I took shots at him earlier.

Interjection.

Mr Tilson: It doesn't matter. That's right. He got an award and that's fine, but he's quite justifiably upset. Under the NDP government it probably will be law this fall.

Hopefully the government will reconsider its position and allow public hearings and allow us to go around the province to talk about and listen to some of the problems that have developed. Daily there are people who are being injured and they have no idea what the heck's going on. They know they're not being covered by this former government, the Liberal government, and they know that the NDP bill is going to cause them a mess as well. They're not going to get anything.

In any event, hopefully the government will reconsider its position and allow full public hearings around this province, and not just a couple of afternoon sessions upstairs in one of the back rooms. The Meyers's decision demonstrates why you have failed to honour promises. If the Meyers would receive a reward of $45,000 under your bill, remember what's going to happen. You're going to take away $15,000, because that's the deductible.

They're not going to get the $45,000 that Mr Justice Browne indicated Mrs Meyer would get if they met the threshold, the one you can't stand that this government had made for you. They're not even going to get that. They're going to get $45,000 less $15,000. Is that fair? Of course, similarly, Mr Meyer would be awarded $20,000. Well, he'd get $5,000 under your bill.

1700

I really suggest that you reconsider your position. With respect to the deductible, if someone is injured in a motor vehicle accident, they're going to go into a law office and they're going to be told that they're not going to get a dime with respect to economic loss or future loss. I'm going to get into that in a moment. They're not going to get a bit of that. They're going to get something for pain and suffering, but that's only if you can establish to a court that the damages for pain and suffering are $15,000, which is very rare. Let's say they're $25,000 or $20,000. Let's say that it's estimated, and that's just a guess as to what a court's going to award. There are a lot of uncertainties. But let's say there's a prediction that they're going to go to court for $25,000. There are substantial costs. What if they don't get it? I'll tell you what's going to happen: They're going to have their case thrown out, and they're going to have to pay their own costs plus the costs of the other side, all for anywhere from $5,000 to $10,000. That's all they're going to get, $5,000 to $10,000 on a claim of $20,000 to $25,000, because of your deductible.

Take another look at it. I would like to go back just to the practicalities of what the Minister of Financial Institutions has done. He introduced this bill and then he had a study done to justify what's going on. Of course, there's going to be more analysis of this. There's going to be a lot of time spent on this, I can assure you; more than just the less-than-24-hours you've given us to study it. He passes the bill and then he has a study to see if it's going to work. What a way to do things. He shoots first and asks questions later. What an operation.

I won't say anything more about the public hearings, but I do emphasize that you reconsider that position, that you not just have public hearings for several afternoons upstairs but that you go around the province, that you listen to some of the horror stories that the former Liberal government has caused. Ask yourself in those hearings whether you're resolving it, whether you're solving it. Are you helping the situation? Is Mr Kerr right? Are the benefits really not what you say they are? Are you going to really have people go to court for $25,000 and only get at most $10,000? Are you really going to make them do that, go through all that? Is that fair?

I'd like to read a letter from a constituent. I get these as the critic, as I'm sure the Liberals do. I can't believe the NDP members over there don't get letters from individuals who don't know what the heck is going on. They're involved in car accidents and they're being maimed for life, they're losing their jobs, they're losing their houses and it's affecting them emotionally.

I've got a letter from Darcy. Darcy says he's 31, he's married with two children and he was involved in a car accident under the no-fault insurance in February of 1992. The other party was charged in the incident and pleaded guilty; he was not injured, but there was severe damage done to his car. His wife received a mild whiplash, and his five-year-old son received a mild concussion. He sustained a severe back injury, herniated discs. Their car was a write-off; although insured for $5,500, they only received $3,000. His wife and son got over their injuries, but he on the other hand is still suffering emotionally, physically and financially. He's seeing four doctors on a regular basis, including two specialists and two physiotherapists, as well, of course, as his family doctor. In this coming late October, he is to go for a CAT scan to determine if an operation is necessary.

"As you know, we are all going through tough times in this province, and it doesn't help when I can't get back to work because of my injury. My employment pays me 70% of my wages, and Pilot Insurance pays me 10%, which leaves me with only an 80% total. Who pays me the other 20% of my lost wages and transportation to and from appointments, lost bonuses at work, an orthopaedic mattress for my back, special footwear and doctors' fees for filling out an endless sea of forms? Am I expected to come up with this even though I am a victim of an accident and of the provincial government?

"As of September 8, I returned to work on a modified program under a doctor's supervision." He's an assembly line worker for Honda in Alliston. "Some days I can't even bear the pain of getting out of bed and I have to live with that. I can't sit very long. I can't stand very long. I can't lift very much weight. What do I have to do to go through this? At least I know at the end of the week my cheque will be there. I feel like I'm being trapped in this situation. I'm damned if I do, I'm damned if I don't.

"Seven months is a very long time for an average Christian family to try and struggle, and it's not over yet. In October, when I see the specialist, and if he decides to operate, I will be back to 80% of my wages and no allowances, when my mortgage depends on 100% of my wage. As a result of the financial burden placed on myself and my family, our house is now up for sale and our credit is to the maximum. We have no vehicle, and all because I was the victim of an accident that wasn't my fault."

I'm not sure how this new law, no-fault insurance, is supposed to work, and that's the problem: Nobody can figure it out. These people can't even figure it out. Wait till you start getting the regulations. Have any of you seen the regulations? You're going to have to have a lawyer, a PhD, a planner, God knows what, just to understand what's going on. It's unbelievable what's being planned, and you don't even know it. You're looking at Bill 164, which is a few pages of paper. Wait till you get into the regulations, and half of them haven't even been presented yet.

So he's in bad shape because of the Liberals and he hasn't got much faith in these people either.

Mr Kormos: Public auto would have taken care of him, David.

Mr Tilson: I'm not so sure. I'll give you a chance for that, but at this stage I'm simply saying that it hasn't worked. This hasn't worked and that hasn't worked, and we're in a mess.

Mr Owens: Send that letter over to me, David.

Mr Tilson: Sure, I'll send it over to you. I'll make a copy and make that available to you. I'm not going to give it to you now because it's the only one I've got, but I'll be pleased to make that available to anyone.

It's interesting, I mentioned in some of my earlier remarks, that the minister plans to say there's not going to be any increase in rates. You know, at the end of their caucus retreat at Honey Harbour he said there will be no increase. Prior to that, I think he said there's going to be a $45 decrease in premiums as a result of their amendments. Notwithstanding of course the insurance people, and Mr Mercer's report, are all saying costs are going up, he simply says there's not going to be any increase.

How in the world are the insurance companies going to pull this off? With these added costs that are being put on to them, what are they going to do?

I'll tell you what I think they're going to do. I think they've given control to the cabinet, and I think the cabinet is going to start making some decisions. I think in fact they're going to control the insurance industry. They're not going to let them get out of it. Bill 164 says: "Sorry, you can't get out of it. You can't leave it without being heavily fined. You can't stop it. You're just going to have to find the money somewhere," just like the landlords have to find money to pay for their buildings, with money that they don't have.

So the costs are going up, the whole operation is going up because of a very complicated benefits system, and I'll tell you one thing: When you start looking at these regulations, the insurance companies and this government are going to have to have a whole series of training courses to make their staff understand what in the world this is all about. The government is going to have to hire people. They're going to have to hire more bureaucrats to understand the regulations. They're very, very complicated, and if they're not, I'll challenge the government to go through them and tell me why they're not complicated. They're very, very complicated. They're going to have to train people. They're probably going to have to hire people.

What does that mean? What cost is that going to mean? Again, more increased taxes.

What's it going to mean? The insurance companies are going to have to train their staff to understand these regulations. They're probably going to have to spend an unbelievable fee, pay some actuary an unbelievable fee, just to explain this thing, the Mercer report. The Actuarial Costing of the Road Ahead: A Comparative Study, it's called. It's grim.

1710

Then of course you've got the consumer who gets involved in a motor vehicle accident. He's going to go to these hotshot insurance people, who are going to try and talk him out of it. And what are they going to do? Do you think they're going to understand these regulations? Are they going to go and hire a lawyer and pay a lawyer or a consultant or an actuary person all kinds of money to explain these to them, to fight for their rights for receiving benefits? Is that what they're going to have to do?

Where are they going to get the money, because they can't recover it? Is it like our friend Darcy who doesn't know where his next dollar is coming from? He's lost his car; he's going to lose his house; he hasn't got enough money to pay for his mortgage payments. What in the world are these people going to do? Very serious implications.

We've now seen just the tip of the iceberg as to the effects of the Liberal bill. It's taken all this time to see the effects of this. You can say, "Oh well, everything's going on." I'm telling you, it's starting to happen now and I can't believe you're not all getting letters from people saying, "I don't know what's going on and my life is ruined."

So, I'll tell you, I think that's the plan. The plan to take over the insurance business is still there, just like they plan to take over the housing business. It's either going to lead to increased premiums -- I mean, is the Insurance Bureau of Canada wrong when it says that rates are going to go up from 20% to 50%? Are they wrong?

Mr Mercer is saying there's going to be a whole pile more costs. Who's going to pay for those things? I'll tell you who's going to pay for those things: There are going to have to be increased insurance premiums. Money doesn't grow on trees. The other alternative of course is that this government is going to put the thumb on the insurance industry and say, "You can't put up the rates," notwithstanding that costs are going up.

It's an absolutely impossible situation for the insurance companies and there's no question that it's the next step towards publicly run auto insurance, so I'm sure the member for Welland-Thorold will be pleased that in fact that's the plan. He may not be told. I'm sure they don't even talk to him over there. But I can tell you that that's the plan.

Now the issue of getting rid of the concept of fault. I spent some time, I'm sure to the annoyance of cabinet ministers, talking about "It's not my fault." I did that for a very good reason. I believe that's the philosophy of this government: It's nobody's fault. When I was growing up, and still now, when you make a mistake, you have to pay for your mistakes. Who's going to pay for it? No one is going to pay for it. We're all going to pay for it. You make a mistake and you make a mistake and we're all going to pay for your mistakes. Is that fair? There's no question that this plan is a logical underpinning to a system that gets rid of the concept of fault and spreads money evenly among people who are injured in car accidents.

Mr Roger Oatley, who is chairman of the insurance committee of the Advocates' Society, has written you, I know, and has expressed many concerns. He says, "The difficulty is that approach and philosophy is no consolation to the innocent person who is seriously and permanently disabled and suffers lifelong devastating losses, particularly where there is no insurance product available to replace it."

Mr Oatley says, and he's right, "You can't buy the kind of coverage that the government is taking away from us." You can't buy it. Of course, you can go out and get some extra coverage for loss of income, but you can't get insurance coverage from what the government has taken away, from either of these governments; it simply can't be done.

He also expresses his concern that long-term care won't be addressed by the current ceiling of $500,000. He worries that the expenses incurred in caring for the injured person will preclude expenses to maintain their home and lifestyle. He says, "It's impossible to enumerate an exhaustive list of these expenses because no two cases are the same."

That's the problem with the philosophy of the NDP. It says we're all the same. No matter what your walk of life is, we're all the same. It doesn't matter what your qualifications are, we're all the same and that's how we're going to treat you all. That's the philosophy behind it.

He adds, "The insurers are freed from their obligation to pay any portion of expense for long-term care if that care isn't reasonably available under any other plan or law." He says, "The consequences of this are dramatic," and he talks about the publicly funded program, which I believe is still alive and which the member for Welland-Thorold still wants. He says, "If a publicly funded program is available to care for the victim, the insurer will refuse to provide a preferred form of private care which restores the victim and his family to the victim's traditional style."

We were making some remarks on the member for Essex South's comments on publicly run systems. He's right. We should look at that. We should spend some time on the cost of that. I'm not going to repeat what he said because I think he adequately explained the unbelievable cost, that it simply can't be funded, and the government quite rightly came to the decision that it would not proceed. But it's still alive.

Let's talk about broken promises. It's called integrity. It's called integrity of running the system. You run through the Agenda for People, or agenda for power, whatever you want to call it. People are becoming very, very cynical: "Oh, well, this is another one of their broken promises. They haven't kept one yet." I'm not going to run the list; we could go on for pages. But this is one.

If I were a member of this government, I'd be terribly embarrassed, including you, Mr Parliamentary Assistant. You know perfectly well that your promises with respect to auto insurance have been broken.

Mr Owens: That doesn't run for two pages.

Mr Tilson: It doesn't run for two pages? I'm telling you, it only takes two words to say you've broken your promise. The road ahead is indeed going to be rocky. In the last election, they made a promise to keep premiums down and restore the right of accident victims to sue. Don't ever forget that. That was your promise, and you're not honouring it. For some unearthly reason, you've taken that away.

It's even worse than the Liberal bill. It's even worse than what you stood in the House for for 17 hours and fought them on. Both our parties were the same. Both the Conservative Party and the NDP were partners. I can't believe I'm saying that but, believe it or not, we were partners in fighting this legislation. Now that you've gained power, you've broken your promise, because after winning the election, you were confronted, you say, by hard facts.

That didn't stop them from making a new promise, to give every accident victim the right to sue for pain and suffering. We'll talk about that, and we have talked about that somewhat, because you're not. You're not giving every person the right to sue for pain and suffering. You've got this funny thing called a $15,000 deductible. Can you imagine?

Now $15,000 is a lot of money to the average person in this province. It's a lot of money, and I can tell you that when you're hit by a negligent driver and you're being asked to pay a $15,000 deductible when your life is being affected unbelievably, every aspect of your life and family is being affected, it's hard to understand. We have a $15,000 deductible on pain and suffering, effectively rescinding the right of the majority of accident victims to sue. That's what you've done.

These moves reflected your final acknowledgement that the promises were made without any regard for the basic facts. I don't think you've thought of it.

I'm going to harp back to it again. Have some public hearings. Let's hear how the Liberal plan is working. The member for Welland-Thorold is perfectly right: What you've done is a carryover; it's an extension of the Liberal plan. Let's see if it's working, because if it's not working, you're wrong too.

1720

Is the Meyer case right? I suspect it may or may not be appealed. I hope it is appealed, because it certainly has created a mess as far as innocent victims in this province are concerned.

Of course, you recall that the member for Leeds-Grenville put forward a bill he supported which said to return to tort. When the Minister of Financial Institutions was an ordinary member, an ordinary person in this House, he voted for it. He said he made a mistake; it wasn't his fault. He said, "Anyone who makes a promise and then finds that there are in fact better ways to deal with the problem is a fool if he sticks to his promise." Isn't that an amazing statement?

He introduces a bill, probably for political reasons, then has a study done 9 months, 10 months after after he introduces the bill to see if it's going to work. Remarkable. One question, of course, remains: What do you tell someone who makes promises that are impossible to keep?

We have to remember that the government, through its officials, including Premier Rae when he was Leader of the Opposition, repeatedly indicated to the people of Ontario that a hybrid tort/no-fault compensation system was the appropriate model. This is what opposition leader Rae said to the Osborne inquiry:

"We believe that accident victims should retain the right to sue where they think that losses exceed benefit levels. It's clear that, because of personal or occupational circumstance, the same injury will involve greater loss for some persons than others. Nor do we consider it necessary or appropriate to impose any kind of threshold requirement in limiting the right to sue to those whose loss exceeds a specified dollar amount or stated degree of injury. To do otherwise calls into question the integrity of the government. To do otherwise breaches a promise made to the people."

Well, so much for the promises of the Premier. So much for the integrity of this government, because when are we going to believe these people? They say one thing and they do another; they do the opposite. They're worse than the Liberals.

Mr Owens: The Liberals hurt themselves falling off the fence.

Mr Tilson: You'll get your chance to talk about the Liberals. I'm telling you that you'd better rethink this bill, because you're creating an absolutely impossible system.

Here are just some of the regulations. I'm not even going to attempt to go through them. It'll be nice if we have some hearings to talk about them and have someone come and explain them to us, because I don't know what the heck you're doing. As I say, you're going to have to train civil servants, the insurance companies are going to have to train people -- very complicated stuff. All this is going to cost. It's going to cause premiums to go up. It's going to cause taxes to go up. It's another cost.

Mr Owens: Why is it going to cause taxes to go up?

Mr Tilson: Why is it going to cause taxes to go up? Because you're going to have to train everyone how to understand these plans. It's very complicated. The whole bill is run by regulation. The bill is very brief, but the regulations -- and we haven't seen them all -- very complicated stuff.

I challenge anyone over there to tell me what it's about. I encourage that. You've got 30 minutes each; that's if the House leader doesn't cut us all off, and I suspect he will. I'd like to have you people explain what the heck you're doing. Do you know what you're voting for over there? Have you understood it?

The Advocates' Society has spent much time trying to explain to you what you've done. It's written the ministry, it's written the Premier and I suspect it's written many of you. He talks about the delivery of benefits problem, and I'd like to briefly comment on what he has said.

"There has been a problem with delivery of first-party benefits for many years. I believe you are well aware of the abuses. Lawyers who act for accident victims spend a great deal of time enforcing the rights of insureds against insurers. Because most accident victims will be totally dependent on their first-party rights in your system, the availability of effective and real remedies for the enforcement of the first-party rights is critical."

You say you're going to do away with the legal system, that there aren't going to be legal problems. Well, people are going to have to hire lawyers to explain what the heck's going on. When they have an accident, they're going to have to go and have someone explain it to them, because they won't understand. That's the sad part. You're saying we're going to do away with the legal system. In fact, the minister's made some rather derogatory remarks about the legal system. Well, I challenge you -- unless you're going to have another advocacy system; maybe you're going to have another army of advocates to try to help people, another bureaucracy to come and explain to people what the heck all this means.

Bill 68 and its regulations -- the Liberals, of course; talk about their regulations.

"They introduced a complex system of rules and penalties and introduced a mediation process which was supposed to ensure prompt and fair delivery of accident benefits. "Rehabilitation consultants, health care providers, victims and their lawyers find that the delivery of benefits remains a very significant problem. If anything, the situation is now worse because fewer people have access to counsel in the new system and fewer people as a result are aware of their rights to have an effective remedy for a policy breach."

You're worse than they are, when you think about it. Think about that $15,000 deductible. You've just ruled out a whole bunch of people who have been innocently injured; they're just out of luck. Just write a cheque for $15,000, and if it's under $15,000, too bad.

"Any system your government designs will have delivery problems. Despite the best intentions of insurers, there will be differences of opinion among physicians and other providers over the need for and the quality of care. Although some insurers will approach their obligation honourably, others will not. Victims need lawyers. They must have access to counsel and to justice. Whatever the rules may be and whatever the dispute resolution system might be, victims must have real access to counsel. It's a democratic right. As the Attorney General's ministry knows so well, real access to counsel is only possible when the insured has access to funds for payment of legal fees."

You might start telling us some lawyer jokes, and that's okay, but someone's got to explain this stuff to these people. If you're not going to have lawyers, you're going to have to have someone else. The bill doesn't address that. The bill doesn't address who's going to explain these regulations, these very strange, very complicated regulations.

Withdrawal provisions: The insurance companies are saying this is the most draconian bill they have seen. It's worse than the Liberals'. They don't like it. You can talk about the profits insurance companies may or may not have received; that's fine. But we now have a new provision which gets to the whole issue of the economy. It's called the withdrawal provision.

Some of you may not know it, but if an insurer wanted to leave Ontario or wanted to leave the insurance business because of this Bill 164, if it wanted to do that, or if it simply wanted to discontinue operating, it will face heavy penalties. To withdraw, insurers must first apply to the Ontario Insurance Commission -- this is Bill 164, this is your bill -- to withdraw from classes of business.

If permission is granted -- and they may not even grant it; in other words, can you imagine, they don't want to stay in the business but they may say, "You can't do it, sorry" -- they're going to charge a fee. They're going to charge a big fee to get out of the business because you've created such a mess with your bill. They then would be banned -- and this is the best part -- if things change, from re-entering the market for three years.

How in the world are you going to encourage insurance companies to start up a business here or to come from other companies to operate insurance in this province? Why would they come? You're going to fine them. You're going to say, "You can't come back in, if you leave, for three years, and if you do leave, we're going to fine you." Have you ever heard of such a thing?

1730

I might add -- we talk about these regulations that we haven't seen -- the withdrawal provisions make up about 25% of the bill. These provisions legal counsel have submitted -- and again, I'm telling you, the Liberal bill has gone to the courts, and your bill is going to go to the courts. One of the reasons it's going to go to the courts is on this issue, because it violates the Constitution.

The Premier stood here in this House and talked about how wonderful this country is. You're violating our Canadian Constitution. It contravenes the freedom of choice to remain in business. You're not giving anybody the choice. There's no choice. As I say, it will be a barrier to attracting new capital. That's another point that you might consider, that there's no such thing as choice. "You do as we say. We're going to tell you what the rates are going to be. We're going to tell you whether you can stay in this province. Then we're going to tell you, if you're going to leave, we're going to fine you."

I'd like to spend some time on long-term care. The insurance industry is concerned that Bill 164 does not place a time limit or cap on supplementary medical and rehabilitation benefits. The insurance industry wants to ensure that all accident victims receive adequate medical care, but not placing a cap on rehabilitation benefits will result in increasing medical costs for insurance companies, particularly when the minister is saying, "Notwithstanding that, I'm not going to allow you to raise the premiums." Doesn't this sound a lot like Bill 4 and Bill 121? Doesn't this sound familiar? It certainly does to me.

The cost of covering these medical benefits will ultimately be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher insurance premiums. Someone's got to pay for it. Where's the money going to come from?

Mr Stockwell: The sky.

Mr Tilson: Yes, maybe it's coming from the sky. It appears to be, because there's only one other place it's going to come from. But you don't have any money; you're broke. So it's going to come from the consumer. It's going to come from insurance premiums. So currently we've got a problem with that. I think you're going to have to revisit that.

It's the belief, then, that long-term care won't be adequately addressed by the current ceiling of $500,000. The expenses incurred in caring for the insured person will preclude the expenses to maintain their home and lifestyle. So that's another problem, the long-term care issue, the cap, and the fact that premiums are going to go up, costs are going to go up. There's nothing anybody can do about it because you're just simply going to put your thumb on the industry and say, "You're not going to" -- where's the money going to come from? Ask yourself the rationale. You're adding all these costs, all these things on to the insurance company. How have you solved the problem? You've made it worse. You've blown it.

Again, I would like to spend some time on the deductible. I believe that when there are injuries exceeding $15,000, to the $20,000 limit or the $25,000 limit, the insurance companies are going to take a hard-line approach. They're just trying to stay alive, because of your policies. They can take a hard-line approach, and they're going to say that the claim is only worth $15,000. So you're going to have to go to a lawyer. Of course, that's okay; the lawyer's simply going to say it's a deductible of $15,000, so the most that you're going to get on a $20,000 to $25,000 claim is $5,000 to $10,000, and your legal costs might be another $5,000 or $10,000. If you blow it, you're going to have to pay all those costs for both sides, and if you win, all you're going to get is $5,000 to $10,000. What a system.

Is it worth it? Is it worth it to go to court for $20,000 to $25,000, or indeed $30,000? Is it worth it? Is it worth the gamble? There's no question all the lawyers are giving is an opinion. They're going to get some medicals and they're going to draw an opinion, "Yes, I think the claim is probably worth $20,000 to $25,000." But it may not be because the insurance companies are going to say: "Are you kidding? It's only worth $15,000. You have to pay the first $15,000."

The other strange thing is -- I've asked the minister this in the House -- where did he get $15,000? Where did that come from? Whose bright idea was that? He doesn't like the threshold test. Somebody over there -- I don't know who -- came up with the idea: "Well, we'll have a deductible of $15,000. That'll get rid of all the fake claims" -- all the fake claims of people who are genuinely suffering -- "and it's also going to get rid of the $20,000 to $25,000 and maybe $30,000 claims." It's a bright idea.

The NDP plan will permit any victim to sue for pain and suffering but, as I say, the awards are subject to the $15,000 deductible. Anyone with a pain and suffering award of $15,000 or less will receive zip -- absolutely nothing.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): It's not worth going to court.

Mr Tilson: They won't receive anything, Minister of Agriculture and Food. They won't get a dime. If you have a claim for $10,000, forget it.

Mr Owens: What about rehabilitation?

Mr Tilson: Rehabilitation? I'm talking about claims under $15,000.

Hon Mr Buchanan: The lawyers get it all.

Mr Tilson: No, you're dead wrong. Read your bill. You don't even understand the bill that's before this House. They'll get nothing.

The truth is that many innocent accident victims with painful long-term or permanent injuries will continue to receive nothing. It's like my friend Darcy from Orangeville. Nothing. Zip. He's not going to get anything for his misery and the disruption to his life because the suffering may be deemed to be less than $15,000. He won't get a dime.

In the area of lost earnings or disability benefits, if you prefer the Minister of Financial Institution's plan, increases to the maximum no-fault benefit from $600 to $1,000 a week. However, under the minister's plan that's all you get even if your actual lost earnings or projected earnings total far more than that. That's all they get.

Let's take someone like a hockey player or Liona Boyd or someone who's making a great deal of money. They don't get anything for lost earnings or future lost earnings.

Mr Owens: They also have supplemental insurance.

Mr Tilson: Are you kidding? Can you imagine if a performer such as Liona Boyd was involved in a motor vehicle accident and injured her hand? Can you imagine what she's going to get under your plan? I await for you to give the answer, because I'm telling you that compared to the pre-OMPP she's getting zero. Economic loss: You've ruled that out the window. She's not getting a dime for economic loss.

The trick here is the word "earnings," because if you're a self-employed individual, you're liable to lose your entire business because it doesn't apply to that. If you're a child, you'll receive nothing for projected income loss. If you're a student, you'll have no hope of being fully or fairly compensated for the lifetime of earnings you have lost through no fault of your own.

Of course the minister says, "Oh, that doesn't matter; we're all equal." It doesn't matter if you have a medical student who has gone through university and medical school and he's just about to become a doctor and he gets involved in a motor vehicle accident and he's making nothing or next to nothing. He doesn't get anything for his projected loss. So we're all equal. The whole issue of economic loss is out the window.

So $15,000, as I indicated, will be deducted from court awards, so therefore insurers don't need to seriously consider settling it unless the injury exceeds at least $20,000. Again I suggest that's pretty risky as well, as the cost of the plaintiff financing the litigation will leave a nominal gain. It's not worth it. In fact, some people say it's not even worth it if you have a claim for $30,000; it's too risky.

1740

The minister is going to say it's going to stop the nickel-and-dime operation, the nickel-and-dime type of lawsuit, but it actually reaches into the main street of general damages, the main street of pain and suffering. It removes a whole slew of them. Think about it.

The issue of premiums: I'm sure there's going to be a debate back a forth. The minister is going to say, "Oh, there's not going to be any insurance premium increases because of our plan." He's already said it. In fact, at one stage he said it's going to go down $45.

Well, he doesn't say that any more. Now he says there are not going to be any increases, notwithstanding the overwhelming comments that are coming. I have a letter from State Farm which predicts, "Our actuaries, using real facts from over 30 million policyholders, predict a premium increase of 20% or higher with the proposed Bill 164." The Insurance Bureau of Canada actuary, a separate actuary, says the same thing. Of course, the minister is saying, "Oh well, read the William Mercer report." Can you imagine? That's his answer. He has no idea.

He says he's going to make sure they don't increase their rates. I've asked him whether he's going to implement the controls they did on landlords and today he denied it, so we will be looking forward to seeing exactly how he's going to control the rates. I suspect, as I said earlier, that the cabinet's going to be making some unusual decisions, because that's allowed for in the bill.

Economic loss: I think we should talk about that briefly, because by eliminating the recognition of future earning potential, the government has condemned seriously injured students to a lifetime of benefits based on their financial situation at the time of the accident. Generally, students aren't making a great deal of money. In fact, some of them are on the food lines. I was reading this week that there are serious problems with students who are actually going to food banks. They can't find food.

So they get involved in accidents, notwithstanding the fact they're getting into a career that hopefully will provide them with renumeration, at least as much as some of you people are making over there, but they won't get it. Under this plan, they won't get it. Economic loss is gone.

I'd like to read a little article, some quotation from the Peterborough Examiner which was put forward about the time this bill was introduced last December. It's called "Failed Dreams," and I think it adequately explains the problem of economic loss.

"Queen's Park giveth and Queen's Park taketh away, and all thoughts of transforming the Ontario auto insurance system died a quick death.

"Accident victims will get bigger income replacement payments. They'll rise to $1,000 a week from the current $600 and the benefit will be tied to the consumer price index to ensure that inflation doesn't eat away its value, but they'll lose the right to sue for lost incomes.

"Students, seniors and the unemployed need not apply. The limit for most of them will be $185 a week, regardless, presumably, of whether they are weeks from graduating to a professional career, weeks into retirement from a well-paying job or, worse, a highly skilled and highly paid worker between jobs. Is this fair? Today, an estimated 5% of accident victims can sue for the loss of future income."

Again, I remind us that the Meyer case probably, if that stands, would be even less. That right would also be gone. So that right is going to be gone.

"Those permitted to sue for pain and suffering, that is, those who are not totally at fault for their accident, would be allowed to take court action, but imposing a $15,000 deductible wipes out any gain for some 85% of accident victims.

"Death benefits to a surviving spouse will rise from the current $25,000 to $50,000 with a geared-to-income ceiling of $200,000. Too bad need doesn't enter the picture."

Interesting: No fault, no need, you're going to get it anyway, depending on what your need is. We all have different needs. We're all different, believe it or not. NDPs are different from Tories, I hope.

"Before he became Premier, Bob Rae couldn't say enough bad things about the no-fault scheme introduced by his Liberal predecessor. Now the best he can do is tinker with what he used to tongue-lash.

"Ontario voters who thought they risked government takeovers of private business had their fears realized in an unexpected way through rules on auto and out-of-health health insurance that hurled them into the arms of private insurers -- for a fee, of course."

There are more stories on the road ahead. About a month later, the Toronto Star took a letter to the editor which was written by a Rod Barr. I assume he's a solicitor just from the way he talks. You can't ignore him. You can say, "I don't like lawyers." The fact of the matter is, these people are dealing with these matters all the time. They know exactly what's happening to these people. He says:

"Under the Peterson plan, if you were injured, you could claim for income loss as well as damages for pain and suffering. No more. The NDP proposes that no accident victim be entitled to claim his or her full economic loss if it exceeds $1,000 per week."

He gives a couple of examples which I'd like to read to the House in their entirety, because I think it explains the dilemma and the fears the people of this province are going to be put into as a result of this bill that's before the House.

"Assume a small businessman, a corner store operator. His store is open from 7 am to 11 pm, seven days a week. He works constantly. He clears $25,000 a year, but his business is growing and he's optimistic for the future. A drunk driver crashes into him and he's disabled for a year. Under the new NDP plan, he will receive 90% of his profit, and that is $22,500 a year. Unfortunately, he can't hire anyone to work the way he did for $22,500 a year. Even if he could, this would leave him with nothing to live on. So he loses his business. He's wiped out.

"Of course, he is entitled to claim damages for pain and suffering subject to a $15,000 deductible, but if he recovers in a year, he won't be able to prove $15,000 damages for pain and suffering. He gets nothing."

Another example:

"A student's leg is badly injured when a motorist pulls out from a stop sign without looking. He loses two years from school. He is two years late entering the workforce and loses two years' income. Then he gets a job, but the evidence is that in about 15 years he's going to require an artificial knee and a hip replacement. This will have to be repeated in a further 15 years, after which he will no longer be employable. He will lose probably several hundred thousand dollars of earnings because of the accident. He cannot claim it and he probably will wind up on public assistance by the age of 50."

Mr Barr concludes -- and this is an article from the Toronto Star of January 4, 1992:

"People who support the NDP regard it as a compassionate party. One can only hope government members will realize what they are being asked to approve before this savage legislation comes to a vote."

Think about those things. I know you're being told to vote on these things, but think about it. There's still time to have public hearings and listen to some more stories. I think from your perspective, I would like to hear some of the stories that were caused by the Liberal legislation. I'd like to hear that and I can't believe you don't, for your own political gain. You may even want to say, "Yeah, we're improving the situation," but it may well be that you're wrong. I'll be interested in hearing the debate, which some of you will only have half an hour to debate on, unfortunately, on some of those points that have been raised. I'd like to see whether they're challenged or not. I don't think they can be.

Mr Owens: Don't forget Darcy's letter.

Mr Tilson: Yes, I'll give you Darcy's letter. I'll give you anything you wish if it can persuade you to persuade your minister. Well, you can't persuade him, because he's just doing as he's told, as you are.

I'd like to talk a little bit in the few minutes that are left with respect to discrimination.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): Seven minutes.

Mr Tilson: I can do this in seven minutes. It has to do with the matter of seniors. Under the plan, income replacement benefits for employed seniors will be phased down over four years. The income replacement benefits for the long-term disabled will run to 65, at which time they'll be replaced by a much-reduced income supplement which parallels pension benefits. By setting the limit for auto insurance benefits to seniors at 65, what the NDP is in fact saying is that a person's earnings potentially end at that age. Didn't we debate that some while back? In any event, there's a little cap at the age of 65. The modern reality is that many seniors do not wish to retire at the age of 65. They have active lives and are productive wage earners.

1750

Interjection.

Mr Tilson: Well, read your bill, because you're not allowing them to. Your bill doesn't say that. Seniors are discriminated against as a result of your bill. Read the bill, because I can tell you, it does. They're discriminated against in terms of the age limit and the benefits they are entitled to under your plan.

At the same time, Bob Rae, the Premier, is saying that he will consider as valid seniors' working lives prior to 65 only. When they get to be 65, give them the heave. That's what this bill says.

If you don't like it, I suppose there's always room for amendment, but that's what your bill says. You're practising double discrimination against the seniors of this province, and what is most disturbing is that the seniors somehow will stop functioning at full speed as productive and creative members of society when they reach the artificial retirement age of 65. But with this bill, they're cut off. That's that.

Many seniors over the age of 65 are vitally involved in the workforce, in the community. They're not to be turfed out, as you are saying. They have a tremendous wealth of experience and knowledge, and I would hope that you would listen to it, because I don't think the seniors are going to like your bill one iota when they realize what it's going to do to them.

I've got a few brief moments left. The whole subject, as I said, of auto insurance is something that I don't think a great many people realize -- because how many people in this province are affected by auto accidents? Probably a relatively small number, but when you're affected, when you get in an accident or when a member of your family is involved in an accident, a son or a daughter or a wife or whoever, you suddenly realize what these people have to go through. Politically, you can say, "Oh, well, the number is not there; it's not going to affect a large percentage of people in this province." But if you're affected -- Mr Barr could be correct that many of these people could be on public assistance by the time they reach the age of 50.

I would like to comment very briefly on the regulations in the three minutes I have left. They are certainly elaborate and they're complicated. It's going to take a lot of time to learn them, for me, for you, for the lawyers, for the insurance companies, for the civil servants -- very complicated -- and it'll be difficult to explain these regulations to everyone. The draft regulations accompanying Bill 164 regarding changes to the accident benefit schedule outline a benefit scheme which lacks controls and is unworkable and undeliverable. That's the submission, and when you read them you'll just blink your eyes, because they're going to be overwhelming to you.

Overcompensation of accident benefits is also a concern with these regulations. Again, there is the issue of need. Are we all the same? Some people's injuries may be worse than others. Are we all going to be put in little compartments? Is that what you're trying to do? Are you trying to put us all in the little compartments? Hopefully you're not. Hopefully we all have our own personal problems when we are involved in these accidents, and it affects us differently.

Both claimants and insurers will have difficulty. In other words, both sides, the claimants and the insurers, will have difficulty interpreting and implementing this benefit plan due to its complexity. I'm going to harp again: We must have full public hearings that go around this province. I think we should hear representations on the regulations. I would like to hear representations as to where the system is going to work. I don't think the minister has looked at that. Some of the regulations haven't been even thought up yet, they don't exist, but the ones that do exist are unbelievably complex.

The draft regulations, as I understand it, address five areas: comprehensive benefits, categorization, loss control, disability benefits and rehabilitation and medical benefits. The regulations pertaining to the withdrawal provisions that I referred to earlier and the regulatory powers of cabinet -- and that is something where, just in conclusion, Bill 164 does give an unbelievable amount of power to the cabinet.

You may not know that, but under the terms of Bill 164, the cabinet, not this House, would be allowed to prescribe a uniform, non-discriminatory risk classification system which automobile insurers must use. Cabinet would be allowed to prescribe rating factors, establish various benefits and conditions on which they are payable, as well as optional benefits that insurers must offer. These expanded powers of regulation would be enacted immediately, without notice, consultation from the public or political scrutiny. That's kind of scary, isn't it? We won't even know what hit us.

The insurance companies won't know what hit us and certainly the consumers won't know what hit us. How are these companies going to operate if the cabinet is going to, out of the blue, challenge the rates? They're going to put a stamp on the rates and they're going to say, "No more," notwithstanding the fact that the benefits are going to push them over the edge. They can't leave the country, they can't leave the business. What are they going to do? It's like future shock. It's rather startling.

Auto insurance in Ontario is probably one of the most heavily regulated in this province, where the system remains in private hands. I submit that it's just got completely out of hand in this and should be reviewed in public hearings, considerable public hearings.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Thank you. The honourable member's time has elapsed. Questions and/or comments?

Mr Farnan: I have an observation in reply to the member for Dufferin-Peel, and it's to the people who are watching the proceedings over the entire day, who've heard the comments made by both the Liberal critic and the Conservative critic with regard to this legislation.

It's been an extraordinary afternoon, because what we have witnessed is a degree of partisanship in approaching an issue that really, in my mind, is not particularly helpful. The people of Ontario are sick and tired of the kind of negativism, the kind of approach where the opposition is simply there to criticize, which is lacking in constructive input. We didn't hear on any occasion, from either critic, "We like these particular aspects of the bill, but these are areas we've got concerns with." No, it's just a totally negative approach, and it's an approach I believe the people of Ontario are not going to accept.

We didn't hear anything from either critic which recognized the fact that the benefits in this legislation are actually indexed, whereas previous legislation was not indexed. We didn't hear anything from either of the critics which said that the $15,000 threshold is a lot more generous than the Liberal threshold, where permanent and serious injury of a physical nature was the criterion.

There's almost nothing in the observations that were made which said, "There are some good points about the legislation." One comment, I believe, that was made was "selective history." I think the member for Dufferin-Peel made that point, whereas the Liberal critic simply refused to recognize what Mr Peterson said, that he had a plan to reduce auto insurance premiums. He didn't have a plan.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Callahan: I find it passing strange. I think the people out there in Ontario, the people who are watching us -- and they've probably turned their sets off and have gone to do something more productive -- are fed up with politicians promising one thing at election time to get elected and producing the opposite when they do get elected. You guys promised public auto insurance. I don't favour public auto insurance, but you promised it. It's like all the other promises, like the promise of no Sunday shopping. You did that. What's the next one? The thing that really scares the daylights out of me is the fact that these people are talking about nationalizing matters, nationalizing auto insurance, nationalizing labour. It sounds like we've retreated to what is now being broken up in the Soviet Union. In fact, that's totally unacceptable.

The Acting Speaker: On a point of order, the member for Cambridge.

Mr Farnan: Mr Speaker, I thought this particular time was for members to make comments on the previous speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Yes, it is.

Mr Farnan: We're not having that.

The Acting Speaker: I want to remind the honourable member for Brampton South. Please continue.

1800

Mr Callahan: I am in fact commenting on it, because the member who spoke last talked about this very innocuous part of the bill, which would penalize insurance companies if they don't play ball with the government. If that's not nationalizing, I don't know what is. So in fact what's happening over there is the wall is going up. The wall is coming down in Europe, but the wall is going up over there in a socialist government that doesn't understand that socialism of that type is gone. People are looking for greater freedom, and you're not giving it to them. You're trying to impose a labour law on these people that is in fact going to lose jobs. There is no impact study to tell us what kind of jobs will be lost, yet the minister persists in being the saviour and the advocate of the union members.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Owens: In the brief time I have, there are many inaccuracies that I have to address in terms of the comments of the member for Dufferin-Peel with respect to seniors. In fact, income earners over 65 will receive the indexed, income-based benefit.

In terms of his comments with respect to the withdrawal provision, I'd like to ask the member for Dufferin-Peel why he has a problem with the government wanting to protect the consumers of Ontario. This withdrawal will only be permitted in areas that will not disrupt the marketplace. I'm sure that once the member for Dufferin-Peel considers not just the insurer's side of the story but also the consumer's side of the story, he may rethink his position.

In terms of the number of companies and more companies wanting to come into this province to do business, perhaps the member from Dufferin-Peel is not aware that there are at least 151 companies in this province currently doing business. My question is from a business perspective: Why would I want to come into a market that's already saturated?

In terms of the return to tort and the bill of the member from Leeds-Grenville, it's clear that the Tories, the members of the third party, are only interested in the 6/49 approach to accident benefit compensation: Some people win big; some people don't win at all. Had I been in the House at that time, I certainly would not have supported that bill.

In terms of the $15,000 deductible, once again, selective memory is a problem here, as the member from Cambridge indicated. While the $15,000 deductible is in place, these accident victims are still entitled to rehabilitation benefits as they go through the process.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant.

Mr Kormos: I almost didn't get here in time. I was chairing the standing committee on resources development. I'm grateful to the Speaker for letting me speak to this. What's remarkable is the suggestion that somehow if you're opposed to Bill 164, you're opposed to no-fault benefits. New Democrats have always believed in no-fault benefits. It was because of New Democrats and the models that they built in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, where there are strong no-fault benefit structures, that we have the full, unfettered right of innocent victims to be fully compensated, not the victim or subject of meat charts.

By the way, I suppose this should be said: If you like workers' compensation, you'll love no-fault, because, by God, the meat charts don't vary very much. Indeed, the formula being adopted in Bill 164 for wage replacement is 90% of net income, the weekly wage replacement, which is less than exists currently under Bill 68, which is 80% of gross. Can you believe it? It's a New Democratic Party bill which is going to reduce wage replacement in the no-fault schedule -- not increase it, like some would have you believe, but reduce it. I tell you, New Democrats have never advocated that -- never, never -- not in the public systems of British Columbia and Manitoba and Saskatchewan, where drivers are treated fairly because premiums are kept low, certainly lower than in this province, and where victims have the right to full compensation. Innocent victims -- children, seniors, working people, retirees -- have the right to full compensation. I tell you, this bill is wrong, wrong, wrong.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Dufferin-Peel has two minutes in response.

Mr Tilson: Mr Speaker, it's past the hour of 6 o'clock. I would like to adjourn the debate.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member cannot return to the debate. He has two minutes to reply.

Mr Tilson: Mr Speaker, I would like to return to the debate, but I would like to adjourn the debate. It's past the hour of 6 o'clock.

The Acting Speaker: The debate will be automatically terminated. The honourable member has two minutes, and if he does not wish to have his two minutes, he will forgo it.

Interjections.

Mr Tilson: Mr Speaker, after you get order in the House, I'd be pleased to make a response. I seem to be on the clock now, but there doesn't seem to be any order.

The Acting Speaker: We are not at the debate process; we are at questions and/or comments and responses, which is beyond debate.

Mr Tilson: Fine. I notice I have a minute to go in my two-minute response, which is rather strange. However, with respect to the member for Cambridge -- I hope that's where he's from -- surely I have the right to come in and criticize this bill. Surely I have the right to draw to your attention that it's not going to work, in the same way you drew to the attention -- you personally, because I've read some of your speeches -- with respect to the Liberal bill. If you have the right to criticize them, I have the right to criticize you, and I believe they're constructive criticisms.

I believe we're hearing the example of economic loss. I'd like you to rethink all of that: the whole issue of cost, the whole issue of power to the cabinet. I believe I have the right to submit to you1that you should rethink all of that, and you're telling me I don't have that right. You're telling me I'm being negative. I'm trying to solve the system, just as I'm sure the Liberals and the NDP are trying to solve the system. I'm simply saying that the Liberals have done it wrong -- you've agreed with me on that -- and I'm also saying that you're wrong. You're dead wrong on this system. You've created an impossible, expensive, dictatorial, complicated, unworkable system.

Mr Farnan: What do you like about it?

Mr Tilson: Not a thing.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable government House leader will have the schedule for the upcoming week.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): I have the business of the House for next week, pursuant to standing order 53.

On Monday, October 5, 1992, we will continue second reading debate of Bill 164.

On Tuesday, October 6, we'll be dealing with a non-confidence motion in the name of Mr Harris.

On Wednesday, October 7, we'll continue with second reading of Bill 164.

On Thursday, October 8, in the morning, we'll deal with private members' business: ballot item 23, standing in the name of Ms Marland, and ballot item 44, standing in the name of Mr Curling.

In the afternoon, we'll continue debate on Bill 164.

The Acting Speaker: It now being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday, October 5, at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1808.