Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ACCORD CONSTITUTIONNEL

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Je vais dire un oui enthousiaste à l'entente de Charlottetown.

À mon avis, le plus grand mérite de cette entente est d'avoir réussi à tenir compte des intérêts et des aspirations des nombreuses composantes de la société canadienne : des autochtones, de l'Ouest et du Québec, par exemple.

À Charlottetown, on a pensé à une nouvelle façon de faire fonctionner la fédération où tout le monde se sentirait inclus sans menacer les droits individuels et collectifs, sans menacer les institutions qui nous permettent de réaliser nos objectifs communs.

Promenez-vous partout dans le pays et vous allez trouver des individus qui diront qu'ils auraient pu obtenir plus. Ils ont raison. Ce à quoi nous sommes arrivés est un compromis où tout le monde gagne.

Une constitution se doit de répondre aux besoins actuels. Elle n'a pas la capacité d'imposer une vision d'un pays même si cette vision est techniquement parfaite.

On dit souvent que l'entente de Charlottetown va rendre le pays plus difficile à gouverner. C'est possible. Quand tout le monde peut s'exprimer, en général ça peut prendre plus de temps. C'est le prix de la démocratie. C'est ce qu'il fallait faire pour que la grande majorité des Canadiennes et Canadiens se sentent chez eux dans leur pays. Même une constitution froide et techniquement parfaite n'arrivera jamais à remplacer la volonté de vivre et de bâtir ensemble.

CONSERVATION OFFICERS

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I would like to bring to the attention of this House a very disturbing situation that is affecting my riding and, I'm sure, the province as a whole. Conservation officers, who are employed by the Ministry of Natural Resources and who enforce our provincial fish and game laws, have in effect been told not to work so hard. This may sound like good news to many people, but it only frustrates the dedicated MNR staff in Grey.

Conservation officers can no longer cover the entire area for which they are responsible because of new mileage restrictions. They can no longer respond to calls on weekends or evenings because of time restrictions. Therefore, good fish and game management will become a thing of the past.

The special investigation unit which worked undercover and which has broken up several major commercial poaching ventures has been disbanded.

Without this protection for our wildlife, anyone can hunt and fish at will. Harvests will no longer be regulated and species will decline and may become extinct. It will be impossible for fish and game to maintain their natural population.

As well, our children will suffer. Conservation officers often visited schools to educate our young people. They explained proper wildlife management and taught them respect for the environment.

It is ironic that the minister has made the decision on the 100th anniversary of the hiring of Ontario's first conservation officer. On what should be a happy and proud occasion, the minister has generated only despair and low morale.

Ontario is well known and praised for its natural wealth of fish and wildlife. Will the minister continue to put this fine reputation at risk?

ALGOMA CENTRAL RAILWAY

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Today I would like to update the House on the progress we've made to date with the Algoma Central Railway in Sault Ste Marie.

The Strategic Consultation and Action Now Algoma Central Railway Task Force, of which I am chair, has been working to help resolve the ACR problem. Our mandate is to look at options to maintain the Algoma Central Railway in the public interest.

As you are all aware, the provincial government has generously contributed to the maintenance of the railway, and now it is our task to find alternatives to provincial funding.

This past summer, SCAN North ACR held a two-day conference in Wawa. I wanted to share with the House how valuable and successful the conference was in pulling people together. If nothing else, it confirmed in our minds the value of the ACR as a piece of the transportation infrastructure in the Sault-to-Hearst corridor. Many valuable ideas were generated as to how this challenge might be resolved. This will eventually be shared with the government.

I want to say thank you to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines for instituting SCAN North as a tool for strategic planning and especially for targeting the ACR. I would also like to thank all those groups and individuals, the company, staff and unionized employees, shippers, tourist operators and communities that took time to participate. The 80 people who converged in Wawa for the conference indicated to us the importance of consultation and the value of the ACR to our area and northeastern Ontario.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Yesterday the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations announced a pilot project in Windsor of casinos and promised us more if they were successful. It raises a question about how charities are going to fund themselves.

I give you a perfect example: Big Sisters of Peel, which does tremendous work with young girls who require the assistance of an older girl, is funded 70% by fund-raising on its own. I looked at their financial statement at their last annual meeting. They raised $174,000 with Nevada tickets.

Minister, as you well know, Nevada tickets are the paper version of a one-armed bandit or slot machine. What is going to happen to the Big Sisters in terms of being able to raise funds once you've introduced your casinos with the slot machines? Is it going to become a situation where charities are going to have to come begging to the NDP government? Are you going to keep them on a string? Is that the way you're going to control them or are you in fact going to allow them to simply just go out of business?

I suggest that if you've got any ideas of the Big Sisters running a casino, they're not interested. What you're doing, in effect, is simply putting volunteers in a category where they're not going to be able to raise the funds to carry out all the necessary good works going on in our province.

I suggest to you, Minister, you'd better take a good hard look at how you're going to deal with these casinos and what answer you're going to have for those young girls who won't have Big Sisters if funding's not available.

1340

SHORELINE MANAGEMENT

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources and it concerns your proposed restrictive shoreline management plan.

I received more than 150 letters from residents of properties that border the Lake Huron shoreline who are concerned that you plan to implement a draft provincial policy statement called the Great Lakes-St Lawrence River Flood and Erosion Policy Statement. The residents are worried that if you implement this plan a significant portion of their property rights will be expropriated, resulting in a substantial financial hardship.

These residents want you to reconsider how it will be implemented. They also want further implementation of the Ausable-Bayfield Conservation Authority shoreline management plan halted immediately. They believe implementation of this plan is premature because it's only in draft form and has not yet been finalized.

As Minister of Natural Resources, you're aware that a similar situation exists in the township of Tiny. Your response to that matter of the Rowntree Beach Association is before the courts and it has created a cloud of uncertainty whereby property owners are not able to sell or mortgage their properties and the properties themselves have been devalued. When are you going to resolve this matter so people can get on with their lives?

I urge you to reconsider this matter before your restrictive shoreline management plan is implemented and before you mess up things along the Lake Huron shoreline like you have along the Tiny township shoreline.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Tony Rizzo (Oakwood): I rise today in this House to publicly state my total and deep dissent with the fearmongering campaign waged against Bill 40. It has been said that with Bill 40, Ontario would become the most pro-union jurisdiction in the democratic world and also that this bill will transform Ontario into the last bastion of socialism. This is merely a misrepresentation of reality.

Think of Germany, where union representatives and employee representatives are entitled by law to sit on corporations' boards of directors. Five out of seven of the most industrialized countries are much more advanced in labour codes than us and do much better than us.

Is there anyone who can, in good faith, explain to the workers of Ontario how those economies can work with such strict labour codes and Ontario's economy would instead go down the drain for forbidding scab labour? European business understands this. Franco Tato, the former chairman of the German company, Triumph Adler, says, "In the joint management system that exemplifies the German economy, a strong union is absolutely vital in dealing with the social problems that inevitably accompany the kind of industrial restructuring that the country will have to face in the coming years."

If Ontario employers would stop wearing blinkers and start looking farther than Buffalo, then Ontario will prosper and also be different from the United States. If not, the happy few will grow richer and richer while more and more of us will become poorer and poorer, just like the United States.

FOOD BANKS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): As we approach the second Thanksgiving weekend since this government was elected, we recognize that the use of food banks in the GTA has increased by 85% and that this year they'll be looking for over two million pounds of food. That amount of food has doubled in one year. In the past, the percentage of high school graduates using food banks was relatively low, but that rate has gone up this year by 45%.

The Premier made a promise in October 1990 to eliminate food banks and said his government would be able to tackle the problem of hunger in its first term. Each year the lines are longer and this government's solutions are ineffective. At this time of Thanksgiving this government should resolve itself to live up to the promises made by Bob Rae in the last election.

You defend your actions or inactions instead of admitting your failure, and you were going to be different. Instead, while you concentrate on your philosophical dogmatic agenda, people -- women and children -- are starving. What a travesty: a social democratic government with a Premier who wouldn't dare lie to the people but who clearly cannot deliver on his promises. You've institutionalized the very program you promised to end.

Shame on this government, shame on this minister who is obviously incompetent and shame on this Premier who seems to care not for those who elected him, but rather more for his personal image. Premier, come home and help the people vote Yes in this country on a full stomach and with a job.

ROAD MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Last spring, on April 30, I informed the Legislature of a gross funding inequity authored by the Minister of Transportation which severely impacted the county of Wellington's road construction and maintenance budget.

You will recall that the minister had promised municipalities that his base allocation for roads funding in 1992 would increase by 1%. However, the minister conveniently neglected to mention that he had unilaterally demanded a change in local accounting procedures from the rural model to the urban one, and without prior consultation he had changed the ministry's criteria with respect to resurfacing needs. He neglected to mention that Wellington county's base allocation would actually drop a full 8% or almost $500,000 over the 1991 allocation, leaving the county no option but to defer necessary projects.

On top of this, the minister has shown a clear lack of interest in the urgent need to prioritize improvements to Highway 6 through Wellington on his five-year plan. I call upon him to announce today that construction to make Highway 6 safer will commence next spring at the very latest.

Now we have the government promoting the concept of disentanglement. The widely held view is that under disentanglement the province may assume 100% of the cost of welfare and in return local government will assume 100% of roads funding. The government has stated that there will be no losers as a result of disentanglement. After last year's roads funding fiasco, pardon me if I say we can't trust this government to keep this commitment.

If the province were to assume full financial responsibility for welfare and discontinue roads subsidy, municipalities in Wellington would be forced to pick up the much larger province-roads cost, over $10 million, while the province would only assume the much smaller municipal share of welfare, less than $2 million, a net loss to the county of $8 million, making property taxes in Wellington soar into the sky.

I implore this government not to take any action on disentanglement without direct consultation and the acknowledged assent of Ontario municipalities from all areas of the province.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired. Would the member take his seat, please.

TVONTARIO

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): For a change, a positive statement: As members are aware, TVOntario hosted an open house for the general public during Toronto Arts Week recently. The occasion also marked the station's 22nd birthday. TVO, which is an agency of the Ministry of Culture and Communications, wanted to celebrate more than 20 years of success in television with the people who count the most, the viewing audience.

More than 25,000 people showed up to tour the studios, enjoy performances and take part in other activities. This number exceeded even the highest expectations. Since day one, TVO and La Chaîne have brought the people of Ontario the finest in educational programs and enlightened entertainment programs, Mr Speaker, which I'm sure you enjoy. Elwy Yost's Saturday Night at the Movies, Polka Dot Door and À la claire fontaine have made TVOntario an Ontario institution.

This province takes pride in our public broadcasting station and we are pleased to call it public television for the 1990s. While much of the financial support comes from the Ministry of Culture and Communications, TVO's foundation is really the viewing audience.

On behalf of the ministry, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate everyone involved with the recent open house for its resounding success. Congratulations to the people who bring us TVOntario.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I have had time to consider the point raised yesterday by the honourable member for Dufferin-Peel (Mr Tilson) regarding fees that he was required to pay in relation to the freedom of information and privacy legislation as it applies to members of the House.

As I had cautioned the member yesterday, I was not able to find that he had a valid point of privilege. I would like to refer the honourable member to rulings given earlier in this House by Speaker Edighoffer on June 7, 1988, and again on June 13, 1988, that address the very point that he raised yesterday.

Again, I thank the honourable member for the way in which he has brought this matter to the attention of the House.

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FIRE SAFETY

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): I am pleased to be announcing retrofit regulations which make building owners responsible for ensuring that adequate fire safety standards are met in high-rise and low-rise residential buildings that were constructed before 1975. I am confident that these regulations will significantly reduce the loss of life and property due to fire.

These regulations will ensure that adequate exits, fire alarm systems and measures to confine and control the spread of fire are provided in all high-rise and low-rise dwellings in our province of Ontario.

We have developed these regulations through the active participation of public and private sector stakeholders, all of whom support this important initiative.

Landlords, the fire service and government agree on the need for a sensible implementation plan that balances the rights of tenants to live in a safe environment with the responsibility of landlords to comply with the regulations. Phasing in implementation over at least two years will produce a fair approach for landlords and tenants alike. I believe this approach will result in compliance with the regulations to the satisfaction of all parties concerned.

The office of the fire marshal has prepared a training program that will be delivered throughout the province in partnership with the local fire department and landlord associations. In addition, the office of the fire marshal is available to assist, advise and participate in any training sessions held by the various landlord associations or the Ministry of Housing.

I would like to take a moment to thank the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs, the Ontario Municipal Fire Prevention Officers' Association and landlord groups such as the Urban Development Institute and the Fair Rental Policy Organization, as well as the Ministry of Housing, for their cooperation, their involvement and their support in the development of these regulations.

Some of the representatives of these organizations are here with us today, and I would like to acknowledge their presence: Chief Donald Warden, president of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs and the fire chief of Wasaga Beach; Chief Don McLean of Sudbury; Chief John Miller of East York; Art Pullen, president of the Ontario Municipal Fire Prevention Officers' Association; representatives of the Rupert Hotel Coalition, including Reverend Bill Major, Michael Shapcott, Rudy Mamm, Beth McNabb and Doug Phelps, and as well Bill Brown, recently retired fire chief from the city of Cambridge. I want to make a special mention of Fire Chief Bill Brown, who has advocated on these measures for many, many years. Congratulations.

As you know, Mr Speaker, this is as well Fire Prevention Week, which makes these announcements with respect to these regulations particularly fitting. These regulations address one of the key recommendations of the Rupert Hotel inquest, which calls for improved fire safety in residential buildings.

In addition, the Webber commission public inquiry into high-rise safety and resolutions from the municipalities and the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs have highlighted the need for specific fire safety requirements in these older buildings. These regulations address that particular need.

This also represents an employment opportunity for Ontario's building industry as in excess of 600,000 -- that's right, 600,000 -- residential units require retrofitting to meet the fire safety standards established in these regulations.

The safety and the security of the residents of Ontario will be greatly improved by the retrofit regulations that I am announcing in this House today. Again, special appreciation to all of those who assisted in making this regulation possible. Our thanks.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LEGISLATION

Hon David S. Cooke (Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet): I am pleased to inform the House today that the government has taken a significant step in reform of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, commonly known as CECBA.

Reform of CECBA, which sets out the rules for collective bargaining in the public service, is long overdue. That's why I'm pleased to report that yesterday, as Chair of Management Board, I submitted to the Minister of Labour the Employer Report on the Reform of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. It outlines the employer's position and advice to the Ministry of Labour, which in turn will study the report and determine what changes to the act must be made.

You will be aware, Mr Speaker, that members of the House and some government employees have made statements about what the government's intentions are with regard to this issue. I believe my statement today will clearly outline the merit and motivation of this reform.

In developing the report, we sought out comment, we listened and we responded to that comment. Over the last 15 months, Management Board consulted Ontario public service employees, bargaining agents and staff associations. These parties have made it clear that several issues concerned them.

We listened carefully to the concerns raised by our management employees. We met with their emerging staff associations. We held eight information sessions, attended by 4,000 employees throughout the province, with links to 55 other centres.

Employees told us that they wanted to be treated fairly and equitably. They said they want the right to choose who represents them and they want their seniority protected. We have given them that in good faith.

We have reviewed and listened to more than 300 calls received on voice mail and carefully read the close to 3,000 letters we received on this issue.

Allow me to be more specific. The government has made the following decisions:

Full seniority will be guaranteed to employees who become part of a bargaining unit.

Employees currently receiving an additional five days of leave under the management compensation option and who as a result of the proposed CECBA reform are moved into a bargaining unit will continue to receive an additional five days or a salary equivalent.

Employees whose positions have historically and wrongly been excluded from the bargaining unit will be assigned to the appropriate bargaining unit. Management Board will work with the ministries to identify those positions. The bargaining agent will be given the right to review the list of the affected positions. Any positions in dispute will be referred to a tribunal for a ruling.

The issue of wrongly excluded employees has persisted for many years. For far too long, many employees were wrongly and unfairly excluded from collective bargaining.

Changes to CECBA will extend bargaining rights to approximately 7,000 employees. These employees will be given the right to choose -- and I repeat, those employees will be given the right to choose -- if they want to bargain collectively or join a union, and if so, who will represent them.

Allow me to give these numbers some context. Of the approximately 90,000 employees working in the Ontario public service, about 18,000 of them do not have the right to bargain under the current act. We estimate that about 2,000 of those 18,000 should always have been allowed to bargain. Of the remaining 16,000, we estimate that changes to the act will extend bargaining rights to about 7,000 employees. These employees will be given the right to choose who will represent them.

That leaves 9,000 employees who will remain excluded from the collective bargaining process. Among this number are individuals who supervise staff, hire, fire and approve merit. Also excluded are positions unique to the crown; for example, ministers' staff, strategic policy advisers, judges and mediation staff at the Ministry of Labour.

1400

The government's final decision will extend the right to strike to the public service. Arbitration will be available only by the mutual consent of the parties and a limited number of issues will be permanently precluded from arbitration. To protect the public, there will be no legal strike or lockout without essential services being determined first. These services will continue to be provided in the event of a strike or lockout.

The points I have mentioned will not be subject to further review by the Ministry of Labour. But other issues in the Employer Report will be subject to further study and policy development by my colleague the Minister of Labour and his staff.

The point of reforming the act is not to achieve wholesale unionization of the Ontario public service. Rather, the act needs to be reformed, needs to be modernized, so that labour-management relations in the public service come into the 1990s. The act has not been substantially changed for 20 years and has become one of the most outdated pieces of public labour legislation in all of our country.

This has been evident for some time. For example, the growing cost of settling grievances stemming from the outmoded job classifications has strained government resources. A more balanced system will reduce the adversarial character of relations between the government and its employees and curtail the cost of using litigation to settle disputes. We will be getting away from arbitration by third parties.

I believe proper communication around this issue is critical. This government consulted its employees before developing the Employer Report, and it intends to continue to communicate. At a special meeting tomorrow morning I will talk to ministry employees about this important initiative, and a letter will be sent to all managers and excluded employees outlining the reforms we are initiating.

As newly appointed chair, I am proud to have become part of the effort to right some of the wrongs, accommodate employee concerns and improve the climate of employer-employee relations. We are well on our way to reforming the act thanks to the effective leadership of my predecessors Tony Silipo and Frances Lankin.

A reformed act will allow the public service to continue providing accessible and responsive services to the public while respecting the rights and aspirations of our public service employees. I hope the members of this House will support our efforts.

The Speaker: Statements by ministers? Responses.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'd like to respond to the Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and say that we will be spending a good deal of time scrutinizing your proposal. You call it the Employer Report. Frankly, on this side of the House we sometimes have difficulty in distinguishing whether you are the employer or you're part of the union on this. There are several issues here I want to raise.

The minister, in his remarks, did not read his remarks. He changed his remarks from what the printed document says. He said that the individuals will have the right to determine whether or not they want a bargaining unit. It doesn't say that in your prepared text.

Hon Mr Cooke: What does it say?

Mr Phillips: You can read it yourself. It says that employees will be given the right to choose who represents them. You will find, Mr Speaker, the Hansard will record that the minister did not read that statement as it's written here but said something different. We will be examining those comments.

I will also say that it's clear that the government will unilaterally allocate 2,000 people to the OPSEU unit. I again don't see here that the employees will have any say in that. It will be a determination between the government and OPSEU, and those 2,000 employees will have nothing to say about whether or not they are in OPSEU.

The minister has said that this is a result of a consultation. I will say to him as clearly as I can that the people who were affected by this heard nothing about this until July. The minister chooses not to listen now -- typical of that minister, who is not listening to the concerns of the opposition. I will say to you, Minister, as clearly as I can that the people who were affected by this heard nothing about it until July. You didn't spend 15 months consulting with the people who are affected by this proposal.

I will also say that we will be watching carefully the protection of the public on the right to strike. There are many essential services in the Ontario public service that have to be protected for the public, and we will be monitoring that carefully.

I will say also, in closing, that the government is spending an incredible amount of time on the whole issue of organizing and bargaining. There has been nothing that has divided this province as clearly and as divisively as Bill 40, and it is clear that you have gotten the labour movement and the business community completely polarized.

Once again we are heading into spending time in the Legislature in dealing with the whole issue of unionization -- that may be appropriate -- but at the very time when we are seeing record numbers of people unemployed and nothing coming out of the government to get on to dealing with the issue of unemployment. I would urge the government to come forward, as we did yesterday in the Legislature, with your plans to get the economy rolling, Treasurer. Stop these diatribes and get a plan to get the Ontario economy rolling, as you promised you would have here a year ago.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I want to welcome the announcement made by the Solicitor General. I want to say to you too that any announcement that addresses saving lives and setting standards of operation is something that we welcome here in the province. Of course, public safety and fire safety are areas we had hoped the Solicitor General would have moved on with more assertiveness and with a better effort.

Of course there are other -- and you have mentioned it -- aspects of the Rupert inquest that you did not address. We hope you start addressing them too. What we want too, Mr Solicitor General, is to start addressing the Fire Services Review Committee. You have not looked at that at all.

In the short time I have, I have to commend those who have served so efficiently and effectively on that board, especially Bill Brown, who is the fire chief in Cambridge and who I gather is a person of great reform and who is well respected in his community. I and my party would like to say to him in his retirement, all the best.

Mr Solicitor General, I'm very disappointed that you have not brought forward the regulations so we could look at them and assist you better in knowing what you have put forward.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LEGISLATION

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I'd like to respond to the announcement today by the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet. This appears to me to be the sequel to Bill 40. Bill 40 was the payoff to the private sector union executives, and this now becomes the payoff for the public sector union executives.

This has a very interesting point that wasn't addressed, and I think the critic for the Liberal Party picked up on a rather interesting point. The minister did not read the text that was produced. Why he did not read it: because there's a very important point left out. There is no assumption that these employees may not want to be part of a union, surprisingly. I think that would come as a shock to this government. There are a significant number of people out there who don't want to be part of a union and who would rather vote against being part of a union. What this legislation does not do is allow those employees a private ballot so they may make that decision on their own, a private ballot to ask them whether or not they would like to be organized.

I was at that meeting in the Whitney Block in July. I was at the meeting that took place that informed them, and they were very clear in their opposition. They were very clear that they were opposed to this kind of legislation because they did not want to be part of a union. The 3,000 phone calls the minister speaks of, I read transcripts of those. They're not in favour of this legislation. They don't want this to happen. They don't think this is a good idea.

1410

The minister doesn't mention that in his comments and doesn't deal with that in the legislation simply because he doesn't care. He wants to organize these employees and put them in a union so he can pay off his public sector union executives like Mr Fred Upshaw.

You talk about consultation. The consultation started on this back in October 1990. There are many pieces of correspondence which took place between the then minister of Management Board and the president of the local union. That consultation took place in negotiations with OPSEU. That was one of the negotiated settlements. It was a bargaining chip. These people were nothing more than a bargaining chip for a settlement with OPSEU and Mr Upshaw. That's how much they think of these employees and the benefits to the taxpayers of the province of Ontario.

Secondly, I would suggest that this government, this party and this minister have a very clear conflict of interest. Let's talk about checkoffs. Checkoffs are when they pay union dues. You, the NDP, collect your cut, and your cut is a portion of those union dues which goes directly into your political coffers to boost your next campaign. That's called a checkoff -- in the private sector, it's called a cut -- and their cut is some percentage of the union dues.

Lastly, what is very, very disappointing is that this government has a priority list of legislation it wants to get through this Legislature. They have 1.6 million people unemployed or on welfare. These people have lost their jobs, they're losing their houses, they're having trouble making ends meet, they've got food banks that you were going to eradicate expanding, they've got food banks at universities, and the most important issue in the priority ranking is putting 7,000 employees into a union so they can get their checkoffs for their public sector accounts.

I doubt those 1.6 million people consider this a priority. The people you're trying to unionize don't think it's a priority; they don't want to be in a union. Maybe if this socialist government could get its act together, get its priorities straight and try to resolve the problems of this province with respect to jobs and the economy, we wouldn't see this kind of legislation before us so you can pump up your campaign coffers.

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: From time to time there have been important statements made in the press just prior to coming into the House but which have serious consequences for the provincial government and the people. At 1 o'clock there was a report that the Ontario deficit is predicted to rise to $13.5 billion.

The reason I stand now is that in order for the Treasurer to put things straight and allow the people of the province to understand that he is in charge, I ask for unanimous consent to have the Treasurer of this province make a statement to the House to set clear what in fact our current fiscal situation is. We need stability in this province.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Do we have unanimous consent? No? I heard at least one negative voice. There may have been others. It is time for oral questions, and the House leader of the official opposition.

Mr Elston: It's a bit distracting when we have reports like that, which cause destabilizing effects around our province, that the Treasurer will not take his opportunity to respond.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO HYDRO PRESIDENT

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Let me get into another matter which is causing a tremendous amount of instability in this province. That is with respect to what is happening to our crown corporation Ontario Hydro and the fact --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To whom is your question directed?

Mr Elston: My question, if they'll let me get to it, Mr Speaker, is for the Minister of Energy. I'm talking about the instability of our crown corporation, the instability around the leadership of that organization.

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): You are scared to ask a question about it.

Mr Elston: Are you going to call them to order, Mr Speaker?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): After it, we'll ask a question on lakefilling.

Hon Mrs Grier: Fine, I will answer it.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): You don't want us to ask a question to Mr Charlton, is that the trouble?

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): You are afraid he might give us a new version.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. While I appreciate a more relaxed atmosphere, at the same time this is question period and perhaps we could approach it in a businesslike fashion. Indeed, to be fair to both sides of the chamber, we will reset the clock for the 60 minutes. We are now starting question period and the House leader of the opposition has a question for the Minister of Energy.

Mr Elston: How it pains me, Mr Speaker, but in fairness, the House leader of the official opposition has a question for the Minister of Energy. I'm not sure whether he is able to answer any of these, but we'll try it again. He has very creative talents with respect to the wording of his replies to very straightforward questions, but let me ask the following question:

We want to know how it is that he required Marc Eliesen, when he was cleaning out his chairman's office, to also clean out the president's office? We want to know who now is in charge, since the Minister of Energy directed that the president of Hydro be fired. Now that both the president and chairman are gone, or are about to be gone, who is running Ontario Hydro?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Energy): First of all, I think I have to correct the member yet again. This minister did not have anything to do with cleaning out the president's office. But specifically in respect to the member's question about who's running Hydro, the chair is still there until the end of October, and Mr Al Kupcis, a 20-year veteran of Ontario Hydro, a vice-president of the company, has been appointed the acting president.

Mr Elston: Mr Marc Eliesen is leaving Hydro on October 23. He's going on vacation so he can rest in order to take over his duties in British Columbia. He has scheduled, however, a special meeting for tomorrow, and there will be another on October 19, at which he will preside as chairman and at which time major decisions will be taken with respect to the future of Ontario Hydro and the lives of the women and the men who work in that great facility, and also of the people who pay the way, the cost of having hydro in this province.

With Mr Eliesen making all those decisions, who is going to be responsible for the problems that arise from the decisions taken tomorrow and on the 19th, meetings which have been specially set so Marc Eliesen can do his final work with Hydro?

Hon Mr Charlton: It has been clear, especially to the member who is raising the question, that it is the government's responsibility to appoint a new chair. The government will fulfil that responsibility. The Premier, when he's made a decision on who the new chair will be, will make that appointment by order in council, as the member well knows. In the meantime, Mr Eliesen is still there as the chair of Ontario Hydro. If there is a transition between Mr Eliesen's departure and the commencement of the duties of a new chair, we'll deal with that through an acting chair. Presently, as I said, Mr Al Kupcis has been appointed the acting president of Ontario Hydro. He's a very capable man. He's been with the corporation 20 years and I am confident he can handle the job very well.

Mr Elston: It may be very well to say that a 20-year veteran of management at Hydro will be in charge, but our information is that fully three of the senior vice-presidents of Ontario Hydro will be the subject matter of discussion at the Hydro meeting tomorrow in terms of the future, that in fact at least three senior VPs of Ontario Hydro are also being told, or at least lured, out the door to retirement. The new chairman, to be chosen by your Premier, won't be here until March 1993 and Hydro won't come under his or her direction until much later, when he or she gets familiar with the job. It seems to me that Mr Al Kupcis may be the only person left anywhere close to senior management at Hydro.

How can this minister stand here and say that his government has not directed Mr Marc Eliesen to completely destroy the upper management of Hydro, to put on hold any decisions which would help that organization stabilize the rates so that the people of this province can pay a reasonable cost for hydro and so that steps can be taken to keep industry in this province? Why has the Energy minister, at the behest of the Premier, been told to destroy the upper management of Ontario Hydro?

Hon Mr Charlton: The questions the House leader of the official opposition asks, I think, reflect probably a frustration on his part, because he doesn't like some of the answers he's hearing from this side of the House.

But this minister, this government and this Premier have not instructed the dismantling of the senior management at Ontario Hydro. There are some difficult issues that have to be dealt with in terms of rate increases. There are some difficult issues that have to be dealt with in terms of Hydro's capital program which have led us into some particularly difficult times. This government is prepared and will proceed to deal in working with Hydro to resolve those problems.

1420

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a question for the Treasurer, who is barking at me to get to him. He has not had a chance to do much lately and in fact has accomplished that lately.

Can I ask the Treasurer his defence of the allegation that $13.5 billion is the new deficit for the province of Ontario and why it is that he has not come to this House and told us why he is so far off the mark on his predictions?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I would --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: Whenever you're ready. I was quite surprised to hear the member for Bruce, who's risen sphinxlike from the ashes of the leadership convention over there, raise that matter, because it's the first time I'd heard that number. It comes as an absolute and complete surprise to me.

Mr Elston: Everything comes as a big surprise to this guy. Such a small package of big surprises I have never seen. The report was on the 1 o'clock news -- the CBC -- and reported Mr Palmer, the president of the chamber of commerce, as indicating that in fact the deficit is at $13.5 billion. I would like to know how it is that the Treasurer would not rise in his spot --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Elston: -- and provide us with some indication of why that report is erroneous, if in fact it is as laughable as his colleagues believe a deficit of that size to be.

Hon Mr Laughren: I haven't heard the report or seen it, but I hope the new deficit number that's being quoted out there isn't being associated with labour reform at the same time, is it? I never know what's being attributed to or being caused by labour reform.

I can tell the leader -- excuse me, the member for Bruce -- that by approximately the end of this month we will be bringing out our second-quarter finances, which is traditional in the province, and that will be an update. But I can tell you that number is erroneous and I have absolutely no idea where it came from. I suggest you go to the source and find out where that number came from.

Mr Elston: It's very interesting. When we give the member a chance to tell us why it is wrong, he doesn't tell us why it's wrong. His growth projections are lower than expected. There is a decline by some 8% in the revenues as predicted by the federal government.

Last week we had our member for Scarborough-Agincourt go through all those lists of problems that face you and you were unable to put any sort of form to any defence of your projections at that point. There are also other indications that you are way out of line, and you have refused to come forward to defend your budget in a fashion which is timely enough for people to make decisions about where our economy is going.

The only obligation on the Treasurer's shoulders at the moment is to come clean with us here in this province and provide us with an explanation of why his budget projections are so far off. Will the Treasurer do that now?

Hon Mr Laughren: The House leader of the Liberal Party is simply propping up a straw man called somebody else's deficit projections and then kicking the stuffing out of that straw man. I have no idea what he's talking about.

ONTARIO HYDRO PRESIDENT

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Mr Minister, on September 16, you wrote to Marc Eliesen. In that letter, you certainly knew there was going to be a vacancy for the position of president of Ontario Hydro. You knew it well before Mr Holt himself knew. We know that because on September 18, Mr Holt was outlining his plan for the upcoming year in a speech to the 25-year club here in Toronto. His so-called retirement, however, was not announced until September 30. Obviously, something or someone led you, Mr Minister, to believe that Mr Holt would be departing. Would you tell this House if you ever spoke with Marc Eliesen regarding a dismissal of Al Holt prior to writing that letter on September 16?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Energy): The member of the opposition seems to be having some difficulty understanding what I've said over the course of the last several days. He seems to be having some difficulty separating the issue of the individual in the position from a letter which I wrote about the process.

As I said in this House yesterday, and obviously the member wasn't listening, prior to my letter of September 16, I had discussions with the chair of Hydro, discussions which led me to understand that the board of Ontario Hydro was going to be confronting the issue of the president. As I said yesterday, I wrote to the chair of Ontario Hydro because as the government member ultimately responsible for Hydro, I was concerned that whatever decision the board made, and I made it clear in my letter that it was its decision to make, in fact the new president should be a subject of discussion between the new chair and the board and the decision should be made by the board in that respect.

Mr Jordan: Mr Minister, did Marc Eliesen tell you that he wanted Mr Holt dismissed?

Hon Mr Charlton: Mr Eliesen, as I have said on a number of occasions, informed me that it would be an issue of discussion with his board.

Mr Jordan: It's difficult to get a straight answer from the minister. My information tells me that there was a meeting, called a retreat, at Orangeville. The purpose of this meeting was to try to train the new government appointees to the board relative to their responsibilities as directors, because they had no idea about being directors or what their responsibilities were to be.

Instead of that, unknown to the directors, the management resource committee had a meeting Thursday afternoon and decided that Mr Holt should go. They based their decision on the letter the chairman had from the minister. They lobbied the directors that night to try and get support for a resolution that said he should be suspended immediately. They couldn't get support, so they tried another resolution that they work out some kind of arrangement, but he must go.

1430

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): And the member's question?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Could you get to it, Leo.

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): You aren't being paid by the hour.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Jordan: Mr Minister, I would like to ask you if you will produce not only the minutes of the September 25 board meeting, but also Mr Holt's letter of resignation.

Hon Mr Charlton: Firstly, I can't confirm what the agenda of the meeting was. I wasn't invited to it.

Secondly, I can't confirm the comments except that the member has now confirmed what I told this House yesterday and the day before, that there was no dismissal. The member has just confirmed that finally in this House.

Thirdly, I don't have the board minutes from an Ontario Hydro board meeting or Mr Holt's resignation letter. Those are questions that should be addressed to Hydro.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I'd like to raise with the Minister of Health an issue that has become a crisis situation in northern Ontario. It involves the mass exodus of health care specialists from northern Ontario to the United States.

In the past year, Sault Ste Marie has lost 10% of its medical staff, including three radiologists, two cardiologists and two orthopaedic surgeons. In the last three years, Sudbury has lost 33 doctors, many of whom are specialists in dermatology, oncology, gynaecology, paediatrics, obstetrics and psychiatry.

Minister, given that your government's retention and recruitment programs for northern Ontario doctors are clearly not working, what other solutions are you proposing to help resolve this serious problem?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I appreciate the question from the member. The issue of medical specialists, particularly in northern Ontario, and our ability to recruit and retrain those specialists has been an ongoing issue for governments for a number of years.

The member will know that we took some steps to try and improve the underserviced area program by adding some retention incentives that had not been in place before. Those incentives have just been working themselves through the system, and we hope that will have a positive impact.

I acknowledge that there have been specialists who have left northern Ontario. I would not say they're unprecedented in numbers. In fact this has been an ongoing problem. If we look at the stats, we've seen each year this kind of revolving door situation.

The member asked what in addition we may be looking at. I have on a number of occasions spoken about the need to have a more comprehensive way of managing physician human resource issues across the province, including issues of both specialty and geographic underserviced area problems for specialists and other medical practitioners.

It also is a problem with respect to other health care professionals, so I think with those issues of human resources in the health professionals field, there are a number of things that are being discussed with the universities that we'll have to continue to pursue.

Mr Jim Wilson: Minister, we know from the statistics that I have cited in Sault Ste Marie and Sudbury that your government's recruitment and retention programs are not working and your approach to this serious problem is not working. We also know that most of the doctors who are leaving this province are doing so because of the policies of your government.

Dr Joan Dahmer, who has left Sudbury, said, "The feeling in the medical community is that the government doesn't value what has taken years and years to build up." All members know that Sudbury dermatologist Dr Jean-Pierre Donahue closed his office doors this week, and he's headed for Colorado. He's leaving because your government harassed, bullied and slandered him and, as a result, 9,000 patients whom Dr Donahue used to look after will be forced to look elsewhere for treatment, as will thousands more in need of specialists in northern Ontario.

Minister, where are the 40,000 patients in northern Ontario supposed to go for the specialty services they need and deserve?

Hon Ms Lankin: I know the member has cited a couple of examples, but I think he needs to be careful about generalizations. Overall, in fact the numbers for certain parts of northern Ontario have improved in the last little while with respect to retention of specialists. But it is an ongoing problem and a serious problem. I don't want to diminish the importance of the problem by getting into a dispute around these sorts of numbers.

What I have indicated to the member is that the retention initiatives under the underserviced area program, which are newly implemented measures, I think will have a positive impact and I think will be helpful. But as we've indicated with respect to initiatives under the national action plan with respect to human resources for physicians flowing from the Barer-Stoddart report, we will have to deal with these issues both in terms of training of northerners, hopefully, into medical practices and into medical specialties, as well as looking at whether or not there are some incentives we can build into the program through the billing number and others. These are discussions we are having with the medical profession and with the academic health science centres at this time.

Mr Jim Wilson: Minister, you indicate in your response that the numbers are going up. Thirty-three doctors have left Sudbury in the last three years and six have gone to Sudbury in the last three years. I'd say that's a tremendous net loss.

Minister, I think you're ignoring a potentially fatal situation and the problem isn't just in northern Ontario. At the University of Western Ontario in the last two years three neurologists and four neurosurgeons are not practising in Ontario. Of these seven recent graduates, five have gone to the United States and two have gone to other parts of Canada. Ontario taxpayers have shelled out millions of dollars to educate and train these specialists, only to have them graduate and take up practice outside of this province. This is outrageous. We are losing our very best and our brightest.

Minister, why are the taxpayers of Ontario being asked to subsidize the American health care system when northern Ontarians are going without treatment?

Hon Ms Lankin: The member is quite right when he says that this is a problem not only for northern Ontario; certainly, rural areas have also experienced these kinds of problems.

The member raises a very important question, one which I agree with, with respect to the subsidizing of a very high level of education when there is absolutely no return of service that is even contemplated with respect to the training of medical practitioners.

This is an issue that is not easy to address. It's quite controversial. I hope I'll have the member's support as we pursue some of these initiatives with the universities and the medical profession.

CASINOS

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Yesterday the minister held a press conference to say that she didn't know who, what, where, when, how and even why the government was forging ahead with casinos. The only thing she seemed certain about was that it would be fun.

As was indicated yesterday by the member for Welland-Thorold, the minister has apparently sent senior staff from the casino project office to Las Vegas to study casinos. Could the minister tell us how many staff were sent to Las Vegas, how long they were there and what it cost the taxpayers of Ontario to study casino gambling in Las Vegas? Could the minister also tell us how the expertise gleaned from this Las Vegas junket is being applied to yesterday's casino announcement?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): With respect to the first question, as I said yesterday, it was very deliberately left open. This is a pilot project. We want to work with the community and with the municipality to make sure that this casino is geared to that community and works for that community. It's a fact that we have some ideas that we will be putting on the table for discussion, but we want to work with the community.

With respect to your second question, there were five senior staff members from the project team that went off to a three-day conference. It's held yearly and this year it was held in Las Vegas, Nevada. This meeting, I think, took place over three days and it had about 90 educational seminars. It was a really perfect opportunity for us to be able to send some of our key people to one location to learn a lot from people from all over the world who have experience in this business, instead of having to bring the experts here, which would of course cost a lot more money.

Mr Cordiano: Now that the minister has this Las Vegas expertise, she has promised that she will closely study the pilot project for at least one year, but she hasn't given any indication what guidelines or criteria will be used in making her assessment.

Is she going to judge it on the impact on crime and community safety? Is she going to judge it on how much it satisfies the Treasurer's lust for dollars? Is she going to judge it on how it impacts on charities? Does the minister really know what the difference will be between a good casino pilot project and a bad one, and can she tell us what measures of success she'll be using to make her decision?

1440

Hon Ms Churley: The actual criteria for assessment will be based on many things. For instance, we'll know it's a success if the casino does meet our policy goals of creating jobs -- we think that's going to happen, but we're going to look at that -- and in maximizing community economic development in the Windsor area, which badly needs that right now.

Generating revenue for the government of course will be a factor that will be assessed, and stimulating tourism. We also want to minimize the financial impact of casino gambling on charitable institutions and on horse racing industries and we want to keep a close eye on businesses in the casino's neighbourhood, such as the restaurants. We'll be looking at all of those kinds of things and it will certainly help us a lot in assessing where we go from here.

NON-UTILITY GENERATION

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Mr Minister, you are probably aware that mining companies in northern Ontario are dependent upon cheap, efficient energy sources to operate. The private sector firm known as Sunthetic Energy is proposing to spend some $700 million of its own money to establish a cogeneration plant in Sudbury. They have asked Ontario Hydro to negotiate with them with respect to a commitment to purchase some electricity which will be generated as a byproduct of their operation. Can you tell me what you're doing as Minister of Energy to see that this project becomes a reality?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Energy): The member raises a question which is an extremely interesting and difficult one. It's interesting and difficult because, as the member well knows, the Sunthetic proposal in Sudbury is not the only proposal that's out there in this province. In fact there are literally several thousand megawatts of cogeneration proposals, all of which have significant potential economic impact for the communities they're being proposed in.

We have an unfortunate situation as well, though, where, as other members of the member's caucus have raised a number of times around the rates issue, Hydro has a significant surplus of electricity at the present time. Hydro has had a significant loss of revenue because of the recession and the drop in the use of electricity in this province, all of which puts significant pressure on rates, and for Hydro to buy significant amounts of additional power it doesn't need will have a negative impact right across the province on ratepayers, residential, commercial and industrial. It has a jobs impact on the entire economy.

Mr Eves: I'm glad the minister raised the issue of other proposals, because on September 4 of this year, Ontario Hydro entered into an agreement for cogeneration with Nordic Power and PowerLink Corp in Windsor, Ontario, which I'm sure you're aware of. That proposal being accepted creates 30 permanent jobs in the Windsor area.

The proposal coming from the Sudbury area will create 250 permanent jobs, at an average wage of $50,000 per employee for those 250 people, and will generate another 2,200 to 4,100 jobs supported by the operation of the complex, 60% of which would be in northern Ontario.

Last year, Mr Minister, Ontario Hydro spent $664 million on capital expenditures, repairing and retrofitting fossil-fuel, antiquated power facilities in the province of Ontario. I suggest it's time you get into this century and look forward to the future, to a very valid proposal that's being proposed here that will result in employment for thousands of people in northern Ontario and produce efficient, cheap, clean energy at the same time. What have you got against that?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member's position is an excellent position as we move into a new future. Unfortunately, the member's party and decisions it made in government left us in a circumstance that has to be resolved first.

The proposals like the Sunthetic proposal in Sudbury will provide power if they proceed. They will also pay the capital costs for the developers who build them. They won't pay the Hydro capital debt, though, so what the member is suggesting by proceeding with these proposals is not only significant hydro rate increases in Ontario -- that's what he's advocating in the short run -- but he's also advocating that we have to start to shift the Hydro capital debt to the taxpayers of this province.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. We were doing just fine until a certain member stirred it. If we could resume the pleasant atmosphere that we were enjoying, the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay can place his question.

CONSERVATION OFFICERS

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Thank you, Mr Speaker; interesting question period, as always.

I'd like to address my question today to the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, some of my constituents have expressed concern about the reduction in funding of the province's conservation officers. As I'm sure all members will agree, conservation officers play a vital role in protecting and promoting the safe use of our province's resources. What effect are the budgetary restrictions having on the ability of conservation officers to carry out their jobs?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources): I appreciate the interest of the member, and I know that other members in the House have raised this issue as well.

As all ministries in the government are responsible for helping to deal with the budgetary difficulties the government is facing due to the drop in revenues, all sections of the Ministry of Natural Resources have had to review their operations and have had to reduce costs. As a result, we have introduced guidelines related to overtime, but I want to say clearly that it is not the case, as has been reported, that there is not going to be any overtime for conservation officers.

Contrary to that, conservation officers will be continuing to meet their obligations for the conservation of fish and wildlife in this province and enforcing conservation laws, and they will be continuing to respond to emergencies and other situations that require immediate attention whenever they require that attention.

Mr Waters: There have been specific concerns raised about the staffing of conservation officers this upcoming long weekend. There have been reports of no conservation officers at all being on duty during this period which, in some areas, coincides with the peak of hunting and fishing seasons. Can the minister offer any assurances on this matter?

Hon Mr Wildman: Roughly 50% of the province's 265 conservation officers will be on duty this weekend and will be deployed on every statutory holiday for the rest of the fiscal year.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): How many?

Hon Mr Wildman: Half of them. The fiscal constraints, of course, will cause us to have some concerns, but we've got to keep in mind that we also have volunteer conservation officers, the deputy conservation officers, who will assist when they are deployed.

I want to indicate that this is one evidence of our commitment to enforcement and compliance in this province. You will know this government has fulfilled its obligations with regard to the grievance the conservation officers brought in terms of their pay levels so that the conservation officers' average income has increased by more than 40% since 1990. We are in favour of working hard to ensure that conservation is preserved in this province, and we value the work of the men and women who carry out those duties.

1450

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is to the Attorney General. I don't think there's an issue in this province that is concerning more people and angering more people than the provisions and the operation of the Young Offenders Act. There is a perception in our communities that the Young Offenders Act is in essence creating a generation virtually out of control, a generation without any fear of the consequences of their illegal actions and without a healthy respect for the law and those who are sworn to uphold the law in this province and this country.

What representations are you, as the chief law officer of the crown in the province of Ontario, making to your colleagues in other provinces and most particularly to the federal Minister of Justice to revise the Young Offenders Act and restore confidence in the justice system in this province and this country?

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): The member is correct that from various sectors of the public in Ontario there is concern about the Young Offenders Act. The member should know that the Young Offenders Act is federal legislation, that the federal Minister of Justice, along with her colleagues in the federal cabinet, have the ultimate decision in terms of whatever legislative amendments might be brought forward to change or to adapt the Young Offenders Act.

I can tell the member that over the last two years we have supported and argued in favour of a stricter penalty for serious matters where young offenders are convicted in young offenders court. We have also argued in favour of better transfer provisions so that a young person who is charged with a serious offence can be tried in criminal court rather than in young offenders court. Those kinds of measures we have supported, with our federal colleagues.

Mr Bradley: Your colleagues and you yourself are not reluctant, I know, on many occasions to give advice to the federal government on pieces of legislation which are solely under the federal jurisdiction, and I know you would not be reluctant in this particular case.

Minister, even those who perhaps initially thought that the Young Offenders Act was a progressive piece of legislation that might be beneficial to young people and the community at large have to be having second thoughts about the act, even as it is written today.

With potentially dangerous young offenders at large in the community, with their identities shielded by the law, with acts of violence and serious crimes by young offenders virtually immune from punishment on the rise -- and this is particularly important with adults using young offenders, who face minimal consequences, to commit serious offences -- will the minister not agree with me that there is a need for immediate and substantial changes to the Young Offenders Act? Will he undertake to this House that he will make those immediate representations to the federal Minister of Justice to ensure once again that people can have some confidence in our system and that we will not be producing a generation out of control and without respect for the law and those who enforce it?

Hon Mr Hampton: While I agree with the general direction of the points the member is trying to make, I would want him to be sure to emphasize that the legislation which the Young Offenders Act in fact replaced, the Juvenile Delinquents Act, was in many ways, from the popular perception, more lenient than the Young Offenders Act is. In that sense, the Young Offenders Act has, we might say, received a bad rap. People frequently insist that it was better in the old days. In fact, it was not better in the old days.

The Young Offenders Act is trying to come to grips with some very difficult problems. I agree with the member that the federal government ought to conduct a review of the Young Offenders Act. I agree that in view of the fact that the act was drafted in 1981-83 by the federal government of that time, 10 years down the road is a good time now to conduct that kind of review. I can tell you that when we meet with the federal Minister of Justice at federal-provincial conferences, we advocate for a review.

But in the context that things were not better in the good old days, the Juvenile Delinquents Act in fact --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Hampton: -- had even more holes in it than may be perceived with respect to the Young Offenders Act.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): My question is for the Minister of Financial Institutions, who of course is responsible for Bill 164 and no-fault auto insurance. Mr Minister, with respect to that bill, would you inform this House today why you are discriminating against seniors with Bill 164?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Financial Institutions): I don't consider that we are discriminating against seniors. What we've done in our piece of legislation in fact is to put in place lifetime indexed benefits that are made up of two components. One is a benefit that, when a person is long-term disabled, is associated with his lost earning capacity. When they reach 65 that converts to a pension benefit based on the number of years they've been injured and based on the same kinds of approaches to those issues that we use right throughout the rest of this society.

Mr Tilson: I call that discrimination. There's no question that, as you have indicated -- I agree with your interpretation -- Bill 164 says that upon turning 65, long-term disabled people will receive reduced benefits. We both agree with that. That is what your bill says. Certainly, as you know, under Bill 164, you've done away with economic loss, you've done away with the right of suing for loss of earnings. You've taken that away. You've taken away the whole concept of economic loss.

You're shaking your head. Well, you have, you've taken away the whole concept of economic loss. You don't have the right to sue for loss of earnings. With respect to this provision discriminating against seniors, you've treated the seniors of this province even worse than with respect to your principle of economic loss. The fact of the matter is that by Bill 164 you've reduced the benefits of seniors when they reach the age of 65. Seniors have a hard enough time supporting themselves --

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

Mr Tilson: -- on the limited benefits provided under Bill 164, without the indignity of having this government reduce their income simply as they get older. Mr Minister, pension benefits alone aren't enough to survive on.

The Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr Tilson: My question to the minister is, will you introduce an amendment to Bill 164 which makes it clear that seniors' contribution to society does not end at 65?

Hon Mr Charlton: First of all, I have to deal with one of the issues the member has raised before and raises again here today in his preamble. It's just an incorrect interpretation of the legislation we have before this House. He said on the one hand that we've eliminated the right to sue for economic loss and then he went on to say, "In fact, you've eliminated economic loss altogether." That is just not correct.

Mr Tilson: You can't sue for loss of earnings, and you know it.

Hon Mr Charlton: You can't sue, but we've delivered a lifetime package of income loss benefits to the citizens of this province in this legislation.

Second, with respect to the other question the member raised, when the member suggests that we're reducing benefits for seniors, he seems to forget that the benefits the seniors now have are totally unindexed. The 24-year-old who is injured and who turns 65 still in receipt of benefits under the Liberal plan will get far less than any senior under this plan.

1500

NEWSPAPER REPORT

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): My question is to the Treasurer. I read the Toronto Star with interest today in terms of the editorial page, where it supposedly says that you are uncomfortable with the federal government's proposal for the national highways public works program.

As you know, I have a deep interest in Highway 69, and I want to see it four-laned. I'm hoping that what both you and the Premier have stated in terms of your support for investing in that, both the private sector, public programs and the federal government, is correct and that this statement is incorrect. I'm hoping you'll be able to clear the record.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I read the original story, which indicated that I had phoned Mr Mazankowski and suggested to him that, in view of the referendum, this was the wrong time for a national economic stimulus.

It's not that ordinary for that particular tabloid to be so erroneous in its reporting, but I can tell you that this is completely erroneous. I talked to Mr Mazankowski -- it must be well over a month ago -- when the proposal first came forward, in which case I said that our officials of the two levels of government would sit down and talk about it. What came back to the province was a completely and absolutely inadequate proposal for Ontario's share of a national program. I don't think that any members would have wanted us to accept it.

Having said that, I want to reiterate that we do not think it's a bad time for economic stimulus. It's never a bad time for economic stimulus. We've been calling for some time for a national program to improve the infrastructure of this country, and we'll continue to do so.

ONTARIO HYDRO SPENDING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): My question is for the Minister of Energy. On the top floor of the Ontario Hydro building there's some construction going on. At the request of your chairman, Marc Eliesen, renovations are being made to the executive boardroom. Can the minister tell us what this is going to cost the people of this province?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Energy): I can't. I'm prepared to request that information from the chair for the member, though.

Mr McGuinty: If the minister doesn't know, he should know. He has his deputy minister sitting on the board of directors for Ontario Hydro. His job is to keep him informed on important issues, and it seems to me that if Mr Eliesen gets his hands on the purse-strings, alarm bells should be ringing in this minister's head.

Let me tell the minister of the costs of these renovations: $500,000 has been set aside to pay for renovating Marc Eliesen's executive boardroom. What's more, we understand that the actual costs are now closer to $1 million. The people of this province are wondering what the heck is going on over at Ontario Hydro. We have no chair, we have no president and we might as well have no minister.

In the thick of a devastating recession, at a time when Hydro's rates are going through the roof, at a time when the people of this province are hurting, your chairman is spending close to $1 million to renovate his executive boardroom. How can you possibly justify this obscene expense?

Hon Mr Charlton: As I said, I'm prepared to look into the matter.

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Ever since Bill 143 was tabled by the government just about a year ago, one of the concerns we've had has been the whole cost analysis of what Bill 143 is going to cost the municipalities and the government. Now that we're well into the whole process of selecting landfill sites in York, Durham and Peel, I am still concerned about what the cost analysis is going to be for this.

It's a fact that the Interim Waste Authority is just squandering money and throwing it away and probably coming back to Management Board for more money. Last week the Minister of the Environment justified that overspending by the Interim Waste Authority because the tipping fees that will be collected when the landfill sites are opened up will more than justify the costs.

So far, Metro and the regions have been cut out of the process. What I really want to know now is, when the lottery, when the new casino known as the garbage dumps in the greater Toronto area is opened up, who's going to be the winner of the money? Is it going to be the municipalities and the regions or the province, or is there going to be some sharing of it? Who's going to win the tipping fees that are made from these landfill sites?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): We are all going to be the winners because the revenue that will be generated once the generous Treasurer has been paid back for the capital cost of the search and the establishment of the landfills will be devoted to waste reduction. That's what has to happen not just in the greater Toronto area but in the province: The revenue generated from disposal is plowed back into trying to reduce the amount of waste that has to go to disposal.

Mr Cousens: The minister still has the wild card and we still haven't seen it fall so that we know exactly where the dollars are -- the casino. The problem is that you guys are running everything into the ground and you're going to run our garbage into the ground. The one thing I want to put on the record now as much as ever is we're all interested in reduction. Our party, our caucus and the people of Ontario understand the importance of that. The objective to reduce by 50% the amount of garbage in landfill sites by the year 2000 is commendable and worthy and we have to pursue it.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Who gets the money?

Mr Cousens: The question I'm just asked by the member Mr Stockwell is, "Who gets the money?" That's really the substance of my question: Who is going to get the money from the tipping fees? Are you going to hold on to it or is it going to be something that can go back into the municipalities? What you've said in your answer is that it's going to go for other purposes. That's not the question I asked. Who is going to get the money?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me repeat to the member what I have said on many occasions since the Interim Waste Authority began its search for landfill sites in the greater Toronto area, that the decisions about who will ultimately own and operate those sites have not been made and are certainly under discussion, and will be under discussion, with the municipalities.

Traditionally and historically in Ontario waste management is the responsibility of the municipalities. We believe it should remain the responsibility of the municipalities. We have been discussing the whole question of powers for waste disposal and for the 3Rs with municipalities and we certainly believe, having undertaken the search, that it is by the Interim Waste Authority.

I know in committee the member thought that should be a permanent agency. I said then and I said again today that the question of who becomes the owner and operates those sites is entirely one for future discussion. It is quite certain that the revenues will benefit the municipalities where the sites are located and the people who create the waste.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question, the member for Durham East.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I want to make sure that the minister hears my question. I can't hear it.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I have two questions I'd like to ask but I'm going to have to make do with one. It's for the Minister of the Environment. In my riding of Durham East I have a community with over 1,000 senior citizens who live quite close to Lake Ontario. These constituents of mine are very concerned about the proposal to build a waste transfer and processing site in the direct area where they live. They're very upset and they're very worried.

Madam Minister, what assurance can you give the residents of Wilmot Creek of the proposal to build this waste transfer and processing site? They need some assurance.

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): I'm well aware, and the member has made me aware, of the concerns of the many residents of Wilmot Creek about the proposal to build a transfer station for the processing and transfer of liquid industrial and hazardous wastes. The question that has been asked by many of them is, "Will there be a hearing before this facility is approved?" I'm glad to be able to tell the member that it is the policy of the Ministry of the Environment that when liquid industrial or hazardous waste is involved, a hearing will be held unless justification is provided and argument is presented that there ought not to be a hearing.

We have currently had a request from the town of Newcastle for a hearing. We have asked for comments from the regional municipality of Durham and we have not yet received those. When those are received, then the director of the waste management branch will be making a decision.

Mr Mills: Madam Minister, I thank you for that clarification, but when I go to that meeting tonight and that community centre is packed with about 1,000 people, the burning question is, "When can we expect this hearing?" Have you any idea? Can you help me?

Hon Mrs Grier: I'll be able to ask the director to make a decision with respect to that just as soon as we get the comments from the regional municipality of Durham. But it is certainly not our practice to proceed, having asked the municipality for comments, without receiving them, and I hope they will be sent to us as quickly as possible so the uncertainty can be relieved.

1510

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): My question is to the minister who failed to protest when the Premier made the top civil service position a patronage appointment, even though she was a leading member of the civil service union. I will be reminding the members of the government of that pernicious appointment at every opportunity I get.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Madam Minister, in October 1989 the Liberal government approved $18 million for the construction and radiotherapy equipment at the Ottawa-Carleton regional cancer centre. At the behest of the Liberal MPPs in Ottawa-Carleton, the Peterson government realized that the old facilities and equipment would soon be inadequate to cope with the unfortunate influx of new cancer cases. But since then, nothing has happened. There are tremendous lineups at the cancer centre and people are being sent to Sudbury and as far away as Thunder Bay for treatment. Madam Minister, why have you failed to implement the Liberal promise of expanded cancer treatment in Ottawa-Carleton?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): It would have been helpful if campaign promises had some work done ahead of time, some approvals in place and been able to proceed. What we have been doing, however, is trying to deal with the issue of provision of cancer services in all of the regional treatment centres across the province.

With respect to the Ottawa situation, there was a very significant development of waiting lists for a period of time when in fact we had some equipment failures in that area. The capital construction project -- we have been reviewing all of the regional centres. I hope to be able to move fairly soon with approvals with respect to that.

The member also made allegations about people being transferred across the province. I want to say that's a very important part of the system. When something happens in one area, like equipment going down in Ottawa, we are able to access services in other parts of the province and ensure that people get the treatments they need in a timely fashion. So we're aware of the issue and I hope the member will be pleased to get responses from us within the next week or so with respect to capital redevelopment.

Mr Daigeler: It's not a question of having the work not done in time, because I spoke with the hospital and the plans have all been prepared. It's just a question that the minister has not moved on her approval of these plans. Madam Minister, through your inaction, you're causing great hardship for people in my riding and elsewhere in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

Here's what the husband of one of the cancer patients wrote recently to me, because his wife is being sent to Sudbury for radiation treatment: "In addition to being removed from the care and support from family and friends, for my wife to reside alone in Sudbury for four weeks of treatment will cause us financial hardship. She owns and operates a small store. It would mean closing her store. But if treatments are done in Ottawa she can keep the store open."

Madam Minister, what are you going to tell me that I should say to my constituents? Why have you not approved, and why have you not proceeded with the promise made almost three years ago in 1989 by the Liberal government?

Hon Ms Lankin: Mr Speaker, let me say again, promises the previous government made during elections don't necessarily mean there were plans in place -- functional plans, all of the approvals in place. We are moving with respect to the capital redevelopment of cancer treatment centres on a regional basis. Ottawa is one of those. We will be getting a response out soon. In the meantime, let me say with respect to the individual, had that person had to wait and not been able to go to Sudbury, I think the member would be in here complaining about that.

This is a very serious issue. Our management of waiting lists with respect to cancer treatment is a very successful program. I think the member should actually acknowledge that what we've done for people in Ottawa is ensure timely access to treatment.

CONSERVATION OFFICERS

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, Ontario was once a leader in Canada in the field of special investigations to combat commercial poaching, but your policies have resulted in the special investigations unit being disbanded and reassigned in the name of reorganization. Many people are wondering what Ontario's natural resources are actually worth to you and how much you're willing to lose just to see your misguided policies implemented. Why has that been disbanded?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources): The member is correct when he says that the Ministry of Natural Resources has gone through a reorganization. He will know that the purpose of the reorganization is to involve all parts of the ministry, all professionals in the ministry and all technicians, in a team approach to managing resources so that conservation officers responsible for compliance are involved in the planning and management of forestry and fish and wildlife resources. This is not in any way a moving away from our responsibility for compliance and enforcement.

Ironically, just the day after the conservation officers' association held its press conference and made the public statements it did about cutbacks, there was a major bust, if you want to use that term, reported in the press in Timmins, where 16 people were arrested for violations and charged in Timmins related to the goose hunt on the James Bay lowlands. I think that's evidence that we are still carrying out undercover operations and they are leading to charges. We are determined to ensure that we put an end to poaching, particularly commercial poaching, in this province.

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL DRAIN

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition signed by several property owners in the township of Nottawasaga in my riding of Simcoe West. It reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, object to the proposed municipal drain in Nottawasaga township known as the Highway 24 drain, as petitioned by the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario. The cost for this drainage work as planned, which would become the shared responsibility of the residents in the area, would seem to be exorbitant and ongoing.

"We feel that the drainage problem must be remedied by the MTO at their own expense, since the problem was created as a result of recent highway work. It is out of the question to expect a few local land owners to suffer this cost to correct an MTO engineering mistake made when the recent Highway 24 upgrading was planned.

"The Ministry of Transportation has not finished the job. If the MTO is not happy, leave it the way it is. We certainly will not pay for this error in engineering, and we are astounded that this is being dealt with in such a manner. It is not our problem, and we are not solving it. MTO must pay for their own engineering mistakes, and we must not expect a few struggling local land owners to devalue their property to pay for this for ever. The Ministry of Transportation of Ontario must solve their own mistakes."

Mr Speaker, that is signed by a number of residents who are affected by this municipal drain petition from the township of Nottawasaga, and I too have affixed my name to this petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I have a petition to the members of the provincial Parliament re amendments to the Retail Business Holidays Act which propose wide-open Sunday shopping.

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to the proposed amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need for keeping Sunday as a holiday for quality of life, religious freedom and for family time. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of our society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families. The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I will attach my name, Mr Speaker.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 recognizes the right of Catholic students to a Catholic education, and in keeping with this, the province of Ontario supports two educational systems from kindergarten to grade 12/OAC; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board educates more than 104,000 students across Metropolitan Toronto; and

"Whereas these students represent 30% of the total number of students in this area, yet have access to just 20% of the total residential assessment and 9.5% of the pooled corporate assessment; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is able to spend $1,678 less on each of its elementary school students and $2,502 less on each of its secondary school students than our public school counterpart;

"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 principal education systems are funded not only fully but with equity and equality."

That is signed by approximately 100 or so of my constituents and by me.

1520

CHILD CARE CENTRES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Community and Social Services has undertaken a consultation which does not address the major policy changes inherent in its plan; and

"Whereas the policy changes are basically discriminatory and will destroy many small businesses operating as private day care centres; and

"Whereas we believe the government's commitment to child care should be in licensing and monitoring and in funding only via transfers to the municipalities to cover the costs for families in need of subsidies,

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

"That the NDP administration treat all child care operators equally, cease funding capital and startup costs of non-profit agencies, provide subsidies which will cover the true cost of care for the children whose parents qualify for assistance."

I've also affixed my own signature to this petition, on which there are over 500 signatures, including an additional series of letters.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here to the members of the Parliament of Ontario re an amendment to the Retail Business Holidays Act proposing wide-open shopping and elimination of Sunday as a legal holiday.

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

"I believe in the need to keep Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day would be detrimental to the fabric of the society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on retailers, retail employees and their families. The proposed amendment of the Business Holidays Act, Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except for Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

It's been signed by a number of people -- I've got four pages here -- and the majority of them come from the Uxbridge area. I affix my name to it.

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): I have another petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario regarding the amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act proposing wide-open Sunday shopping and eliminating Sunday as a legal holiday.

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

"We believe in the need to keep 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 the society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families. The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

That petition is signed by a couple of hundred of my constituents and by me.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I have a petition from members of my riding which says:

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

"We believe in the need to keep 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 the society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families. The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): "Whereas the proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act reflect the fact that more women, more members of visible minorities and more part-time employees are in the workforce today than ever before; and

"Whereas these workers deserve the same access to the right to join together and bargain collectively as workers have had in the past under the act, which has tended to serve men working in large factories; and

"Whereas the proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act will bring about greater worker participation and reduce conflict and confrontation in labour-management relations,

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

"That the Ontario government and all the members of the Legislature effect speedy passage of the changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act so as to promote better labour-management relations and to provide women, visible minorities and part-time workers with the same rights as other workers have under the act."

I attach my name to this petition.

HIGHWAY NOISE BARRIERS

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition.

"We, the undersigned residents of Brockmere Cliff Road, also known as Butternut Bay Service Road, draw the attention of the ministry to the following:

"That the properties west of Brockville and south of the 401, running from the Highway 2 interchange to the Thousand Islands Parkway, are subjected to excessive and constant levels of noise resulting from the 401 handling more and larger trucks each year.

"That many of these properties are exposed to potential dangers resulting from truck and car accidents as well as tire blow-outs etc.

"Therefore, we petitioners call upon the Ministry of Transport to request provision for a safety and sound barrier along the 401 from Highway 2 to the Thousand Islands Parkway interchange."

It's signed by approximately 40 residents, and I've affixed my signature.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition here from 35 residents of the county of Middlesex who have responded to the report of the arbitrator, Mr John Brant, for the greater London area and request that the Legislature of Ontario set aside the arbitrator's report because it does not reflect the expressed wishes of the majority of citizens of Middlesex who believe that too extensive an area of land has been annexed by the city of London. These petitioners are also of the opinion that it will jeopardize the viability of the county of Middlesex and our rural way of life. I have signed my name to this petition.

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition signed by approximately 50 residents from Osgoode, Kemptville and Oxford Station, and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I have another petition to the members of the provincial Parliament re amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act proposing wide-open Sunday shopping and the elimination of Sunday as a legal holiday.

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

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

I affix my signature to that.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I'm going to read a petition with regard to Bill 40, and you should know that I'm getting many from all over southwest Ontario, for obvious reasons.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas investment and job creation are essential for Ontario's economic recovery,

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

"To instruct the Minister of Labour to table the results of independent empirical studies of the effect that amendments to the Labour Relations Act will have on investment and jobs before proceeding with those amendments."

This has been signed by a number of people from Middlesex county, Melbourne, London and Komoka.

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Part of the 7,000 petitions that were delivered last week at Queen's Park by the people from Georgina:

"We, the undersigned, absolutely reject the alternative of a Metropolitan Toronto-York region megadump and insist that you reconsider all alternatives."

I've affixed my name to this petition.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Reports by committees.

The member for Leeds-Grenville, I believe that you have a report to submit to the House.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Sorry, Mr Speaker, I was distracted by my seatmate. My apologies.

1530

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Runciman from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 14th report.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you wish to make a brief statement? No? Pursuant to standing order 106(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY AMENDMENT ACT (FEES), 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ACCÈS À L'INFORMATION ET LA PROTECTION DE LA VIE PRIVÉE (FRAIS)

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

Bill 83, An Act to amend the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act respecting Fees Charged for Access to Records / Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'accès à l'information et la protection de la vie privée en ce qui concerne les frais imputés pour l'accès à des documents.

PETERBOROUGH SOCIAL PLANNING COUNCIL ACT, 1992

On motion by Ms Carter, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr59, An Act to revive Peterborough Social Planning Council

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

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

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Lawrence. No, I believe the last person who spoke was the member for Oriole, and it's the time of the third party now.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): It is time for comments in respect to the member for Oriole's speech, is that not correct?

The Deputy Speaker: Yes, if you wish to make any comments, but she's not here to respond.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to make a few comments, and maybe she'll come back and respond to them.

The Deputy Speaker: You have two minutes to do so.

Mr Tilson: The member for Oriole spent some time on the subject of the existing law, the Liberal bill, which clearly has proven to be unworkable. The threshold test the Liberals have put forward is completely impossible. The NDP threshold test of the deductible is not much better.

I think the main message of the member for Oriole, which I would hope members of this House would spend some time on, was to think again, think it out again. The bill was introduced last December, and it was prepared without any actuarial studies. The actuarial studies that were finally put forward by the minister were introduced just several days ago; of course, the minister held on to those actuarial studies for over four months before he introduced them. But I think that's the main message from the member for Oriole, and I think we should respect that: With the debate that is coming forward in this House, we should think this over.

The number of innocent accident victims who are losing their rights is going to be unbelievable. Already people are coming to our offices -- not just my office, but other offices -- explaining the frustration they're having with the Liberal bill. Now there's no one to go to. You won't even be able to go to seek legal advice on anything because everything is going to be reduced to benefits. We're all going to be treated the same. No matter what your individual injury is, no matter what income you're making, we're all treated the same.

I think the message the member for Oriole put forward is to think again before you proceed with this bill.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): It gives me pleasure to respond to some of the remarks made by the member for Oriole. First of all, the member indicated that she was pleased to see that indexation has become a part of our bill. If she was so pleased, it's unfortunate she didn't take the opportunity when she was in cabinet during the previous government to lobby the former Minister of Financial Institutions.

The member for Oriole mentioned the issue with respect to the withdrawal provisions within our piece of legislation. She claimed these were anti-business provisions. On the contrary, these provisions both protect the consumer from undue disruption in the provision of premiums or insurance policies and it protects the industry by preventing withdrawal without any consultation with the Ontario Insurance Commission.

The issue was raised with respect to premium increases and that the reason the premiums have recently been lowered was the result of the Ontario motorist protection plan actually working. I would suggest that the member for Oriole was being economical with the truth in that respect. It's only through the work of our minister, the Honourable Brian Charlton, and his work with the insurance industry that these premiums were lowered.

In terms of the comment with respect to the cynicism of the voters, I wonder if the member for Oriole actually went to her constituents and said, "Constituents, as a result of our piece of legislation, in the first six quarters" -- I say the first six quarters again -- "the insurance industry cleared a net profit of $1 billion." One billion dollars; that's the kind of thing that makes voters cynical.

When you look at the gaps with respect to the rehabilitation --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you, the time is expired.

Mr Runciman: The NDP member just made reference to making voters cynical. In terms of people being cynical, they look at the promise the NDP has had for so many years. They ran the 1987 campaign -- Mr Speaker, you'll recall this -- with limousines pulling up in front of Queen's Park; the barons of the insurance industry getting out here and the Liberal government of the day and the previous Conservative government catering to the insurance industry and that these people were going to correct this wrong by bringing in government-run auto insurance.

And what's happened? They've completely gone back on that principle and the platform this party stood on and fought so many elections on for so many years. Talk about being cynical. That's the sort of thing they're really cynical about.

In response to what the member for Oriole said, a lot of the problems we're facing now in respect to auto insurance are the direct result of the Liberal government of which she was a member, a member of cabinet, a very influential member. We all remember when Mr Peterson in 1987 said -- I think to say it was not the truth is accurate; I'll be polite -- that he had a very specific plan to lower automobile insurance rates. He had no such plan. Shortly after that announcement, Justice Coulter Osborne -- the government had spent over $1 million for him to conduct a study of auto insurance in this province -- was completely disregarded, while the government tried to scurry around to find a response to the promise that Mr Peterson had made during the election campaign that he had a specific plan.

As a result, we've had nothing but uncertainty in the insurance industry. We've had one plan after another. We've had millions upon millions of tax dollars spent. And what's the result of this? The people who are really suffering, as my colleague Mr Tilson just mentioned, are the innocent accident victims in this province. They're the people who are suffering as a result of the ill-considered, ill-thought-out Liberal plan brought in in the spring of 1990. We're all paying for that.

1540

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I want to indicate that I will be speaking to this bill in around 30 minutes, at around 4:05, and I'll be exhausting the 30 minutes that are permitted any member of this Legislature and will be addressing, as capably as I can in that time frame, the issues as I see them.

This debate carries with it, as I'm sure it does for you, Speaker, some real déjà vu, a real struggle between little people, people who are powerless, people who are victims, people who oftentimes have no voice, people whose bodies are broken and whose futures are stolen from them, and in contrast, big, powerful institutions: insurance companies that have at hand extreme wealth, extreme power, and government, which has extreme power and an intrusiveness that grows on a daily basis.

I'm a New Democrat. I've been a New Democrat now for over a quarter of a century, lured, as I was, into the New Democratic Party by Tommy Douglas -- who came to Welland and spoke on any number of occasions and whom I had the chance to meet as a kid and who impressed me -- and of course people like Donald MacDonald, Jim Renwick and Mel Swart, very much still with us. These people taught me that New Democrats protect the little person, New Democrats fight for the people with no voice, New Democrats fight for the people who aren't strong against those powerful institutions, be they big corporations or big government. I tell you, that's why this bill is wrong.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you, time has expired. Are there any members who wish to participate in the debate?

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I know I cannot respond for the member for Oriole. I wouldn't have any defence for the attack that's been brought forward by honourable members in this House. She'll have to have that opportunity on another occasion.

We are dealing with a bill that has far-reaching consequences for the people of the province of Ontario and is another one of those things happening at Queen's Park that will impact the many millions of people in Ontario who are involved with automobiles and their insurance. It's called Bill 164, 34 pages in length, French and English. It's not easy to understand, but there are several things about the bill that are easy to understand, and I think it's important for the public at large to understand some of the consequences of what's happening.

The first thing to understand is that the government has welshed on a promise. When the New Democrats were sitting in opposition, screaming and shouting about other proposals for auto insurance, they came along and said, "We will correct the situation and we will bring forward our own government-run automobile insurance program." They campaigned on that, and that's one of the reasons the member for Welland-Thorold, a New Democrat, continues to be exercised over the fact that this government has failed to live up to its promise. In our House we at one time had a high regard for integrity in what one said and what would follow afterwards. This is a government that really has gone back on a very significant promise.

It's one of those situations where I'm glad they have; there are other situations where they have gone back on their earlier promises and it disappoints me greatly. The problem is that there are people who voted for the Minister of Financial Institutions, Brian Charlton, and Mr Rae and his colleagues because of certain things they stood for when they were running for election on September 6, 1990. They said that because this government seemed to have a monopoly on caring, people who were going to stand up for environmental rights, people who were going to fight things that were injustices to the workers, therefore they would see them as an option to vote for on September 6.

Many, many of those people today, if they had a chance, would like to recall that vote. If they could, they would recall this government, but unfortunately, in the parliamentary system of the province of Ontario there is no way that anyone can get rid of a government once it's been elected, unless it's a minority government and it loses a crucial vote here in the Legislature. Otherwise, there is nothing we can do to unseat the New Democrats until they've completed their term.

Therefore, when people come to me and my colleagues and say, "Can't you do something?" the major thing we can do is put on the record the concerns we have and hopefully convince this government, its members, its leaders and its party, that what it's doing is not right, it's not good, it's not balanced; rethink it, come back and look at it another way.

The New Democrats have an agenda which they are pursuing. Nothing is going to stop them. As they walk down the road for the next two and a half years or to the very end of their term, they will fulfil as many of their own agenda items as they possibly can, at which time, when there is a new government elected, which will not be New Democrat, it will be a major job for the next two years after that to try to reverse the trends and decisions that have been made by this group of politicians.

I have to say it concerns me and it concerns Ontario, because you're dealing with a government that has lost its balance and lost its respect for the varying options that can and should be considered.

As we look at the whole business of government-run insurance, on the one side I'm glad they've backed off on it, but what really is part and parcel of it is that we're dealing with a government that was elected on a series of promises and commitments and now is backing off on them.

The tragedy is that in Ontario there is no way you can go back and recall a government. In Arizona, just over a year ago, more than 50% of the population signed a petition that caused the governor of that state to resign and, therefore, the people had some say during the term of office. What say do the people of Ontario have against this group during its term of office?

Except for the ability of the opposition to present and focus on issues, except for the ability of the media to draw the attention of the public at large to what they're doing, except for those who are genuinely interested in what's happening through their trade associations, through watching this TV, through reading Hansard, people as a whole do not understand the absolute damage that is being done to this province, not only to individuals, as we now see with this auto insurance bill, Bill 164, but with the numerous other decisions they're making.

Casino gambling is typical of this government where it's come along, always opposed to its principles, and now shows it has no principles by bringing in casino gambling. They're having a test site in Windsor, and so they're hoping to make Windsor a tourist mecca.

It's ludicrous that these people call themselves politicians. I call them closer to something like lunatics, something that comes off another fringe of society, fanaticism for an idealism that really doesn't deal with the world. I see that with the Minister of the Environment, who has not listened and will not listen to views opposing hers. You see that with the Minister of Labour, who does not listen to the business community when we're talking about changes to Bill 40. You're seeing it with the Treasurer, who comes along with bills that increase the deficit of the province in such a way that we are now far more in debt than ever.

In every different aspect, this government has gone its own singular way against the advice of the community as a whole, against its own principles and against the best interests of the people of the province of Ontario. It fills me with a sense of outrage that this government, elected on a set of principles and promises, can back away on them so easily.

As we deal with the whole issue of auto insurance, there isn't any doubt that the government is going to forge ahead with its own views. I'm going to touch on a number of issues that really bother me with regard to the bill, but the first point that I make is, we're talking about --

Mr Tilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Before the member for Markham starts in on his debate, there doesn't seem to be a quorum. I think we should have a quorum to hear the member for Markham.

The Deputy Speaker: Will you please, table, check if there is a quorum? A quorum is present. The member for Markham, you have the floor.

1550

Mr Cousens: Thank you for these people coming in. I appreciate that.

Mr Tilson: They snuck in.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Cousens: The other issue has to do with what the Liberals caused to happen when they were in power. Again, there isn't any doubt that when Mr Peterson -- a name you don't hear mentioned too much in the Legislature any more, who was in power from 1985-90 -- said he had a plan, a specific plan to reduce automobile insurance premiums, as it turned out, he didn't have one. So there again, it doesn't add much to the credibility of politicians when you have that from the Premier at the time, who is indicating that he has a real strategy to do something for automobile insurance victims and, as it turns out, really did not have it.

The fact of the matter is, the Liberals brought in a flawed piece of legislation. I don't think there's any doubt that the automobile insurance programs as they exist in Ontario, though some people are happy, just haven't had the kind of balance that was needed.

Certainly, the kind of thing that we want to see in the automobile insurance program is not the kind of direction that is being taken by this government. Tens of millions of dollars have been spent on studies and analyses to try to develop a solution for Ontario's automobile insurance.

Chief Justice Coulter Osborne, for one, came out with a report which begins to identify a number of ways in which tort can be reformed. A lot of people say, "I wish when you're standing up in opposition to things that you could point to another option." That is one of the directions that I would liked to have seen the government look at far more carefully, to look at Chief Justice Osborne's report and review ways in which tort itself could be modified, limits could be indicated, and in that way there'd be a fairness to the Insurance Act.

But what we have here right now is a system that's being instituted under Bill 164 which does not give a person a right to sue for past, present or future earnings. The kind of example that probably best illustrates the situation is that, first of all, you're talking about a government that wanted to bring some equity to this insurance bill.

I then say what would happen with your bill if a medical student had completed his or her university degree, completed their internship, then they graduated, ready to start to practice somewhere in northern Ontario, where we need more practitioners, and there's an automobile accident which incapacitates this young, intelligent, dynamic, trained person from beginning their career? What happens is that their career is finished at that point and there isn't any chance for that person to begin to earn their potential. So what will happen under the new capped system of benefits that are provided by this government? That medical student will be limited to a very minimal amount for the rest of his or her life. So therefore there is no understanding or appreciation of the greater context of that person as to their dream, as to their ability, as to all the preparations that they've gone into to get ready for life.

Today more and more we have women who are professionals in the workplace and they take a period of time off to have their families and then they will return to the workforce. So while they're home as mothers and looking after their families and getting them started, again one of the tragedies of life that can happen is that that mother may have an accident. How will she be remunerated for that accident? What right will she have to sue for real loss as to the present and future earnings and benefits that she would be entitled to as one who really was an executive earning a good income, but then, while being a mother, had made the sacrifice of that kind of return and now, with an accident, is not able to be measured against her potential but is measured against a standard that has to do with what she was doing when the accident took place?

What is happening is that these people are being segregated. These people are being punished because of where they sit in society at that particular time. I think of the self-employed person who has his own business and has an accident. The benefits from that accident would amount to about $22,000, so what happens then? Not enough to sustain the business, not enough to sustain his family and his income the way it was; probably moves closer and closer to a welfare situation and is less able to be accountable for his own family and responsibilities.

What I see is, this government's action by this bill is somehow giving everybody a very low common denominator, not accepting the fact that there are some people who have achieved more, have gone further and have developed a different lifestyle. There is no way in which this Bill 164 gives them any kind of understanding or appreciation for their position and for their status and for what they've attained. Everyone will be at the lowest common denominator and, as a result, the return to those people will be far less than what they need in order to live in the way in which they were accustomed.

I don't want to see people ending up making a lot more through insurance claims than they could ever possibly enjoy or have. That is one of the tragedies of unlimited tort where people could sue for any amount, and that's how they'd make their lottery, that's how they'd make their million, because they'd be able to sue at the expense of someone else. It's a mentality that developed in the United States, has drifted into Canada, and more and more people seem to think that's the way they're going to get ahead. Sue someone, and that way you'll be more successful.

I don't go for that. I think there's something tragic about that kind of approach to life and to the approach of accidents and incidents, but let there be at least a responsible return so that people are able to live according to their own lifestyle as they have been accustomed.

Mr Kormos: A little bit of accountability to the wrong people.

Mr Cousens: Absolutely, I couldn't agree with you more, and some accountability for the wrongdoing that takes place, so that someone who has been wronged has again some return that comes into it, and I accept that. Not being a lawyer, I'm not able to draw on some of that kind of experience, so I give credit to the member for Welland-Thorold for that suggestion, and I do agree.

As we look at the issues then, I say that the government, in Bill 164, has failed to understand the responsibility to an individual to be able to live and enjoy life within a standard to which he was accustomed, because there is no right within this bill to sue for present, past or future earnings, and I believe that should be implicit to a bill that's being looked at.

Tragically, Mr Charlton, the Minister of Financial Institutions, has not seen fit to put it in to this point. He still could. I see him sitting in his chair and smiling, as he is wont to do. Maybe he will also have a chance to think about this and incorporate it, because there's still an opportunity.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Financial Institutions): Just speaking to your old friends.

Mr Cousens: Well, we go back a long way, Brian, and I just hope there's some way in which our words will come through and maybe there will be a chance of some change to be made.

Pain and suffering? Obviously the Liberal bill had a tremendous flaw to it, because of the example that my colleague the member for Dufferin-Peel expounded on at length and the whole example of the Meyer case, which proved that the previous Liberal legislation that we've been living with for the last few years is unworkable. My friend and colleague Mr Tilson, who by the way has done a superb job in presenting the Ontario PC caucus's and the general business community's views on this in a most articulate and commanding way, has talked at length about the Meyer case and I want to commend him for that, but it brings out the failure of Bill 164 in not being able to deal with this whole pain and suffering issue. It looks as if in order to get any kind of return from this government it almost has to be catastrophic, and that is not always the case with some of the injuries that people have inflicted upon them in these accidents.

1600

What this government's come forward with is a rather convoluted system where it says you can sue up to $40,000 or $50,000, but then with the deductible that comes into this of $15,000 -- I'd love to hear a better rationalization than I've had from the minister and his staff and ministry to this point on why you have to have a deductible of $15,000. That really doesn't make big sense because if a person has a claim of a certain amount of, let's say, $50,000, you've got a deductible of $15,000 that brings it down to $35,000 that they would receive for pain and suffering. Then on top of that there are legal fees incurred. There is no appreciation within your deductible for legal fees.

If you would accept an amendment to include in the deductible any of the costs incurred by a victim in trying to claim what is due to him or her, that could help accommodate the restriction you've made that says there's an automatic deductible of $15,000. So a person who wins, in his claim, $20,000 or $50,000, automatically has that deductible removed.

I challenge the minister and his staff to review that to see if there's some way we can have more of the money claimed for the person who is obviously victimized by the accident, then has some kind of remuneration for it.

I know for a fact that there are many people who suffer pain and suffering from these accidents. When we're healthy and well, I don't think we really understand just how fortunate we are. Most of us in this Legislature and those of us who are healthy take it so much for granted. It wasn't until this summer that I had an accident and realized just how much an inconvenience it was and how difficult it was to get my strength back from it and just how much I needed the physiotherapy and the other things to bring back my strength after I fell. People who are in an accident -- I have to say, it happens so easily.

I was involved in the horrible accident on Highway 400 this summer, as another incident of my own short lifetime, where the transport came across the highway. One truck was damaged and the driver was killed instantly and some 10 trucks were knocked off the road. My wife and I missed by only a few feet from being hit by that truck as it came past us.

The damage, the suffering, the pain that comes from something like that doesn't last just for the moments of the incident, they go on and on for an extended period of time. Not to recognize what that pain and suffering is to them in their lives -- the limitations it puts upon them, the restrictions it gives them, the sense of putting them down for the rest of their days -- is very, very serious.

The compensation they get hardly begins to make up for the true pain and suffering. Having seen what people went through in that accident first hand, I really have to say we all have to understand that the government owes a sense of balance and that balance has to be reflected in this kind of a bill.

To have a deductible of $15,000, to have such a limited amount is a matter where I think there is room for us to negotiate. I can tell those people who are watching this Legislature in action today that if this were a minority government, if the New Democrats had not the number of seats that give them the large majority they have today, this bill would not pass on this issue alone. The Liberals and the Conservatives would vote together, I'm sure, to put down this point and the bill would come out in a far more balanced and moderate way to address some of these concerns.

I'd want to know, again, and the minister has not explained this point at all, a third issue I have, in addition to the fact that there is no right to sue and that the government is very limited in what it will allow to be paid out for pain and suffering. I want to know why the government would have a clause in this bill that would restrict an insurance company from leaving the province.

I can see that as long as the New Democrats are in power, maybe that's one way of trying to keep a few people here, because we're talking about an evacuation, as people are leaving Ontario as long as the New Democrats are in power. That's probably why the motto that's becoming more and more pronounced, "Survive till '95," is more and more meaningful, until the New Democrats call an election and get kicked out of office.

But why would this government include in this bill a section that will cause any insurance company that wants to leave the province to have to apply to the Ontario Insurance Commission, and it may be necessary to pay a penalty to get out or it may even be refused the right to leave Ontario? Where are your democratic freedoms at that point? Why can't companies come in and go? If they have legal responsibilities that have to be met, then make sure they're kept.

Mr Tilson: That's one way of keeping business in Ontario, pass a law that says they can't leave.

Mr Cousens: That's exactly right. The member for Dufferin-Peel says that's one way to keep business in Ontario, pass a law so they can't leave. That is the kind of dunderhead move that would come from this government, which is totally unacceptable.

Why does the government not review this? It just doesn't make sense. It does not add up to a democratic society. Is it any wonder that people don't want to come and invest in Ontario if you're going to have a government pass laws that say you can't move out of Ontario? That is the kind of dumb move that is causing the business community to say: "I don't think I'll invest in Ontario. In fact, we'll move our business elsewhere for the time being until there is a government that will establish a better environment for business."

This government is not establishing an environment for business to want to establish businesses here with the very kind of thinking that would cause a government to include in Bill 164 this kind of regulation that only those that are given an approval by the superintendent would be allowed to leave and they may well be required to pay a fee.

Maybe that's what this government should be doing to General Motors to make sure it stays in Oshawa or to Ford in Oakville or TRW in Penetanguishene which is moving its 192 jobs from Penetanguishene to Mexico, or to the people in Napanee who have lost their jobs to a warehouse, and what they were building before is going to be manufactured elsewhere.

Is that one way for this government to do it, instead of trying to create a climate where there is a chance to succeed, where the government doesn't overtax you so much, where the government allows you to move ahead and where the government infuses into the economy a sense of confidence that the government's not going to tax away all the profits you make? Not only are we one of the highest-taxed jurisdictions in the world; this government now makes it difficult for business to even set up and get going and move ahead. Therefore, outside capital is reluctant to invest in Ontario.

That's a fact. The New Democrats don't want to listen to it. The New Democrats don't want to believe it. The New Democrats aren't prepared to act upon it. So I say to the people of Ontario that we have to survive till 1995, at which time this will be another one of those regulations -- it's now more than regulation; it's in an act, it's in a bill -- that we will withdraw, that we will change and remove because it's the kind of lunatic move that just doesn't make sense to business.

If you're doing it to the insurance industry, why don't you do it to other industries? That's what they're going to say and that's what they're going to fear.

I challenge the government. Go back to your Bill 164. Remove these segments from the bill that cause other people to worry about what you're going to do to them. Let yourselves be a little bit more honest and let yourselves be a little bit more fairminded to those people who want to come into Ontario.

Then I look at what the Insurance Bureau of Canada indicates. They're telling us that insurance rates could go up by up to 20% with this bill.

Mr Tilson: A minimum of 20%.

Mr Cousens: A minimum of 20%. When the Honourable Brian Charlton, Minister of Financial Institutions, brought in this bill he was saying that rates will go down by about $45. Now he's no longer saying they'll go down by $45; he's saying the rates won't go up. Will you put that in blood? Will you put that on your job? Will you quit if they go up? The problem is, who will really care at that point because you'll be out of office anyway?

I'm saying that this government was not representing the case properly and fully to the people of Ontario by saying, when it was bringing in its new automobile insurance bill, that rates would go down. They won't. They're going to go up by a minimum of 20%. Already we're in a high tax bracket and now, because of government interference, the rates are going to go up again. It will only make sense.

The insurance companies can't provide a service unless in fact they're going to recover the money. They're not a charity. They're in business for profit, and there's nothing wrong with profit. But if the government is going to mandate and legislate certain kinds of minimum restrictions within a policy, then the insurance companies are going to have to raise that money through premiums.

1610

The payer is going to be you and me, the taxpayers, the people who drive automobiles. The people who are out there are already paying so much for their automobile insurance that they're looking for ways of keeping the cost down. When the minister started this ordeal, he said that the price of automobile insurance would go down, by up to $45. Now he's saying it's going to stay the same. I'm saying the minister is wrong. Insurance rates are going to climb. They're going to go up. My facts come from the Insurance Bureau of Canada. My facts come from Allstate Insurance, a major insurance company in my riding. They're all concerned about that.

Then how do we deal with the next issue I have? I am running out of time, but I briefly will have an opportunity to put it on the table.

Mr Tilson: Ask for an extension.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Unanimous consent.

Mr Cousens: I don't think there would be unanimous consent. The New Democrats don't --

Mr Tilson: The Liberals aren't here.

Mr Cousens: Is there unanimous consent that I'm allowed to continue with my speech?

Interjections: Yes.

Interjections: No.

Mr Cousens: That's good, Mr Speaker. You heard unanimous consent.

Interjection: I've heard enough of you. I don't want to hear any more.

Mr Cousens: I won't go for any more than half an hour on this one point. It has to do with seniors and people over the age of 65. Why is it that we can't treat people over 65 as fairly as we treat people who are any other age? Why is there in this bill discrimination against seniors? Why is a person who is a senior in a car accident or who becomes a senior after a car accident going to have a different set of rules imposed upon him? Why is it that this bill starts coming along and treating seniors in a different way? There is no reason in the world why this government, which when it was in opposition said it had a monopoly for caring, would come now and in Bill 164 bring in special rules and regulations that will cause seniors to be the victims of this legislation.

When you're a senior, you shouldn't be treated differently from anyone else. If anything, we should be taking special care of our seniors. We should be looking for ways so that they are able to continue to live, prosper and be respected in our society. But when you have a bill that comes along and says, "Aha, once you hit 65, we're going to bring you in; we're going to have a special review," we are starting to discriminate against them.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, I think I've had my time extended.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): We had to give you unanimous consent.

Mr Cousens: Did we not have unanimous consent?

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired. Questions and comments?

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I just want to say that I agree with some of the things my colleague said, but not all of them. I thought I heard in some of his remarks and some of the prior comments that were made by some of his colleagues with respect to the plan that exists now that was introduced by the Liberal government that it was suggested that we didn't have a plan to lower rates, that it wasn't going to work, that it was ill-conceived and badly thought out. I say to the members from that party, the Conservative Party, and others who had made those comments that the plan is working just fine.

Rates are lower. Rates are reasonably stable. In fact, the plan is working so well that a lot of people who have been surveyed -- polls were conducted -- suggest that the plan is a successful one. There could be adjustments made to improve it, but why is this government tinkering with this plan, actually gutting the plan to make changes that are ill-conceived, that will ultimately increase the price to consumers? Premiums will definitely go up. There is no doubt about that. Why are you making these changes when the plan is working so well at the present time?

Mr Tilson: The plan is not working at all.

Mr Cordiano: It is working well. Premiums have been kept to a minimum, and yet these people want to increase premiums to consumers. That is going to be the fundamental end-all for this government. The premiums for this new plan will increase. There is no doubt in anybody's mind that premiums will go up.

Mr Tilson: I'd like to congratulate the member for Markham for putting forth a number of views that seem to be recurring throughout in this debate, and I hope the members of the government do listen to those points.

The one point that he did raise which I would like to emphasis is the principle of the deductible. The minister will probably stand up and say, well, what he's trying to do with the $15,000 deductible is reduce the frivolous claims, and that if you have that minimum amount, the frivolous claims, the claims for the fake back injury, the fake injuries, will be reduced. I would expect that somewhere in this debate he or the parliamentary assistant will stand up and say that.

The difficulty with that whole principle is that if you end up suing for damages, if you go and receive advice that your damages for pain and suffering are $20,000 or $25,000, you're only going to be, in fact, suing for somewhere between $5,000 and $10,000. So you may be doing away with a number of the frivolous claims, but there's no question that you'll be doing away with more than that, because you would be foolish to take an action and sue for $25,000, knowing you're only going to recover $10,000 of that. Your legal costs will probably be $5,000 to $10,000 to recover.

Aside from that, there's the principle of the people who have been very seriously injured. You are penalizing those people as well. Those people who have been suing for very serious injuries, the quadriplegic type of injury, where large claims may normally have been given for pain and suffering, those people are penalized as well because the deductible is going to be reduced from their claim as well.

So in an effort to reduce the frivolous claims, which I suspect is his main reason for putting forward this principle -- and I did call out to him that I don't know where he came up with the figure of $15,000. I suppose he's saying that anything under $15,000 is a frivolous claim. I hope he's not saying that, because some of us who have been very seriously injured consider $15,000 a lot of money, and I think the average person in this House looks at $15,000 as a lot of money. So rethink the whole principle of the deductible.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): This has always been an issue for me. I can remember listening to the Liberals and the New Democrats and the Conservatives debate this a few years ago, and I can remember talking to some of the residents and some of the union members that I represented as well, because this was an issue on the floor that I can remember speaking about. I can remember how emotional it got as well in terms of the right to sue and the frivolous claims, when that was brought up. I can also remember, after our election, the emotion that I had witnessed in terms of car insurance and that whole debate. Frankly, it's no secret: I'm still hoping that eventually some government, or our government one day, will take it over, because I strongly believe that we should, still.

But with that and having said that, I also understand why we did what we did. I can understand that laying off 6,000 or 7,000 employees at this particular time is the wrong thing to do. I understand that compromise is important and I understand that bringing back the right to sue will make a lot of people happy. My constituents are happy with that. My constituents are happy with controlling the frivolous claims, and if that's what the $15,000 deductible is going to do, then I'm happy with that. I think we've got to talk a little bit about that, and I'd be willing to do that, but I want everybody in this House to remember one thing: Bringing back the right to sue will certainly make a lot of people happy. Let's not forget that.

Mr Stockwell: I guess I would like to say that I think the member brought up what I consider to be some very reasoned and sound arguments. I would remind the government that some of those same arguments were the arguments that you used when you were in opposition. So it's particularly discouraging. Some of those arguments were the very same arguments. There's no doubt about it. I don't say all of them, but it's particularly discouraging to me to think that this government, holding this issue with such importance pre-election, could have members standing before this House today and saying the kinds of things that the previous speaker did. It seems rather illogical that laying off 6,000 or 7,000 people was an issue after the election. Why was that not an issue before the election? Why was it not something you thought through before the election about government-run auto insurance?

Now the conclusion one would draw is that you simply didn't think it through. I can't believe that after the length of time and debate that took place in this House you hadn't given this particular issue enough thought. And you were going to restore the right to sue, period, case closed.

I can only assume this then, one of two things: Either you did not give this enough thought in opposition or you simply didn't mean what you said. So having a minister here who is nothing but a public apologist -- and it's shameful. It's discouraging, it's depressing to see a member stand before this House as nothing more than a public apologist. Standing on this side of the House now, the only conclusion I can draw is that you may well have used your member for Welland-Thorold to get yourselves some votes, and that is truly shameful.

1620

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

Mr Cousens: I'd be pleased if the honourable minister who stood and wanted to have a response would be allowed to do so if there is consent for it. I'm always glad to hear from him, and there might be a chance that there is a new gem of wisdom coming up. We keep running out of time.

I appreciate the comments from my colleagues the member for Etobicoke West and the member for Dufferin-Peel. I know that when you work from the position that we are, having thought it through, trying to find a balanced solution, it becomes all the more of a moment of anger when you see the way in which the New Democrats are just frittering away their promises and the trust of the people of Ontario. That is really something that does grieve us.

The member for Lawrence, I have to tell you, the plan the Liberals brought into effect is not working well now. There are many problems to it, and I suggest you read the speech that was delivered earlier by the member for Dufferin-Peel and he'll point out a number of the issues that are outstanding to it, so that the government did have to act on it. Unfortunately, the actions that are being proposed are far less than satisfactory.

I can see how the New Democrats might well, if we have more members like the member for Yorkview, be bringing in government-run auto insurance. I don't think that's out of the realm of possibility. It's very much still on the agenda for certain New Democrats, and should the New Democrats ever find enough who think like that member and a few others who are nodding their heads, because I can hear the rattling, then in that case --

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): So unnecessary.

Mr Cousens: I take that back. That's unnecessary. It was just so loud.

The problem we've got is that the New Democrats could still bring in this kind of legislation that will eliminate the automobile insurance industry. Some 6,000 to 7,000 jobs isn't something you just slough off, but it's something they could legislate out at any time.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr Kormos: You know, this is a remarkable occasion for me, because I'm going to tell you right off the bat, and people who might be listening or might want to listen, I'm not going to speak in support of Bill 164. I tell you without hesitation, with a great deal of sadness, but I tell you with no trepidation, I stand here and I tell you that I speak against Bill 164 as bad legislation; ill-conceived; yes, poorly written legislation and, most importantly, a complete betrayal, the most cynical of breaches of trust.

There may have been any number of NDP policies that weren't universally known across the province or there may well have been people who didn't know that New Democrats believed, let's say, in pension reform. There may well have been people who didn't know the New Democrats believe strongly that the surpluses in pension plans belong to the workers and that it was important to reform those pension plans and index pensions before those same surpluses were ravaged by the corporate entities, as they have been in the last two years.

Not every voter in the province might have known that New Democrats stood for increasing the level of provincial funding for municipal school systems to a minimum of 60%. There may well have been voters out there who didn't know that was an NDP policy and not one that was conjured up in those heady days and weeks before an election, but one that had been a significant policy for years and years and years, enunciated not just by candidates on the doorstep but by New Democrats in this Legislature speaking as an opposition, and an effective opposition.

That being the case, I can't think of one voter in this province who couldn't have known where New Democrats stood on auto insurance. Surely there isn't a person in this province who couldn't have known where New Democrats stood on the issue of auto insurance. Clearly, in the debate around Bill 68, the Ontario motorist protection plan -- how dare they call it that, but that's what the Liberals called it, high-priced help -- if the taxpayers only knew what it costs to package these weird, wacko, bizarre things, they'd be outraged. Surely the debate about Bill 68 alone expressed clearly across this province, even beyond the jurisdiction of this province, to people across this country, where New Democrats in Ontario stood on auto insurance.

New Democrats in Ontario stood with New Democrats and CCFers like Tommy Douglas in Saskatchewan in 1946 when he created public auto insurance. It's a public insurance system that persists to this very day which provides no-fault benefits but also provides for innocent victims the full, unfettered right to full compensation for all of their economic loss and indeed compensation for pain and suffering and the right to use the courts to seek justice.

Like the CCF, NDP systems in Manitoba and British Columbia, which, notwithstanding subsequent governments -- certainly not of NDP persuasion -- some of them the most reactionary governments this country has ever seen, like the Social Credit government of British Columbia -- remember Bennett, who went on that orgy of privatization? If it moves, privatize it. If it doesn't move, kick it till it does and then privatize it. He did it until it came to the Insurance Corp of British Columbia, because British Columbians said, "No, you're going to leave our public auto insurance system alone, because it works, because it provides adequate and significant no-fault benefits, as well as ensuring that innocent victims, the people whose bodies are broken, whose limbs are torn, whose futures are stolen from them by drunk and careless and reckless and negligent drivers -- " In British Columbia, those innocent victims are entitled to full compensation for all of their losses. Yes, for their pain and suffering but more importantly, for the futures that are stolen from them, for the earning capacity that's robbed from them not by human error, not by mere momentary inadvertence, but we know who they are. They're the drunk drivers or the careless drivers or the reckless and negligent drivers. They steal people's futures. They rob from children what could have and should have and would have been theirs had it not been for that drunken driver behind the wheel of a 3,000- or 4,000-pound car. Of all the people, people in this province expect that it's New Democrats who'd make sure that child whose future is stolen from him is compensated adequately and fairly.

There's been a whole lot of talk about no-fault auto insurance. I'm going to tell you right now, no-fault insurance works really good. It does, if you're an insurance company. It's when you're a victim. It's when you've been mowed down by the drunk driver that the injustice takes hold.

I tell you, we stood firmly as a caucus, all 19 of us. There were only 19 of us; there were only 17 members in the third party. I tell you, the opposition parties were united in their resistance against Bill 68, against the no-fault insurance scheme that David Peterson imposed upon the people of this province, although it was never a campaign policy.

1630

He knew, campaigning before the 1987 election -- why, it was but days before that election date -- he knew that auto insurance and premiums, fairness to drivers, to premium payers and to victims was a significant issue. They impacted on family after family after family here in the province of Ontario. He knew it so well. Yes, I'm sure to his handler's dismay, he blurted out, as he was wont to do, that, yes, he had a very specific plan to reduce auto insurance premiums. He was trying to save his bacon if you will.

By the time he got to Queen's Park, he had to scramble. Why, in excess of $12 million, $13 million, maybe even $14 million was spent on the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board under the supervision and leadership of John Kruger. John Kruger told the Liberals, "Don't do threshold no-fault, it's not going to create savings for drivers and least of all is it going to create justice for innocent victims." But I tell you, the Liberal government ignored that advice. It felt pressured, compelled, painted, I'm sure, into a corner and came up with a scheme that was beyond the industry's wildest dreams.

Why, even the insurance industry, those 150-plus private, corporate insurers in the province of Ontario, when they were making their submissions to the Osborne inquiry, didn't ask for a threshold as onerous as created by the Liberals. And profits. Why, no-fault works real good if you're an insurance company, because they enjoyed new profits of almost $1 billion in the first year alone; every penny of that billion bucks stolen from innocent victims who are being denied compensation because of threshold no-fault.

I can't help but believe that it was because of the courageous stance of New Democrats in opposition to a government -- you remember, it was so big in numbers that it occupied part of the opposition side. Everybody knows what happened in September 1990. Be you happy about it or not, the reality is that that almost unprecedented majority was annihilated into a somewhat modest and fractious opposition party. I tell you, New Democrats have never made a secret about where they stood on auto insurance. They've had occasion to document that more than a few times.

When Mel Swart retired, there was a photo-off out in front of the Legislative Assembly. Mel, on his little Ford station wagon, put the vanity plates given to him as a gift by his caucus. The plate said "NO FAULT," because Mel and New Democrats had been identified with no-fault. The reason is that New Democrats had always believed that a comprehensive insurance package had to include no-fault benefits; that these no-fault benefits had to be a part of the package so that there was compensation, yes; that there was income replacement, yes, not just for the innocent victim but also for the wrongdoer.

That's why. It's because New Democrats fought to have no-fault included as part of the statutory insurance scheme here in the province of Ontario, as they included it in the western public system. That's why Mel became identified as an advocate of no-fault auto insurance, not because he would ever align himself with the cruel, vicious stripping away of victims' rights that's created by Bill 68 and, yes, by Bill 164, but because he knew that fairness demanded it.

There's a document called Highway Robbery. I tell you, the copies aren't as easy to come by as they used to be, but we got a few over in the north wing where my office is. Highway Robbery is the document that was written by Bob Rae as leader of the party and Leader of the Opposition and by Mel Swart, the critic, by way of a submission to the Osborne inquiry, one of the most comprehensive auto insurance inquiries ever undertaken.

The authors were the leader of the party and Mel who had been a member since well before even my time -- I acknowledge that -- Mel who had been there with the very pioneers of the social democratic movement in this province and in this country. They articulated the position of New Democrats when it came to auto insurance. They said this:

"New Democrats want greatly improved benefits for accident victims, no matter who caused the accident. We also believe just as strongly that people must retain their right to sue."

I didn't say that first. The Leader of the Opposition, Bob Rae, and the party's insurance critic said it in 1987 and it was documented in their submission to the Osborne inquiry.

They went further. Lest there's any confusion about this, lest anybody dares suggest that Mel would somehow say things one day because it was opportune and not believe in what he said, not say what he means or mean what he says or indeed change his position capriciously down the road, I tell them they don't know Mel very well. Further, Mel Swart and the Leader of the Opposition said this, documented in this impressive submission:

"In our view, an adequate level of no-fault benefits, coupled with fair payment of liability claims, would mean that most accident victims would have no need to sue. However, we believe" -- clearly there was joint authorship of this document -- "that accident victims should retain their right to sue where they think that losses exceed benefit levels. It's clear that, because of personal or occupational circumstances, the same injury will involve greater loss for some persons than for others. For instance, an athlete's earning capacity might be wiped out by a leg or knee injury from which most other accident victims would recover quickly and return to work with their earning power undiminished."

Yes, New Democrats believed and believe that the innocent victim has to be afforded the right of full compensation for all of her or his losses. Indeed that principle dates back to Moses where in Exodus he said if one smite the other with a stone he shall pay for the loss of his time and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed. I tell you, this law of lex talionis, this law of ensuring that no innocent should ever be denied reparation, is a part of our heritage, dating back not just to our fathers and forefathers, not just an essential part of the justice system as we've inherited it, but to the time before Christ.

You have to understand and I know that members here who have been in government will know that the legislative drafting process is not a perfect exercise by any stretch of the imagination. I really wish that I could speak with more precision. I wish I could refer to some of the documentation that was relied on within the ministry. Indeed, I sought to obtain access to that because in discussing this I wanted to be able to relate to you and to people who might care to listen what some of the real hard data are. So I requested access to the research, to the study that was undertaken by the automobile insurance review team.

1640

There was a member here who made some protest about the fees he was going to be charged. Try this one on for size: We're talking about some $60,800. I appreciate that as an MPP, my salary is not unreasonable, but I'm sorry, I just can't handle $60,800 at this point in time. I do my best. I buy the occasional 6/49 ticket, I confess. But to be told as a member of this Legislative Assembly that to have access, to be able to read them so that I could participate in a debate in a meaningful way, perhaps so that I can point out the frailty or the inaccuracy of some of those numbers, I would have to pay $60,800, I'm sorry, friends; that's not the way I believe government should work. Whether you're a government member or an opposition member or a member of the public, that's not the way I believe government should work.

Let me tell you about two things that bother me significantly, because there's been much talk. The fact is that any ministry prepares these inevitable lists of questions and answers, the scripted responses, the little spin that the doctors try to give to a particular piece of legislation. That's no secret any more. There's a whole lot of money spent doing that. It's called issue management, it's called PR. It's what Procter and Gamble does on a regular basis, making you believe that somehow one soap powder is superior to the other.

But I tell you, to suggest in the selling -- because it's been, I'm sorry to have to say, a crass selling and marketing of this Bill 164. There's been the suggestion that somehow this will create higher wage replacement benefits. Well, Speaker, people, it's not true, it's just not true. I'll be charitable and call it a falsehood, that suggestion.

You see, what Bill 164 does is that it says to people that because you're not entitled to full compensation for all your economic losses, the courtroom door is locked, bolted and barred. There will be no justice for innocent victims. No-fault, and this is a no-fault system, is a victory of the guilty over the innocent. It's a victory of the drunk driver over the child who's mowed down at the street corner.

You see, even the Liberal plan permits, by way of wage replacement, 80% of gross income. The impression that somehow 90% should be higher than 80% is not a perverse one to most people, but when is 90% less than 80%? In the final chapters of Animal Farm, the great Orwell novel, and here in this Legislative Assembly. Look, we've only got a few minutes. If I'm wrong on any of these figures, please say so, and I invite people to join me in these modest calculations.

Let's talk about a gross income of $600 a week. Mind you, just like in Bill 68, the first week is not covered. Somehow the victim, even the innocent victim, I presume is not going to have any groceries to purchase, is not going to have any hydro bills or fuel bills to pay, isn't going to have clothe the kids during that first week off work.

But 80% of that $600, tax-free, which is the current benefit, is $480. Just to make sure, I called up my friend Martha Ingram from Ingram Bookkeeping and Taxes down on Burgar Street in Welland, and I said: "Ms Ingram, you're experienced with this. What is the typical deduction on a $600-a-week salary?" She gave me specific figures: $13 CPP, $18 UIC and $124 income tax. I'll round it off to $150, to be conservative, which I rarely am. That leaves you with a net income of $450. If Bill 164 provides for 90% of net, that comes to $405, friends. Sorry, down in Welland-Thorold where I come from, $405 a week is still a lot less than $480.

Let's move on up to $700: 80% of $700 gross is $560. What would Bill 164 give you if you were earning a gross of $700 a week? This bill would reduce that to $506.25.

Do you want to talk about the cap? There's been talk about increasing the cap up to $1,000 from the $600 it's at now. That doesn't mean the cap on the amount that's replaced; it means the cap on the replacement after the calculation of 80% of gross. On $800-a-week gross income -- and I don't know about the communities you come from, but where I come from, with $800-a-week gross income you're starting to get into a scarcer and scarcer range of income earner. But 80% of that gross is $640, but there's a cap. So that means that the person would receive $600 a week tax-free because it's capped. But 90% of net comes out to $540, even with the imposition of a $600 cap.

You know what, friends? It's income earners in the $1,600- to $1,700-a-week range who are going to come anywhere near to that cap. I had the library pull out who it is in this province who makes that kind of dough. You're talking about the top 10% of income earners.

Do you know what that means? That means that Bill 164 will require low- and middle-income earners to subsidize the wealthy. No New Democrat I ever knew would ever tolerate or stand for that. I tell you that, friends. For the poor and the low-income earner and the middle-income earner to have to subsidize a person earning $1,600, $1,700 or $1,800 a week is an obscenity. Even the Liberals didn't dare do it.

The fact is that the vast majority of hardworking people in this province say no to a subsidization of the rich and say yes to justice for victims. It's not an increase in benefits; it's a reduction in benefits.

Let's put it this way: If you like workers' comp, you're going to love Bill 164. If you're enthralled and thrilled with workers' compensation in the province of Ontario, you'll be ecstatic about this auto insurance scheme because you're meat charted. The innocent victim has no opportunity to explain what you don't understand: "This is what I could have been; this is what I would have been; it's what I should have been were it not for the attack on me by a drunk or a careless or a reckless or a negligent driver."

New Democrats should be embracing those victims and should be ensuring justice for them. If there's a problem with the court system, fix the courts. If there's a problem with lawyers -- and I'm not beyond criticizing lawyers -- then fix the lawyers. But don't mount a second attack on innocent victims, and that's what Bill 164 is. Even the Liberals preserve the right to full compensation for the most seriously injured.

I tell you, friends, and I tell my colleagues, if in August and September 1990 New Democrats had campaigned on Bill 164, we wouldn't have elected enough people to fill the third party position.

The previous government betrayed drivers and victims in this province, betrayed them in the most brutal way. But we promised those same drivers and victims relief from that brutality. I believe strongly that a public auto insurance system, like British Columbia's, like Saskatchewan's, like Manitoba's, can provide justice for those victims and fairness for drivers.

1650

There has been much talk about indexation of benefits. Of course, as auto insurance critic, I advocated that from the opposition benches; removing the caps on rehab and long-term care, of course. But that's not the thrust of this bill. Those things that we promised can be done without mounting that second attack on innocent victims; the patent dishonesty in suggesting that somehow there's a restoration of tort right by providing suit for pain and suffering.

Let's not forget the $15,000 isn't a threshold, and that's to say it isn't something that you have to surpass before you can be compensated for all for your pain and suffering. The $15,000 is a premium surcharge on every innocent victim. This government says if you're an innocent victim you pay back into the insurance company's coffers $15,000. And the drunk driver, the careless driver, the reckless and negligent driver is far more likely to collect the no-fault benefits, the wage replacement, than that innocent victim may well be, should he or she bang their head on the steering wheel or the windshield as they veer off the road.

I know this: Mel Swart never advocated public auto insurance because he had some mania about nationalization of things. I tell you that. There were some people who felt that way. Had they had their way, this government would own Inco now, and wouldn't that be a shame? But Mel Swart understood that the savings, the efficiencies -- he understood this just like Tommy Douglas did and just like New Democrats in Manitoba and British Columbia did and just like the people in those provinces continue to know -- inherent in a public system, permit that system to provide good no-fault benefits but also to guarantee that every innocent accident victim, every victim, innocent victims have the right to full compensation.

I know that the Premier can put people in or out of cabinet, I know that full well, but the people of Welland-Thorold put me in or out of this Legislature and I tell you I promised the people of Welland-Thorold that I would fight, that I would exhaust all of my rights in this assembly to keep the promise that I made, the promise that most candidates made in the last election, and that was to restore innocent accident victims' rights. I tell you, I will keep that promise. I tell you, nothing is more important. This seat that I have in this assembly is not more important than the trust that voters put in me or any one of us in the last election, the election before, the election before that. I am compelled to vote against what is bad legislation, what is not New Democratic Party legislation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Thank you. The honourable member's time has expired.

Mr Kormos: I can't respond to the critics who will rise now, but I tell you, the people of this province know what is right.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I want to compliment the member for Welland-Thorold for his frankness and his honesty in putting forward his feelings on this.

He has just experienced the same experience that I went through speaking against Bill 40, of realizing that the rule changes limit our abilities to make our points beyond 30 minutes. I know that having sat in this House while that same member filibustered for -- how long was it? -- 17 hours, something like that, not that he made the points quite as eloquently as he's making them today, but he now sees that the rule changes that I believe he voted for -- he may have spoken against them, but voted for and supported his government, along with the Conservative Party, I might add, which voted for those rule changes. These same people are now --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): He's saying he's sorry he did that.

Mr Mahoney: Well, you did, much to our surprise. But in any event, they're now realizing the impact of that, the impact being that the member for Welland-Thorold talked about his passionate fears for innocent victims, I think in a very convincing manner. He talked about the fact that the $15,000 is nothing more than a payback. Something I would have loved to have heard is the howls of indignation from the NDP had they been in opposition when the former Liberal government had dared to impose such a level of payback to the insurance companies. It would have been fascinating.

But I also find it somewhat interesting to be standing on the same side of the issue as Peter Kormos and Chris Stockwell and certain people like that. Voting against this particular bill is a little bit like Judy Rebick and Preston Manning lining up on the same side of the debate on the constitutional issue. It's a little bit unusual, but politics does make for strange bedfellows.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? The member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr Tilson: I too would like to congratulate the member for Welland-Thorold. I think we've just seen how low this government has gone. The basic message the member for Welland-Thorold has put forward is one of integrity, and we have just seen the very difficult position he is in. He has quoted the Premier at the Osborne commission, and how he was directed by his caucus to stand in this place for 17 hours to attack the OMPP principles.

The NDP principles no longer exist. The member for Welland-Thorold has expressed that. In fact, I'm amazed that he's still in his caucus. I'm amazed that he hasn't gone so far as to leave his caucus. He has been opposed to the principles of Sunday shopping, the principles of casino gambling and of course the principles of no-fault insurance, and I support him on being opposed to no-fault insurance. I certainly don't support him on the principles of public auto insurance. We'll have to go a long way before I will support him on that.

I think the basic message we must look at on the principle of no-fault is the subject of the innocent accident victim. The innocent accident victim is now looking to everybody's at fault. The drunk driver's innocent, the negligent driver's innocent; it's nobody's fault. The member is perfectly right and I hope the members of the government join him. This bill must be defeated and, to repeat the member for Oriole, we must think it again.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): I think we have to recognize that everybody in his or her own private life makes decisions on a daily basis. Some of those decisions will affect their lives to a greater or lesser degree.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Are you kidding us?

Mr Ferguson: Let me tell you that government is no different, and this is one of the issues where the government has looked at its position from two years ago and looked at the economic realities that face the province of Ontario today and made a decision based on the issues and the circumstances that affect the province of Ontario here in 1992.

Mr Stockwell: This is degrading.

Mr Ferguson: I want to tell you, Mr Speaker, that being in opposition is a very comfortable position, because it's kind of like being an editorial writer. If the government decided to proceed and go full steam ahead with public auto insurance, this government would have been accused of being dogmatic, it would have been accused of using outdated information and of being blind in its pursuit of public auto insurance at any cost.

Mr Tilson: You say one thing --

Mr Stockwell: You've got no credibility.

Mr Ferguson: I want to tell you, Mr Speaker, that we've looked at the issue. We have decided that this is the best course of action to proceed with at this point in time.

Mr Stockwell: And you decided to break every promise you ever made because you haven't an ounce of integrity. You're just blowing hot air.

1700

Mr Ferguson: I don't think the members of the opposition would be screaming so loudly if we decided to proceed, at a cost of, they've estimated, 5,000 to 6,000 jobs that would have been lost in the province today. We have been told time and time again by the opposition on one hand that we should be proceeding and living up to our promise. We're being accused of not keeping our promise and then, on the other hand, we're being told by the opposition that in fact this bill goes much too far.

On one hand we have the Conservatives, who have suggested that the bill goes way too far, that we shouldn't be in the business of regulating private insurance, and on the other hand we listened to our good friend the member for Welland-Thorold, who believes it doesn't go far enough. So there you have it. It's a very difficult decision that had to be made in these difficult times.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. We can accommodate one final participant.

Mr Bradley: I consider it unfortunate that under the new rules that have been imposed upon the Legislature by Premier Bob Rae, one of his own members, who spoke for some 17 hours so eloquently on this issue, is being limited to 30 minutes. In the 30 minutes, he is not easily able to outline the reasons he's in opposition to this piece of legislation.

Also, it's very clear that everything now is being run from the Premier's office and that the members of the NDP caucus, many of whom, I'm assured, are opposed to this legislation, will be whipped into line, again because of the mandarins within the Office of the Premier.

I would like the member to comment upon this and help me out with this, because his friend and mine, Gabe McNally, wrote a letter to the editor of the St Catharines Standard after I defended some funding for the Unemployed Help Centre and said, "You know, you shouldn't really trust this guy Jim Bradley, because his party, the Liberals, was in bed with the insurance companies." I would like to ask the member to comment on just how much room there is in that bed, because I think I have heard him say that the New Democratic Party appears to be in bed with or in cahoots with the insurance industry on this particular bill.

I heard the member's entire speech. I'd also like to ask the member to comment on what he thinks all of this does for the political process and the attitude the public will have towards political parties and politicians as a result of the promise being made to deliver one kind of insurance and then a complete reversal taking place by the people who were so adamant in opposition that this would be unacceptable, that the only course of action was in fact government insurance. I'd be interested in hearing the independent and forthright views of the member for Welland-Thorold on these issues.

The Acting Speaker: This completes questions and/or comments. The honourable member for Welland-Thorold has two minutes in response.

Mr Kormos: I want to say this: On the issue of public insurance, I tell you, I firmly believe in it, and I believe in it because in 1991 Statistics Canada said that the average premium in Ontario was $735 while in British Columbia it was $624. I reject out of hand the proposition that it was the cost of the program or that it was job loss which would deter from not pursuing a commitment to public auto insurance.

But there was the second issue, and that was the restoration of innocent victim rights. The fact is that I believe that can be accomplished readily in a public system, but the reality is, the Premier having clearly abandoned that, it remains incumbent upon us to keep at least that promise, because clearly nobody's countering with suggestions of cost or job loss. That's why I tell you the insurance industry has $1 billion to start paying out to innocent victims, who deserve better than what they've had.

I tell you, there's going to be a whole lot of criticism, I'm confident, among colleagues I care about and for whom I have a great deal of affection and whom I respect, for my position on this bill, but I'm compelled to stand in opposition to what is bad legislation. I know again that the spin doctors and the mandarins are going to be writing blurbs and writing mini-speeches and writing commentaries and indeed perhaps contemplating a criticism of some of the things I've said. But I'll tell you this: The people who are aware of the issue, and they number in the thousands, because they've written to me, they've telephoned me, they've stopped me in the street of every community I've been to across this great province, say no.

"We voted for the New Democrats because we believed that the New Democrats were different and we believe that now New Democrats at Queen's Park have an opportunity and an obligation to show that government doesn't have to be the way it's always been."

I tell you, being responsible and respecting the trust of those people and restoring the rights of innocent victims will demonstrate that.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you, the honourable member's time has expired. Further debate?

Mr Cordiano: I stand up to speak on this issue, and I have to say that it's quite difficult, in fact extremely difficult, to follow the previous speaker. It is going to be exceedingly difficult to match the extent of criticism, the hyperbole, the true passion the previous speaker, the member for Welland-Thorold, feels about this subject. It's difficult because I am critical of this bill, as we are on this side of the House, but no one could have done a more masterful job of ripping apart piece by piece the essence of what this government stands for.

I think this bill epitomizes everything that's wrong with this government, not so much in its legislation. We can understand why they moved to do this; we can understand why they tried to move to restore the compensation by seeking out the courts. This is a cynical, halfway measure, no doubt about that, make no mistake. But when all is said and done, it is precisely the cynicism that surrounds this move which I think many people, both on that side of the House and on this side of the House, and people right across this province, have difficulty coming to grips with.

This government has done a similar thing repeatedly: It's reversed its policy. This isn't the first time: It's done so with respect to Sunday shopping, it's done so with respect to its promise to restore education funding at the provincial level at 60%, it's done so on a number of issues. It has forsaken its principles, and I think it makes its members most uncomfortable.

There is indeed a lot of cringing going on on that side of the House. I refer back to the previous speaker, who was the most outspoken member, the best spokesperson for that party on this issue prior to the last election, and before him his predecessor, the member who represented Welland-Thorold, who also spoke eloquently in this House. I was a part of this House between 1985 and 1990 during those years when we fought elections over the whole question of public auto insurance. Public auto insurance was precisely what this party was advocating in those two elections.

I recall the extent to which people who believed in public auto insurance had supported this government, had supported the various members who now find themselves seated in this Legislature, and a great deal of support was engendered as a result of public auto insurance, as a result of the stand they took in the last election and the election previous to that.

I might add that the previous speaker, the member for Welland-Thorold, had a lot to do with that in the last election. I know he spoke with such intensity and such passion about having a sacred trust for his constituents who elected him to this House, and that he would maintain that sacred trust and would exhaust every possibility with respect to his right in this House to be able to put forward this view.

1710

Naturally, he will not have much more of an opportunity than he's had here today. I refer to the rule changes which have occurred in this House. There's no way possible that this member would have the same opportunity to rail against this legislation as he did prior to the last election when our government proposed legislation which he adamantly opposed. I was in the House when he spoke against it, and so were various other colleagues. Quite frankly, we felt that served a very useful purpose. That use of time was not a waste, even though we felt uncomfortable at that time, being the government, and had to stay through the course of one evening. It was a 17-hour period which lasted well into the morning and into the next day.

But people around the province who supported public auto insurance, whose views were similar to those of the member for Welland-Thorold, very much appreciated that they had a spokesman in this Legislature, in this House, in this chamber, who spoke on their behalf with respect to that issue, even though we disagree.

That basic principle of democracy was given its full opportunity to be displayed in this chamber. That's simply no longer the case. It's done away with completely. What we have today is a 30-minute speech by the member and by opposition members who oppose this legislation, a maximum of 30 minutes to voice our opinions. That is a sad result of the rule changes that we've seen come about in this House.

I want to deal with Bill 164. The intention of this bill as stated by this government is to "allow the reduction and the stability of insurance prices, reasonable and fair compensation for accident victims, a fair system of rating drivers and protection for consumers."

You will see in my following remarks that simply is not the case with Bill 164. The point that's been made here is that the government wants to see a system of auto insurance that is affordable, fair and universally accessible, that premiums be stable and predictable, that victims injured in a motor vehicle accident must receive benefits quickly to ensure complete recovery, that coverage must be complete.

I say to those points that is precisely what the OMPP was introduced to accomplish. I say to the members opposite that it's exactly that which is happening today. It's working effectively and efficiently. We don't believe we need new auto insurance legislation with the changes that have been proposed here today.

One thing you can be sure of is that Bill 164 will lead to premium increases for consumers. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Some estimates say that there will be a 20% increase from now until once these changes are brought about and it could go higher than that. I don't think there are any real actuarial studies that have been done by the government, or at least we haven't seen them to prove otherwise.

The new threshold to be met before owners and occupants of vehicles can be sued for bodily injury will allow victims to sue for non-pecuniary loss, pain and suffering, loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life as well as of guidance, care and companionship.

This bill will allow more victims to go beyond the threshold and sue and it will lead to an increase in premiums as litigation costs, as well as awards, will increase. That is only logical. All economic losses will be compensated through the statutory action and benefit systems. There will no longer be the right to sue for economic loss. They have completely gutted that principle which was the hallmark of the existing legislation. This is a complete denial of the right to sue for loss of income. It's a greater restriction than the Liberal government's decision not to permit tort for pain and suffering, which the NDP renounced, and we see reforms to bring that about now.

How can this government claim now that this is a restoration of the right to sue which it had promised? Nothing could be further from the truth. Clearly, under Bill 164, accident victims will no longer be permitted to sue for loss of income. Instead, they gain the right to sue for pain and suffering subject to the $15,000 deductible. That means more people will be able to seek redress from the courts but they will be entitled to claim much less. That's not an expansion of the right to sue for compensation but a narrowing of that right, a reduction of that right.

It's like paying a premium, as the speaker prior to me stated so eloquently. It is paying a penalty of $15,000 for the right to sue, there is absolutely no doubt, and that doesn't even include legal costs. If someone takes the risk of going through with the lawsuit and going through the courts for redress and is not successful, then you have the $15,000 which might have had to come from an award which had been successful. Now that's removed, but you still get stuck with the legal fees, and they can be extensive.

Clearly, the government's gambling -- a familiar word around here these days. The government is putting people in a position where they have to gamble so that they can go through the court system and get proper redress, proper compensation; that's if they win. Should they lose, they certainly will not be entitled to that and in fact will get stuck with the legal bill, which could be enormous.

You're putting people in that very difficult position with this premium as a deductible. It is an enormous barrier, and therefore that commitment to restore the right to sue is a shallow one. It's a hollow one. It comes with a big pricetag.

The little people whom the member for Welland-Thorold spoke so eloquently about are the ones who are going to have to pay this big bill at the end. They're the ones who are taking the enormous risk to seek redress from the courts. They're the ones who can't easily do that. The $15,000 deductible premium is a huge barrier to someone who's not earning a hell of a lot of money. Those people are the ones who are affected by this and therefore have not really been given the right to sue. It's been taken away from them.

This is hollow. It's a hollow promise. That's what irritates me about it. Holding true to your own commitments, your convictions, certainly would have been much better.

We had the strength of our convictions. We put forward a plan which you criticized and which the member for Welland-Thorold criticized so well. An election was fought over that and he knows very well -- I ran in that election, on that promise -- that legislation was put before the people and the people had their say. Nothing you can say about it will change that very fundamental fact.

We had the strength of our convictions. We laid it before the people, our record of government, and they spoke on it. They defeated us but we stood our ground. We said that was our legislation.

1720

This government admits this new law will allow more victims to sue by allowing them to sue for pain and suffering. Of course, this is an increase in the number of lawsuits and will mean higher litigation costs and larger court awards. It will, as I said earlier, increase premiums to consumers. There's no regard here for the premiums they're going to pay up front as a result of increased insurance costs. Ultimately, it results in bigger premiums. I know the member quoted the average premiums. Well, by God, they're going to go up, and they're going to go up, as I said earlier, at least 20%.

Mr Kormos: In Ontario.

Mr Cordiano: That's precisely why the OMPP was introduced, because people were concerned about premiums going up for consumers. Everybody complained about that over the course of two elections. These premiums were caused by rising claims costs. I say to the members opposite that this plan we have before us, the OMPP, seems to be working.

There could be adjustments made. There's no question about that. There was reference made to the threshold. The threshold was set where it is now, and it's quite high. I think some of us would admit that somehow that could be lowered, that somehow we could allow for more people to sue and that there could be a balance struck where the right to sue in that provision of the OMPP would have allowed a person to sue for economic loss as well as for pain and suffering. That's the right way to go. That's right. Lower the threshold. I don't disagree with that, and at no time when we introduced the OMPP did we say we would not under any circumstances lower the threshold.

When it was introduced, I remember that a number of our colleagues who do not sit in this House today were concerned about that, very much so, and said, "We have to have a period of adjustment, a trial period where that threshold may be altered, may be changed, may be dropped." All of us understood that. But to remove the right to sue for economic loss is a complete injustice. I agree with the member for Welland-Thorold: It is an outrageous, cynical move by this government.

As I said earlier, consumers have been asked the question if they're satisfied with the system, and for the most part they are, albeit, as I've said, there could be adjustments made to the system. The threshold could be lowered. I think that would help improve the OMPP. That would still allow us to have a system whereby premiums remain stable, remain within the grasp of what consumers can afford.

But under this new system that will no longer be possible. That certainly will no longer be possible. Make no mistake about it: Premium increases are to come. This legislation has no mention of reducing premiums. There's no way in the world that premiums can be reduced under Bill 164. Exactly the opposite will happen.

The bill also removes the limits on rehab and long-term care. The government, insurers and consumers all want to ensure that accident victims receive adequate medical care. Removing the cap on these benefits will lead to increasing costs for insurance companies.

Mr Kormos: Paid for by OHIP.

Mr Cordiano: It's going to increase costs. It will be ultimately passed on to consumers. Again, we come back to that point: Premiums will go up.

Mr Kormos: That's right. The companies don't pay for it; OHIP pays for it.

Mr Cordiano: Somebody's going to pay for it, and it's usually the consumer.

Mr Tilson: Usually?

Mr Cordiano: Yes, 100% of the time, usually.

By removing the caps, the government also makes it impossible for the insurance companies to do accurate financial and actuarial planning around this. The government knows this, because it can't do it. That really has some serious implications for the stability of the market, and that would ultimately endanger consumers who rely on these insurers to provide essential coverage.

The bill also requires that all benefits must be indexed in accordance with the consumer price index. Once again, indexation will increase costs, and of course those costs will be passed on to consumers. There's no escaping that.

In fact, when all is said and done, this government has no idea what the costing of all these measures will be in terms of numbers and the premium increases. They haven't shown us any actuarial studies to measure the effects of these things on premiums. There may be some floating around, but not by the government. All we know is that they say premiums won't go up. They assure us there's no way that premiums will go up. But again they haven't released any studies to back up these claims.

While the NDP touted its plan to allow premiums to be set without unfair discrimination rating or availability, the bill also leaves a great deal of matters, such as the establishment of a risk classification system and of benefits payable, to the regulations. We don't know what's going to happen in those areas. Our concern is that these regulations can be enacted by cabinet without any notice or consultation and away from public scrutiny.

There's another provision in Bill 164 designed to deal with withdrawal from the marketplace and designated penalties to penalize those companies which withdraw from the marketplace in Ontario. The bill envisages people paying a fee for withdrawing from the marketplace in Ontario, and they'll be banned from entering the marketplace, once they do leave, for another three years.

This government hasn't learned the kind of impact that this will have, along with a number of other measures that they've introduced -- Bill 40 is one of them -- that have international consequences, international impacts, well beyond the borders of Ontario. This signals such a negative alarm bell around the world with respect to how business is conducted in this province -- complete ignorance on the part of the government with respect to the signal that it's sending to free enterprise around the world.

Is anyone going to want to come here and invest their money in the insurance industry or in any other industry? While I say this, I think about what the government says in response to this: that we are naysayers, that we think of doomsday scenarios, we're fearmongers. We're stating our honest opinion; we believe in what we're saying. We believe that these measures will have a negative impact on the province and on the economy. It does nothing to foster confidence. It does nothing to ensure that confidence will increase rather than what we see today: gloom and doom.

To remain a vibrant and healthy economy, you need to send out proper signals. You need to work with private enterprise. This sort of cosying up to the insurance industry by this government, halfway measure that it is -- I would sit here and feel much better if this government would say, "We're going to do this, this and this," and then proceed with it.

The people spoke in the last election. We could live with a government that has a sense of direction. But one day it's doing one thing; the next day it's changing its mind. Quite frankly, there's no consistency, there's no principle, there's no core element, there's no sense of direction, no sense of purpose.

1730

This is but one example, and the signal is so negative, the consequences are very dire indeed, that people around the world are looking at what's happening in Ontario and are saying to themselves -- and they don't want to come forward. I speak to people all the time. There are heads of companies who say that they are seriously making moves right now. They had stuck around for a while. They had said, "Well, we'll see what we can do." Bill 40 has been around for a while and they wanted to see amendments to Bill 40. They wanted to see some halfway measures, some flexibility on the part of this government -- in an economy which is grasping for answers, a people of this province who are looking for an answer, for a direction, who are looking for some solutions to their very difficult economic problems. All of us are having to cope with that. Is there anyone in this Legislature who does not know someone who has gone bankrupt, who has lost a job? My God, it does not do anything to foster any confidence anywhere.

People simply are not investing in this province, in spite of what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology says when he stands up in this House on occasion -- not too often, mind you -- to point out the great investments that are made in the province. He points to Ford as an example. Well, it's arguable whether Ford was planning to invest the money that it has in Oakville prior to this administration coming to office. That's beside the point. There's really very little investment coming into this province in the middle category, in the small firms. There's very little investment going on in those economic sectors which, by and large, are dominated by small business in areas which are rapidly promising growth in the future, and that's simply not happening now. Those sectors could have been thriving once the recession passes, and despite everything this government does and any other government in this country, there will be a day when the recession passes by and we see a period of growth, but it will be a slow one and we're going to see that next year, a very slow period of growth.

Don't think for a moment that what we do in this chamber and the actions taken by that government do not affect that; they certainly do affect what happens in the marketplace and in the economy. There's no mistaking that. There's absolutely no doubt about the impact.

Bill 164 is an example of that, is an example of how not to foster confidence in the private sector, of how to send a signal that says, "Look, we're very leery of you coming to do business in our province." You know very well that it takes a large amount of capital by insurers to make certain that the system works in Ontario, to make certain that the private sector can function in the insurance industry.

I know the member for Welland-Thorold wants a public auto insurance system. Obviously, I say to him, this could be a step towards that, because there are a hell of a lot of insurers out there who are thinking twice, once these provisions are in place.

Mr Kormos: It's a gravy train for them.

Mr Cordiano: It's not a gravy train. Once these measures are introduced, the next move is to move to a public auto insurance system and that could be the case. It's ill-conceived.

Mr Kormos: A ménage à trois.

Mr Cordiano: At the present time, you may very well be right, but down the road we could see the advent of public auto insurance, which makes no sense whatsoever and this is where we part company and we disagree. It's not proven that it's a more efficient system.

The member for Welland-Thorold quoted the premium rate difference between British Columbia and Ontario. There are very many fewer drivers in British Columbia than in Ontario and therefore a number of factors are not considered when those premiums are factored in and compared. You have to realize that there are fewer drivers and therefore the rating experience --

Mr Kormos: They've got a higher accident rate.

Mr Cordiano: The higher accident rate -- there have been subsidies to those drivers by the government. That's why we argued against public auto insurance.

Anyway, my time is running out, Mr Speaker. I thank you for this opportunity to speak. We oppose Bill 164 and I concur with that.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr Tilson: I'm not going to spend any more time talking about the Liberal plan. It just didn't work. But I would like to talk on one subject that was raised by the member for Lawrence, and that has to do with insurance premiums.

Insurance premiums are established as going up a minimum of 20%. That was his statement and I agree with that, as do the Insurance Bureau of Canada and most of the insurance companies that have certainly written myself and other members of this House. I think if you look at the Mercer actuarial study, if you look at what it's calculating, insurance premiums must go up.

Therefore, what does the minister mean when he says premiums are not going up? He's given us his guarantee that premiums are not going up. What's he going to do? Is he going to have regulations to control the regulators, the insurance commission? Is he going to tell them, "We're not going to allow the rates to go up; we're going to do something to the regulators"?

What about this strange, tremendous power that's been given to the cabinet? That really hasn't been talked about too much in this House. I made it in my comments, but is it the cabinet? Because clearly, under the terms of this bill, the cabinet will be allowed to prescribe rating factors, establish various benefits and conditions on which they're payable, as well as optional benefits that insurers must offer. These can be done immediately. They can be done immediately, without any notice, without any warning, without any debate in this House, without any discussion, without any scrutiny, public or political.

So I fear, with all the facts being put forward in this House and outside this House of insurance rates going up, that there's a con job going on. The minister is going to control rates, he's going to automatically put them up through the cabinet or else he's going to control the regulators. I have grave fears of that.

So when we talk about insurance rates, we must listen to what the minister is saying when rates are not going to go up. If they're not going to go up, then what's going to happen? I'd like to hear from the minister on those topics.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr Kormos: I want to talk to the comments of Mr Cordiano, the member for Lawrence, about premium rates and what's going on. Look, the Insurance Bureau of Canada has already set the scenario. They've said in documents that there's going to be a 20% increase in rates if this bill passes. I tell you, it's pretty fancy footwork on their part.

The Liberal Bill 68 was a $1-billion gift. It was a gravy train for the insurance industry. This compounds that by probably another $1 billion. Look, we've eliminated the right of even the most seriously injured people, in Bill 164, to obtain compensation for their economic loss. That's that many more millions of dollars being pocketed by the private corporate sector.

We're being set up. We're crawling into bed with them -- some might suggest a bizarre ménage à trois -- and they're setting us and the premium payer up for a 20% premium increase. They're having it both ways. They're getting the biggest gift they ever got from government following the wonderful payback they got from the last government, plus they're going to razzle-dazzle, play the three-card monte game and use this whole disruption of their planning based on Bill 68 to justify and rationalize 20% premium increases.

Ironic, ain't it, that it's the New Democratic Party government that took away the remnants of victims' rights left by the Liberals and is going to suffer the legacy of premium increases that are unprecedented in the last five years in the province of Ontario.

It's because Bill 164 is the wrong legislation serving the wrong master. It's serving the insurance companies when this government ought to be serving drivers, premium payers and innocent victims. That's the real response to the issues, and that's where Mr Cordiano misses the boat by, oh, a couple of steps.

1740

Mr Bradley: The member didn't have time to go into the kind of detail he wanted. I know he would want to have shared with the House this headline that says, "Premier Has Lied to the People, Rae Charges." This was in July 1990, and it was at a press conference he said this. You'll want to know what he said it about.

"Premier David Peterson has lied about the major economic issues, such as taxes, free trade and automobile insurance, opposition leader Bob Rae says. In an aggressive stance to open the provincial election campaign, the New Democratic Party leader focused an attack on Peterson and promised there'd be much more to come.

"'I don't believe a word the Premier says about taxes,' he said. 'Mr Peterson has lied directly to the people with respect to free trade. He has lied directly to the people with respect to car insurance,' Rae told a news conference."

Then he goes on to say: "'So I don't see that I have any alternative than to say that in the last election, Mr Peterson lied to the people of the province about car insurance.'"

This is the individual who has now done a 180-degree turn on the issue of automobile insurance, because he went from one end of the province to the other, he promised government automobile insurance, he promised that he would change the system so that people could sue, as outlined by the member for Welland-Thorold, and now he hasn't. If the rules of the House permitted, I could perhaps say that this fits today, this headline. I could just take off "Rae Charges" and the headline says, "Premier Has Lied to the People." But the House doesn't permit that, so I certainly wouldn't want to do that. But it's very interesting to see that our Premier today made those accusations and yet he has completely renounced the policy of the New Democratic Party upon which he was elected.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant.

Mr Stockwell: It's funny, because I often speak about that day in August, and that's what I was going to comment on as well, that fateful day that Mr Rae, the Leader of the Opposition, went down to the press room here and said very categorically -- and I counted: five times he said that the Premier of the province had lied, that he had lied about something as important as auto insurance.

That's Bob, the Bob with the halo on his head, who said that Premier Peterson had lied, and, gee, that was awful, and you shouldn't elect a man who lies. And he told the people of the province, "If you vote for the NDP you won't get that kind of stuff."

Yet here we are today -- and the minister of apologies is out; it's a shame -- and out of the 74 who got elected here, these people who didn't want to elect a liar, who didn't want to elect a person who didn't tell the truth to the public, of the 74 of them here today, 73 are doing exactly what they accused Mr Peterson of doing.

You wonder. Is it because they are so entrapped with power and the thought that they may make cabinet that they'll sell their very souls to stay in power, after accusing Peterson of lying? Or is it that they simply forget?

The record won't be kind to you next election. The record will not be kind, because you can be very sure that when the next election starts, somebody is going to accuse you of lying. You're going to have to defend it, and you can't defend it, and it's more than fair.

The Acting Speaker: This completes questions and/or comments. The honourable member for Lawrence has two minutes in response.

Mr Cordiano: I can't help but stand here and think that what the members on the other side are going through is real pain and suffering. Or perhaps they're not. Perhaps they're blinded or the pain is lessened, blunted, by the mere fact that they hold power, by the mere chance that they'll be in the cabinet, as was pointed out by the previous speaker. I don't know. That's got to be a powerful motivator.

I hear the pain and suffering on the part of the member for Welland-Thorold, who so passionately put forward his view. He has become the voice, the conscience, of the members on that side, and every once in a while, when this government steers 180 degrees to the other side, we hear from the member for Welland-Thorold, who reminds his colleagues on that side of the House that they veered from the navigational course that was set in the last election.

We do have to talk about the sense of purpose in this place, the dignity of members. The platform that was put forward is completely annihilated, the Agenda for People, something that's in the distant past. Mel Swart's name came up. He was another voice of conscience which I believe will continue to haunt the members on that side.

I know there are members on that side of the House who are most uncomfortable with the decisions that have been made with respect to Bill 164, with respect to Sunday shopping legislation and a number of other areas this government has done an about-face on. I say to the members, remember that, and once in a while the member for Welland-Thorold could serve as an example. You don't have to be on side all the time.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): In rising today to speak to the second reading of Bill 164, I must express at the outset that there is a certain level of frustration, first, of course, because we are being limited in the amount of time that we can debate a very significant piece of legislation in terms of its impact on the people in this province. We are being limited because the government decided that the new rules for the House would be adhered to from that memorable point forward in July, this past summer, and now we're in a situation where many people in this House would like to speak to try to convince this government about what is wrong with Bill 164. People would like to stand and express on behalf of their constituents around this province why Bill 164 is the wrong legislation, why it should be withdrawn by the government and why it is so flawed that there is no point in trying to amend it.

While we are in the situation we are in Ontario today, where we have a majority socialist government which has these new rules for procedures in the House, we are helpless to do anything except use a few moments to place on the record some of our concerns. But I think the thing that says the most about Bill 164 and this particular minister's handling of it is a quote attributable to the minister himself. This quote, I expect, was made when the minister was being challenged on the reversal of the NDP policy, the reversal of that strong, powerful position on which they campaigned around this province in the summer of 1990, that being the position in favour of government-run automobile insurance.

1750

I'm not suggesting for one moment that we in the Progressive Conservative caucus were in favour of government-run automobile insurance. We were not. We have enough concrete evidence of other provinces in Canada where government-run automobile insurance ends up costing the taxpayers more money through direct subsidies, through the general treasuries of those provinces, to the extent that the public is never really sure how much government-run automobile insurance actually costs the people who live in those provinces. We weren't in favour of it.

I'm simply saying that this government, this socialist party, was elected in this province on a promise. We know, through their Agenda for People, that they were elected on a number of promises, but this is one of the high-profile promises. Isn't it interesting that it's also one of the high-profile renegings on promises that we see today in Bill 164.

In defending the reversal of the NDP policy, the minister, Mr Brian Charlton, said, "Any individual who finds he can deliver a better product than he promised is a fool if he sticks to his promise." That's from Hansard, December 4, 1991. I think it's great that the minister admits that it's possible that promises unfulfilled make a fool of the person who made those promises, but isn't it ironic that he is in fact reneging on the promise and is not even delivering a better product? He isn't doing anything in the best interests of the people in this province.

It's a very scary thought for anyone in Ontario today who drives an automobile, at whatever stage he is in his life, to realize that through this legislation, if he is in an accident he can never be protected from loss of income, in other words, his economic loss. They can never be protected for either their present income or their future potential income.

We can look at anyone as an example. We can look at young university students; I might be personal for a moment and say we can look at young athletes, university students and a young athlete like my son, who has not had a full-time job in seven years of training. We've got thousands of university students who have been at university for in excess, sometimes, of three, four, five, seven or eight years.

A young university student in medical school who is in his or her last year of medical school may have invested eight or 10 years, 10 or 12 years if they've specialized in some form of medicine. They're in their final year. They've never established what their potential for income was, because they have been studying and learning all those years. If they sustain an injury through an automobile accident, they cannot sue for their future potential loss of income, even though they may have invested 10 or 12 years in completing their education in order to practise a specific specialty in medicine.

It is totally wrong that an individual who is injured in an automobile accident cannot sue for economic loss. Certainly, under the schedule of payments they would have some kind of income, maybe for the rest of their lives. That would be the limit of the income for which they would be eligible.

I think the same example can be given where someone who has established a career or a profession and takes a leave of absence from that career or profession and sustains an injury through an automobile accident. At the time they sustain the injury they're not in an earning capacity, they're not receiving income. They too are not allowed to sue for economic loss or future potential economic loss. That is totally wrong.

A lot has been said this afternoon about the fact that Bill 164 will result in a 20% increase in insurance premiums, at a minimum. Those are not figures that the insurance industry is throwing out as a scare tactic; they are absolute figures that independent actuarial specialists have developed. To look at the cause for concern, if those premiums rise, it would be a tremendous impediment to a large number of people who can barely afford their insurance premiums today.

I have received some comments from a Mr Bill Carter, who is a regional manager for State Farm Insurance. Admittedly, here's an industry person, but here's an industry person who, with another of his agents, Eve Beck -- I think Eve Beck is number three of 17,000 agents for State Farm in North America. These are professional people who, yes, are selling a service, are selling a product and selling protection for people who have to drive automobiles in this province, but they also want to be able to sell more of that product to more people at a fair and reasonable rate and be sure that those recipients of that coverage have what they need to have. They are concerned about a great number of aspects of this bill. They're saying, "Obviously you can't extend benefits and reduce costs at the same time." Many of the insurance companies will see their finances adversely affected if they don't raise premiums, so they don't have a choice. They're not in a public sector operation where there's a bottomless pit from the government behind their business.

Also, when we look at what we have existing in legislation today, the Liberal bill, which has been referred to earlier this afternoon, obviously what is happening is that since it was introduced, people have grown accustomed to the Ontario motorist protection plan, the Liberal government's legislation to which I referred. While time will reveal the flaws in that plan, we believe that time must be allowed to demonstrate what adjustments must be made.

I mean, we have one plan in place for how long now? Two years, I guess; just over two years. It's very, very difficult. How can you just throw one thing out? Admittedly, we don't think the Ontario motorist protection plan was the ideal solution, but how can you throw one thing out the window and bring something else in if it's worse and if it doesn't solve the problems associated with what is existing?

Because of the shortage of time, I know I'm skipping around here, trying to get what I think are the major concerns on the record, but the one thing that really says more than anything else and was certainly spoken to a few moments ago very well by the critic for our party, Mr Tilson, is the fact that the cabinet has the ultimate control.

What we have here is a situation where Bill 164 grants these tremendous powers to the cabinet so that the cabinet would be allowed to prescribe rating factors, establish various benefits and conditions on which they are payable, as well as optional benefits that insurers must offer. These expanded powers of regulation could be enacted immediately without notice or consultation, and away from public and political scrutiny.

That has to be the worst part of Bill 164. In fact, what that is, I would respectfully suggest, is government-run automobile insurance at the expense of the private sector. It's government saying to the private sector, the insurance industry, "We have the power to tell you what you're going to do, what benefits, what security, how you will operate, how the public will be protected." In other words, "We'll tell you exactly what to do."

But it's not government-run, of course. Oh, no, it's not government-run; it's cabinet-run. That's even worse. Do you know why? Because the cabinet does everything behind closed doors. That has got to be the most regressive approach to any subject ever in this province. Whatever the cabinet does is a secret document. Look how you just about have a fit when we get something leaked from your cabinet secret documents.

What we have here is cabinet-run automobile insurance, with no public scrutiny, no opportunity for proposed changes in regulations to come to the floor of this House. So we, who are also elected to serve and protect the public and their best interests, will not have an opportunity to bring our concerns and our criticisms and perhaps our constructive amendments to the floor of this House. No way. It's going to be done in the cabinet room: the cabinet directing the private sector.

The concerns are many. Unfortunately, as I have already said, we do not have time to elaborate on all of them. We simply say that one of the areas we had hoped to see was some direction about graduated licences becoming a reality, where that experienced driver is not paying a subsidy to someone who is inexperienced who has the same driving options as someone with experience.

I realize, Mr Speaker, that you're looking at the clock, as I have been. Since it is 6 o'clock, I would like to move adjournment of the debate.

The Acting Speaker: It now being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, October 8, at 10 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1802.