The House met at 1334.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): Market value assessment is not only an issue in Metropolitan Toronto; it's also a growing issue in the Ottawa-Carleton area, where residents are awaiting a decision by the regional council on the issue.

However, there is a growing concern in the Ottawa-Carleton area that the NDP government may not let the local municipal officials decide the issue. Rumours abound that the provincial NDP is actively considering forcing Ottawa-Carleton to adopt market value assessment whether the local municipalities want it or not. This would fly in the face of stated NDP policy in the rest of the province and would intrude on the municipalities' responsibilities for deciding this issue. Rumours of this provincial interference are threatening the regional council's vote on this issue. They know that the NDP are watching and may overturn this decision if they vote against MVA.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs or the Minister of Revenue should make his or her decision clearly known as soon as possible, and definitely before the regional vote is held. If the rumours are correct, the NDP should clearly state their intention to force market value assessment. If the rumours are false, the NDP should clear the air with a direct promise that they will not force market value assessment on Ottawa-Carleton.

CORPORATION FILING PROGRAM

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): My statement today deals with the newest tax grab initiated by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, a filing program for incorporated businesses and non-profit corporations. This is yet another example of how this NDP government chooses to do business in Ontario: It's underhanded, unfair, without accountability and without consultations.

The corporation filing program was started in July of this year and through regulation, not legislation so that it could be properly debated in the House, and began almost immediately sending out thinly veiled letters to corporations asking for the $50 filing fee, or else.

I would like to read an excerpt from one of those letters sent to all corporations throughout the province: "Failure to provide this information correctly and within the time allotted can have serious consequences that may affect your corporation status."

What kind of thinly veiled threat is that supposed to be? Why does the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations feel that it has to stoop to these kinds of threats? These are law-abiding, taxpaying job providers of our province. What possesses the NDP government to treat our corporate citizens like criminals with a bad record?

Businesses within Ontario are tired of dealing with a government that obviously views them with disdain and as a necessary evil. Your lack of consultation on this and many other programs, not the least of which is Bill 40, where you essentially ignored any business suggestions, proves over and over again your lack of respect towards the business community of Ontario.

JOBS ONTARIO

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): Mr Speaker, I remember you were listening to the 1992 budget when this government created the Jobs Ontario Training fund, Capital fund and Housing fund, which are going to renew the economy and get people back to work.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Where is it now; what happened?

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): What happened? Tell us.

Mr Fletcher: Let me tell you what happened. Guelph was the first Ontario community to access both the Jobs Ontario Capital and the Jobs Ontario Training funds for major projects that will get our friends and neighbours back to work and rejuvenate our local economy.

The Jobs Ontario Training fund will create more than 270 jobs at Linamar. This first agreement ever signed under the fund sets aside more than $2.6 million to train workers whose unemployment insurance has run out or who are on social assistance.

The Guelph Civic Centre was the first Jobs Ontario Capital fund agreement signed in this province. It will provide $2 million over the next three years to construct a dynamic Guelph civic and cultural centre. The centre will create over 200 jobs and revitalize our river front, enrich our artistic community and bring increased tourist trade to downtown Guelph.

The Jobs Ontario Capital fund will also provide $410,000 for renovations at Guelph public and separate schools.

In Guelph we've also been helping industry and jobs through other government initiatives. Glengarry Industries of Guelph has received a $2.5-million term loan under the Ontario Development Corp. This assistance will help this local manufacturer increase its production and expand its North American and global market.

This is how I spent my summer vacation: helping the people of Guelph.

OTTAWA SENATORS

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): I would like to bring to the attention of the House that the week of October 1 to October 8 has been proclaimed Ottawa Senators Week in Ottawa-Carleton. A number of events and activities are taking place throughout the region in celebration of the return of the Ottawa Senators and the National Hockey League to Ottawa.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): They should be playing in Hamilton. I hope they lose every game.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Chiarelli: Showing support for the community for which they are now very much a part, the Senators organization includes within its activities the hosting of fund-raising receptions for two charitable causes, the Ottawa Civic Hospital and the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.

The week's events will culminate on Thursday night, when the Senators host the Montreal Canadiens for their first NHL season opener since 1933, with opening ceremonies including the unveiling of nine Stanley Cup banners. Yes, the old Senators won nine Stanley Cups.

To the owners, coaches, players and fans, I would like to wish the Senators the best of luck in their return to the NHL. I am confident that the day will not be too far off when they will bring the Stanley Cup back home to Ottawa.

And my friend Mr Morin says, "Vive les Sénateurs d'Ottawa."

1340

MENTAL ILLNESS AWARENESS WEEK

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement concerns the masks that cover faces, cover feelings and cover up. The focus of the October 4th to 10th Mental Illness Awareness Week, which is jointly sponsored by the Canadian Psychiatric Association and the Schizophrenia Society of Canada, is on the masks of schizophrenia and Alzheimer disease, as well as anxiety and depression.

Look under the mask of schizophrenia and you'll find people of all ages, races and economic backgrounds. It is an illness that can often be treated with medication and social supports.

Look under the mask of anxiety and depression and you'll find a face you'll probably recognize because none of us gets through life without our share of both.

Psychotherapy, anti-depressant medications and training in methods of relaxation can all work together to lift the clouds of anxiety and depression.

Look under the mask of Alzheimer disease and you'll find the face of 300,000 Canadians. While medical science searches for a cause and a cure, support groups have been formed for those affected and their loved ones.

During Mental Illness Awareness Week we must all look under the mask of all mental illnesses to find the stressed, vulnerable human beings who deserve the chance to get well again. They deserve to be seen for who they really are.

GRAND RIVER

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): This past summer I approached the 20 MPPs from the Grand River area, asking them to support the designation of the Grand River as a Canadian heritage river. The Grand River Conservation Authority is working to have the Grand River be Canada's first heritage river in a settled area available for the use and enjoyment of thousands of Ontarians. It is also the first time an entire river system, not just a section, has been nominated. The authority's hard work in preserving our human past and our recreation areas will be appreciated not just by all of us but by future generations.

I would like to publicly commend the MPPs who wrote to the Ministry of Natural Resources asking for support for the Grand River designation, and I am gratified by the prompt and positive response by the minister, Bud Wildman, who has committed the ministry to working with the ministries of Tourism and Recreation, Culture and Communications and the federal government to ensure the completion of the management plan. Eventually, I hope this multilateral and non-partisan effort will result in the designation of the Grand River as a Canadian heritage river, the heritage river that the citizens of Cambridge already know it is.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On July 9 of this year I introduced a resolution into the Legislature that received unanimous consent and unanimous support. It stated the following:

"That, in the opinion of this House, since General Motors announced its intention on February 24 of this year to close its St Catharines foundry eliminating over 2,000 employment positions in addition to 750 women and men who were to be laid off indefinitely as of March 1 and over 100 people who will lose their jobs as a result of the decision to discontinue the 3.1-litre V-6 engine; and

"Since the St Catharines General Motors foundry is a cost-competitive, world-class, high-quality operation with a highly skilled and motivated workforce; and

"Since the loss of these jobs will mean the loss of $130 million in wages and salaries to the economy of the Niagara region and the province of Ontario; and

"Since the implications for businesses and industries that service and supply the auto sector are extremely negative and serious; and

"Since whenever a production line and a significant part of a plant shuts down, the fixed cost of maintaining the rest of the operation increases and the quality of components from elsewhere cannot be guaranteed;

"The Legislative Assembly of Ontario should urge General Motors to continue the operation of its foundry in St Catharines."

For the sake of our community, for the sake of our province and our country and the automotive industry, I urge members of the Legislature to continue to back Local 199 CAW Fight Back committee in its efforts to keep that foundry open.

INVESTMENT FUND

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I rise today to implore the provincial government to re-examine its policy on the Ontario investment fund. The Ontario investment fund is another example of an ill-conceived NDP initiative that will have a negative effect on the private sector.

This government must come to the realization that it does not have the expertise to invest in private sector growth. In light of the government's financial history, it is not surprising that the people of Ontario do not want the NDP managing their pension funds. Pension fund members do not want their retirement funds managed by a government that can't manage its own finances.

The people of Ontario are concerned with the voluntary aspect of the Ontario investment fund. There is concern that the government will coerce private funds into participation.

Unlike the provincial government, pension fund managers have fiduciary responsibility to invest in the best interests of the pension fund members. Furthering the political aims of the NDP is not the business of pension funds. The exclusive function of pension funds should be the production of the financial returns necessary to provide future income.

For most people, pension funds will be the foundation of their retirement incomes. The provincial government has no right to gamble with an individual's future income. On behalf of the people of Willowdale, I ask the provincial government to respect the independence of private pension funds.

EVENTS IN MUSKOKA-GEORGIAN BAY

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): It is with great pride and pleasure that I rise today to tell you about two fantastic events that took place in my riding in September.

First, I'd like to thank Mr Barry Faulkner and the many volunteers for their time and efforts to bring to and host at Bracebridge the Kids of Steel World Junior Triathlon. It was indeed a great event.

Second, also in September, we had the opportunity to host the World Triathlon Championships in Huntsville at the Hidden Valley-Deerhurst area of Muskoka. Championships were held from September 10 to 12. This extremely successful event attracted over 1,800 athletes from more than 50 countries. Over 1,000 people from the Huntsville area volunteered their time, and many thousands more from Ontario, Canada and other countries came out to watch the competition.

Bringing the triathlon championships to Huntsville not only provided some great entertainment for the spectators and showcased the beautiful Muskokas to 1,800 people from 50 countries, but it also brought an estimated $8 million to the area.

I want to congratulate all the athletes who participated in the championships, especially the winners, most notably our own Canadian men's team, which not only had the largest team there but also won the men's élite division.

In closing, I would again like to commend the people from Huntsville, especially the volunteers, the local businesses, the resorts, the town leaders and athletes for making a spectacular event very possible.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING / SYSTÈME D'APPRENTISSAGE

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Skills Development): Apprenticeship is Ontario's principal workplace training system, involving 53,000 apprentices and 25,000 employers. Apprenticeship training is the schoolroom of a highly skilled workforce. It teaches workers skills that are in demand, giving them greater flexibility to plan their careers. The impact of technological change and restructuring demands a revitalization of apprenticeship training.

Nos principaux partenaires dans ce processus sont les 21 comités consultatifs provinciaux qui représentent les intérêts de métiers spécialisés particuliers. Ils se composent de travailleurs et d'employeurs qui, en collaboration, me conseillent en matière de formation et de certificats de reconnaissance professionnelle.

At this very moment, 110 members of the provincial advisory committees, or PACs as they are called, which govern the essentials of the apprenticeship system, are meeting for the first time as a group for two days in Toronto to discuss priorities in training policy and programs, which will lead, among other things, to the revitalization of apprenticeship.

Two representatives of the provincial advisory committees are here today in the gallery: Esther Lee, an employer representative and former chair of the cook PAC, and Joe Fashion, a union representative and present chair of the construction and maintenance electrician PAC. I ask them to stand so the Legislature may greet them.

Ontario's industrial future depends on our ability to attract high value added jobs. A highly skilled workforce will help create those jobs in Ontario and strengthen economic renewal, so I am pleased today to announce that the government will invest $13.6 million in additional funds to revitalize apprenticeship training over the next three years.

1350

Revitalization will involve three steps.

First, we will expand the school-workplace apprenticeship program. The program enables high school students to train as registered apprentices while completing their high school diplomas. It is a joint effort of my ministry, the Ministry of Education, workers, unions, employers and community groups and it has been praised by the Economic Council of Canada.

My ministry intends to work with training stakeholders to increase the number of school boards participating in the program from 35 to 95 over three years. We want to provide opportunities thereby for good careers with good wages and a future to the two thirds of high school students who do not go on to college or to university.

The second step in this revitalization is to make improvements in training in existing trades and develop training for new occupations. Through consultations with the provincial advisory committees that I've just referred to, existing training standards will be updated regularly, as they have not been in the past.

The ministry will also work with stakeholders to establish PACs and develop apprenticeship training standards for occupations that are in demand and for occupations in new and emerging technologies. Ongoing consultations with the provincial advisory committees, other ministries and training stakeholders will ensure that all training is relevant and consistently meets the needs of workers and employers alike.

The third step is increasing access to training.

Les femmes, les autochtones, les membres de minorités raciales, les personnes handicapées et les francophones auront plus facilement accès à l'apprentissage. En forgeant des partenariats au niveau communautaire, on éliminera les obstacles qui empêchent l'accès équitable aux programmes de formation.

Counselling, support and advice will be provided to equity groups through community outreach activities. Customized projects will be developed to meet the needs of these groups and to facilitate their entry into apprenticeship training.

This, of course, is simple fairness and supports the government's objective for greater equity in the workplace. It is also an issue of economics and demographics. These groups will comprise the majority of new workers by the year 2000, so it only makes sense to plan now for the needs of tomorrow's workforce. My ministry will accomplish this goal in collaboration, again, with the provincial advisory committees.

Through partnerships with workers, unions, employers, educators, trainers, community groups and provincial ministries, we will build a more vital apprenticeship system. This initiative creates a solid base that will ensure the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, once established, receives a strong, vital and relevant apprenticeship training system to operate.

CONSTITUTION DAY

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): As members know, we are in the midst of an historic time, one that will set a course for the future of this country. I'm referring, of course, to the October 26 referendum.

Educating young people for citizenship is an important aim of every school system. Students need to appreciate the benefits and recognize the responsibilities of community membership, to acquire knowledge about the structures and function of government and to develop the skills necessary to participate in resolving public issues.

While most students are not eligible to vote, they can have an influence in urging the adults in their families to become informed and to vote on October 26. Therefore, I am pleased to inform the House that I am asking our schools to set aside Monday, October 19, as Constitution Day in Ontario schools.

I encourage all schools to involve students in activities that will help them understand the issues in the referendum. Students will then be able to discuss these issues with their families. My ministry will be sending to schools guidelines with suggestions on how to incorporate referendum discussion within the curriculum. We will also send a special Constitution Day poster to the schools.

I am also pleased to note that TVOntario is producing a special program in French and English on October 19, which we are encouraging schools to watch.

It is important to underline that school activities on Constitution Day will not be used as platforms for either the Yes or No side in the debate. They are intended to be a forum for informing students and, through them, their families about the issues.

I believe students can learn valuable lessons about how decisions are made in our democracy and how citizens can express their views through public debate and the electoral process.

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

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'd like to say to the minister that we welcome his statement today on apprenticeship training. I wish he had come out with this two years ago, instead of OTAB last year, because this is the type of program we do need.

I wish you well in that program. It's long overdue. We are falling way behind other jurisdictions, especially European jurisdictions, when it comes to apprenticeship training. I think they have long realized that training on the job has got to be the most solid way to get young people entered into the workforce, so we need to go on with this.

I have a concern, when we do get OTAB up and running, whenever that may happen, that you certainly don't scuttle this program if it is successful, as I wish it will be successful. This has to be a strong component of the eventual overall Ontario Training and Adjustment Board program.

I would say that you are a little behind some of the experience that's already happening in Ontario at some of the high schools. I have one in my riding, in Haileybury, that has had an apprenticeship training program for the last couple of years, and unfortunately it had to go to the federal government to get money for that. I would hope that the Ontario government now would start to fund these high school level entry apprenticeship programs, as you say in your announcement, so that high school students can also upgrade their academic standards while at the same time having on-the-job training.

The minister mentions access to people who have not normally had good access to the workplace. I think that's very important. I'd like to remind the minister that on this weekend the welfare rolls in Metro had increased by 2,000 people, primarily single mothers laid off from the retail and garment trade. So access is going to be important. Also, the child care supports should be there for these people.

I think again it's going to be important that as we move along with OTAB, there be proper integration. But I wish the minister well on this and I want to work with him to make sure this is a successful program.

CONSTITUTION DAY / JOURNÉE CONSTITUTIONNELLE

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I rise to welcome the statement by the Minister of Education. Indeed, I think it is very, very important that this kind of day be set aside so that the students, not just those at the OAC level, many of whom will be able to vote for the first time, but indeed all students can have a sense of what the issues are and in a way which is not directed to a certain conclusion but is really directed to inform. It will be of great benefit.

I'm sure the minister has had the opportunity, as I have over the last several weeks, to join in a number of schools, both at the OAC level and at the elementary level, to talk with students about the referendum, about the whole constitutional debate. One of the things I felt particularly good about has been the level of interest. In fact, at one school last week, I walked in, it was an OAC class, and I said, "How many people are going to be voting for the first time?" I think everyone in the room -- there were some 30 -- except two students was going to be voting for the first time in this referendum.

They clearly are interested. They wanted to know the issues. They had done homework. They were troubled by different questions and different issues. Indeed, there aren't simple answers to a lot of the questions that are posed, but I think to the extent that we can involve them in this debate, and really involve them, then we're going to come out of this all the stronger.

Je pense qu'il est aussi très important, Monsieur le Ministre, qu'on va avoir cette discussion à l'intérieur des écoles de langue française comme dans des écoles de langue anglaise.

Comme tout le monde le sait, ce week-end passé, l'Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario a tenu une réunion très importante où les francophones de l'extérieur du Québec, en Ontario, ont dit qu'ils vont dire à leur communauté de voter oui.

Je pense qu'il est important de démontrer l'appui pour l'accord en général, mais ce serait aux étudiants eux-mêmes de prendre une décision sur cette question, après une discussion et un dialogue profonds dans les salles de classe.

I'd simply close by noting that during the course of the last week we've seen some very important things happening in this debate. Together with my colleague from Durham-York, from the New Democratic Party, and my federal colleague from the federal riding of York-Simcoe, who is a Progressive Conservative, we've launched our campaign on the Yes side in the federal riding of York-Simcoe. My colleague from Mississauga West, again together with representatives of the other political parties, has gotten involved in launching the Yes side.

While the focus here will be on a debate among students for them to make up their own minds, let's underline again the need for us to get involved and, as I think so many of us want, to really get out, talk to people, and let's get a Yes vote on that referendum.

1400

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I'd like to take the opportunity first to speak to the Minister of Colleges and Universities and Skills Development, to tell him how intrigued I am by his statement of the day and how we in this party feel we definitely know that apprenticeship training is a number one priority in the province of Ontario, and it's time that this government got on with it.

I suppose it's not news to know that there are a lot of needs in apprenticeship training and, to start with, the school-workplace apprenticeship program. I think it was a year ago that I spoke to the new Minister of Education and asked him what he was going to do about the SWAP program. At that time, we could only find some 55 students being trained in the programs in all of Metropolitan Toronto or the greater Toronto area. That is not acceptable.

To the minister, although he's talking about his expansion, we're going to wish him the very best of luck in moving from some 35 boards that have very few people in the SWAP programs to some 95 boards within three years. It's going to have to be a priority for his ministry, because it is a priority for our young students in this province who want to be trained while attending secondary schools and want to get jobs when they graduate. The best of luck in that regard.

With regard to the consultation with the provincial advisory committees, the existing training standards will be updated regularly. The real issues, and I want the minister to understand that, are really very, very deep. I'm talking about the ratio of journeyman to apprentice. I'm talking about wages for apprentices. I'm talking about the accessibility for an apprentice to get into the program. We have a long way to go.

Just looking at A Lot to Learn: Education and Training in Canada, A Statement by the Economic Council of Canada, we should know that here in Canada the total number of apprentices right now is 122,000. Do you know what the number is in West Germany? Some 1.8 million.

I have to tell you also that as a proportion of the labour force right now in Canada, 1% of our labour force is in apprenticeship training programs. In West Germany --

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): That's good.

Mrs Cunningham: No, it's not good. It's not good enough; it wouldn't be good enough three years from now. In West Germany, it's 6.1%.

You should know the average age of apprenticeship and the length of apprenticeship training programs in Canada. The average age of an apprentice is 26 years of age, with four to five years to complete the program. In West Germany, the average is 17 -- those are secondary school students -- and the number of years to train those young people is two to three years.

These are the objectives that we should be looking at. We don't have to talk any more. Since I've been in this House, for four years, we've had the information. We know where we should go. What we really need to have announced, Mr Minister, in January or as soon as you can get it on this plate, is what we're going to do and how we're going to do it to meet these objectives.

The cost of apprenticeship programs is $170,000 per apprentice in Canada and $51,000 in West Germany. Apprenticeship wages -- need I say more? You know we're way below the West Germans and what they're doing there.

The bottom line is, I hope the minister will accomplish his goals. We'll do everything we can to help. What can I say? This was the best information that we gave to the Liberal government. That was four years ago, when I first arrived at Queen's Park. It's the best information and the best support we can give to this government, but it's up to them to make it happen. We've been waiting a long time, more than a decade, and I can only say, "Good luck."

CONSTITUTION DAY

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): With regard to the Minister of Education establishing a special day, October 19, I don't have the statement, Mr Minister, but I was aware that we were going to have a special day in our schools as an opportunity for young people and their teachers and families and the community to talk about this great country of ours and, yes, certainly in the context of the referendum.

I hope, as I know parents hope, that the young people and the adults of this province will take this opportunity to get themselves educated around (1) that we live in the best country in the world and (2) that in spite of my criticisms from time to time in this House, I still believe we do most things very well, including education, but we have to do better, because other countries are catching up and many have passed us by.

This opportunity, I think, will be for our young people to say that they can vote for this country and that they will be informed, and I hope that they will vote, in my opinion, Yes for Canada.

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I rise on a point of privilege, Mr Speaker. In this regard, I refer to standing order 21(a), which reads:

"Privileges are the rights enjoyed by the House collectively and by the members of the House individually conferred by the Legislative Assembly Act and other statutes, or by practice, precedent, usage and custom."

In addition, 21(b) states:

"Whenever a matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately."

Accordingly, as a result of the wording of rule 21(b), which requires the matter to be immediately taken into consideration, I have submitted this issue to you in writing. My initial point of privilege is directed to that part of rule 21(a) which reads "by practice, precedent, usage and custom."

As the member for the riding of Mississauga North and a member of the opposition, I have been particularly involved in Bill 40, proposed amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. Members of the Legislature and, in particular, members of the standing committee on resources development will know that I have actively participated in this bill and, in this case, my opposition to it through question periods, reading petitions, public hearings and currently in the clause-by-clause deliberation of the bill.

You will also be aware, Mr Speaker, that a motion was passed by the government on July 9, 1992, which among other things limits clause-by-clause analysis of Bill 40 to eight legislative days. I refer to that part of the motion:

"Further, that the committee be authorized to meet for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill following routine proceedings on the first eight sessional days of the fall meeting period of the House."

The clause-by-clause analysis of Bill 40 started last Wednesday, September 30, proceeded through Thursday and is scheduled to continue today, tomorrow, Wednesday and Thursday. It will not take place next Monday due to the Legislature not sitting as a result of Thanksgiving, and will then resume for the next two days, being brought to an end by the motion on Wednesday, October 14.

For religious purposes, I will not be able to take part in the clause-by-clause deliberations tomorrow or Wednesday. It is for me and members of the Jewish faith our most solemn day. In this regard, I informed members of the resources development committee of this matter on August 31. As a result, a motion was unanimously passed September 1 requesting the House leaders to amend the July 9 motion to accommodate me as Labour critic.

I have been informed by my House leader, the member for Bruce, that the government House leader will not be making any such change, amendment or accommodation to myself. This of course means that I, as Labour critic for my party, will not be able to attend the clause-by-clause proceedings tomorrow or Wednesday, and when one follows the motion of July 9 which limited clause-by-clause to just eight days, the two days for which I cannot be present represent 25% of this stage of the bill.

Since first being elected in 1985, I have always taken it as a matter of practice and custom that if a critic cannot be present for a proceeding of a bill of which the critic has responsibility, accommodation is attempted, within limits and reason.

To me this is a matter which falls squarely within the parameters set forth in rule 21(a). This is a matter which was, firstly, anticipated; secondly, brought forward to the resources committee; thirdly, advance notice was given to the government House leader; fourthly, the motion to request accommodating myself was passed unanimously by the committee having carriage of the legislation, and lastly, the request was for a limited amount of time, in this case two days.

Today, this is a matter of my privilege, but tomorrow it may be for other members of the Legislature. I would ask the Premier to overrule his House leader.

The rules of the Legislature, rule 21, demand that I bring this to your attention for your consideration. I submit my privileges have been eroded, not only individually as set out by rule 21(a), but also in fact collectively for all members in this Legislature who sit in critic roles.

Today it is my privileges which have been affected, but in a true and very real sense, it is not only my privileges, but includes all members who will be affected. I ask, Mr Speaker, that you find the actions of the government in this matter to have breached my privileges as a member and critic through the practice and custom of the Legislature of the province of Ontario.

1410

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the honourable member for Mississauga North: May I say first at the outset that I very much appreciate the way in which he has approached this matter of privilege. He did indeed serve notice to the Speaker and provided the Speaker with a copy of the notes from which he spoke. It is a matter of importance and it's one which I wish to consider.

I must say, to be fair to the member, that on the surface it would not appear that there is a case of privilege in your favour. However, I would like to spend a bit of time to take a further look at this because I do think the member has raised for the House a matter to be considered seriously.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I would be more than happy, and it would be appropriate, to discuss this further with the opposition House leaders. There was nothing done here to try to be mean-spirited or anything else. When the three House leaders first discussed --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): No, you're not mean-spirited. Trudeau is mean-spirited. Let's keep that straight.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Cooke: When the three House leaders discussed the date for return to the House, there was also a discussion in the House leaders' meetings about the Legislative Assembly committee needing very soon to look at the whole issue of religious holidays as it applies to the Ontario Legislature and the fact that the calendar and everything else we do in this place very much reflects Christian holidays and does not reflect other holidays as it should appropriately. We need to look at that in the Legislature because it's not just Christian and Jewish holidays; there is a whole other reality that this place needs to take into consideration in Ontario in 1992.

In the meantime, we're going to have to ad hoc it, and I would be glad to sit down with the opposition House leaders again to take a look at the very important and realistic concerns that were expressed with respect to Bill 40. I believe it can be sorted out and the member can be accommodated and should be accommodated.

The Speaker: I appreciate the comments of the government House leader. I trust all members realize that while discussions may occur among the three House leaders, your Speaker has to deal with the rules as they are presently constituted. I am pleased to reflect on the matter and trust that perhaps the three-way discussion will bring about a pleasant result as well.

Mr Offer: Mr Speaker, a matter of clarification: As the days I was referring to are going to commence tomorrow, I would hope, Mr Speaker, and indeed through you to the government House leader, that this matter is dealt with before that time period expires.

ORAL QUESTIONS

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General will be well aware of the action that has been taken by Metropolitan Toronto police officers. I would ask the Solicitor General if he can tell the people of this province what he is doing to ensure that public safety is protected.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): I am in fact aware of the actions of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association. I wish to respond --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): There's a first.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I wish to respond to the Speaker that I am in fact troubled by these particular actions. These are matters that are within the responsibility and purview at this point in time of Chief McCormack and the chair of the police services board. I know they are dealing with the matter and I hope it is quickly and effectively resolved.

Mrs McLeod: I am reassured that the minister has at least been informed of the developments. I recognize that he is not accepting any responsibility for dealing with the possible consequences. I would remind the minister that he is the chief law enforcement officer in this province and that the police need his support in order to be able to do their job. Mr Minister, they're not getting it.

Instead of involving the police as partners in solving problems that may exist, your government seems intent on excluding them. I would give the minister just one most recent example of this: When the Clare Lewis commission on race relations and policing held its hearings in Thunder Bay last week, hearings which are not open to the public and which are by invitation only, it is unbelievable that the Thunder Bay Police Association was not invited to make a presentation to that task force.

Minister, I ask you: How can police officers in this province have confidence in a process that simply shuts them out?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I wish to take issue with the Leader of the Opposition's remarks in terms of the question she just asked. She indicated that the policemen and policewomen of this province were not getting my support. Of course, that is far, far from the truth of the reality. As a matter of fact, she will well remember announcements I have made in this House with respect to providing some $45 million to the OPP for the hiring of some 241 additional officers and more than $5 million for additional training in the use of force, to the benefit, and which will ultimately be to the credit, of our men and women serving us in these forces.

Mrs McLeod: It's unbelievable that the minister responded to my question about involving the police in the process of dealing with the problems of policing in this province by telling me about the increased resources to policing. Surely the minister is aware that cutbacks in the OPP budgets mean that many communities in this province don't even have 24-hour police coverage.

But that really was not the thrust of my question. The thrust of my question was that police forces feel shut out. The police across this province are becoming more and more frustrated, and quite frankly, it is my belief that people across this province are getting more and more frightened.

Your mismanagement of policing issues, Mr Minister, has created a growing fear across this province that when people need the police, the police won't be there, and there is no question that the police across this province are feeling alienated and that they are demoralized. They believe that this government does not value their work and does not trust them.

Minister, what have you to say to the hardworking police officers across this province who believe that you have already judged them and found them guilty?

Hon Mr Pilkey: What I have to say to those people is to not believe or get caught up in the kind of political rhetoric we have just heard from the benches opposite. What I would have them believe and have them understand, as I would all members opposite and all members of this province, is that this government has addressed, and is addressing right now, some of the fundamental changes in the framework, which is going to increase the benefit to all citizens in terms of the policing they've had in this province. They're fundamental changes in terms of professional standards and in terms of training that will equip these men and women to protect the public even better. They are far more progressive than anything we saw emanating from those benches opposite in the last five years.

1420

ONTARIO HYDRO PRESIDENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is to the Premier for explanations on a different issue. Premier, as you know well, Alan Holt, the president of Ontario Hydro, left his position two weeks ago. At the time, we found it strange that he would do so while he was on holidays. I can tell you today that despite the statements that were made last week by the Minister of Energy saying that Mr Holt had retired, we have questions about the events surrounding Mr Holt's departure.

Premier, is it also your position that Alan Holt in fact resigned? Do you also say that Mr Holt was not fired and was not asked to leave by any member of your government?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I refer the question to the Minister of Energy.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Energy): First of all, the information we got from a release that Ontario Hydro did last Thursday is that Mr Holt retired. Second, I think the Leader of the Opposition asked whether we had directed his leaving, and the answer to that question is no.

Mrs McLeod: I regret the fact that the Premier referred this question to the minister, because we were hoping the Premier would help us to reconcile the kinds of statements the minister made and is continuing to make with what we feel is some evidence to the contrary.

How do you explain, then, Minister, that at the board meeting on September 19 the members of the Hydro board were presented with a letter, signed by you, directing them to ensure that Mr Holt would leave Ontario Hydro? How do you explain that the Hydro board voted 7 to 5 to fire Mr Holt, if in fact Mr Holt resigned his position? Will you confirm that a letter was sent over your signature to the members of the Hydro board directing them to get rid of the president of Hydro?

Hon Mr Charlton: In response to the Leader of the Opposition's question, yes, I sent a letter to the chair of Ontario Hydro. The letter I sent, and which I'm prepared to release publicly, did not direct the dismissal of the president of Hydro. It will be released, and the member can view the letter for herself. As to why the board voted the way it voted, that's a question I think she'll have to put to the board of Ontario Hydro.

Mrs McLeod: I would be delighted if the minister would table the letter, as I understand that no board member was allowed to retain it so that it could be subsequently shown to anybody outside that boardroom. I think, however, that the minister missed the point of the question. I wondered why the Hydro board had to vote to fire Mr Holt if in fact Mr Holt had retired or offered his resignation. It is also my understanding that Marc Eliesen phoned certain insiders on the Hydro board the day before to discuss Mr Holt's firing and to tell them how they would have to vote.

I simply ask the minister, in face of all these things, do you still deny that Alan Holt was in fact fired, do you still claim that he resigned of his own free will, do you still maintain that you had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the departure of Alan Holt?

Hon Mr Charlton: The question which the Leader of the Opposition has asked deals with two completely different issues. What she's done in the first part of her question is to confirm what I said last week, which is that the president and the incumbent in that position at Hydro is a decision of the board of Ontario Hydro. Their discussions around that issue at their board meeting are theirs to discuss, to determine and to vote on in the way they see fit.

The letter which I sent to the chair of Ontario Hydro, having been informed that Ontario Hydro was considering a range of transition issues, was a letter which suggested --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: -- that any discussions around the question of the presidency should include the new chair of Hydro in consultation with the board.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker, I would like to refer the Minister of Energy to my question of September 30: "My question to the minister is, did your ministry give any direction? Did you have any input into the board regarding Mr Holt leaving the corporation at this time?" The minister's answer was, "The answer to this question is, very simply, no."

The Speaker: What is the member's point of privilege?

Mr Jordan: My point of privilege is that the minister withheld information from the people of Ontario and from this House. He did know that day and he did not come clean with the information he had.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please.

The member has quite clearly identified a difference of opinion with respect to certain events. The member does not have a point of --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member does not have a point of privilege. However, it is time for the third party's first of two questions; who wishes to take the questions?

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like you to review the matter that has just been raised, both by the Leader of the Opposition and by the member for Lanark-Renfrew, with regard to this question. Obviously, the answer the minister has given was different to one person over another, so I officially request you to look into the matter.

The Speaker: To the member for London North: I'm always pleased to reread Hansard -- it's my favourite reading material -- so I will do that again on this occasion. But I now invite the third party to put forward a question.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I'm going to attempt to direct this question to the Premier, in the expectation that he will refer it.

In relation to the work-to-rule campaign now being conducted by many officers in the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force, we in this party don't condone the actions of the Metro officers -- I want to make that clear -- but I think we understand very much their frustration. Police tensions across this province are growing. We saw that clearly indicated in the turn-down of the contract by the Ontario Provincial Police. We saw it in the Ontario Provincial Police Association non-confidence motion this summer in your government, an unprecedented initiative by police officers in this province.

In my view, never in the history of this province has a Premier been more insensitive to policemen and policewomen, and I'm asking the Premier, in response to this work-to-rule campaign, how his government intends to try and overcome this situation, the bad relations with police, and perhaps establish a new relationship on much better grounds with the police officers of this province.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr Speaker, I would refer that question again to the Solicitor General.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): I think it's fair to first of all respond to the question with respect to the OPPA. The member opposite will recall that the OPPA had complained that it was not this government, or just this government, but the preceding two governments that, in their view, had heaped additional requirements on them without providing the resource to handle it.

I'm pleased to say that while they suggested it therefore had to be us, as the present-day government, at whose doorstep they had to lay this difficulty, I'd indicated to the executive of the OPPA that, given time, I would be able to address this situation for them. I was very pleased, as I had mentioned in a response earlier today, in announcements that I made earlier in this House, to be able to deliver on that promise; that promise was for additional money, considerable amounts of money, and additional resource so that they might better serve and protect the citizens of this province. That's what's been done to ensure better relations with the OPPA.

In terms of the other policing community, the regional, municipal and local police forces, we continue with consultations with the many police stakeholders and other community groups with respect to ensuring that we enhance the fundamental principles of policing and that we're able to have the kind of training and professional standards that will see us all better served well into the future.

Mr Runciman: This minister continues to have his head in the sand, even when you look at the fact he only has one ministry to be responsible for now. He still has his head in the sand and is unaware, or apparently is giving the public the impression that there's no problem with respect to relations between this government and police officers across the province.

The Premier again refuses to respond to questions like this, but at the same time he's quite prepared to stand up and defend the indefensible with respect to the comments his parliamentary assistant made about police officers in this province not too many months ago.

The Solicitor General is standing on his feet today in this House and saying that he has no problem with respect to relationships with police officers in this province, that they're outstanding relationships in terms of lines of communication, and that couldn't be further from the truth. We just have to look at the brief record of this government in office: the appointment of Susan Eng to chair of the Metropolitan Toronto police board and her contempt for the oath of office to the Queen, the deputy chiefs who retired from the Metro Toronto Police Force and complained about political interference --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place a question, please.

Mr Runciman: -- the Attorney General's efforts, in fact his involvement in the Brian Rapson case, where he launched a preferred indictment against Constable Brian Rapson.

We have problems, we have dramatic increases in crime in this province, and this government is portraying police officers in this province as the bad guys.

1430

The Speaker: Would the member ask a question.

Mr Runciman: There are bad guys out there committing crimes and you're handcuffing police.

Will the minister acknowledge the deep antagonism that exists between his government and the police and tell us what he plans to do about it?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The reason I responded to the member opposite in the fashion I did -- and let's just do a very quick and brief review, because I know you'll only allow me a certain time to do it, Mr Speaker, in response.

There have been ongoing consultations with the police stakeholders and all associations relevant thereto. We have brought forward one of the most exciting training programs, I think, that this Legislature and this province have seen for decades, perhaps ever. We certainly have come forward with respect to the funding issue, which I've indicated twice in the House here this afternoon.

I will admit as well that during this period of change there will be, as there is in all periods of change, certain consternation or uncomfortableness develop in the minds of some, but I say with every confidence that I believe the changes we have been making and are making with respect to the training and professionalism of our men and women are going to stand the test of time and prove to be something that is well done in terms of public safety and officer safety alike.

Mr Runciman: The reality is that this government has given the police no support, and in fact has worked against the police from day one and will not listen to police concerns.

With respect to the regulatory changes, I want to quote a couple of officers briefly. Peel Regional Police Chief Robert Lunney called the regulation change "a careless disregard for public safety and for the ability of police to defend themselves. To expect police officers to make a distinction between what will cause loss of life or serious bodily harm in the midst of a critical incident with seconds to act is asking the impossible."

We've seen this Solicitor General simply act as a puppet for the anti-police forces in the Premier's office. We've seen the Premier of this province virtually label all Metro police officers as racist with respect to comments he made after a weekend meeting. We are all quite familiar with that.

Based on what's happening now and what may happen in the future -- there's a meeting coming up this Wednesday with other police associations in this province -- is the Solicitor General, hopefully along with the Premier, prepared to meet with this police association's initial move with respect to the Metro association's concerns, meet with the police officers first hand, the people who have to face those kinds of difficult decisions on a daily basis, and hear what they have to say?

The Speaker: Will the member complete his question, please.

Mr Runciman: Are you prepared to hear what they have to say?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Since taking office, this government has always been supportive of consultations and partnerships. We've been criticized roundly from time to time from the benches opposite for doing so or doing so ad nauseam.

As I indicated earlier, we have constant meetings between myself and officials of my ministry and staff with the Police Association of Ontario, with the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police and the police services boards of Ontario. If any of these representative groups wish to meet with us, they are of course welcome to do so. That would represent no change from the kinds of discussions we've had on an ongoing basis already.

ONTARIO HYDRO PRESIDENT

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My question is again for the Minister of Energy. Mr Minister, in all fairness in giving information to another member, I asked you a straightforward question on September 30 and you gave me a very straight answer: No, you had not issued any directive, you had not done anything relative to directing the board on the relieving of Mr Holt of his position. Would you now please read the letter that you did in fact send to the board?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Energy): I don't have a copy of the letter with me this afternoon, but the question which the member asked me last week and the answer I gave to that question is an answer I stand by. The member asked me if I directed or influenced the leaving of Mr Holt, and the answer is still no.

Mr Jordan: I had the opportunity over the weekend to discuss the leaving of Mr Holt with a member of the board, and my information is that the decision of this government and the Minister of Energy was that Mr Holt must leave before the end of October and in fact before the appointment of a new chairman, and, therefore, the meeting was called to deal with the situation even though Mr Holt was out of the country. Was that something strictly between Mr Eliesen and the board, Mr Minister, without your being informed, or were you aware of this meeting and the purpose of it?

Hon Mr Charlton: As I said to the Leader of the Opposition in response to a question earlier, the question of succession at Hydro was brought to my attention. As a result of that knowledge, I wrote a letter to the chair. That is quite different from the member's contention that somehow this minister or this government started that discussion.

Mr Jordan: The minister earlier stated that he was informed by a press release; now he's telling us a different story. I think the people of Ontario deserve to know if you, the Minister of Energy, realize your responsibility and accountability to the people of Ontario under Bill 118. Did you really and truly not participate in even the lead-up to this decision that Mr Holt should be relieved of his duties?

I understand from his speech and presentation to the Quarter Century Club that you and others were very displeased with some of his remarks, especially a short story which he told in fun about a canoe club and why one club was leading the other one. The case was that there was a heavy weight in the nose of the Hydro canoe. I understand that weight in the nose of the Hydro canoe is leaving --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the member complete his supplementary, please.

Mr Jordan: -- at the end of October and he's going to see, with your assistance, that the president goes with him. Is my assumption correct?

Hon Mr Charlton: That was a lengthy comment, and I'm not sure of all the assumptions he wanted me to respond to in that set of comments. I might say at the outset --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Burlington South, come to order.

Hon Mr Charlton: -- some of the comments the member for Lanark-Renfrew and his leader have made over the course of the last 10 months since I've been in the ministry could have led people to believe they were dissatisfied with Mr Holt's performance as chief operational officer at Hydro as well, but I don't think that's precisely the issue here. I think the issue here is whether or not --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: -- as the member asked me originally, I directed or influenced Mr Holt's leaving. He's tried to tie that to a comment I made about a retirement last week. The whole point is that any decisions in that respect are the decisions of the Hydro board, not this minister.

1440

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, I'm sure we'll have an opportunity later on today to review in Hansard the statements the minister has made and to reflect back on the statements he made in this House last week and attempt to reconcile what seem to be somewhat contradictory statements. We will certainly be interested in the minister's seeming to have a greater awareness of the situation than might have been conveyed to him solely through a press release.

But while we await the minister's public release of the letter, as he's indicated he will do -- and I acknowledge that I have not seen a copy of that letter because it was not left with Hydro board members; it was not tabled with them individually; it was read out -- I ask the minister whether it is his belief that there is anything in that letter which would reasonably lead Hydro board members to believe that with a letter over the signature of the minister there was, if not a recommendation for Mr Holt's retirement being sought, at the very least an instruction that Mr Holt was not to remain with Hydro.

Hon Mr Charlton: Again, as I said earlier in a response today and as I said to some of the media who spoke to me last week, my concern and the expressions that were set out in my letter were about the management of Ontario Hydro and a difficult period Ontario Hydro has to go through and that in the context that I understood succession matters were being discussed I thought it would be useful if the new chair of Ontario Hydro were a part of any decisions made.

Mrs McLeod: Perhaps I could just ask the minister for one further word of explanation on something which seems to us quite inexplicable. The minister has suggested that he's aware that Ontario Hydro is going through what he calls a "range of transitions," which some of us might describe as sheer chaos. In light of the fact that Ontario Hydro is facing some very critical situations and has some very tough decisions to make, it seems a little unusual that Mr Holt would be leaving as quickly as he is now leaving; I believe the date is October 12. Mr Eliesen of course is leaving by the end of the month. It would appear that there's a period of time in which there will be nobody in charge of Ontario Hydro. Can the minister explain how this situation could possibly have been allowed to occur and assure us again that he had nothing whatsoever to do with creating this chaos?

Hon Mr Charlton: Again I refer to questions that came from both of the opposition parties earlier this year which would have described some of what's going on at Hydro as chaos in any event. The decisions being made by the board of Hydro, whatever precisely they may be, are decisions that, under the act, are assigned to the board of Ontario Hydro, specifically the president's position. This minister, although he has expressed his concerns about Hydro rate increases, the need to cut operating expenses at Hydro and a number of other issues, has not directed the dismissal of anyone.

Mr Jordan: My question again is for the Minister of Energy. Mr Minister, did the fact that the policy that Mr Holt was pursuing to have approximately 2,000 personnel of Ontario Hydro leave on an early retirement plan and the fact that CUPE was against using over $62 million of the pension fund for that purpose -- do we have a case here where the union overruled the president?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member opposite is, I guess, clearly indicating that he hasn't been following the issue of Ontario Hydro operations very closely at all.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the minister take his seat, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Charlton: This minister issued a press release about two and a half weeks ago and spoke publicly to the media and this province about the need for Ontario Hydro to pursue cuts further than what were already accomplished, and this minister stands by those comments. The need to get Ontario Hydro costs of operation and capital programs under control is paramount in these difficult times.

Mr Jordan: Mr Minister, I can recall, when Mr Franklin was leaving, the Premier stating that they had given him a choice. The Premier stated he was given the opportunity to stay on if he so wished.

If you, Mr Minister, and your government had absolutely nothing to do with the leaving of Mr Holt and you heard about the resignation or the proposal for early retirement or the dismissal, whichever your letter stated -- we are looking forward to seeing it -- did you consider at that time a letter to Mr Holt, giving him the opportunity to reconsider and stay employed as president and chief executive officer of Ontario Hydro?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member is displaying his total confusion in this case. Mr Franklin was the president and chairman of Ontario Hydro. The chairman's position is a Premier's appointment. The Premier and the government had some direct role in that position. Under the legislation the member was a part of moving through this House, the president's position, which Mr Holt holds, is separate from the chairman's position, which is the Premier's appointment. The president's position, under section 6 of the act, is clearly and exclusively the responsibility of the Ontario Hydro board.

NOTICES OF REGISTERED RENT

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): My question is to the Minister of Housing.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Would the member take her seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Middlesex.

Mrs Mathyssen: I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question in the House. My question is to the Minister of Housing. Madam Minister, I understand from a situation in my own riding that notices of information regarding legal rents have gone out from your ministry. Is this happening on a province-wide basis?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The answer is yes. Many members will have heard about this happening within their own ridings. The Ministry of Housing, under the previous residential rent act, was obliged through regulation to send out notices of registered rent, those rents which had been registered by landlords with the rent registry office. Those notices have been mailed out over the last several months to about 285,000 rental households in Ontario so that tenants can be made aware of what rent is registered officially as the rent, and therefore they're able to calculate what their rent should be if the legal increases have been followed.

What it has meant is that about 6,000 rental households have made an application for a rent rebate based on those notices. That's worth about $3 million, if they're all approved, for tenant households in Ontario.

VICTIM FINE SURCHARGE

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): My question is to the Attorney General regarding the victim fine surcharge. Last week I received a confidential phone call from an Ontario judge to express great concern on the misappropriation of the funds collected by this surcharge. In fact, this particular judge indicated to me that there was a wide consensus among the judges in Ontario that this was a misappropriation of trust funds.

Five other attorneys general in the country, five other provinces, established trust funds for the fine surcharges. They acknowledge that the moneys collected were collected in trust. This Attorney General deposited $800,000 into his general account and as a solicitor, as an attorney, he should well know his responsibilities for trust funds. It was sad and pathetic to see the minister on Focus Ontario indicate that judges were speaking out of turn on this issue in saying that there was a misappropriation of funds, that they ought not to be talking about this issue.

1450

My question is this: In view of the fact that five attorneys general in this country, five provinces of this country, have acknowledged that these funds are trust moneys and these five provinces have set up trust funds, will the minister now acknowledge that it is proper and appropriate and moral for him to immediately segregate this $800,000 and put it into a trust fund, as most attorneys general acknowledge is proper?

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): Mr Speaker, allow me to try to cut through some of the rhetoric and the bombast which I assume is intended to substitute for the lack of any real focus to the question.

The fact of the matter is that in 1989 the federal government passed enabling legislation which would enable provinces to set up, if they wished, special funds using a victim fine surcharge scheme of operation. The fact of the matter is that five provinces have taken the federal government up on that; five have not. Some of those that have taken up the federal government on that have encountered some difficulty with the operation of their victim fine surcharge scheme. Some, like Ontario, have looked at the different schemes that can be operated and how those schemes might be operated.

That is all that there is to this. We have talked with other provinces, with victim advocacy groups around the province, to determine how this might be operated. As for the rest of the member's question, I am sorry; he can make as much bombast out of this as he wishes; there is nothing more to it.

Mr Chiarelli: The real focus of the question is the fact that this minister recently rejected a request for $78,000 for the victim services program of Hamilton-Wentworth, a project which that community gives high priority to because of circumstances in that community. Having collected $800,000 of what a consensus of judges and five provinces called trust funds, he lets that $800,000 go into the general revenues of the province, misleading the judges of this province, and yet he denies $78,000 to the community of Hamilton-Wentworth, which is in dire need of these funds for its victim services program. Minister, are you prepared today to transfer that $800,000 to a special trust account and are you prepared to consider using $78,000 of that money for Hamilton-Wentworth?

Hon Mr Hampton: Again, to correct the wrong impressions that the member tries to create, this ministry already funds a victim-witness program in Hamilton. It's a very effective victim-witness assistance program. It is true that Hamilton has made a request for some other services. That request went to the Ministry of the Solicitor General, since that is a program that is administered by the Ministry of the Solicitor General, and they were told there were not funds available. Frankly, in these difficult economic times, governments across the country, governments across the continent, receive requests from all kinds of organizations which we are simply not able to meet.

Let me point out to the member opposite that he says there is $822,000 that has been collected that hasn't gone towards victims. This is the amount of money that has gone towards victims: $9.8 million to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, despite the fact that the federal government has taken its contribution out; $70 million to the wife assault prevention initiative; $17 million to the sexual assault prevention initiative, and many millions of dollars to the victim-witness assistance program, over $100 million, far more than that party was ever able to contribute or willing to contribute to victims when it was the government.

EDUCATION POLICY

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is to the Minister of Education. Mr Minister, as we've been in the schools in the last couple of weeks, and I'm sure many members of this Legislative Assembly have been, I think there are many parents and teachers and certainly trustees, as well as members of this assembly, who are beginning to think your ministry is simply out of control.

We get so many questions with regard to: Where is the finance solution? When will the Fair Tax Commission's report be tabled? Where is your comprehensive document on destreaming? When will you announce the capital grants that should have been announced last spring? Why have you asked the school boards to remark on your Benchmarks on Mathematics documents, which are simply just benchmarks documents. They're drafts for grades 3, 6 and 9. We've heard that governance is being discussed, and we've actually had the rumour that school boards will be dismantled and parent groups will take over. There is such chaos. The last one is, how do you expect these school boards to work together and coordinate when you don't give them the resources to do it?

My question, Mr Minister, is, with all of these issues, if you had to accomplish one thing between now and the end of this fall session, what will you specifically work on and get done before we break for Christmas?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): There were so many questions in that question that I'm not sure how to begin to address it, but if I can go from the actual question that was asked, I think what I can say to the member opposite, who I know is very interested not just as the critic but personally in all of these issues, is that it's my expectation that certainly during this session it will be possible for us to set out in a fairly clear fashion some of the directions we would like to explore or proceed with in all those areas.

I think some of the questions she's asked she already has the answers to. She knows, for example, with respect to the financing issue that we have two processes that are under way which are coming together later this fall. The Fair Tax Commission process, the property tax working group, whose report we are expecting shortly, will give us, we hope, some good options or some good ideas with respect to the issue of how moneys for education should be raised and funded. We are working through the advisory council I have established, and it's been meeting now over the summer for some time, on looking at the general legislative grants and what other options we should put in place to improve the system we've got in place now.

I think the documents we've put out with respect to benchmarks are our ongoing way to consult with school boards around some of these changes, but as I say, I would think we should be in a position later this fall to be able to come forward with some of these issues that are put together in a more coherent fashion.

Mrs Cunningham: This is a traditional question that's been asked for the last four falls when we've gone back to school, since I've been in this House, first of all to the Liberal government, which was working on these same benchmarks, this same curriculum, this same finance, this same partnership, this same coordination, and all we get is, "We're going to discuss." The education community and the schools of this province need leadership, and it's totally missing.

My supplementary question to the minister is with regard to something that is extremely important, and that's accountability. I would like the minister to stand up in this House and tell me how a draft document, Benchmarks on Mathematics, for grades 3, 6 and 9, will prove, or what kind of good advice it will give to parents about how well the students in those elementary and secondary grades are doing across the province of Ontario? How will they be accountable? Marks, grades: How will they be accountable? Specifically tell me how.

Hon Mr Silipo: The accountability isn't resolved with one draft document. The point of the draft document is to set out some options and some ways in which we can get to a point in our school system where we can say very clearly to parents and others in the community and the system itself -- in which we can, first of all, delineate very clearly the kinds of expectations we have of the system, the kinds of skills our students should be able to master by various points in their education career, and then be able to have a framework that measures that progress in a way that's understandable not just to teachers but is also understandable to parents.

That is done, as all good teachers can tell us, by looking at a combination of factors: by looking at written tests, by looking at the kind of work students do on a day-to-day basis, by looking at assignments they are given. It's that combination of all of those things, that kind of examination by a teacher of the students' progress, using all of those tracking tools, that in fact will tell us how well students are doing.

That's the kind of process we believe we need to develop, that's the kind of process we are developing. At the heart of it is our strong belief that our system needs to be clearly accountable to the parents in the system.

1500

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. When amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act were first proposed, there was much speculation as to what effect they would have on the farm community. Recognizing that the needs of the farm workers are unique, the Task Force on Agricultural Labour Relations was developed.

My riding of Wentworth North consists of many farmers. In fact, Wentworth North is one of the largest producers of broccoli in the world. There have been many questions and legitimate concerns about what direction agricultural labour relations are going in. Could the minister explain to the farmers of Ontario exactly what the status of the task force is and how long it will be until agricultural labour relations are implemented?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): The task force report on agriculture and labour was released on June 26 with several recommendations. On August 27, the Ministry of Labour announced, on behalf of the government, that we would accept all the recommendations contained in the task force report.

Included in the recommendations was one to have separate legislation to deal with agricultural workers; there was a recommendation not to have strikes in the agricultural sector, there was a recommendation to have an alternative dispute settlement mechanism, and there was also a recommendation to have education to educate farmers, farm workers, about rights under any legislation that might be introduced.

The Minister of Labour then asked the task force to go ahead and do some more work on how those recommendations would look and how they might be put in place. They were to report to him at the end of September.

It's been going very well. They've been cooperating very well with government and with organized labour. They've asked for an extension, in order to report, of a few more days, and they're coming back with their report.

Mr Abel: I'm sure the farmers not only of Wentworth North but also from all over the province are anxious to know when you expect to have the legislation brought before the House.

Hon Mr Buchanan: Assuming that the task force is able to work out all the minor glitches -- they have been doing very well in coming together and coming up with recommendations, as I understand it -- probably a week or two after we receive that report, legislation could be introduced in the House.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question, again to the Minister of Agriculture.

I was listening very closely to the last response because, Mr Minister, you will know that presently, under the Ontario Labour Relations Act, agricultural and horticultural workers are excluded. You will also know that under Bill 40, the proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act, this exemption for the farm community has been eliminated.

I think you should recognize, and we want to hear from you, that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture in our public hearings process has indicated that it wants that exclusion for farm workers to continue until separate legislation has been established.

My question to the Minister of Agriculture is, what is your position? Do you agree with the Minister of Labour that the exclusion for the agricultural community should be eliminated, or do you agree with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, which demands that the exclusion be reinstated?

Hon Mr Buchanan: It's not a matter of agreeing with one or the other. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture has worked with and supported the work of the task force, which suggests that there be separate legislation. Calling for exemptions under any regulation or any other legislation is not a moot point here. They are supporting separate legislation, which will be introduced, as I mentioned a few minutes ago. It's not an either/or circumstance by any means.

Mr Offer: The Minister of Agriculture just does not understand the ramifications of Bill 40. You are supposed to be an advocate for the farming community. You will know that under Bill 40 the exclusion that now exists for farm workers in this province has been eliminated and replaced by potential inclusion by regulation.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture -- and I am receiving many telephone calls and letters from the farm community across this province -- is very concerned. They want you to stand up and say you are against that portion of Bill 40 which may include them by way of regulation. They want you to stand up and tell them what your position is. Are you in favour of the position of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, which wants that exclusion to continue until separate legislation is introduced, or are you in favour of that portion of Bill 40 by the Minister of Labour which may very well include the agricultural workers in this province by way of regulation? What is your position?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I'll try and make this as clear for the member as possible. I said a few minutes ago that there will be separate legislation introduced which will deal with agriculture, that that will be introduced probably in the next two or three weeks; any period of time between when Bill 40 would be ratified in this House and the introduction and passing of a separate piece of legislation will probably be in the order of two to three weeks at most. It seems rather unreasonable to suggest that we extend the exclusion for a two- to three-week period. It doesn't make any sense to me at all.

The farm community, including the OFA, is willing to work with this government cooperatively in developing the legislation, in developing the recommendations that came from the task force. They have been working with us as part of that group. They're not out there beating the government over the head, saying, "We want to be excluded for ever." They're willing to work with us, and I applaud the OFA and the other farm groups for the work they have done with this government on labour relations.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the Minister of Financial Institutions. Minister, a woman by the name of Linda Peake, who is 42 years old, was involved in a car accident on January 27, 1991. In that car accident she was rendered a quadriplegic. There was no auto insurance whatsoever to pay her accident benefits. The only place she can go for accident benefits is to your motor vehicle accident claims fund.

Let me tell you a little bit about Ms Peake. She presently has no control over her legs. She has no control over her bowels or bladder. She has an indwelling catheter. Attendants have to help her with bowel movements. She needs a seatbelt to hold her into her wheelchair.

You're the claims manager of the motor vehicle accident claims fund. Why have you not paid her her accident benefits? There is no auto insurance.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Financial Institutions: I thank the member, first of all, for raising the case with me. Obviously I'm not familiar with this particular individual case. I don't have the statistics and I can't answer the question as to why she hasn't been paid yet. I'm certainly prepared to look into that and get the member an answer.

Mr Harnick: Minister, the other day you made a speech about your new auto policy, your new auto plan. It was more of an apology than a speech; it was an apology to the people of Ontario. But one of the things you said was, "The right to sue for economic loss is being replaced by a comprehensive system of automatic" -- and I stress the word "automatic" -- "no-fault accident benefits for economic loss."

Sir, you're the claims manager of the motor vehicle accident claims fund, you have full control of that fund right now, and I can tell you that Linda Peake's benefits, which you control, have been far from automatic. I will also tell you that there's not a person in this province who can trust the fact that you're bringing in a scheme where payments will be automatic, because that will not be the case.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member have a question?

Mr Harnick: Why has this lady not been given her benefits by you?

Hon Mr Charlton: I think there are three parts to the member's question that need to be responded to, and responded to in a fairly measured way. Firstly, my comments last week were no apology about the best benefits package anywhere in Canada.

Mr Harnick: Automatic benefits.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Willowdale.

Hon Mr Charlton: Secondly --

Mr Harnick: "Automatic"; address "automatic."

The Speaker: The member for Willowdale posed a question. Perhaps he would like to hear the response.

Mr Harnick: I would like an answer.

The Speaker: If the member for Willowdale will come to order, he will have an opportunity to hear a response.

1510

Hon Mr Charlton: Secondly, the no-fault benefits in the insurance package obviously are tied to an assumption around compulsory auto insurance, and some difficulties have arisen in this case because there was no insurance. I'm prepared to find out why the fund hasn't paid and ensure, given that there aren't circumstances that haven't been relayed to me by the member, that they should be paid.

Thirdly, the member refers to automatic accident benefits versus the right to sue. Obviously, nothing is automatic in the context of those situations where there are extenuating circumstances.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the Minister of Revenue. Most people would remember that in the budget of 1992 the Treasurer had announced that we would be going to a different system --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Bisson: -- by which we pay taxes on used vehicles.

What I really would like to know --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. The member for Cochrane South.

Mr Bisson: As I was saying, in the budget of 1992 the Treasurer had announced that we would be changing the system by which retail sales tax is collected on secondhand, used vehicles. As some people would know, October 1 was the deadline by which that system was put in place. I talked to a number of constituents over the weekend, at a number of different venues within the riding, about how it would work. For example, if I go out and buy a used vehicle that the Red Book price says, let's say, is worth $3,000, but because the car has got maybe 150,000 or 200,000 kilometres on it, the doors are falling off -- it looks something like my car -- how would the tax be applied to that particular vehicle if the actual value of the car would be less than the Red Book value?

Hon Shelley Wark-Martyn (Minister of Revenue): The new system did come in and was implemented on October 1, and it's based upon the assumption that almost all taxable private sales occur at wholesale price or better. However, vehicles that have been subject to excessive use or damage, as the member's has been, in an accident, can be expected to have a reduced value. If you paid less than the Red Book wholesale value, and this is supported by an independent vehicle appraisal, you will be able to apply for a refund from the Ministry of Revenue for the amount of tax overpaid. These refund applications should be made available at your local MTO office.

Mr Bisson: I, along with a number of other people, would be happy to hear that.

The second part is that there is a system that was also introduced at the same time, and it's already the situation that if you buy a wrecked vehicle from a scrapyard that you want to bring to your place to take parts out in order to rebuild, you have to register the vehicle in order to be able to transfer it. In regard to the retail sales tax on that particular issue, how would that be applied in the case of a wrecked vehicle? Obviously the Red Book value is nowhere near what it would be worth as far as the vehicle that you would find somewhere in a junkyard for parts. How would you apply the tax in that particular case?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: Yes, purchasers have always been responsible for the registration and payment of retail sales tax on wrecked vehicles. A tax refund, again, may be obtained if you can provide an independent appraisal certificate to the Ministry of Revenue.

MEMBERS' CONDUCT

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to indicate at the outset that in respect to the referendum question I am undecided at this point in time, but I have some concerns and I'm looking for answers from you, Mr Speaker, in respect to the fact that a number of members in the Legislature today -- and I'm not sure if members of the opposition are supporting them but certainly members of the government are, including members of cabinet -- wear large buttons taking a particular position in respect to the question of the referendum, and I have some concerns about that display and the fact that members are standing up, for example, asking questions or responding to questions, and this is televised across the province. They're taking a particular position, and I think perhaps, based on the traditions of this House, that is an inappropriate display and I'm looking for your guidance in this matter.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Leeds-Grenville: I very much appreciate the point the member has raised. I would like to reserve on this one and give it a bit of thought.

I realize the House has not made a determination with respect to the referendum with respect to any particular activities of the assembly. The member will know -- and all members will know -- that we discourage members of the House from protesting in any way, shape or form in the House by way of buttons, badges or anything else. But I'd like to give some thought to this one and I will get back to the member later on. The member for Oriole.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Is it on the same point? Member for Ottawa Centre.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): If, during the period when you're giving this matter consideration, you'd like to take a close look at any of those buttons, Mr Speaker, I'd be glad to make mine available to you.

The Speaker: Always generous. The member for Oriole.

ATTENDANCE OF PREMIER

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and I'd ask for your guidance in directing me to the appropriate standing order as I make this point. It has come to my attention that once again the Premier, who left question period today after barely the first 20 minutes of a one-hour session, is not going to be available in this House for the rest of this week. Last week the Premier was here for just one day. I've placed notice that I have a question of the Premier. I had one of him today -- you saw me stand to ask that question. He left before I had a chance to place it. He was not here last week for me to place it.

Question period, Mr Speaker, as you know, is the time when the government and the leader of the government stand accountable for their policies, and members of the official opposition become very frustrated when the Premier and his ministers -- but the Premier in particular -- do not have the courtesy to stay through question period to answer those questions.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Oriole will know that there is nothing in the standing orders which compels the attendance of any member of the House, so your Speaker is unable to assist you in having certain ministers attend question period, or indeed any other activity of the chamber. Motions? Point of order?

Mrs Caplan: I would like to state a point of order --

The Speaker: I just ruled on it.

Mrs Caplan: I appreciate that, Mr Speaker, but there is a point of order which speaks to decorum in the House, and I believe the fact that the Premier is not available to answer questions in this House day after day for members of the opposition creates a problem that you should be aware of.

The Speaker: The member stretches things a bit. The member for Etobicoke West.

MEMBERS' CONDUCT

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Mr Speaker, my point of order is the previous point of order that was drawn to your attention by the member for Leeds-Grenville.

Mr Speaker, we have a by-election coming up in the not-too-distant future and I'm certain all parties will want to wear buttons into this House with respect to that by-election. So I think a decision by you is necessary, and the proper decision in my mind is to ensure that buttons, demonstrations and political baggage not be brought forward into this House, as I think all --

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: I've obviously unsettled the government members.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. I understand full well the member's point. It is indeed an issue which deserves some attention, and as I responded to the member for Leeds-Grenville, I will consider this matter and I will be back to you later on. Motions? Another point of order?

Mr Stockwell: I wasn't quite finished my point of order.

The Speaker: Could the member be brief, please.

Mr Stockwell: Sure. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wasn't referring, of course, to anyone in particular when I suggested political baggage, although I would suggest the backbenchers across the floor are in fact political baggage.

Mr Speaker, the question I'd like to point out to you clearly is that with respect to the by-election coming up, all parties could bring in buttons and paraphernalia and it would turn into a circus-like atmosphere. I ask that you rule quickly.

On the previous point of order, it is very frustrating to sit on the opposition side and have a Premier who will only show up now for one and a half of the previous seven days and the --

The Speaker: Would the honourable member take his seat. I have dealt with both points which he has raised.

1520

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas the report of Mr John Brant, arbitrator for the greater London area, has recommended a massive, unwarranted and unprecedented annexation by the city of London;

"Whereas the arbitration process was a patently undemocratic process resulting in recommendations which blatantly disregarded the public input expressed during the public hearings;

"Whereas the implementation of the arbitrator's report will lead to a destruction of the way of life enjoyed by the current residents of the county of Middlesex and will result in the remnant portions of Middlesex potentially not being economically viable,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to reject the arbitrator's report of 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."

I've added my signature to the petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition from St John's United Church, Elmvale, that has to do with the amendments to the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my 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.

"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 will cause increased hardship for 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."

That's signed by 42 people.

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."

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition signed by some 333 of my constituents and I have as well attached my name to it. It reads:

"We, the undersigned, request an answer to our desperate need of a long-term care facility. Separating our seniors 120 kilometres is intolerable."

Again, it's signed by 333 constituents of mine.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I'm pleased to table a petition signed by concerned public-minded citizens from Oakville and the surrounding area, which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the amateur sports teams and charitable organizations across Ontario derive their financial support from the proceeds of bingos and various Monte Carlo nights; and

"Whereas the NDP government has legalized casinos and is considering other forms of gambling;

"Whereas this action will render it increasingly more difficult for amateur sports teams and charitable organizations to raise funds to support their amateur sports and charities; and

"Whereas the volunteers who operate these facilities are not looking for handouts and seek only to raise funds to support their amateur sports teams and charitable organizations,

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure that the government maintains the ability of these amateur sports teams and organizations to continue to raise the needed support money through bingos and various Monte Carlo nights."

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I am presenting a petition signed by 44 people from St Paul Street United Church who are in opposition to Bill 38, which legalizes wide-open Sunday shopping. The petition states:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition to wide-open Sunday business.

"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 retailers, retail employees and their families. The proposed amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act of 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 have signed my name to this petition.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It says:

"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 have affixed my signature to that and I am in agreement with it.

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This petition is signed by over 500 people from the riding of Markham. It's properly made out, my name is affixed to it and it is on one of the subjects that is touching on the people of York, Durham and Peel.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Interim Waste Authority has released a list of 19 proposed sites in the region of York as possible candidates for landfill, two of which are in the riding of Markham;

"Whereas the decision to prohibit the regions of the greater Toronto area from searching for landfill sites beyond their boundaries is contrary to the intent of the Environmental Assessment Act, section 5(3); and

"Whereas the government has promised each person in Ontario the right to a full environment assessment, including the right to a review of all options as it pertains to waste disposal in Ontario,

"We, the undersigned, protest and petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the Legislature of Ontario repeal Bill 143 in its entirety and allow a more democratic process for the consideration of future options for the disposal of greater Toronto area waste, particularly the consideration of disposal sites beyond the boundaries of the greater Toronto area where a willing host community exists who is interested in developing new disposal systems for the greater Toronto area waste."

It is so presented and submitted to the Legislature and affixed with my signature.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Ms Anne Swarbrick (Scarborough West): I have a petition signed by approximately 40 people, who cite a number of good reasons why they petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario "to act now and restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned, so that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded not only fully, but with equity and equality."

1530

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition that's addressed to the Legislative Assembly.

"Whereas the Minister of Municipal Affairs has seen fit to ignore the council of the township of Tiny and its plea for reconsideration of boundary line changes within the municipality; and

"Whereas the minister has stated that restructuring within the county of Simcoe will be implemented,

"Therefore, the taxpayers of the township of Tiny find it necessary to band together and lobby against the implementation of the restructuring of the county of Simcoe.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to refrain from passing the County of Simcoe Act until the provincial government deals with the township of Tiny in a fair and equitable manner."

That's signed by 15 names and I've attached my signature to it.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario: "Whereas we, the undersigned, are against market value assessment...." These signatures come from the whole Niagara area, and there are approximately 2,000 signatures.

GAMBLING

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I am pleased to table a petition signed by concerned constituents in my riding of Oakville South, which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government intends to legalize casinos and is considering other forms of gambling in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas studies have been done which indicate, where casinos are found, they were inseparable from organized criminal activities; and

"Whereas most forms of gambling end up being a tax on those least able to pay; and

"Whereas gambling produces in many people a terrible addiction; and

"Whereas it would be more appropriate for the government to cut expenditures than attempt to increase revenue through expanded lotteries,

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop looking to casinos as a quick-fix solution to pay down the deficit."

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I have a petition here signed by yet more residents in terms of school funding, and it reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now and restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned, so that Ontario's two provincial education systems are funded not only fully but with equity and equality."

I do affix my signature to this as well.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have three petitions, but I'm only going to read one of them into the record. It has to do with the amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition to wide-open Sunday business. 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 retailers, retail employees and their families. The proposed amendment to the Retail Business Holidays Act, Bill 38, dated 3 June 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

That petition was sent with 103 names from the Bethel Baptist Church of Orillia. I have one from the Salvation Army in Orillia with 34 names, and the other one is from the St John's United Church in Alliston with 42 names.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by about 480 London Home Builders' Association members, who respectfully request that Bill 40 be set aside. I have not signed my name to this petition because I do in fact support Bill 40.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

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

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition to wide-open Sunday business. 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 retailers, retail employees and their families. The proposed amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act, Bill 38, dated 3 June 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter" -- that's 51 per year -- "from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I will affix my signature to this petition, and it comes from the Westburne Alliance Church in St Catharines.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by 54 residents of Middlesex, London, St Thomas, Lambeth and Scottsville who respectfully ask that the arbitrator's report of the greater London and Middlesex annexation be set aside because it does not reflect the expressed wishes of the majority who participated in arbitration hearings. It awards too extensive an area of annexation to the city of London and will jeopardize the viability of the county of Middlesex and our rural way of life.

I have signed my name to this petition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PINECREST COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ACT, 1992

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

Bill Pr44, An Act to revive Pinecrest Community Association

LAMBDA CHI ALPHA ALUMNI ASSOCIATION OF TORONTO (INCORPORATED) ACT, 1992

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

Bill Pr67, An Act to revive Lambda Chi Alpha Alumni Association of Toronto (Incorporated)

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1992

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

Bill Pr19, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa

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.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I'm pleased to rise today to address the need for reform of the Ontario automobile insurance system. Few would question the need for insurance reform in Ontario. After all, there are many problems with the previous government's system. Just to name a few: It leaves too many accident victims grossly undercompensated, its unrealistic constraints limit prospects for rehabilitation of too many of those seriously injured and it shuts the door on too many accident victims' ability to sue for pain and suffering.

Last week, the member for Essex South, in his apologia for the Ontario motorist protection plan, talked about the NDP leadership failing to understand the need for profit. I would suggest that the former government clearly understood the need for profit and where to put it, and that was exactly in the pockets of the insurance companies -- in the first six quarters, $1 billion.

For those of you in televisionland, $1 billion in profit was reported in the first six quarters after the OMPP was established. This meant that premiums were often unjustifiably high for some drivers who were inappropriately classified, and the system that was instituted by the former government simply doesn't address safety issues adequately, if at all.

1540

Our auto insurance reforms are vastly different. They will benefit more than six million drivers in Ontario, not the insurance companies, which pocketed a windfall profit as I described earlier. Specifically, our package offers real improvements: automatic and reasonable benefits to all injured persons, significantly enhanced and new compensation, greater recognition of pain and suffering losses and affordable reforms and stable rates.

Our compensation plan is an innovative breakthrough. It will provide accident victims with the most generous and equitable benefits anywhere in Canada while providing fairer recognition of the pain and suffering of innocent accident victims.

Under the Liberal plan, Ontario motorists are now paying for inadequate accident benefits that fall far short of the income replacement needs of many. The limited funds available for supporting injured persons with permanent disabilities simply don't keep pace with inflation, and they fail to recognize the loss of future earning potential of people in special circumstances: those not in the workforce at the time of the accident either because they are students and are not yet working or are care givers who have temporarily left the workforce to look after a child or an elderly parent.

As we designed the new compensation system, our goal was to guarantee that everyone who is injured in an auto accident has ready access to fair and reasonable compensation immediately. Everyone, regardless of fault, has economic needs and must be compensated for income losses and care and rehabilitation costs. That's why people buy insurance: to ensure that they are taken care of when injured in an accident.

These principles could only be accommodated through a system of structured accident benefits for economic losses. Structured benefits are immediately and automatically available. People can continue to pay mortgages and care for their families without having to wait years for a court settlement. Structured benefits offer speedy access to rehabilitation, which reduces the cost in the long term. Scheduled benefits provide assurances of reliable and reasonable compensation, assurances which are critical in dealing with economic losses, assurances which are not possible through the court system.

As we talked about last week, the third-party approach to accident benefits is a 649 approach, where some win big and some don't win at all. Compensation through the courts is random and uncertain; it is based on the concept of fault. But fault is often unclear, and anyone can make a human error. Roadway hazards, weather conditions and car failures, like a blown tire, just make the risk worse. Court claims can often take years to settle, and the chance of a person's recovery after waiting this long will diminish. Tort awards for future losses are based on a one-time assessment of needs, using a number of difficult and complex assumptions about the future. This results in some people being overcompensated and others undercompensated.

An adversarial system is a costly and uncertain way of compensating even the limited few. There are other things we have to keep in mind as well. There may be no one to sue. Take the university student driving home for the holidays who hits a patch of black ice, hits no one and is permanently injured. The student has no one to sue and can't be compensated for future economic losses under the Liberal plan. The other person may have insufficient liability insurance to provide benefits or an injured person may be badly served within the judicial system.

The courts and liability shouldn't be used at the expense of adequate benefits for all injured people. When designing our accident benefit schedule, we did so keeping in mind that income benefits replace income during recovery and future earning capacity as a result of permanent impairment. We were also mindful of the cost of rehabilitation and care and the fact that the sooner people receive help, the quicker they can return to leading productive and full lives.

Let me discuss the balance we've tried to strike between enhanced benefits and achieving fair treatment of innocent accident victims. Under the Liberal plan, suing for pain and suffering is severely restricted to serious, permanent physical injury, disfigurement or death. Mr Speaker, I don't know about in your riding, but I've never seen a U-Haul travelling behind a hearse in Scarborough Centre.

Those suffering psychological injuries are ignored no matter how serious the psychological injuries might be. Translated into numbers, the previous government's restrictions allow access to courts for about 5,000 injured persons per year who are not totally at fault.

Our new system takes a new and different approach in defining who gets access to the courts for compensation for their pain and suffering. Anyone not totally at fault will be able to sue for these non-economic losses, subject to a $15,000 deductible. This deductible is roughly equivalent to a lower threshold. We estimate the use of the deductible will result in three times as many people, or about 15,000 people annually, having access to the courts for compensation for their pain and suffering, including that arising from psychological injuries. This change is significant. Many people seriously injured can't sue under the Liberal plan, despite their very substantial pain and suffering. Their lives are disrupted, and yet they have no special recognition of their non-economic losses.

In addition, we will allow claims for loss of care, companionship and guidance under the Family Law Act, subject to a $5,000 deductible.

We recognize the courts are well equipped to determine fault and make judgements about harder-to-define laws such as pain and suffering or enjoyment of life. Simply put, pain and suffering is not suited to a fixed schedule of benefits as economic losses are. Individual assessments are needed for these types of losses. We believe we have struck a balance enabling seriously injured people to sue for their pain and suffering while ensuring the right of all accident victims to have reasonable and automatic compensation for economic loss.

The previous government's system fails not only those involved in accidents, it fails consumers miserably. Let me give you a few examples. During the 1980s, premiums increased faster than inflation, and at one point they actually skyrocketed. In an attempt to control claims costs, insurers became more selective about whom they were willing to insure. As a result, large groups of drivers had great difficulty in getting insurance at regular market rates. Unfair rates and poor customer service became increasingly common. Many drivers, even drivers with clear records, now pay extremely high rates and are unfairly put into the Facility Association. The Facility Association showed a profit in 1991 because many good drivers are still assigned to it. Consumers have little opportunity to challenge their insurance company successfully, whether on the rates they pay or on being placed unfairly in the Facility Association.

Premiums are inconsistent. Drivers with similar records, similar cars and driving patterns pay widely different rates, varying from region to region and from insurer to insurer. There is no uniform classification among the more than 150 companies that write auto insurance policies in this province. This limits competition and makes comparison shopping impossible. Drivers don't know how and aren't encouraged to improve their premium rating. Complex language and policies and other consumer materials further reduce opportunities to compare products and services.

Our legislation provides reforms that address the problems I have just outlined. It delivers reasonable compensation quickly and efficiently to all people hurt in auto accidents. It promotes safer and more responsible driving, which will ultimately reduce accidents and claims costs. It will fairly assess responsibility and will do so in a way which is both fair and affordable.

I have just outlined why there is such a great need to reform the system and why we chose the directions we did. This bill prescribes major and immediate improvements to the auto insurance system in Ontario. It also enables regulatory changes to support ongoing, comprehensive reform down the road. The result will be a fairer, more accessible system which provides assurances of reasonable accident compensation for all Ontarians, the kinds of assurances which must be provided in a compulsory auto insurance system.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Questions and comments?

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): You know, I'm just getting sick of people standing up and telling me that every accident is caused by momentary inattention, that somebody just took his eye off the road for a second. Let me tell you that the statistics show that accidents are caused because people speed. They speed deliberately. They make improper left turns. They try to beat the car coming in the other direction; they do it deliberately. They drink when they drive; they do it deliberately. So don't tell me that accidents are caused by momentary inattention, because the bulk of them are not. They're caused by people deliberately doing the wrong thing. That's the first thing.

Second thing: This idea people have that you have to be in favour of accident benefits but you can't at the same time be in favour of a tort law scheme shows a basic misunderstanding of the whole principle behind auto insurance as we've had it in this province and as it has operated successfully for about 25 years. The fact of the matter is that everybody believes accident benefits should be available to people who are at fault and to people who are innocent, and those accident benefits should be at reasonable rates, but innocent accident victims deserve more. Innocent accident victims should be entitled to their actual losses. That is the kind of scheme we have always had in Ontario.

To bastardize the scheme by trying to portray people who are in favour of the tort system as being opposed to the accident benefit system is absolutely wrong. I tell you that no one who is innocent should suffer by getting less than what his claim is worth. I don't care what the bureaucrats have filled the minister's head with, but I tell you that Mr Tully does not know as much about auto insurance as he does about tourism and he should have stayed in the Tourism ministry. The fact of the matter is no innocent accident victim should do without.

1550

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): I want to make a brief comment on the contribution to debate made by the member for Mississauga North. The member for Mississauga North has developed, in a very short period of time, a reputation in this House for rational and objective debate. I believe that the member certainly has the skill to concisely and clearly outline his points. If we look at what is happening in the House with this debate, we will see that it is nice to see a member stand up and with a degree of rationality, not ranting, an individual take the time to outline clearly the benefits of the legislation.

The member has put forward a case without misconceptions, without misinformation, but clearly stating what the immediate benefits are to replace lost income. It clearly states the efforts of the legislation to get people into rehabilitation immediately and to put people back on the road to recovery. I have been here for this debate over several days and I have listened to very emotional statements on behalf of the opposition, but I haven't heard a speech as clearly and as rationally and as logically presented as the one we have just heard from the member for Mississauga North.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): No, the member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr Farnan: My apologies, Mr Speaker, the member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have listened to the former opposition start to talk about what it really didn't mean before the election; it's a complete reversal. It's going to be interesting to see how the speeches from the government unfold. The fact of the matter is that nothing has been said with respect to the subject of pain and suffering. In fact, the $15,000 deductible really means nothing, particularly if your claim is for $20,000 or $25,000. You have to subtract $15,000. So if you go to court for $25,000 to get $5,000 or $10,000, and your legal fees can be $5,000 or $10,000, big deal. With respect to economic loss, there's no claim. Again, these subjects must be dealt with and must be explained by the government if you're going to put forward your bill.

It's very easy to criticize the Liberal bill. Both the NDP and the Progressive Conservative Party have spent much time criticizing the Liberal bill, but I would like to see how you're going to improve the system, because you're not improving the system. If anything, you're making it worse; you're making it more confusing. These people aren't going to benefit from that.

Take the individual who receives a neck injury or a serious injury that goes beyond -- the Meyer situation. Are you going to improve that? The speech that has been given by the parliamentary assistant is totally inadequate and he should start talking more about what his policies are going to do to improve the situation as opposed to simply attacking the previous Liberal bill.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): In this brief two minutes, which is but a fraction of the mere 30 minutes that I'll be allowed on Wednesday to speak to this particular bill -- a very important bill, one which, it should come as no surprise to a whole lot of people, I have a great deal of interest in, and quite frankly, passion for.

I am not going to get caught up in identifying people by their ridings. His wife calls him Steve Owens and that's good enough for me. I like Mr Owens. He's a good parliamentary assistant. He performs his task well. But when I was downstairs, reading the little closed caption on the television down in the committee room, I thought that somehow the legislative channel had started doing reruns because, by God, I thought it was Rick Ferraro speaking on behalf of Bill 68. Maybe the same speechwriter works for the ministry; that's entirely possible because there's been a significant continuity. But some of the very same phrasing, some of the same language -- zonkers, Mr Speaker, to try to peddle this package of Tide, I mean, this is a selling job that would make Procter and Gamble ashamed. To try to peddle this, with this embarrassing attack on the legal profession and on the courts, misses the mark by a long shot.

You want to bash lawyers? I'll be right there with you. There are a whole lot of things we can criticize about the legal profession, and I'm not concerned about lawyers' ability to make money. They're sort of like those pigs over in France that sniff out truffles. Lawyers will find a way to make money one way or the other. But for this government to forfeit a heritage of policy --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired.

Mr Kormos: -- the policy that Mel Swart stood for, that Bob Rae stood for, that so many New Democrats stood for, and to try to argue it away that way is totally unacceptable.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Scarborough Centre, you have two minutes in reply.

Mr Owens: Let me begin with the best first. In terms of the comments by the member for Welland-Thorold with respect to the speechwriter, he as minister had the opportunity to make these kinds of changes, but he simply didn't do that and left them for us.

In terms of his comments with respect to the attack on lawyers, he must have been listening to a different speech someplace else, because I certainly didn't place any attack on lawyers.

In terms of the comments from the member for Willowdale, I think he brings up a very interesting point. People do speed, people do make improper left turns and people do drink and drive; people do all sorts of crazy things when they drive. This is why, in terms of the tandem approach this government has taken to legislation, the Ministry of Transportation has taken the opportunity to introduce framework legislation with respect to the road safety agency. This will be the agency that will begin to address these issues.

Insurance is simply the end point of the process. There are many things that need to take place prior to an insurance claim being filed.

In terms of the member for Dufferin-Peel -- how will we improve the system? -- let me say simply that, again, in terms of improvement, we're taking the caps off rehabilitation and we're extending the indexed income benefit to seniors, to income earners over 65.

Also, the member for Dufferin-Peel raised an issue last Friday with respect to a constituent of his, and I'm still waiting for the letter to come across this House. If the member for Dufferin-Peel is listening to me, I'd like to ask him one more time to bring the letter across.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I would like to let the members opposite know that I did write my own speech. Things in opposition are a little bit tougher over here. We don't have speechwriters.

I would just like to say a few things about the previous plan and what I've heard about it in the north. The Ontario motorist protection plan was one that I felt was serving my constituents well. It's very seldom that you come across a policy that doesn't have somebody coming through your door and saying it's not serving you properly, but I must say that in the two years since June 1990 when this plan was put into place, it has actually answered the needs of drivers throughout the north.

I must take a look at examples of other insurance programs across the country. As you would know, my riding borders on the province of Manitoba, and much is said about the program in Manitoba. It's a program known as Autopac.

I must say that it was this government, the government in place today, that was coming up with the scheme during the last 1990 election, saying that yes, it was going to have public auto insurance and yes, it was going to bring that to the people of Kenora. I must say that the people of Kenora, or a good number of them, especially the young drivers, saw that as a plan that would reduce their rates, a plan that would bring rates into line.

1600

However, there was the other side of the argument. I spent my university years in Manitoba and took advantage of the lower insurance rates. I was happy to be able to do that, but on the other hand, I saw many people in society in Manitoba who were not drivers, were on fixed incomes, and found out that, yes, they too were paying for the program. They were paying for Autopac, auto insurance in Manitoba, again something that this government looked at and, I must say, a program that I am happy and a lot of my constituents are happy that, yes, it pulled back on.

I go back to my initial point. We had a program in place that was working and a program that came along and people were saying, "We've seen our auto insurance rates either go down or stabilize." We had a number of statistics telling us that and statistics telling us that 81% of the people who were looking at the system that was in place, the Ontario motorist protection plan, were happy with what was going on at that time.

Again, I take a look at what the program did. The program was affordable. It brought fairness into the system. We had universal accessibility, stable and predictable premiums. That was something that was very important to constituents in my riding. They could predict what their premiums were going to be in years coming. Complete coverage was offered, compensation in a suitable and timely manner, another aspect of that program that was working.

What's happening now is that my constituents are saying, "Why now?" Why bring this legislation forward now when they felt that the program in place was actually covering their needs? What I have to ask this government is the same question I'm being asked as representative for northwestern Ontario, Kenora riding: How many jobs will this create? Auto insurance is not number one on my constituents' minds right now; the creation of jobs is. When you have a program in place, why not leave it alone, go on to something more important, go on to the economy of this province?

I think what this government is trying to do is to tinker with the system, a system which is working, and tinker to something that will suit it a little bit better in terms of its philosophy. But again I get back to, is it going to make the program any better, is there going to be anything that is as tailored as what we saw in place?

I come back to rate increases. I've taken a look at some of the statistics and I go back to the fact that 50% of the drivers across the province actually saw no increase in their rates, and some actually even reported a drop. As people have referred to earlier, in the 1980s insurance was in difficulty. We had premiums skyrocketing, we had a lot of difficulty in the insurance corporation. I come back to the former legislation, which addressed that, which made driving affordable to drivers across the province.

We've heard the minister say that his plan would be no more costly. I must take a look at what he's doing in terms of this plan and tell him that once he's bringing in a third party, once he's going back to the tort system, how can he stand there and tell us that this is not going to be a more costly plan? I have a lot of difficulty with that. I've heard estimations and people who are in the know regarding insurance taking a look at what is being reintroduced in this plan and telling us that we may be looking at rates going up as much as 20%, 30%.

I guess what we have to do is to take a look at what the minister has told us and take a look at some other systems. I indicated to you earlier that I'm very close to Winnipeg and to Manitoba, and much of our news media comes out of Winnipeg. Perhaps I could just refer to a quote out of the Winnipeg Free Press of June 15, 1992, fairly recent, and it's called "An Autopac Jolt":

"Howard Pawley must be enjoying a hearty chuckle in his ivory tower office at the University of Windsor. By now, the former Premier will know that the Manitoba Public Insurance Corp has asked the Public Utilities Board for a 9.7% increase in auto insurance premiums. The last time Manitobans were faced with Autopac rate hikes of that size, they took to the streets in anger. That anger contributed to the defeat of the Pawley government in 1988."

Now the important part about this, the reasons for the rate jolt are a combination of a number of things: bad weather, the high cost of health care and, more important, the dramatic increase in personal injury claims. Last year alone, the total number of claims went up by 11%, bodily injury claims by a staggering 30%.

I go back to what this government is trying to do in trying to tinker with our plan as it is here in Ontario today and what that will translate into. I only bring what has happened in Manitoba, as an example, to their attention.

Again, I go on to something a little bit more about the Autopac. This headline from the Winnipeg Free Press of June 12, 1992, reads, "Autopac Wants Kind of Hike That Sank NDP." I go back to the things that this government wants to introduce into the plan today to bring it closer to this Autopac system. This article reads:

"Citing rapidly rising claim costs, the Manitoba Public Insurance Corp is proposing to raise motor vehicle insurance rates an average of 10% next year and opposition critics warn the increases could set off the kind of public reaction that helped bring down the administration of the former NDP Premier Howard Pawley after similar large increases four years ago." Again an auto insurance plan that we're looking at this government trying to head towards.

I go back to my initial point, where I say this government is trying to fix something which is not broken. A good number of people out there are asking why they are going ahead with this fixing. As they come to me with these questions, I tell them that, yes, after second reading we will go into public hearings. People in northwestern Ontario are looking forward to something the minister said in his opening remarks in his speech the other day. He indicated that in a modern society and especially in rural and northern communities across the province, driving has become a necessity for many.

Yes, Mr Speaker, I represent one of those northern communities where driving has become a necessity. I cannot agree with the minister more, but what I'm hearing from my constituents is: "Okay, we're going to be having public hearings following second reading. Will those public hearings allow us in northern Ontario to present our case, allow us an input into what this minister has introduced, what this government is proposing?"

I know as we go into this further, they're going to be watching for an answer to that question, an answer as to how much input they are going to have. From what I'm hearing, they are not going to have much input into that and the public hearings are going to amount to what has been termed by many as a sham. But again I must remind the minister that we in northwestern Ontario and northern Ontario will be looking for those public hearings after second reading.

Again, I ask about the tinkering with the plan, the plan as it is today. I quite often go back to who was consulted, where was the information coming from, how did the government come up to this tinkering and why. Why at this particular time?

I have not heard any complaints on the program and I guess what we're going to be really looking for is how the package is going to help. I go back to what has been brought to my attention, the increase in rates and whether in essence the rates will remain the same; unchanged is what the minister has indicated. I can tell him the bringing in of the tort system or introduction of much of the tort system is only going to lead to the third-party involvement and that can only lead to higher premiums.

The $15,000 deductible is something which has been talked about a lot in the debate so far. Here we have a deductible and what is that going to do? That's going to send people for higher compensation in the court system, for higher compensation on an injury. Again, what will that do, where will that money come from? Of course, it's going to come from those people who pay the premiums -- you guessed it -- higher premiums within the system and the higher cost being passed on to the consumer.

1610

I must go back to the program in Manitoba, because I think it has been one that has shown people across the country that it's a program that has not worked. As we get closer to public auto insurance in a system such as this in Manitoba, it certainly has not worked.

I read that the Manitoba Public Insurance Corp official said yesterday that it needs higher premiums because it had losses of more than $28 million in the first half of the year, but projected year-end losses of $20 million to $25 million, meaning that it expects to make money in the second half.

The program is just not working, and I suggest it's a program this government thought it was going to bring in, found out it couldn't and is now moving closer towards. It may just be what this government's looking for: the kiss of death, actually, in terms of bringing this forth.

Then I take a look at the court system. We've already heard that with the new tort system we're looking at three times as many court cases. I often wonder if my friend Howie, the Attorney General and member for the riding next door, has been told about this. He often gets up here and talks about how overcrowded the court system is. What they're going to be doing in terms of this plan now is just to add to that agony, add to that overcrowding.

Then I listen to this government talking about partnerships with business and I take a look at what the minister said in his opening comment. I ask you to put yourself in the shoes of a businessman, a person selling insurance in this province. The minister indicated, and I quote from Hansard:

"This government promised Ontario motorists a fairer, more accessible, more comprehensive auto insurance package in this province. Last September we also announced that unfortunately we would be having to do that in the private delivery system."

I really ask the minister what is so unfortunate about the private delivery system. This government keeps talking about partnership with business. How could he actually come out with this, what I call unfortunate, statement?

In wrapping up, I would again like to refer to my plea to the minister to take a look at what has happened and what is happening in other jurisdictions across the country. Take a look at plans that have been put forth before. I have read a number of cases, a number of instances where the plan is not working. The plan is not working in the province neighbouring ours.

I must refer to the Ontario motorist protection plan. In northern Ontario -- maybe the member is not familiar with northern Ontario -- I have not one complaint regarding that plan. It was a plan that was working, and I must say that this is a plan that is being tinkered with now.

I for one, representing a northern riding, am concerned about what that's going to do in an area where the minister indicated that, yes, we depend on our vehicles, we depend on private transportation to get us around the north. We don't have the public transportation that constituents of southern Ontario can avail themselves of, and I must say that this is a most important issue in my riding.

I can only say as well that I do hope the minister takes time for public hearings, takes time to listen, and only after that will he possibly have a change of heart in what he's going to be doing to the drivers in my riding and the drivers across northwestern Ontario.

Mr Harnick: I listened with interest to what my good friend the member for Kenora had to say. Certainly he brings a perspective to this debate from the point of view of northerners, but what I wonder about is when he says we're fixing something that is not broken. I think the people of the north would be quite concerned about the fact that a court case has now come down that indicates that if they're injured in a car accident, they can only claim for their pain and suffering if it's a near catastrophe.

People get badly injured without having a near catastrophe. They break arms, they break legs and they suffer fusion injuries. They've broken necks and backs that require a fusion. They require hardware to be put into their bodies. They often suffer injuries to internal body organs or they suffer head injuries. Not all of them end up being a catastrophe, but they end up with serious personal injuries that demand compensation.

I take issue with my good friend from Kenora when he says it's not broken so we don't need to fix it. The system is badly broken, but there is one thing that my friends in the Liberal Party can take some pride in. When they eliminated the rights of all innocent accident victims to claim for virtually any of their injuries, they said one thing that at least they can be given a scintilla of credit for, and that is, if you pass the threshold -- which almost no one can pass, but if you do pass it -- then at least you can claim for your economic loss. For that reason my good friends in the Liberal Party are a tiny step ahead of my friends in the New Democratic Party, who have broken all the promises that they've made, and now they conveniently forget about them. Mr Speaker, it's a tragedy.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): There is not enough time, but I want to touch on one point that the member for Kenora made: Basically, "Why fix it if it ain't broke?" The reality is that it is broken; there are problems with it. There are problems, for example, in existing Liberal legislation that was put together in the OMPP. There was no indexing to benefits. That, necessarily, had to be fixed, and that's something that we've done.

The whole question around what happens with rehabilitation is that there was a limit on rehab benefits that were paid to an accident victim. I think, offhand, it was up to about $400,000 for the lifetime of the individual. In some cases that might be enough, but in a lot of cases you need a heck of a lot more money than that in order to properly rehabilitate somebody. What we've done is remove that particular threshold with regard to the total amount.

The other thing was a question of the attendant care. Under the Liberal legislation that was put in, the OMPP, there was also a cap put in with regard to an attendant. If a person needed somebody to come into his home in order to take care of him or to take care of special needs, there was a cap that was put on that under the Liberal legislation. We have removed that cap because we felt you can't keep a threshold, because if a person has a disabling injury, it's not just going to last 10 years; in many cases it will last a lifetime, and the cap could be easily surpassed. So we had to remove that.

What we did is increase the benefits, because the past Liberal legislation said $600 per week was the maximum that a person is able to collect through the OMPP. In many cases, that wasn't enough, and I would argue to a certain extent maybe $1,000 isn't enough either, but we brought it from $600 per week up to $1,000. It basically works out to 90% of your pre-disability income, up to a maximum of $1,000.

There was also the other question with regard to the whole question on the -- you see, I'm running out of time, but I'll wait till a further time in order to get to the next one, because there are only about 10 seconds left.

Mr Tilson: We're here to debate Bill 164, but I can't let it go by with the comments from my Liberal friend who is now going to sit and talk about how wonderful the OMPP is. The fact of the matter is, the cases are now starting to surface. The very first case that has come to the courts, the Meyer case, which I have referred to in my comments, shows quite clearly that the Liberal plan is not working. So I hate to tell my friend the Liberal plan is broken; it's smashed; it's an absolute disaster.

The difficulty, of course, is that the NDP proposal that's being put forward is even worse than theirs, but I suggest that he look at the Meyer case, because unless that decision is appealed -- and I hope it will be -- that is going to be the law of the province of Ontario.

With respect to the comments of the threshold test, Justice Brown says: "I do not regard the permanently impaired bodily functions to be seriously impaired. There is no evidence that he himself is restricted in walking or falls." It goes on. The fact of the matter is, it's not catastrophic, but it darned near is catastrophic, that's what Justice Brown says. So it's an unbelievably difficult test to pass to qualify for the Liberal plan.

The NDP hasn't fixed that; it has made it worse. First of all, they say, "No economic loss; no loss for future earnings; no loss for present earnings." The pain and suffering has been watered down to next to nothing. You have to pay the first $15,000, and actually you have to remember that to go to court for an action involving $20,000 for pain and suffering will be an absolute farce. Why would you go? Your legals will probably be more than $5,000, and you're going to pay the first $15,000 to get $20,000.

Both these parties are going to have to take a long, hard look at their plan, and particularly the one that's before us now. I support everyone who has been saying, "We must have public hearings to fully debate the Liberal plan and the NDP plan."

1620

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I would like to just really make it clear to the member for Kenora that this plan he is criticizing in fact provides inflation protection for the long-term disabled and an indexation of the weekly income ceiling to the consumer price index, which the Ontario motorist protection plan does not. Weekly income replacement benefit maximum for income earners is increased to $1,000 from the $600 max that your particular plan instituted.

The removal of the $500,000 lifetime caps on benefits for supplementary medical and rehabilitation services and care is provided. I think you really have to recognize that for someone who is injured, that is absolutely vital. I know people in my own riding who are absolutely in need of this kind of service.

I'm not sure if your constituents don't find this an attractive feature, but I know my constituents will: indexation of monthly care limit to the consumer price index and, as well -- and I think this is absolutely crucial -- the doubling of the death benefit to a spouse from $25,000 to a minimum of $50,000 as well as an income-based maximum of $200,000.

I think you have to really say, over and above all, that this plan just beats anything possible in the Ontario motorist protection plan that the Liberals put in place. This is definitely going to provide the drivers of Ontario with the kind of protection they need.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Kenora, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Miclash: I appreciate the comments from my colleagues in the House. Let me go in reverse order. First of all, the member for St Catharines-Brock has indicated a good number of things: the removal of caps, the inflation protection, the increase to the weekly income. I think one of the major things I spoke to, and this is to this member along with a number of others, was that the rates we're paying today as drivers are reasonable, and anything she has spoken about of course is going to have to be paid for.

I go back to who pays the cost and I refer to a good number of my particular constituents who were happy with the program and happy with the rates. I also indicated that few had seen any kind of increases as well.

The member for Dufferin-Peel has his opinion regarding what we did with the OMPP and I respect that, but again I refer back to a program that was working and was working well in the eyes of my constituents.

He also brings up the fact of public hearings. What kind of input are my constituents, northerners, going to have after second reading into what this government is going to be doing? My constituents are worried and I keep telling the folks here in the House that they're watching what has happened in Manitoba and watching what has happened in a former regime where public auto insurance was introduced. Again I ask, who pays for the increases here?

The member for Cochrane South speaks of a lot of areas where he feels the OMPP lacked, but I ask him to bring forth examples he has heard from constituents. I have heard none.

In wrapping up, I would again like to thank the members in the House for contributing to this debate. Thank you as well, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr Harnick: This is a subject matter that is very difficult to comprehend. It's a subject matter that very few people in this Legislature genuinely understand. But it's a subject matter that will affect every single person in this province, be he or she a driver or not a driver.

Mr Speaker, I'm just going to start out by reminding my friends on the other side that in September 1990, just prior to when they became the government, they were all out campaigning. And you know what they were all out campaigning to do? They were all out campaigning to give back the right of innocent accident victims to sue. They all were proud when they went door to door and when they stood on stages at all-candidates meetings and they told their constituents, "We are going to restore the rights of innocent accident victims."

Well, Mr Speaker, I can tell you that they have not done that. They have systematically taken away more rights than the Liberals did. That is a complete breach of their promise. Some people would call that misleading. Some people would call it lies. I only say as my categorization that they have bought votes from the public and they have turned around and done completely the opposite of what they promised and the public has every right to be cynical about what this government has done.

You know, there's been a recent poll: 75% of those polled said that the government should keep its promise. Interestingly enough, support for the right to sue is particularly significant among women: 76% of women said, "Give us back the right to sue." Of persons between the ages of 18 and 35, 77% said, "Give us back the right to sue." Of those earning less than $30,000, 79% said: "Give us back the right to sue. That is what you promised. Now keep your promise." The government has no intention of doing that.

I could stand here for the next 27 minutes and I could rant and rave about the government not keeping its promise, but I'm not going to do that. I'm going to try to go through some of the significant aspects of this bill and I'm going to try to make some suggestions I believe are constructive on how the government can make this bad piece of legislation at least somewhat better for the public.

The government has proposed a threshold. Their threshold is that for everyone who claims for only their pain and suffering, because that's all they're letting people claim for, they will have to give back $15,000 off the top of every award. What the government has done is told the public that, "We want to eliminate all claims for less than $15,000."

The fact is that by having a $15,000 deductible, you're eliminating claims for a much larger figure than $15,000, and the actuarial statistics the minister has provided us with bear that out. The reason is because no insurance company is going to settle a $25,000 or $30,000 claim if it can make you an offer of $15,000 and tell you, "Litigate." The costs are too great to litigate for $10,000. That's why, when you take a look at the actuarial evidence, you see that three times as many people are going to get the right to sue for pain and suffering under the NDP plan. Now only 1% get the right to sue. Three times that makes about 3%. That's all that are going to have the right to claim, and the fact of the matter is that you're eliminating many, many more claims than those $15,000 and less or that number would be much greater.

If the government genuinely wants to eliminate claims for $15,000 and less -- and that's what it's telling us in its legislation -- it's got to lower its threshold. They've got to lower that deductible so that only claims of $15,000 and less are eliminated. Otherwise, they're continuing to mislead the public. If you want this to be successful, that's the first thing you can look at.

Quite frankly, I wish they'd change the threshold to any serious claim for bodily injury or for psychological injury -- any serious claim, not "serious and permanent" as we now have, which eliminates almost everyone, but for all claims, just "serious."

But if you don't want to do that, at least lower the threshold, the deductible, to $7,500 so you're doing what you're telling people you're doing. Don't mislead the public any more on this issue.

The next area to discuss is economic loss. All I have to say about economic loss, and I said it a moment ago, is that the Liberals deserve great credit, because they took everything away from innocent accident victims that they could have but at least they said, "If you pass our impossible threshold, you can claim for your economic loss."

This government, again in total breach of its promise, has taken away the economic right of people to claim for their actual losses. Mr Charlton, the minister, has stood up and said: "Look, my plan is so good. My economic loss through my accident benefits is so good that nobody's going to lose any money. No one's going to fall through the cracks. Nobody is going to lose any money. Once you give credit for all the other benefits you get from all the other sources, as well as your no-fault benefits, nobody's going to suffer any losses."

1630

Well, if that's the case, I put it to the government, restore economic rights for those who are innocent victims of automobile accidents, because based on what the minister has told us -- I know the minister wouldn't lie, Mr Speaker. I know he wouldn't do that because he's an honourable man, and if his plan is so good and no one will fall through the cracks, it won't mean anything to give back economic rights, so I challenge the minister to do that. Give back those economic rights and prove to us that your plan is so good that nobody has to call on going to the courts to claim for those rights.

One other thing: I'm glad the new Minister of Correctional Services is here because I know he was very much responsible for bringing Ralph Nader to speak to the NDP caucus. Ralph Nader, who is probably the most renowned consumer advocate, came to the NDP caucus. Do you know what he told them? He said: "You can't take away tort rights and the reason you can't take away tort rights is because if you do that, there will be nothing left to hold insurance companies accountable when people have to make claims. If you don't have the right to sue, insurance companies will bury everyone. No one will be able to hold them accountable."

Quite frankly, unfortunately, the NDP caucus has either been muzzled, which is my guess, or they've chosen not to listen to the very sage advice of someone who knows a lot more about this topic than any one of them and I find that very, very regrettable.

Continuing on with economic loss, I hope it never happens to any one in this chamber, but unfortunately, when people are involved in car accidents, sometimes people die. That's called a fatal accident. When people are involved in fatal accidents and they are the breadwinner for their family, that family sustains an enormous pecuniary loss because that family has a dependence on the person who goes out to earn the money on which that family lives, on which the car is paid for, on which the house is paid for, on which the groceries are paid for, on which the holidays the family takes together are paid for, on which the children are educated and clothed. When that breadwinner's gone, that family sustains an enormous loss and if that breadwinner might be 30 years old, he might have had 35 years to work and he might earn $20,000 or $30,000 or even $50,000.

You know what the government, in its brilliant, no economic loss policy, is prepared to do? They are prepared to pay that family $200,000 -- $200,000 for a family that may suffer a loss of upwards of $1 million. They are going to tell that family: "Here's $200,000, but the accident benefits you got paid you $50,000, so you're only entitled to $150,000. Here's your $150,000. Go ahead, family. Go ahead and enjoy life. Enjoy life now and don't worry. We're going to build a whole lot of government housing, so when you lose your house we'll get you to come to a government-run apartment."

It's not funny. It's not a bit funny, as people laugh at me on the other side. The Minister of Culture and Communications is sitting, laughing. Well, it's not funny when people die in car accidents and they're not paid what their actual losses are. It's not a bit funny and I fear for every motorist and every family in this province if this becomes law. You may laugh, but Peter Kormos is not selling you a line of goods.

Peter Kormos stood here for 17 hours -- and I can tell you, the first person to run over to him when he finished was the Premier -- and Peter Kormos said, "Restore the rights of innocent accident victims." Mel Swart, the guru of your party when it comes to auto insurance, said, "Restore the rights of innocent accident victims." But you are not listening and because of that, innocent people are going to be harmed; you who were the party that looked after the little guy; you who were the party that looked after the injured worker. I'll tell you something: You've forgotten who you are.

You still have time to correct what you're doing. Give back the economic right to claim. Lower the threshold. You can do that. You can stand up to this minister and you can stand up to the Premier, who I know personally does not believe in this piece of legislation. You can help him and you can help every innocent accident victim if you stand in your places, do the right thing and stand by the convictions you sold to the people when you ran in the last election. Stand by the convictions of Peter Kormos, whom everyone ran to to congratulate after his 17-hour speech here, and Mel Swart, who was the guru of your party when it came to auto insurance.

The member for Cochrane South thinks this is funny. I hope it never happens to him, because he's my friend. I hope it never happens to any one of you that you suffer a car accident and you're injured. I hope that never happens, but God forbid, if it does, let's make sure we have a policy of auto insurance that's going to cover us.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Order. I'd ask the honourable member to please take his seat. A point of order, the honourable member for --

Mr Harnick: Well, my time is running out.

Mr Bisson: Mr Speaker, my point of order is that he's imputing motive, that about three members on this side of the House are laughing at what he says. I think the member should retract that. He's not allowed to do that in the first place and it wasn't done.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member. That was not a point of order. I'd ask the honourable member for Willowdale to continue his remarks.

Mr Harnick: Can I have my time restored, please?

The Acting Speaker: No. Please continue.

Mr Harnick: The other thing that just rubs me the wrong way is when I hear the minister talk about accident benefits being automatic. He has control over the motor vehicle accident claims fund. It's an insurance company run by the government in situations where there's no automobile insurance that exists to pay a person his accident benefits, or in the case of an uninsured driver, to pay him his claim when he sues. The minister stood, when he gave his speech the other day, and said: "Boy, in my Ontario, this is going to be automatic. Everybody's going to get these payments automatically."

I talked about Linda Peake today. Linda Peake is a person who is now a quadriplegic. Linda Peake has been trying for almost 10 months now to gain accident benefits from the motor vehicle accident claims fund, which this minister controls, and she has not been able to do that.

When he tells people that the payment of accident benefits is going to be automatic, he is misleading the public again. I will tell you what the experience of innocent accident victims going to the auto insurance board has been since the Liberals' dastardly piece of legislation was passed. Innocent victims are going to the auto insurance board, they're getting there without representation, and the insurance companies are there with a lawyer. Innocent accident victims as well as at-fault victims are getting thumped and boiled every time they go before that board, because they're being hammered by insurance companies that show up with lawyers. I don't see anything in this legislation that's providing any adequate representation for accident victims who have to go to the insurance board.

I will tell you that those benefits are not automatic. When the insurance company cuts you off, you have to try to get those benefits restored. The insurance company has a lawyer. Who do you have? All you're getting under their scheme, up until you are cut off, is 90% of your gross income. Where do you have money for a lawyer? Then they cut you off and you sure as hell don't have money for a lawyer. You've got nothing.

I don't see anything in this piece of legislation that is providing any innocent accident victim or even an at-fault accident victim with any protection when he goes before that board.

I'm getting a little tired of people standing up here and telling me: "Under the NDP plan, we're giving away more money. The benefits are enhanced." Well, I can tell you, the benefits aren't enhanced.

If any of you own a calculator, you can sit down and find out that your plan, which is going to pay 80% of net income to innocent accident victims and to at-fault victims, amounts to paying them less in most cases than 80% of gross income, which is now the case under the Liberal plan.

1640

You know who gets hurt the most by changing it from gross to net? The low-income earner, the person who is least likely to have another plan in force to protect him. He's the one who gets hurt, because he's going to be getting less money than what you're now paying.

How can you people stand up here, one member after another, and say you're giving away more money? The person you profess to be protecting, the little guy, is coming out worse under your scheme than under the Liberal scheme. Furthermore, you're not giving him anybody who can go and fight his battle for him when he goes to the auto board.

I know that Lawrence Mandel has been in this Legislature many times at press conferences urging you to do the right thing, making himself available to tell you a little bit about auto insurance. What he says about -- and I know, Mr Speaker, as a man of the cloth you'll appreciate this -- he says that going to the insurance board without a lawyer is a battle of David versus Goliath, but in this particular situation it doesn't have a biblical ending. Goliath is going to win every time. There's no biblical ending for David when he goes to the auto insurance board; and, you know, you people have a chance to correct this.

There's another issue that I want to talk about very briefly. It's the issue dealing with the cost of auto insurance. It's a very funny thing. The minister tells us -- before he released his actuarial numbers last week going back to last spring and even into last summer while we sat here and watched the government flounder in the month of July trying to figure out how to pass its legislation and then needing to change all the rules to be able to do it, he said he had a plan. He reminded me of David Peterson. He said he had a very distinct plan that was going to lower costs. Well, David Peterson had no plan at all. He made it up after he made the promise, because he had an election coming.

But you people had a plan and, my goodness, he told us the price was going to go down. It's sort of like telling us today, when he put on his other hat as Minister of Energy: "Oh, I didn't know anything about Mr Holt leaving Ontario Hydro. He resigned." Then we find out he wrote a letter, and now we've seen the letter that says, "Get rid of the guy." I mean, that's what it says.

He tells us, this same minister, when he wears his Financial Institutions hat, that rates are coming down. Then he released his actuarial reports, which he's had for the last four months and hadn't shown anybody till last week in the middle of a speech when he gave them to us, and you know what? The rates aren't going down. The rates are going up.

Do you know what else? The rates are going up, and at the same time as the rates are going up, the public's getting less. They're getting less money for accident benefits. They're getting less money for economic loss, because there isn't going to be any economic loss. They've got a threshold that says every case under $15,000 is going to be eliminated, when we know that it's going to eliminate cases upwards of $25,000 and $30,000, because that's what the actuarial reports say.

We also know that those most in need of the accident benefit recovery are going to be getting less under the NDP plan. Well, if that's the case, why are the prices going up? I'll tell you something. He says they're going up 8%. I can't believe that at all, because nothing else that he's told us about auto insurance has been factual. The insurance companies say it's going up 25%. Well, 25% and 8% means there's a difference of 17%. Which is it? How can you be instituting a plan and not be able to tell us how much rates are going to go up? It shows that you're not prepared to institute the plan that you're putting before the public. You don't know what you're doing.

Auto insurance, under the Liberal government and under this government, has been nothing short of an abortion. It is going to hurt every innocent accident victim in this province. Every single innocent accident victim in this province is going to be hurt, and the tragedy is that innocent accident victims depended on this government when they went to the ballot box.

They heard this government say: "We are going to reinstitute the right of innocent victims to sue. We are going to do what our document on auto insurance, called Highway Robbery, said. We are going to reinstitute the right to sue." They said it. They said it in their Agenda for People, "We are going to reinstitute the right to sue."

Somewhere, on the way to this place, the minister says, "Oh, I found a better way."

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): No, "I made a mistake."

Mr Harnick: "I made a mistake. I found a better way." People who depended on you don't see it that way, and people who depended on you now have no opportunity -- because you've told them one thing and you've done another -- to do anything about it, not until the next election. The tragedy is that the minister is trying to ram this bill through the Legislature without having adequate public hearings around the province.

If you'd campaigned on exactly what you were doing and you'd been given a mandate to do it, then I could accept not having public hearings that go around this province contacting all the people who are interested in auto insurance. But when you don't do that and you change your mind and say you've made a mistake, it becomes more incumbent upon you to have adequate hearings around this province than at any other time, because no one has had an opportunity to discuss this particular piece of legislation. The only opportunity would be at public hearings, and I understand the minister wants to have public hearings while the Legislature's sitting, not go around the province to give people the opportunity to be heard, and I understand that he just wants to do this in a couple of afternoons.

What are you doing? Why are you trying to hide this from the public? Why aren't you putting ads in papers offering people the opportunity to come and talk about auto insurance? I'm waiting for somebody to stand up and say, "When this bill receives second reading, we're going to go in the month of January, in the month of February, like we do with all other significant pieces of legislation, and we're going to go and take it to the public."

I know the minister has told people in speeches that he's been giving, and I have a speech here that he gave back in February at the Grandview Inn in Huntsville -- pretty nice place. The minister said, "There will also be public hearings, and I urge you to take part in this process if you have any comments about what the government is proposing."

I haven't heard the minister confirm that we're going to have public hearings. Here he is in Huntsville talking about this, offering people the opportunity to be heard, and now I hear we're going to have hearings in this building on a couple of afternoons, and then we're going to inflict the plan on nine million people in the province of Ontario.

I challenge the government to stand up, Mr Wiseman included -- the guy who's going to have the dump in his backyard out in Durham -- I challenge him to stand up and say, "Yes, there are going to be public hearings and, yes, we're going to come to Oshawa, Durham, Peterborough, Sudbury, North Bay and Huntsville," where the minister made his speech. I challenge him to stand up and say that's what he's going to want.

Everything about this auto plan, everything about it, bothers me. Everything about it is shifty, deceitful and --

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): You think you know everything about everything.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Harnick: There are promises that have been broken in every single aspect of this legislation, right down to the kind of public hearings we're going to have. I just can't abide that kind of cynical behaviour, that kind of deceit, and that's exactly what it is, telling people their benefits are going to be automatic but not giving them any allowance to have a lawyer, telling people that they're going to be able to claim for pain and suffering if their injury's worth more than $15,000; we know damn well that your injury is going to have to be $30,000, and if you get a $30,000 injury, all you're going to get is $15,000.

We know this legislation is not foolproof. We know there are people who are going to suffer significant economic losses. Every person, every family, every loved one who is in a situation where his family has suffered a fatal accident is going to be a loser under the economic plan of this policy. We know that is going to happen to every single person involved in an automobile accident in Ontario.

1650

I am a little miffed when I hear the parliamentary assistant get up and talk about future losses being a one-time assessment. Under the plan, you're going to get an allowance based on your current income. You're not going to get an allowance based on the opportunity you might have for advancement in the future. You're not going to get an allowance for the extra overtime you might work. You're not going to get an allowance because you're a student who some day may become a doctor or because you're a truck driver who may some day become president of the cement company. You're going to get an allowance based on the exact amount of income you're making at the time.

I can tell you that when economic losses are computed, they're computed based on the potential of an individual. As I said at the outset, if the minister and his bureaucrats think that this plan is so good, I challenge him to reinstitute the right of innocent accident victims to claim for economic loss, because this minister has told us that no one will fall through the cracks, and as I said before, if that's the case, no one will have any economic loss, and if no one will have any economic loss, the minister should have nothing to fear by reinstituting economic loss for innocent accident victims. But he won't do it. He won't do it because he honestly believes he has a plan here that's going to protect people. This plan is such a hodgepodge of philosophical contradiction that there's no one in this province who is going to benefit, let alone innocent accident victims.

I remind every one of you who is sitting here about your colleague Peter Kormos. I remind you about your colleague Mel Swart. I remind you who was the first person to rush over to Peter Kormos after he stood here for 17 hours, pleading for innocent accident victims, and it was Premier Bob Rae. It was Premier Bob Rae who was the first person to endorse the position Peter Kormos took. To pretend now that this didn't happen, to pretend that Peter Kormos no longer exists, to try to create a situation where Peter Kormos won't have the opportunity to speak is appalling. I, for one, am looking forward to seeing the remarks of Peter Kormos. I know Peter Kormos represents what the NDP used to be all about. He represents the little guy who was hurt in an accident and who demands, because he's an innocent person, his actual recovery, not 10 cents on the dollar that you're prepared to give.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Owens: I listened carefully to the remarks of the member for Willowdale. I'm going to be a little bit more charitable than the member for Willowdale was when he first stood up, as maybe the patience of the Speaker with respect to language has grown a little bit shorter. The member for Willowdale would want people in the House and viewers to think that we are going to tear the lives of accident victims asunder by the passage of this legislation. I disagree.

He talked about the breadwinner being killed in an accident. We understand there are fatalities in accidents. He wants to lead you to believe that nothing will be put into place for the family. He neglects to mention the care giver benefit. He neglects to mention the dependant care giver benefit.

We now have the name of a second person launched across and an allegation from the House. Last Thursday we had the name Darcy, the member for Dufferin-Peel's 31-year-old constituent. I'm still waiting for the letter. Now we have the name of a second person, Linda Peake. Why don't these members send this information over? What are they afraid of? They're afraid of being challenged. Send it over. We'd like to take a look at it.

The member would lead this House to believe that an insurance company can unilaterally cut off a benefit recipient and that's the end of the story. If I can ask the member to look at section 70 of the draft accident benefit regulation, while the insurance company can reduce or cut off benefits, the victim, within five days, can receive payment of all benefits owed and a continuation of benefits with the simple production of a certificate from a medical practitioner.

That's not what's happening now, that's not leaving people out in the cold, but that's exactly what the members of the third party want this government and the constituents of our ridings to believe.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Tilson: I think we should all listen to the member for Willowdale and many of the issues he has raised, particularly the initial comment that he made about the broken promise. There are a number of broken promises that were made by this government when it was running for office, and specifically even after it obtained office, but I think the major promise that it broke was on the subject of eliminating the right to sue for lost past, present and future income. That is one of the major positions of the opposition, of the Progressive Conservative Party at least, as to why that hasn't been dealt with. That's a basic right we all have. Why has that been taken away?

On the whole subject of the $15,000 deductible for pain and suffering, there's no question that this is lower than the current threshold that was set by the Liberals, and the Meyer case has proven that this is simply an unworkable test. But there's also no question, with the $15,000 deductible issue, that those seriously and permanently injured victims, the paraplegics, the quadriplegics, will be entitled to sue for far less compensation than they normally would have received, as a result of Bill 164. With the $15,000 deductible, the government still is, in effect, eliminating the right to sue in about 85% of all cases, so it hasn't improved the situation at all. In fact, it's the same or in some cases even worse.

What they have established is a meat chart. The current ability to tailor compensation to meet the needs and prospects of innocent individual victims will be eliminated. Instead, compensation for all victims will be reduced to the lowest common denominator, and that is in the form of a meat chart. What kind of assistance is that? What kind of deal is being set to deal with the terrible situation that was put forward by the Liberal OMPP? I think we should all listen to the member for Willowdale and his comments.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Kormos: I listened to Mr Harnick's speech, and I tell you, I got a little nervous when he started talking about my convictions. But then I realized, of course, he was talking about my position on auto insurance and that alone. I wouldn't have expected anything more or less from the member.

In this brief period of time, let's set the record straight. When is 90% less than 80%? It's either in the final chapters of Animal Farm or it's in this very Orwellian legislation.

Let's do this exercise; it's a simple one. Everybody pull out their Crayolas. Let's take a gross income of, let's say, $700, because down where I come from, a whole lot of people who have jobs, the ones who do, work really hard for $700 a week. Even under Bill 68, if that person is entitled to his or her no-fault benefits -- and let's not mince words here, these are no-fault benefits -- 80% of gross, 80% of $700 -- and help me with this, because I'm not really good at math -- is $560 tax-free.

1700

The net income of a person earning a gross of $700 -- let's take a conservative figure for deductions. Somebody help me along. Let's talk about maybe $700 less 20%, and that's a very modest figure. We'll deal with $700 less 20%. That's less $140. That comes out to $560. It just so happens that 90% of $560 is --

Mr Harnick: That's $450.

Mr Kormos: -- $450 and $45, $495. Well, by God, 90% of the net is significantly less than 80% of the gross.

This legislation grabs injured victims by the ankles, turns them upside down and shakes every last nickel and dime out of them. By God, they got assaulted once by the drunk driver and they're attacked a second time by legislation that reduces their weekly benefit. Let's not forget that.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments. The honourable member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: I think the member for Willowdale spoke historically very well. He obviously has been around this issue longer than some others. I'm not really sure why the members opposite snicker and laugh. I honestly don't. I mean, if I were part of a government that brought forward this kind of legislation, after saying what they said on the campaign trail, you'd have to rope me to get me into the House to sit here. It's so discrediting to this party and these people. You'd have to rope me to get me in here and sit here and listen to the opposition members remind these people about what you spoke of in opposition.

When they were in opposition they spoke of, "What gives you the right to determine how much anybody would get from an accident, how much money they would receive for the rest of their lives from an accident?" You said it.

Mr Bisson: Can you turn down the sound system?

Mr Stockwell: And quips like this, from the member from who-knows-where and probably no place next election, quips like this, after the promises you made to your constituents. You're going back on the promise which was most important, about ability to sue, ability to recover what your lost income would be. Yet you sit here snickering and laughing when in opposition we're putting forward the exact argument you made on this side of the House and campaigned for in this province. I can't believe they could rope enough members to sit here and allow themselves to be browbeaten by the opposition -- and you'll note most of them are new members; I'm quite sure they don't even understand the issue -- let alone be browbeaten into submission, compared to the promises you made to the people of Ontario.

The member for Willowdale deserves your applause. He's trying to protect your honour.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Willowdale has two minutes for response.

Mr Harnick: First to the parliamentary assistant, who alleges that I made up Linda Peake, let me tell you --

Interjection: He didn't say that.

Interjection: Yes, he did.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Harnick: -- the motor vehicle accident claims file with the Ministry of Financial --

The Acting Speaker: Please be seated. The honourable member for Scarborough Centre has a point of order.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): The member for Willowdale has alleged that I accused the member of making up a name of a constituent. I simply asked that the member provide the name and the story for us to follow up within our ministry. No such allegation was --

The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable member should take his seat. The honourable member for Willowdale has the floor.

Mr Harnick: May I have my time back, Mr Speaker?

Mr Tilson: Twenty-five seconds elapsed.

Mr Stockwell: Why can't he have his time back? It was a point of order from over there.

Mr Harnick: Let me just deal with this. The motor vehicle accident claims file number is F200-16801-4. So if you don't believe me, go look at the file. You'll see about the lady you cut off who's a quadriplegic.

There's only one thing left I have to say at this particular time, and that's that I hope, God forbid, none of you or your families is involved in a car accident after this legislation becomes law, because when you call up your insurance company and you find out you have no claim and your economic loss has been taken away from you and your right to sue for your pain and suffering is minimalized, you will be the first people to complain. You'll say: "My God, how can those awful insurance companies do this? We should have public auto and this would never happen."

Well, you had your chance with that too, and the only people you're going to have to blame for inflicting this on the public are yourselves, and because of this you aren't going to be here next time and this legislation will then be corrected properly.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The honourable member for St Catharines-Brock.

Ms Haeck: As one who has her feet firmly planted and doesn't live in the dreamland of some tort system that is going to cost us huge amounts of money, I will continue.

Our compensation plan is an innovative breakthrough offering enriched and automatic accident benefits for economic losses and greater access to the courts for compensation --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Please be seated.

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: Were your feet firmly planted in your mouth, last election?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): It's called foot and mouth disease.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Harnick: Where were Bob Rae's feet planted when he wrote highway robbery?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Harnick: Where were Peter Kormos's feet?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I think I heard it said by some honourable members in the House that they would like the debate to happen and that the people of Ontario should hear this debate. If that is true, and I assume it is on both sides of the House, I would ask both sides of the House to maintain the decorum of the House.

Mr Bisson: It was the opposition.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable member for St Catharines-Brock has the floor.

Ms Haeck: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will start again. Our compensation plan is an innovative breakthrough offering, first of all, enriched and automatic accident benefits for economic losses and greater access to the courts for compensation for pain and suffering. Together, this provides fairer --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable members for Willowdale and Dufferin-Peel will come to order.

Ms Haeck: It combines the liability-based and structured-benefits approaches in a way --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Ms Haeck: If I may continue. Excuse me, I will begin again.

Our compensation plan is an innovative breakthrough offering enriched and automatic accident benefits for economic losses and greater access to the courts for compensation for pain and suffering.

Mr Harnick: Oh, really?

Ms Haeck: Yes, thank you. Together, this provides fairer and affordable --

Mr Harnick: Really. How much greater? We are going to go from 1% to 3%.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Willowdale is going too far. You're treading the line right now by saying some of the things you've said in the last few moments. It is not fair to this House that members start throwing allegations across the House. It is not fair. So I'd ask the honourable member to receive the same kind of dignity and respect that you would want if you were standing and speaking, and I say that to all the members in the House.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I think you'd find more respect if you allowed a filibuster for 17 hours.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. There's no point of order. Please be seated. The honourable member for St Catharines-Brock has the floor.

Ms Haeck: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Together this provides fairer and affordable coverage. It combines the liability-based and the structured benefits approaches in a way that will be most effective. It provides for the reasonable recovery of economic losses for every injured person, and I stress that, "injured person," every injured person. It also provides special recognition of pain and suffering.

The $15,000 deductible creates the equivalent of a lower threshold. Three times as many can sue as under the Ontario motorist protection plan -- three times as many -- and 18% of tort claimants can benefit from the ability to sue, up from about 6% in the current system. That's 15,000 people annually, instead of 5,000, who will have access to the courts.

I would now like to speak more specifically about the scheduled accident benefits. The premise of the new plan is fair and reasonable compensation for all. Obviously the members in the Tory caucus don't want to hear that because they've turned off their hearing aids. Our system will be one where scheduled accident benefits are provided for all injured drivers. Economic loss benefits are for lost income, lost earning capacity in the future and costs of rehabilitation and care.

1710

Why compensate every injured person for economic losses through automatic accident benefits? I want to review the reasons behind this policy.

Everyone, regardless of fault, has economic needs to cover income losses, care and rehabilitation costs.

Compensation is central to a compulsory insurance scheme; it is its predominant function. Injured persons expect to be compensated for their losses. We must judge the quality of the insurance system by its ability to deliver adequate compensation to those who need it, quickly, efficiently and, may I stress, fairly. Automatic scheduled benefits can do this.

Comprehensive, automatic accident benefits provide equitable and reasonable recovery for economic losses for all. Everyone is treated the same, with benefits based on a set of rules. It's not unpredictable, if I may stress again, like the court system, where some get compensated and others end up with little to show after long and expensive procedures.

Tort is random and uncertain; fault is often not clear. Anyone can make a human error; in most cases, at-fault drivers were guilty of human behaviour. Human errors are not legitimate reasons for allowing a wide gap in the full compensation for tort claims. Automatic benefits are much more appropriate.

Structured accident benefits are available immediately and automatically, with an ongoing assessment of the needs of injured claimants. This means that rehabilitation and recovery can begin immediately and people can return to their pre-accident lifestyles. Tort claims, in contrast, take years to settle, as I have witnessed in my own riding.

Structured benefits remove the very high transaction costs associated with the court system. These cost savings can be put back into better benefits, like rehabilitation, for accident victims, especially those seriously disabled.

Early access to compensation reduces long-term costs. The sooner injured individuals receive the rehabilitation they need, the more likely they are to achieve a prompt and full recovery, relieving some of the stress in the health care system.

The adversarial system is a costly and uncertain way of compensating even the limited few; recovery can depend on many factors, even if the driver was not at fault. There may be no one to sue, the other party may have insufficient liability insurance to provide benefits or the injured persons could be badly served by their legal counsel.

Claims costs are more predictable with automatic benefits. As a result, insurance premiums will be much more stable. Tort settlements, on the other hand, vary widely, making claims costs unpredictable.

Weekly benefits make more sense than one-time lump sum tort awards for future economic loss. Lump sum tort awards for future loss are irrational. Lump sum awards are based on one-time assessments of needs using a number of difficult and complex assumptions about the future. This results in overcompensation to some, undercompensation to others.

Structured benefits make sense. They can be indexed based on actual inflation, not forecasts. Claimants with permanent disabilities can benefit from changes in medical and rehabilitation technologies in the future, because payments are made based on ongoing need rather than a one-time assessment.

Tort and liability may provide some deterrent to bad driving, but this should not be done at the expense of adequate benefits for all injured persons. Irresponsible drivers can be dealt with through higher premiums, the driver licensing system, systematic driver improvement programs for poor drivers and criminal charges.

Now I would like to speak about allowing access to the courts for pain and suffering. Our system will provide greater access to sue for compensation for the pain and suffering of those who are seriously injured and can prove someone else was at least partially at fault. These non-pecuniary losses are pain and suffering as well as loss of enjoyment of life and reduced life expectancy. Psychological as well as physical injury will be included, a big improvement, I might add, over the OMPP.

Why provide expanded recognition and recovery of compensation for pain and suffering through the tort system? There are two main reasons: Those who can prove someone else was at least partially negligible deserve recognition for their special losses. The courts provide a fair mechanism for attributing fault. The courts are well equipped to deal with the intangibles of pain and suffering. Pain and suffering losses are very different from economic losses. First, pain and suffering damages are more difficult to define financially. In addition, the types and levels of pain and suffering vary across individuals. For example, the loss of a hand may create more pain and suffering for a pianist than, say, someone like myself, who happens to be a librarian.

The courts have the expertise and tools at hand to make fair assessments of these intangible and individualized losses. Pain and suffering is not suited to a fixed schedule of benefits; individualized assessment is what is needed.

I will now highlight some of the results of our proposed pain and suffering tort model. First, more people can sue. Eligible tort claims are tripled. The current OMPP threshold provides extremely limited access to suing. Under the new system, with a $15,000 deductible, three times as many injuries will gain some recognition of pain and suffering; as I have said, that's roughly 15,000 people who can pursue tort claims, up from the Liberal plan, which only allowed 5,000.

The use of a monetary deductible represents a different way of determining who can seek compensation through the courts for pain and suffering. The OMPP has a verbal threshold. This is a written description of the injuries that qualify for suing. The OMPP threshold specified that injuries had to be serious and permanent physical injury, disfigurement or death. The monetary deductible is a simpler, more equitable and understandable way of providing access to the courts. It offers more certainty than verbal descriptions which are vague and difficult to interpret.

The legal community, through practice, knows the rough values of pain and suffering losses. As I mentioned earlier, pain and suffering from psychological injuries will be recognized. This is not an insignificant change. The OMPP unfairly prohibited suing for psychological injury. Many people were seriously injured under the OMPP and yet were excluded from suing, despite their very substantial pain and suffering. Their lives have been disrupted, yet they've had no recourse to the courts for some recognition of their non-economic losses.

Pain and suffering tort is a more efficient and effective use of tort. Many more people can sue, many more seriously injured innocent accident victims will get recognition of their pain and suffering and there will be savings from lower transaction costs in court settlements. This is because pain and suffering tort cases are much less complex to assess than economic loss tort cases. There are fewer issues to be addressed; for example, no need to prove future wage loss, and a reduced need for expert advice. This means big savings on legal costs.

Costs will be contained by the well-established fair and equitable practice of the courts in awarding pain and suffering awards. Pain and suffering awards are capped at about $240,000 indexed. This provides assurances that tort awards will be fair and yet will not escalate beyond reasonable levels.

1720

Our compensation framework is affordable. When all of the costs and savings of our reforms are balanced out, these significant enhancements are affordable relative to the OMPP. This is because, I will reiterate, of the innovative combination of accident benefits for economic loss and the ability to sue for pain and suffering in our new plan. This involves an efficient and effective use of premium dollars. More money is directed to the injured accident victim. I will repeat that: More money is directed to the injured accident victim.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments, the member for Nepean.

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I have just a few remarks in response to what the member for St Catharines-Brock just said. As a member of the governing NDP, obviously she's full of praise for this particular initiative but, for the life of me, I can't see why she is so proud of this bill that's before the House because, frankly, when you take away all the rhetoric, I think the whole issue boils down to a tradeoff.

This is an issue we had to face when we were in government; this is an issue the government has to face now. That tradeoff is either you're going to have reasonable premiums and then you will have to reduce the benefits to some extent or you're going to have relatively substantial premiums and then you can obviously pay out higher premiums.

Where do you draw the line? That is a decision to be made by the government of the day. But this government certainly is not going back to the promise the member for Welland-Thorold had been fighting for somewhere around this spot, in fact, in the last Legislature for many hours. In fact it's basically staying with what the Liberal government had proposed and it's making a few minor adjustments. I ask the government, why did you go out during the campaign and make all kinds of promises that you obviously cannot keep? It is another one in your long row and your long stretch of broken promises.

The member for Welland-Thorold is here to witness. Every time he stands up he says it to you. He is the person who gives witness to the fact that you made the promise and that you're not keeping the promise.

Mr Harnick: It's very interesting to see someone come into this House and read verbatim a speech that I believe was prepared by someone else. The conviction with which that speech was read, using words like "negligible" as interchangeable for "negligent," leads me to believe that the level of understanding of what this is all about by the members on the government side is really negligible.

Part of the opportunity to stand for the two minutes is to ask questions and I notice, Mr Speaker, that you say "Questions or responses." What I'd like to ask the member who just spoke, and I'd like her to address this when she stands in her two minutes, is, how will the accident benefits your government is proposing become automatic? How will it be that anybody who's involved in an accident will just get the automatic benefits? How are they going to get them and what's going to happen when the insurance company cuts them off? Who's going to be there to protect them?

I want to know how these benefits are going to be automatic. I hope these benefits are more automatic than Linda Peake's benefits. She's a quadriplegic. She can't get her money from the motor vehicle accident claims fund. Who runs the motor vehicle accident claims fund? Well, my goodness, it's the Minister of Financial Institutions, Brian Charlton, the member from one of those Hamilton ridings.

If it's not automatic now, how's it going to be automatic later? I'm amazed when you stand up and you tell me that this is going to be affordable. Mr Charlton stood up and he said, "The rates are going up." How is it going to be affordable? "Well, I don't know exactly how high they're going, but they're going up."

Mr Owens: I'm not going to fight the ghosts of public auto. That's the responsibility of the member for Welland-Thorold, as the minister responsible for ghosts. I know what I feel about public auto and my caucus members know what I feel about public auto.

I would like to thank the member for St Catharines-Brock for her very succinct outline of the accident benefits that will be available to accident victims across the province. She mentioned quite succinctly once again the income replacement benefits, indexed benefits. The members of the third party, when they do their calculations, neglect to mention indexation. It's an important issue.

The issue with respect to students: A student will receive payments: $2,000 per elementary school year; $2,000 per secondary school year for a limit of two semesters; $4,000 for a post-secondary student. Disability benefit, a care giver benefit, a dependent care benefit --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Owens: -- a supplementary medical and rehabilitation -- the caps have been taken off long-term rehabilitation, something the members of the former government didn't understand or want to do.

The member for Niagara South tells me she has constituents calling and saying: "We were hurt under the Liberal government's plan. We are limited by the number of dollars that we can spend in our long-term care. We have taken" --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr Owens: It's unfortunate, Mr Speaker, that the members of the third party can't keep quiet for the whole sum of two minutes.

In terms of the supplementary care and rehabilitation benefits, again we've taken off the lifetime cap the members of the former government were so insistent on putting in.

The Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired. The member for St Catharines.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I was listening with a good deal of interest to my colleague the member for St Catharines-Brock speaking. I thought she might have explored the issue of how this is a betrayal of NDP policy. I think she avoided that because she is right adjacent to the member for Welland-Thorold, who had the following to say about it. He said, "Their wacko, knee-jerk amendments to the existing legislation," and described Charlton's amendments as a complete betrayal of party policy.

I thought that perhaps because my friend the member for St Catharines-Brock is adjacent to the member for Welland-Thorold in terms of jurisdiction, she might have commented on that and determined whether in fact he was wrong or her party and her government were wrong.

I well recall during the election campaign how many people with the New Democratic Party, probably including my friend the member for St Catharines-Brock, said on the platform that they had a better idea for automobile insurance; that indeed, they would be restoring some of the benefits they felt the previous government had taken away in terms of no-fault benefits. In fact they were going to go further and make it publicly run.

I remember speaking in the House about some assistance for local people, and one of the people, a hard worker in the campaign for the member for St Catharines-Brock, who was the vice-president of CAW Local 199, wrote a letter to the editor after I had tried to assist in getting some funding and said, "Well, you know you really can't trust Bradley because those Liberals are in bed with the insurance companies or are in the pockets of the insurance companies."

Now I find out the member for Welland-Thorold says there's a lot of room in that bed and that in fact his own government is there. I'm sure if the member had sufficient time, she probably would have included that in her speech. I certainly enjoyed her speech this afternoon.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for St Catharines-Brock, you have two minutes to reply.

Ms Haeck: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's always a pleasure to hear from my colleague the member for St Catharines. We have a very amicable relationship, he and I, and I know he is trying to provide some insight into this whole process.

But it is true, the member for St Catharines, that I don't necessarily share all of the views of my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold. In fact I recall in speeches of the former member for Welland-Thorold that he made comments about clearing up the court system as a result of a public auto insurance plan.

I respect Mel Swart. People frequently make use of his comments in this House and I think sometimes are probably not aware of how much of a consumer protector Mel Swart actually was. I'm not sure that in all instances he would support all aspects of what is being put forward here today.

1730

Mr Harnick: Tell us what his position is on the bill. How does this consumer protector like your bill?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, the member for Willowdale. You had your turn.

Ms Haeck: I don't see this as any kind of betrayal. Personally, I see the whole process of improving on the Liberal legislation as one of providing a much fairer system for all Ontarians, all drivers, all accident victims. It provides them with access to a fairer plan, one that will give all people who are injured a benefits package which under the current plan they do not get.

I do recognize, as the member for -- I'm sorry, it's one of the Ottawa ridings. I have forgotten.

Mr Bradley: Nepean.

Ms Haeck: Thank you, member for St Catharines.

I understand there are these tradeoffs and cost factors.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I am pleased to rise and participate in this second reading debate on Bill 164, which is an act to amend the auto insurance system here in Ontario.

I'd like to use the time available to me to speak on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Oriole and perhaps explain exactly what is happening, because we know we have heard a lot of rhetoric about this bill. I'd also like to explain to my constituents and other Ontarians who may be watching these proceedings the process we're engaged in today.

This is second reading debate of Bill 164. Following a vote on second reading, which I expect will occur within the next couple of weeks, Bill 164 will be sent out to committee, hopefully for extensive public hearings, because I believe this is a matter of significant public interest. I believe that committee will be the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, of which I am a member, so I will have an opportunity to participate in the public discussion of this bill and the public hearings that will continue.

There will be an opportunity for the government to amend this bill at committee. There will be an opportunity at the end of the committee hearings for the bill not only to be debated but for amendments to be placed at the committee level, before the bill is then brought back to this House for third reading.

I am hopeful that the government really is willing to listen. We've seen some very significant policy changes by the NDP and I would like to put on the record what some of those policy changes are, because I think it helps people to understand the bill and see where we are today.

From April 1987 -- that wasn't so long ago, I know you'll agree, Mr Speaker -- this is a quote from the NDP submission to the Osborne inquiry, which was examining the state of Ontario's auto insurance system at the time. The quote was, "We must take compulsory car insurance out of the hands of private industry and set up a driver-owned car insurance plan in Ontario." I think that was the first time that people in Ontario really heard very clearly what the NDP plans were for the auto insurance industry.

You know, Mr Speaker, because you were here in the Legislature at the time, the process the Liberal government went through in examining this issue. I know you're also aware why this was such a significant and important issue. Insurance rates were rising dramatically. People were quite frustrated with the length of time it was taking to get the kind of settlements and awards through the tort system. There were great costs. I know there was tremendous frustration not only with the tort system but particularly with the cost.

The reason the government was particularly interested was because it is a requirement of the government for drivers in Ontario to have insurance in order to be able to get a licence to drive a car in Ontario. So it was determined that the government would attempt to find a product. Now, when we used the term "product," that was the product that would be sold, the basic level of insurance that would be required in order for someone to get a licence and drive a car in Ontario. That's what product reform was all about. It was to reform the auto insurance system so that what you ended up with in Ontario was more affordable.

As I said, that was extremely important, because people were concerned at the rate at which insurance premiums were escalating. This was back in 1987. As we as well know, there were concerns about having fairness brought into the system, as well as accessibility both to auto insurance and to a product that people would feel best represented their interests in this province, both from the perspective of coverage and for the purposes of claims if, unfortunately, they were in an accident.

We went through the many, many hours of discussion and debate. We learned an awful lot about the insurance system. We heard from the Osborne task force, in its finding and summary in 1988, and this is a quote. The Osborne report said, "The startup costs of a public automobile insurance corporation, the elimination of the benefits of competition and the likely increase in the number of high-risk drivers, and therefore claim costs, will reduce, if not eliminate entirely, the potential for cost saving from conversion to public automobile insurance."

I will say to you, as someone who was a part of the debate and the discussion here in this Legislature, and in fact in the cabinet of the province of Ontario in 1988, that this had an enormous impact. We believed that what the drivers in Ontario were most concerned about at that time was affordability of premium and fairness of claim response. Those were two very important and key ingredients.

We knew that the New Democratic Party was advocating a publicly run auto insurance system. We knew that was the basis of their policy, and I know that many will remember that in the summer of 1990 that was the policy, the election campaign platform of the New Democratic during that summer campaign.

What I find really significant is that the throne speech of November 20, 1990, that first throne speech from Bob Rae, made this commitment to the people:

"After a period of discussion, we will introduce, in the spring, a bill to reorganize the delivery of car insurance to the driving public....

"Our intention is to create a system that will provide the best service at a reasonable cost to drivers, and at the same time ensure access to a fair settlement of claims for personal and other damages. We believe that a driver-owned plan can provide the best service to the public."

That quote came from the throne speech of November 20, 1990, and they made that statement notwithstanding the evidence of the Osborne report; they made that notwithstanding all the evidence and the submissions that had been made. But in fact that was the commitment of the NDP government in 1990 as it was about to reform auto insurance in the province of Ontario.

I heard from many of my constituents during the summer of 1990 that they had witnessed the 17-hour filibuster led by Mr Kormos with the support of now Premier Rae, and they were concerned because they believed the NDP perhaps had a better idea. I've heard from many of my constituents over the course of the last number of months, since the election of this government, how shocked, disappointed and, I would say -- and I've spoken on this several times in this Legislature -- how cynical they have become, because the actions of this NDP government are so different from what it told the people, not just during the election campaign of 1990, but even in its throne speech shortly after it was elected.

1740

Having given this little bit of history, which I think is very important to understand how we got here to Bill 164, having set aside all of those things that they promised in the summer campaign of 1990, having set aside all of those things they promised in the election, having set aside all of those things they said in their throne speech in the fall of 1990, we had a change of minister and we had a new minister bring forward Bill 164.

Bill 164, in my opinion, really is an unnecessary piece of legislation. It is unnecessary because it does not achieve any of the goals that were established by the NDP when it was in opposition. In fact I think the people of this province, when they start to understand what Bill 164 contains, will come to the conclusion that Bill 164 is not in the public interest and, unfortunately, I think they will realize they are being deceived by the NDP government once again.

The goal that I have always had as a member of the Legislature has been to serve the public interest and to serve my constituents. The goal that I have for a system of auto insurance in the province, which is a requirement of the ability to drive a car, is that the system, that basic package that is a requirement for drivers in Ontario, should be affordable, and that in case of injury, people should be fairly treated and should be able to access the system, not only in a way which speeds their claims but also responds to what their real need is.

The Ontario motorist protection plan was introduced to achieve those goals that I have just stated, and it's my opinion that Bill 164 actually proves that the OMPP is working quite well. I'm not standing here to say that it's perfect. Rarely is any new proposal brought forward that is perfect. Things always require fine-tuning, change and amendment as you see how they're working.

In fact the OMPP is relatively new and we really haven't had sufficient experience with it to determine yet where the changes should be made to bring the kind of fine-tuning amendments forward to that piece of legislation which will respond to the concerns of the people who have been affected by that new piece of legislation.

But for all intents and purposes, from everything that I've heard from my constituents, from those who have had minor accidents, from those who've had major accidents, they are generally satisfied with the response that they have had. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that my constituents are pleased with the fact that premiums have come down in the province of Ontario as a result of the Ontario motorist protection plan. They are pleased that premium rates have remained lower than they thought they would be and that they have been stable within the province of Ontario.

Good drivers with good records have really benefited under the Ontario motorist protection plan and people with poor driving records are the ones who have had to pay more, and that is seen as fair. But overall, as a generalization that is a fair generalization, I believe one can say that premiums today are lower in Ontario than they would have been if the Ontario motorist protection plan had not been brought in.

I acknowledge my colleague the member for Cochrane South, who says, quite rightly, that the statement I have just made is true and fair and accurate. Therefore, it brings me to question why we have Bill 164 before us today, because I do not believe that we need new legislation now.

I also believe it is my constituents who are unaware of what this bill does: As it may increase benefits for some, it will severely limit benefits for others, and the ones it will limit those benefits for are the ones in my view who will probably need it the most. I'll go on to explain, if I can.

The other concern that my constituents should have and that I have on their behalf is that Bill 164 will probably result in increased premiums for consumers. Just as a moment ago I made the statement that premiums in Ontario are generally lower than they would have been because of the implementation of the Ontario motorist protection plan, I will also make the statement that it is my view, which has been supported by others who have an interest in this subject, that premiums likely will increase as a result of Bill 164 simply because of the uncertainty that is created by Bill 164.

Let me identify some of those areas of uncertainty. While this bill will allow more accident victims to exceed the threshold and sue for pain and suffering, we know that will not necessarily mean a greater benefit to them because there has always been a cap on pain and suffering and the greatest proportion of suits and awards in our courts have always been for economic loss, not for pain and suffering.

By removing the right to sue for economic loss for those who are severely injured, those people whose lives are devastated because of a terrible accident will not be able to recover for loss of income over the course of their lives and that is a serious flaw in this legislation, because it is a tradeoff which I believe the consumer in this province will realize is not in the public interest. All future economic loss as a result of Bill 164 will be compensated through the statutory accident benefit system. There will no longer be the right to sue for economic loss through the courts for those seriously and permanently injured people.

This denial of the right to sue for loss of income is a greater restriction than what was available under the Ontario motorist protection plan and this provision is a significant betrayal by the NDP of the very people it purported to want to assist in its fight against the OMPP. They are making the situation worse for those people whom they advocated for vigorously during the debate of OMPP. I can't say it strongly enough and I don't believe the public really is aware of the seriousness of that particular provision of this bill.

Under Bill 164, the bill that is before us today, accident victims will no longer be able to sue for loss of income. However, the right is granted to sue for pain and suffering with a deductible. The one thing most people don't realize is that the courts have established over a period of time significant and very specific awards for certain types of pain and suffering.

Because of our legal system, which is one of precedent, you can pretty much determine and judge what you're likely going to get if you sue, and there is concern by many that establishing the $15,000 threshold deductible will (1) be a significant deterrent but (2) will not be a deterrent at all; it may well become the floor. It will change over a period of time and ultimately result in higher premium costs, without much benefit to the people who are encouraged to sue because of the high legal costs that will come as a part of that court action.

1750

I know this sounds complicated, and it is, and most people don't understand a lot of the provisions, but the one thing they tell me is that they want premiums kept down. This particular provision is not going to help keep premiums down. This particular provision is not necessarily going to result in higher awards for individuals. This is only going to result, in my view, in higher premiums.

The expansion of the right to sue for pain and suffering on the one hand, accompanied by a narrowing of the right to sue for economic loss on the other hand, is not only a betrayal of the NDP commitments; it is the kind of thing that breeds cynicism in our society. I say to the government members who are here today, think about what you are doing, think about the message you're sending out to people when you do this. You're making them more cynical by this kind of response. I encourage you to think again.

The NDP government admits that this new law will allow more accident victims to sue for pain and suffering. We know it's going to increase the number of lawsuits. We know it's going to increase the amount of the premiums. What we don't believe is that it will increase the benefit to those people who are launching the suit. That's the point.

I must say that this provision, along with several others, increases the uncertainty of this bill, the uncertainty of the climate for auto insurance in the province; and that uncertainty is not in the interests of my constituents in the riding of Oriole, it is not in the interests of attracting business to this province and it is not in the interests of the people who are now providing that service.

Let me give an example. I believe that many insurance companies that have reduced their premiums because of how well OMPP is working will, because of the uncertainty this bill creates, because it will be very difficult for them as you remove certain caps on rehab and so forth -- I believe the cap was important only to allow for personal planning. I also believe, from a previous life and my involvement in this particular issue, that very few people would break through a cap of $500,000 for rehab and $500,000 for home care. But the uncertainty of how many that's likely to be will cause premiums to increase. Just the removal of that cap, even though it will benefit very few people -- I've had the quotation that maybe 10 per year might benefit -- will not benefit the overwhelming majority of the people, because it will result in higher premiums just because of the uncertainty. The benefit to the individual will not be significant. I believe you should reconsider that when we're at committee, because that's not in the public interest.

I would suggest that ultimately the provisions of this bill, the fact that government by regulation will be able to define so much, leads to the kind of uncertainty that will have a tremendous pressure to increase premiums. What this bill does is remove the security and the stability from the market. That stability is another example where the indexation of costs -- everybody thinks that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. We don't know what effect that's going to have on premiums, and my constituents say, "If you're going to force me to have insurance in order to drive my car, make sure I can afford the premium." By creating instability in this bill and by this bill and forcing premiums up, you are going to impact on the people for whom affordability is a major issue in this province.

I would suggest that the NDP government has no idea of what the costing of all of the measures contained in Bill 164 will be. They've not released any actuarial studies showing what the effect of these measures will be on premiums. All we know is that they say that premiums won't go up, but they haven't released any studies backing up their case.

The member opposite refers to the Mercer report. I have it here in front of me. I have read that report and I can tell you that that report does not say premiums will not go up; this report does not back up your claim that premiums will not go up. If that's what you're telling people, then I would suggest that you read the Mercer report, because that report does not say what you are saying.

While the NDP has touted its plan to allow premiums to be set without unfair discrimination or rating or availability, all of that will be done by regulation, and that is creating tremendous uncertainty in the industry. I say to you again, that will result in increased premiums, and as far as my constituents in the riding of Oriole and I believe the people of the province of Ontario are concerned, at a time when you're busy increasing taxes, when the economy is in recession, the last thing they need is an increase in auto insurance premiums that could be avoided if you would not proceed with Bill 164.

I would say that unfortunately the bill provides for penalties for insurance companies such that they won't want to invest in this province. Because of the withdrawal provisions, which are very technical, I believe the effect is going to cost jobs. Every day in my constituency office people come in and say, "Elinor, I'm worried that I'm not going to have my job tomorrow." They say to me, "The most important thing on our minds is job creation and job security." The NDP policies, they tell me, are forcing businesses out of business in Ontario and not encouraging businesses to come to Ontario to set themselves up here and create jobs.

Bill 164, in my opinion, will do exactly that. It will not encourage insurance companies to come to Ontario and to set up business and create jobs, but it will encourage job loss, it will encourage instability, and all of that is the wrong message in Ontario at this particular time. We already have high taxes, we already have the labour relations law, and these have sent clear messages to the business community that Ontario is not open for business. Bill 164 is yet another nail. Bill 164 reinforces that message that Ontario is not open for business, and further, not only will it increase premiums, but it will discourage job creation in the province of Ontario.

I would close my remarks by saying that I am concerned that Bill 164 is misguided public policy. I do not believe it is in the interests of my constituents, who are concerned about premium cost and fair access to adjudication if they have an accident. I don't believe they fully realize yet the impact of the total ban on the right of those most seriously injured to sue for economic loss. That has not been fully impacted, but when it is, I believe people will be outraged that the New Democratic Party, which promised expansion, actually has further limited those most vulnerable. I believe people will see that the expansion of the right to sue for pain and suffering is in fact a betrayal, that it will not benefit the people of this province, that it may lead to clogging up of our courts and claims which will not result in higher awards for individuals and for people, only in higher premiums.

I look forward to having an opportunity to further scrutinize this bill in committee. I say to my constituents that whenever you look at a piece of legislation, what you say is, "How is this going to affect me?" People say to me, "Elinor, how is this bill going to affect me?" My message to them: What Bill 164, in its present format, is going to do for you, my constituents in Oriole and people across the province of Ontario, is result in higher premiums with fewer premium dollars going to accident victims. It will also result in job loss and instability in the business climate of this province and will further deteriorate the kind of stability and confidence we need to lead ourselves out of this recession.

I ask the New Democratic government to think about this very clearly, and over the course of the public hearings that will follow, to consider the kind of amendments that will in fact say that this bill is not required. I actually ask you to consider delaying this bill, not passing the bill, and waiting until we've had more experience with OMPP so that we can see what kind of amendments will be in the public interest in the future. I believe that's in the interest of my constituents in the riding of Oriole. I believe delay of this bill is in the interest of the people of the province of Ontario. I believe this is misguided policy. It is my hope that the New Democratic Party and Premier Bob Rae will consider stopping the progress of this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 1801.