Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

TRADE DEVELOPMENT

Mr Curling moved resolution number 27:

That, in the opinion of this House, since over 75% of the trade of the province of Ontario is with the United States of America; and since Ontario has created exceptional technological infrastructure in the areas of health, resources, transportation, education and technological development; and since we have in our recent history an example of how enhanced and exuberant economic growth has beneficially affected the attitude of citizens of all countries towards the people of Japan; and since attitudes of racial intolerance towards Japanese people have given way to respect and cultural sensitivity, as a consequence of that nation's contributions to the global economy; and since it is the genuine intent of every citizen of Ontario to move towards greater equality and the establishment of a better system of securing to every person the human rights for which our democratic society stands; and since Ontario has abandoned efforts with bettering trade with developing nations; the government of Ontario should make a significant commitment and a concerted effort to re-establishing very active trade activities with developing nations that will focus on technology transfer and the enhancing of the skills of the people and, through trade policies, which benefit the economy of the province of Ontario as well as the economies of developing nations, the citizens of Ontario will acquire a sensitivity towards the culture of developing nations and a regard for their citizens as persons deserving of respect.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I want to tell members what an opportunity this is for me. I appreciate this opportunity to bring that resolution before the House, which I feel very strongly about and which I am sure all members of the House will support.

As I said, the province of Ontario trades with the United States, and the trading position of the United States with Ontario is more than 75%. About 87% of all the trade that happens in Ontario is with the United States; a further 5% is traded with Japan. So you can see, and I just want to put the situation straight, that the remaining 8% of the trading that we do with the rest of the world is distributed around, with Asia and other nations; only 8%.

We are very proud in this province of the equity aspect of dealing with people: the laws that are put in place and the regulations that are put in place, the Human Rights Code, employment equity, police issues. We have done situations in which we have changed curriculum to address and be sensitive to the visible minorities in this province. As a matter of fact, over 60% of our population is visible minorities. They are from Asia, the Caribbean, Latin America and Africa.

What does this mean basically in the economic sense? We have a tremendous opportunity to trade with the rest of the world. We do, of course, appreciate the fact that the greatest nation in the world is right beside us on our doorsteps, at the border: the United States. The old saying goes, as you recall, that if we put all our eggs in one basket, it's quite possible that we could suffer if there is any downsize to that. The expression goes that of course if the United States sneezes, Canada catches a cold, and Ontario itself is just on that border.

If we look, if we want to be very effective, I think we could divide our situation in two respects, one in which we can talk about aid, and we can talk about trade. We can talk about serving people effectively. We can give aid to the developing nations. For instance, in Somalia today, where they have problems, we can send food and medicine. In the meantime that's on a short-term basis, but on the long-term basis I don't feel it does anything. I think if we set up a proper trade relationship with those countries, we are better off.

We in Canada, we in Ontario, are in a very fortunate position. What do we have? We have a diverse multicultural society. No longer do we have to import expertise to speak to the other nations of the world. In Canada, for instance, we are a member of the G-7 nations, and the rather interesting situation about that G-7 membership is that we are a member of la francophonie, we are a member of the Commonwealth and we are also a member of the Organization of American States, with an opportunity to serve all nations, yet our situation of trading has been not as effective.

The reason why I draw Japan in perspective as a case in point is that I recall, and you can recall, the time when a Japanese who had ancestors from Japan and was living in Canada, a Canadian Japanese, had properties taken away from him or her just because he or she was a Japanese. That was an appalling human rights situation we had in Canada.

That has been adjusted because what has happened is we see Japan coming out of the ashes and building an economy that is respected over the world. Today we are anxious to trade with Japan.

1010

I think if we look at the other developing nations, they have been in the trading business for years. If you look at the West Indies or Africa, they have been in the trading business for hundreds of years, and somehow they have been shortchanged in this respect.

Ontario, I feel, has downsized many of its opportunities. They have closed offices now in New York where they could have done an effective job in dealing with the trading situation in other parts of the world, and this was a lost opportunity.

I feel that if we decide to put some strategy in place, if instead of giving aid we trade with these people, we are better off. Increased trade in helping developing countries improves the standard of living. We have many technologies here that are ready and in need of those countries. As I travel around the world in other developing countries, there is evidence of Canadian technology, roads, aviation, all kinds of technologies that are ready to be received in those countries. It improves those countries' positions.

But what is happening? The decrease of trade is having an appalling effect on those countries. Total exports, just to bring it into perspective, to all countries are about $74.4 billion. The total imports of Ontario are about $79.1 billion, and that was in 1990. There is a deficit that you're seeing there. It was worse in 1991. The total exports, of all countries, in 1991 was $70.7 billion. The total imports, of all countries, is $97.9 billion. Over the period of 1990 to 1991, the trade deficit nearly doubled from $4.7 billion to $8.4 billion. And who suffered the most under those conditions? They are the developing nations. They have decreased their trading relationship with developing nations. This has a tremendous impact on us. I think we have a great opportunity in which to improve our situation in those countries.

We know that national governments cannot control capital. As soon as you put pressure on capital it moves. It's quite flexible. The problem with that is that as capital moves people move. So we have to be quite flexible in responding to the rapid global change. We're a trading province. We have been in the trading business for a long time. As a matter of fact, 30% of our gross domestic product depends on the export sector. In a comparative way in the United States, I think only 17% of its gross domestic product depends on the export trade. In the last 10 years, I think the Americans have seen the light and they're expanding their trading capabilities. I think we have the opportunity here to expand that way.

If we look at Quebec, as I've travelled around some of the countries in the world I've seen evidence of Quebec trying to expand its trading relationships. I feel Ontario has that opportunity, and I emphasize that because of the fact that our culture and our population is quite diverse and we are able to trade with ease with those countries.

It's a challenge, of course, for us at home because of our diversity and, as I said, we have approached it in a very sensible way, but it's an opportunity for us abroad because the opportunity is to increase our trade, to increase our relationships, to increase our human rights approach. I feel that if the government takes a very assertive and progressive approach to trading, we have progressed extremely well in equating it to our equity aspects of legislation in regard to human rights. In trade we can do both, and in the meantime command the respect that we have earned so well.

Also, from the other side itself, we have seen a different life of those people who are willing to trade, who need our technology, and I think we'd have a better world. I think it is called the global village.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome this opportunity to provide a few comments on this resolution brought forward today by my colleague the member for Scarborough North.

I'd like to read the resolution into Hansard because I think it's important that people realize really what the resolution is that we're speaking on here this morning. It says:

"That, in the opinion of this House, since over 75% of the trade of the province of Ontario is with the United States of America; and since Ontario has created exceptional technological infrastructure in the areas of health, resources, transportation, education and technological development; and since we have in our recent history an example of how enhanced and exuberant economic growth has beneficially affected the attitude of citizens of all countries towards the people of Japan; and since attitudes of racial intolerance towards Japanese people have given way to respect and cultural sensitivity, as a consequence of that nation's contributions to the global economy; and since it is the genuine intent of every citizen of Ontario to move towards greater equality and the establishment of a better system of securing to every person the human rights for which our democratic society stands; and since Ontario has abandoned efforts with bettering trade with developing nations; the government of Ontario should make a significant commitment and a concerted effort to re-establishing very active trade activities with developing nations that will focus on technology transfer and the enhancing of the skills of the people and, through trade policies, which benefit the economy of the province of Ontario as well as the economies of developing nations, the citizens of Ontario will acquire a sensitivity towards the culture of developing nations and a regard for their citizens as persons deserving of respect."

I wanted to relay in my remarks this morning some of the reasons why I think it's going to be difficult to make some of these things happen, because we in this province of Ontario have a significant commitment and a concerted effort to establish trade activities with developing nations that will benefit the province of Ontario. But I find it rather ironic that we are debating this resolution today because the socialist government, through its proposed changes to Ontario's labour laws and its tax-spend-and-borrow approach to fiscal management, is destroying our prosperity and is lowering the province's economy to the same level perhaps as some of the Third World countries. So the government should clean up its own backyard before we take advantage of a developing nation.

I had the opportunity a couple of years ago to go, with a delegation led by Mr Henderson, to Cuba -- a very, very worthwhile trip. We watched what happens in some countries that are having some problems, some very difficult problems. When you're rationed to five litres of fuel a month, when you take half the buses off of the streets and when we look at some of the developing countries that are in this problem, I think there's some very bad news there.

When we look at some of the deficits that countries have, it's difficult to find how we are going to be helping more trade with Third World countries. When we look at some of the policies of this government with regard to some of the taxes, some of the policies put in place, we have to consider, how do we help to affect the attitudes of the citizens here to really make things happen, when we have the unemployment rate that we've got in this province, when we have a province that has expanded debt?

I commend the member for bringing this resolution forward to try to make people aware of what is really happening here. I am also aware, though, of what is happening in other countries. When I speak of Cuba, the problems that it has, I can see why the member brought this resolution forward.

1020

Even in the province of Ontario in Canada, interprovincial trade is not in place here. Why wasn't interprovincial trade part of this new Constitution that we're dealing with? When we look at trade, it can even be within your own province, in your own country, and Canada should have free trade across provincial lines.

So that's what the resolution says: Ontario should make a significant commitment to trade. When we look at what's happening here, with the technology that we have and the technology that we have lost -- it wasn't long ago, the other day, we had a person in committee, dealing with an appointment, and we talked of how our technology has gone to other countries. At one time, almost 10% of the technology that was sold in computers and high-tech was here. That's not happening today; it's down now to about 3%.

So when we look at the trade that's taken place, we look at the Third World countries. The wrong that was made a right with regard to the Japanese people some years ago was a very important step for the togetherness of Canada. The rapid trade changes that we're seeing taking place with the United States, Mexico and Canada are only going to expand. The economy and our high taxation, our high unemployment, our lower productivity and our social structure are limited by soaring health, education and welfare costs.

So when we look at more taxes here, we look at people who have desperate problems with regard to funding. We have to make that commitment to a policy of achieving deficit reduction through expenditure controls and not through tax increases. We must avoid hiking taxes or introducing more taxes. We must cap or roll back wage increases in the public sector and provide tax relief for retail and small businesses so that we can have those funds we need that the member is discussing with regard to the resolution that is before us today.

We must abandon some of the major legislation that we see before us, such as the labour bill, one of the most important pieces of legislation that's ever been brought to this Legislature. I think it'll have a very detrimental effect on this whole province and in other countries at the same time. I say that because, when we look at that legislation, what other country wants to expand its business to Ontario? We can give examples of the tax grabs that have taken place. When we look at increases of 15% in recreation country with regard to camps and hunting licences, there are all kinds of reasons why this government will never be able to do what this member is asking for in his resolution.

With the rapid trade changes that have taken place, it's unfortunate that we're closer to some of the Third World countries than we ever were. We, at one time, were great exporters. We exported a lot to other countries. That is down now.

Mr Curling: The percentage.

Mr McLean: The member has the percentage that it's down. I haven't got them this morning, but he did mention them in his opening remarks.

We have many other issues that are cause for concern, and the focus is on technology transfer and enhancing the skills of people. That was why, some years ago, we had 23 community colleges built, to enhance the skills of people so that we would be able to sell the knowledge we would have here to other countries.

I think the time has come when we have sold out to some other countries such as Germany and Japan. When we look at the car market, we look at all the products that are made in Japan and sold in the United States.

Why, last weekend on W5 they didn't even make it in the States. They brought it in, uncrated it, changed the label to "Made in USA" and sold it. I couldn't believe that would happen and I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing is happening here in Ontario. It wouldn't surprise me at all, because I'm not so sure the government is really on top of the situation.

I said earlier that the government is determined to destroy Ontario's prosperity and is lowering this province's economy to the same level as many developing nations', and that's sad to see. One of the ways the government is doing this is through the unnecessary overhaul of Ontario's labour laws, which will ultimately destroy the unique partnership between labour and business. It is a partnership that is necessary if Ontario is to be economically healthy and vibrant.

The changes that are being made in this province are making it difficult for this province to be competitive with some of the other countries that we're talking about here today. The government shouldn't be giving prospective investors one more reason -- and that's what it's doing; it shouldn't be, but it's doing it -- not to invest in Ontario by confirming the business community's worst fear: that the government has not listened to its concerns and is determined to proceed with its pro-labour agenda.

The resolution before us today I think is important. It gives us the opportunity to discuss the change in attitudes of some of the people in this province. I think the resolution will probably be looked at more by the metros of Ontario. I think the government of Ontario should make a concerted effort to re-establish some very active trade activities.

Now, I don't know, but I understand the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is somewhere in the world. I heard through the grapevine that he is away for three weeks. Obviously, he's not interested in being in this Legislature to answer questions the opposition might have with regard to trade, with regard to high technology.

I want to put on the record that the industry that is being located in the town of Midland, my colleague for Muskoka-Georgian Bay's riding, is the first in Canada for high-tech skills teaching. I think it's important that this be strongly supported by this province. It was initiated and funded by the federal government but we should be part of that, because I think in trade and technology, for individuals to learn skills, that's where we're falling behind.

I have many people with German ancestry who indicate how far advanced Germany is compared to what we are here in Ontario. I think there should be a far greater effort put into what we're doing here to make sure skills are developed, that people can learn them and that there is an opportunity to learn them.

It's not bad being a mechanic or a plumber or a bricklayer. These people make good money, and so they should. They are the backbone of the country. We should be teaching the skills for those people here in Ontario. We can't all be lawyers and doctors, and it's a good job we're not. It's a good job that we have people like the member for Mississauga here in the House this morning, because his views in his municipal days have been well noted here.

My colleague the other member for Mississauga is the same way. Mississauga is well represented in this House. We look at the development of that one community alone, which is debt-free and has a surplus. Why is it that the government of Ontario cannot balance a budget? Why is it that the government of Ontario continues to increase the debt of every man, woman and child in this province?

I remember coming here when the debt of every man, woman and child in this province was about $3,200. Today that debt is over $17,000. That's a tremendous debt. I'm saying there should be a system where governments cannot put debt on to the people of Ontario. They're doing it. Most of the local municipalities are debt-free, not all but most of them, and most of our small-town politicians are very good with the dollar and they look after it and pay their way. Why not the government of Ontario? Why are we putting this debt on our children?

Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this resolution.

1030

Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): I'd like to thank the member for Scarborough North for bringing this resolution motion to the attention of the House. I'm pleased to see that we can agree that Canadian business people, Ontario business people, have been too focused in the past on dealing strictly with trade and business initiatives within our own country, as well as the United States. I think we're beginning to realize that with the globalization of the business community, we have to broaden our horizons, look for new opportunities throughout the world and not become strictly focused as we have been in the past on trading with our best trading partner, the United States.

However, I won't be supporting the resolution. The reason is that I have a problem with the wording, specifically "and since Ontario has abandoned efforts with bettering trade with developing nations; the government of Ontario should make a significant commitment and a concerted effort to re-establishing very active trade activities," and then it goes on.

I'd like to point out that our government, the New Democratic government of Ontario, has worked with business in expanding trade opportunities with developing countries, and I'd like to refer to some specific countries.

In the Pacific Rim, South Korea: In 1990, exports to South Korea were approximately $259 million; in 1991, they were increased to over $405 million. Taiwan: in 1990, $201 million in exports, increased in 1991, under the stewardship of the New Democratic government of Ontario, to $396 million. Pakistan: $19 million in 1990, increased to $23 million in 1991.

These aren't simply commodities we're dealing with. We're dealing with plastic and plastic articles, which increased in the entire Pacific Rim, Asia in particular, from $146 million to $181 million. Iron and steel increased from $108 million to over $399 million.

Let's look at trade with Latin America and the developing countries in that area: Argentina, $22 million to over $32 million; Bermuda, $11 million to over $20 million; Peru, a small increase but still an increase, $13 million to over $14 million; Venezuela, $82 million in 1990 -- under the stewardship of the New Democratic government of Ontario, it increased to over $177 million; Brazil, $54 million to over $116 million.

Let's deal specifically with a continent, Africa. We have over 103 projects in various countries of Africa that have received assistance through an agency of our government, the Ontario International Corp. I'm sure the members of the opposition are familiar with that agency; it is very successful. But the projects that are being undertaken in the continent of Africa, in various countries, deal with building the infrastructure so that those countries can improve the quality of life for their citizens.

Example: first, environmental project, for Burkina Faso, a country in Africa, a total project value of $16 million, and an office building with a value of over $2 million; natural resources development in Ethiopia, over $20 million in value. All these are commitments of our government to expanding trade in developing countries, and I think it's important.

Let's talk about the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, Ed Philip. He's had a very busy schedule in 1992. He visited Switzerland, Belgium and Spain in the spring. In October, he was in London. He's currently in India and Pakistan.

Might I point out that when I had a meeting with one of the ministers of Pakistan here in Toronto, they were very impressed, because that is the first minister of any government in Canada who is going to visit Pakistan. They're very keen to expand trade with businesses in Ontario. I think that's very impressive.

I won't be supporting this resolution, but I hope the member for Scarborough North won't hold it against me, because I'll be bringing in a private member's bill in the very near future and I hope to have his support in passing that bill. If he would consider changing the words of his resolution, perhaps I could support him, but as it stands, I cannot.

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): It's indeed a pleasure to speak to the motion from the member for Scarborough North. I'll tell you frankly, especially the viewers who don't quite know how the system works, when I first saw this motion on the order paper, I thought, how is this going to affect me and what does this mean to my constituency in Nepean, to the people there? I was first inclined to say, "Let someone else speak to this motion," as we often do, but then I thought about it again and I realized that my parliamentary colleague put his finger on a very important subject. That subject and why I want to talk about it today is our openness as Canadians to the world over, and of course, as this motion says, particularly to the underdeveloped world.

I was born and raised in Europe, and if there was one characteristic Europeans appreciated about Canada, as much as they knew about Canadians, was their international awareness, their role on the international scene, that they weren't just caught up in their own affairs, that they didn't come in with a heavy hand, as sometimes the Americans would do, but would deal with all countries on an equal level, would be sensitive to their concerns and would work with them. We can all be proud of that recognition, especially Canada's peacekeeping role, so well known all across the world.

When I first learned more about Canada, it was precisely that role, that openness to the world and to the concerns and needs of other peoples, that really attracted me to this country. I must say that in recent years, I find we have become all too parochial in our thinking. I appreciate and I know why that is. Obviously, the constitutional debate we're involved in has really focused our attention very much inwards. Sometimes you have to do that, you have to get your own house in order to be able to look outside again, to go out there and help other people. I hope after October 26, we will be ready to have our house in order, or at least as much as it is possible at this time, and that we're ready to open our eyes and our hearts again to the whole world and specifically the underdeveloped world.

1040

Now, we could ask, isn't this a federal responsibility? It's the federal government that deals with other nations, with other governments. But, as in all aspects of provincial and federal relationships, the provinces too, and we as Ontarians, have a role to play to encourage trade and to be concerned with the needs of other countries.

My colleague from Scarborough North is so right when he says that we as Ontarians -- really, as quite well-off Ontarians; with the knowledge and skills we have in this province, we've nothing to be ashamed of. We have good skills. We have a great education system that can stand up to international tests. It may not be the best and there's need for improvement, but we have something to share, and there are many countries that would like us to share our knowledge and our experience and our skills with them. I think we as Ontarians have an obligation and a responsibility to do that. I'm very pleased and proud to support the direction Mr Curling, the member for Scarborough North, is putting forward.

Especially this government, the NDP government, which prides itself as a party that it stands for the little guy, for those who are less privileged -- mind you, it appears that the member for Welland-Thorold is beginning to wonder whether the NDP is holding true to its old ideals and principles and whether it's beginning to move away from their own high and lofty concerns for the little guy. But if they're true, if this government is true to its own party ideas, then I think the members really ought to support this motion and support the idea of working with developing countries and helping them to improve their economies and move forward with medical and technical advancement and with knowledge.

At the beginning of my comments I asked, why does this affect the people in Nepean? I'm very pleased to say that we have some people in Nepean who in fact are already active in this field.

About three years ago, Mr Des Garvey, whom I know very well, encouraged the city of Nepean -- he worked very hard at it and for a long time, and it took him quite a bit to convince a lot of people, but he succeeded. He convinced city hall to establish a partnership with the city of Bo, right in the heart of Africa. I'm pleased to report to the House that we had municipal officials and municipal councillors go to the city of Bo and share some of their expertise in terms of municipal handling and how to deal administratively with the needs of a municipality. That too is a skill. When we think of technology transfer, I don't think we should just think of machines; there's also that administrative skill we have here that we can share with others.

So I'm pleased to say that in my constituency of Nepean, some of the ideas being put forward in this motion are already being implemented. I encourage that, and therefore I'm very pleased to support this motion. I encourage all the members of the House to do likewise.

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): I support the intent of the motion. When the member speaks of the sensitivity of Canada and of Ontarians to emerging nations, obviously he has the support of all of the members of the House. Unfortunately, there are many things in the motion which are convoluted, which allow me, unfortunately, to have to stand here and say I cannot support the motion.

There is an implication in the motion, for example, that as one becomes wealthy as a nation, therefore one grows in respect. I have to believe that the manner in which wealth is created is very important and therefore there are some emerging economies where, if we look at the type of working conditions within those economies, we would have to stand back and say, "No, this is inhumane."

When we talk about a situation in Canada, we have created an economy where an individual has some dignity within that economy, where people have the right to work in a safe, clean, humane working environment; to receive reasonable wages for his efforts; to have democratic rights; to belong to a bargaining unit and to negotiate collectively. These are substantive rights and I would say to my colleague across the House that this is a beacon. The labour-management relations we have established in this province and are establishing in this province indeed is a beacon to the world as to the kinds of relationships that can exist, the solid working relationships, the good quality of life that can exist between employers and employees within a working environment.

What is the kind of example we want to give? We want to give environmental legislation and we do that in Ontario by enlightened, progressive legislation in the field of the environment, management-labour relations and human rights relations. This of course, I believe, is our gift to the world. I believe we can proudly stand up and say that we are pioneers, that we are at the forefront of the most progressive kinds of legislation in the fields of the environment, labour-management and human rights.

As I listened to the debate I heard very little, with the exception of the member for Nepean, moving outside the realm of government. I believe that what we really should be talking about is not government intervention. We certainly have government involvement. We have embassies. We have trade centres. We have trade missions. We have seen the example of our Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology not only bringing politicians but business leaders with him on trade missions, so that indeed there is a real partnership between government and business as we extend the arm of friendship and help across waters and across boundaries.

I believe very intensely in the role of the private sector. I believe very intensely in the type of partnership that must exist between government and the business sector as we extend that arm of friendship and help abroad. In the region, for example, where I hail from, the wonderful city of Cambridge and the region of Waterloo, not only do our businessmen travel abroad representing their company -- fine companies: Babcock and Wilcox, for example, bringing in export orders from abroad. Not only do they go out there as salesmen for their company, but they bring the information about all of the other companies, all of the other expertise and all of the other technologies that are available within our region and within Ontario. So it doesn't become a parochial mission, but indeed a mission on behalf of all of Ontario. This is the kind of partnership between business and labour that we absolutely believe in.

I will simply close my remarks by saying that while I have much respect for the member who presented the motion, the motion fails to give credit to the government for the fine work it is doing, both abroad and in the fields of the environment, labour-management legislation and human rights.

1050

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I think members opposite, frankly, have missed one of the most important points of this resolution, and it's the last two sentences where the member for Scarborough North talks about benefiting "the economy of the province of Ontario as well as the economies of developing nations, the citizens of Ontario will acquire a sensitivity towards the culture of developing nations and a regard for their citizens as persons deserving of respect."

I think there's a message there that perhaps hasn't come through and is very much part of the intent of the member for Scarborough North in putting forward this resolution. What I interpret him as saying is that when you trade, you must learn about the cultures and the traditions in a particular country. If we expand our trading horizons, we will learn more about what's going on in those particular countries and what's important to the peoples of those nations. When we learn we grow to understand, and when we understand we grow, and when we grow we prosper. I see it as a circle.

I think what the member has put forward is a very credible position that indeed will help foster better relationships between all the various communities which live and grow here in Ontario, because we will learn more about the people from Pakistan if we trade more with them, and we will learn more about the people from various countries in Africa if we trade with them. We'll have to. To be able to successfully trade with peoples in those nations, we're going to have to learn what's important to them.

One of the things in the resolution talks about how the relationship with Japan has evolved. I can tell you that if you want to do business with the Japanese or many Asian peoples, you have to take time to understand their culture before you actually make the sale. You have to back off. It's not like North American business where you can go in and there's a power close or you try to make the deal and everyone's only thinking of the buck. In their situation they want you to understand what's important to them and what's important to their country.

As a result of that trade, what this resolution is saying is that we have grown to understand the Japanese culture and what's important to the Japanese people, and as a result of that growth and that knowledge and that increased exposure, we have grown to respect not only the country but the people of Japan. The reality is that respect was not there in the 1940s and the 1950s. That kind of respect and growth has developed as a result of an open and aggressive trade policy with the people of that nation.

What this member is saying is that we talk about racial harmony and disharmony and we talk about all the multicultural problems that exist in our society. If we think in terms of doing business with people from the various countries in the world, we will grow to understand them. I think this is a very creative way of dealing with many of the problems we have to face in our community in learning to get along with one another. It's a creative way that will benefit the economy in Ontario and ultimately in these other nations.

I found it somewhat curious and interesting that the member for Brantford would talk about all the statistics of how trade has increased with various countries in the world. I believe what the member is confusing is the difference between trade and aid. No one disputes that Canada is recognized throughout the world as a generous country. No one disputes that when we have hurricanes and damage and problems and poverty and hunger, Canadian agencies, and indeed Ontario agencies, provide aid to those nations that need that help. That's not what this is talking about. There's a difference.

We should continue our foreign aid policies to help people who are starving and who are less fortunate. What we're talking about is that maybe if we change from aid and concentrate on trade, we'll improve the economies so that those nations won't require the aid that's going overseas in the billions of dollars every year from the Canadian taxpayer, and in turn, we can then get a benefit for our own business people in encouraging them to do business.

The benefits of international trade, and particularly of expanding it to developing nations, are that we get to learn more about the peoples from those developing nations, we get to prosper in our own right as a strong economy -- the ninth largest as an entity in the world, as a matter of fact -- we grow in understanding and we grow in respect. It's what I would call an absolute win-win situation for everybody involved.

It's very important that when we quote how trade has increased with Argentine and Korea, it is curious to me that the way that trade has increased is by selling them Candu reactors, a product this government has clearly said it's opposed to. Yet they're prepared to stand up and beat their chest with great pride at the fact that they might have had something to do with AECL in my riding making a sale to Korea for Candu reactors and nuclear energy. Yet they stand on the other side of their mouth and say that nuclear energy is wrong.

I'm afraid you can't claim that you're doing wonderful things in trade when in fact it's the private sector that's doing it and it's former governments that have supported that industry and put in place an infrastructure that will allow it to sell its products. You can't have it both ways, folks.

When you talk about energy from waste, this minister stands up and says she's opposed to burning anything. Notwithstanding the fact that there are apartment buildings and households burning their garbage all over this province, she's going to save the environment by stopping it. Yet on the other hand, we export technology and energy from waste to Asia and all over the world. This government clearly has failed to lead any kind of direction in the area of foreign trade.

I congratulate the member for putting forward this very progressive resolution.

Mr Tony Rizzo (Oakwood): The resolution tabled by the member for Scarborough North offers some very interesting points for debate. The fact that the economy of our province is subsidiary to the United States, also known as a branch plant economy, presents risks that in better times have been underestimated with the blind faith of previous governments for everlasting economic growth where recessions would be, at worst, short stops on the way to a bigger prosperity.

It isn't so. The world economy has stopped. No one is sure when it will take off again. The markets of the western countries are not able to absorb the goods we produce. The eastern European countries will not be a market for our goods for years. We have to look at Third World countries to establish commerce.

Commerce, with the ties it establishes between human beings from different cultures and different areas of the world, has always been the first step towards tolerance, mutual understanding and respect. I know that too often in the past the interest of the most powerful nation in the relation prevailed. Think of English or French colonialism or of the so-called American imperialism.

But this is Ontario, this is Canada. Our traditions are different. Because of our peacefulness, our role in defending peace and in helping poor countries directly or through the United Nations, we are welcome everywhere in the world. The multicultural mosaic of our people, and this is particularly true for Ontario, gives us an incredible advantage over other nations. We are able to approach other countries knowing their values, their languages and their cultures because those cultures, those languages, those values exist in Ontario. Brought here by immigrants, they are able to grow and flourish in our province, defended and protected against discrimination by our laws and traditions.

But respect and knowledge of other nations is not enough. We have to offer them goods they need. We have to compete for those markets with the other industrialized countries. We have to overcome the challenge of this economic crisis, not a recession but a renewal, a shift in our industrial structure. It was the previous provincial administration that in 1990 wrote, identifying the challenges to prepare Ontario for the new global economy:

"Most of that restructuring involves shifting resources out of low-wage businesses and the commodity segments of resource and mature manufacturing business into higher value added products and services . . . . It is only by continually raising our value added per employee that we can increase our wealth and maintain a high standard of living."

This was the previous administration's idea. It is true, this is all true, and this government is addressing those concerns through our Jobs Ontario Training fund, through changes in the school systems and with continued attention to the multicultural fabric of Ontario.

This government is multiplying the efforts towards a full implementation of the scopes and ideals of the resolution tabled by the member for Scarborough North, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is taking every possible step to ensure the growth and diversification of our economy and of the markets we target. But it is a common effort. As a government, we are doing our part and will continue to do so.

1100

Mr Curling: I think the resolution I put forward has really made its point. It's not about who votes for it or against it; it's about how we address it and debate it. It's important that we speak about these issues and look at it from a different point of view. This resolution is about addressing equality issues by building economic linkages.

With this resolution can do is to make some rather comprehensive progress. It's about the global economy and how we are tapping into other nations. It's not about who owns capital, but how capital performs in any economy. This resolution made its point, and I think members have debated that and have reflected on it. I'm not concerned if one says, "We shall not support this because it says a negative thing about my government or my minister." I'm not concerned about that. I'm beyond that and I hope we're all beyond that.

It's about our socioeconomic agenda, with a human face. It's about the global village. It's about how we see the world, and the world is right here in our arms here with different nations and how we relate to each other. Giving aid is a good thing, as my colleague stated, but aid is not enough. It's how we relate to each other. We can build each other, we can complement each other; we cannot be a nation unto ourselves. Technology has taken care of that. We can stay right here and communicate across the world.

I urge the members to continue this kind of debate, to be sensitive to other nations and know they're here, because we can benefit much more from it and also have the other countries benefit from it too.

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

Mrs Marland moved resolution number 23:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that on June 18, 1992, the Minister of Housing released the consultation paper, Apartments in Houses, which contains draft legislation to allow home owners to create an apartment in a house without municipal zoning approval; and recognizing that the Housing ministry's consultation period, even with the ministry's decision to accept written submissions after the deadline of August 31, 1992, is inadequate for legislative changes of this magnitude; and recognizing that several parties, including the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, many municipal councils, the Ontario Home Builders' Association and many ratepayer groups, have identified serious deficiencies in the proposed legislation; and recognizing that these deficiencies include the following:

-- Failing to recognize that accessory apartments, unless located in suitably zoned areas, may not offer a reasonable quality of life for their occupants or be compatible with their surrounding neighbourhoods;

-- Failing to provide adequate legal protection to home owners who need to regain possession of their accessory apartments.

-- Interfering with municipal zoning authority and negating official plans and decades of land use planning decisions.

-- Failing to provide municipalities with licensing authority for accessory apartments.

-- Failing to consider how municipalities and the school boards will pay for the services required by the residents of accessory apartments.

-- Failing to consider whether sufficient infrastructure is in place to accommodate the residents of accessory apartments.

-- Failing to require onsite parking for accessory apartments.

-- Contributing to the "absentee landlord syndrome" by failing to limit accessory apartments to owner-occupied homes.

Therefore, the Minister of Housing should not introduce the legislation proposed in the consultation paper, Apartments in Houses, which would permit an apartment as of right in a detached, semi-detached or row house.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Mrs Marland has moved second reading of ballot item 24. The honourable member for Mississauga South will have 10 minutes to initiate the debate, after which all three parties in the Legislature will have 15 minutes.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): The NDP government's proposal to permit one apartment as of right in all detached, semi-detached and row houses has aroused a storm of controversy in my community of Mississauga and across the province.

As the Progressive Conservative spokesperson for Housing, I have had the concerns of many parties, from ratepayer groups to municipalities and home builders' associations, about the draft legislation contained in the consultation paper, Apartments in Houses.

Virtually everyone has complained that the NDP government released the consultation paper just before the summer when most people take their vacations. With a deadline of August 31 for responding to the paper, many parties were unable to do so. This is unacceptable for such significant legislative changes.

The basic premises of the proposed legislation -- the need for more affordable housing, the need to curb urban sprawl and a plan that will not be a burden on the provincial treasury -- are laudable. However, there are many problems with the proposal, some of which I have outlined in my resolution.

First, I would like to comment on the major concerns of Ontario's municipalities.

Speaking on behalf of mayors in the greater Toronto area, Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion has said: "We aren't against subsidized housing in basement apartments, but we want to decide where they go. If we have people moving into basement apartments who can't find a place to park, they're going to call the mayor. We have no control and all the responsibility."

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario supports residential intensification as an option. However, it is AMO's position, to quote its president Helen Cooper, that "Decisions on housing intensification policies should be the responsibility of municipalities."

By robbing municipalities of their zoning powers and pre-empting their official plans, the province would be ignoring years of long-range planning by municipal governments, whose decisions reflect the wishes of the majority in their communities, not to mention the incredible millions of dollars that have been spent having planning departments in regional and area municipalities. As AMO said in response to the Apartments in Houses consultation paper, "This is an unwarranted interference with municipal zoning authority."

Municipalities, school boards and their ratepayers have identified many other shortcomings in the draft legislation. One of the most serious is the failure to ensure that municipalities and school boards will receive additional tax revenues for the extra occupants of accessory apartments.

Under the Assessment Act, a home with an accessory apartment may generate the same tax assessment as a home with a finished and unrented basement. Unless the additional unit increases the market value of a property by more than $5,000, which is not always the case, the assessed value of the building does not increase. Moreover, even if the tax assessment does increase, it does not rise in relation to the number of occupants in the apartment, but rather in proportion to the increase in the home's market value.

1110

Consider the hypothetical case cited by the Credit Reserve Association, Mississauga's largest ratepayer group, in response to the consultation paper:

"If the owner of a typical $250,000 house spends 5% ($12,500) to divide it to provide an apartment (no additional square footage), his property taxes on market-based assessment would increase by 5%, while the municipal costs would increase by nearly 100%. Who is going to pay the difference?"

Unless the Assessment Act is amended, all property taxpayers will subsidize municipal and educational services for residents of accessory apartments. There will also be strains on the infrastructure of many municipalities. Some sewers and watermains cannot accommodate the extra demands of accessory apartments. As well, there are concerns about traffic congestion and parking, especially if basement apartments are allowed in houses on narrow lots and there is no requirement for on-site parking.

In addition, there will be pressures on policing services. In my own community, the Peel Regional Police have stated that rapid housing intensification and the region's hidden population are already severely straining policing services. Unless municipalities can collect extra tax revenues for accessory apartments, policing services will be further strained by the inevitable impact of the proposed legislation.

Another important issue is property standards. Allowing accessory apartments as of right will result in more income properties and the absentee landlord syndrome, which can lead to poorly maintained houses and yards. The draft legislation does not limit accessory apartments to owner-occupied homes.

Although the discussion paper proposes giving municipalities broader powers of entry in order to enforce health and safety standards, how are the municipalities going to pay for these apartment inspections? Again, the province is downloading costs and responsibilities on to the municipalities and their property taxpayers.

In my own community, Mississauga city council has responded to the apartments and houses consultation paper by sending a resolution to the Minister of Housing and and the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Mississauga's resolution objects to the requirement for accessory apartments in detached dwellings with lot frontages of less than 40 feet, in all semi-detached and town houses, and in garages.

The city also objects to the accessory apartment proposal unless many other conditions are met. For instance, Mississauga wants municipalities to be given the power to license and to impose development charges for accessory apartments. I have also heard from many ratepayers' associations gravely worried about the impact of the proposed legislation on their neighbourhoods.

In my constituency of Mississauga South, the Credit Reserve Association, with its president, Doug Watson, has prepared an excellent response to the consultation paper. This association has an intensification committee consisting of nearly two dozen volunteers who have worked countless hours to study intensification issues.

As well, there are Fran Wallace of Orchard Heights Homeowners, Frank Kovacs of Sherway Homeowners and Recreation, and Charles Cowley of the South Applewood Residents Association. These associations have raised concerns that are representative of my riding, which consists primarily of mature neighbourhoods with all types of housing and varying lot sizes in one of Canada's fastest-growing suburban cities.

There's also a tremendous hazard where we might have to face the problem of parking on streets without sidewalks. That's an issue on its own.

As I mentioned earlier, the Credit Reserve Association realizes that a proliferation of accessory apartments would cause large increases in their property taxes. The association also points out that, "The new rights are experimental, yet they will be virtually impossible to reverse once conferred (even if the experience is a bad one)." As the association says, we are opening a Pandora's box.

The Ontario Home Builders' Association has also identified potential problems which the draft legislation does not take into account. For example, will expensive building code changes be required to facilitate basement apartments? What about subdivision servicing? Will municipalities increase their persons-per-unit count, resulting in higher development charges?

We must also ask questions about landlord and tenant law for accessory apartments. When we allow accessory apartments as of right, many home owners will opt for the extra income from a basement apartment without understanding the relevant laws and regulations. For instance, it's very difficult to regain possession of an accessory apartment, yet there could be many cases when it would be necessary to evict a tenant. Consider the following hypothetical examples.

What if a tenant tells a non-smoking home owner that he doesn't smoke or she does not smoke, when he or she does and in fact is a smoker? Why should home owners have to share their house with people whose habit endangers the health of the home owners and their families? Yet it would be extremely difficult to evict a smoking tenant.

Second, what if a family needs its basement space to accommodate children, a nanny or aging parents but the tenant refuses to leave despite the landlord's having the right to repossess a rental unit for his own use if he gives the tenant due notice? Should a tenant refuse to leave and the matter goes to court, it could be many months before the family could regain the use of its basement.

Third, what if a family purchases a home with a basement apartment, counting on the rental income to pay the mortgage, but the tenant does not pay the rent? Again, it can take months to evict a tenant for non-payment of rent. That could amount to enough lost income for the home owner to default on his or her mortgage payments.

It appears, then, that changes to the Landlord and Tenant Act would also be required for accessory apartments.

Mr Speaker, I look forward to concluding my speech.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member will have two minutes in summation at the end of the debate. Further debate on Mrs Marland's motion?

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): It gives me great pleasure to stand up this morning and urge that this resolution be roundly and soundly defeated by this House. I'd like to start off by stating my bias.

In the city of Scarborough we currently have in the neighbourhood of 14,000 to 15,000 illegal basement apartments. My question to the member for Mississauga South is, of course, should we decide not to legalize these basement apartments and we give the municipalities the authority to go in and remove these people from these illegal units, where are we going to put these people? Will the member for Mississauga South and other members of her party assist these people in buying homes so that everybody could be living in the nice 1.7-member family homes that this member envisions in the city of Mississauga?

I want to talk about some of the reasons why we're moving towards the legalization of accessory apartments and some of the inconsistencies that the member's position demonstrates.

First of all, job creation: By eliminating the zoning barriers that stop people from adding basement apartments to their homes, we're going to spur a job creation program in the construction industry, which is quite badly needed.

Again, the first inconsistency that arises in the member's position is that the PCs talk about being concerned about the lack of job creation. As soon as we announce a program that is going to create jobs, and it's the intention of the program to create jobs, they oppose it.

Secondly, while our government remains steadfast in its position, in its commitment to the creation of tens of thousands of non-profit homes, we know this is only part of the solution to the insufficient supply of affordable housing.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Scarborough Centre has the floor.

Mr Owens: We need to use other methods to encourage the creation of affordable housing.

I look across the House at the member for Mississauga South and the member for Dufferin-Peel, who, every time the issue of cooperative housing is raised, hit the roof and say, "This is a terrible way to use the taxpayers' dollars." Well, my answer is that we have a proposal that is going to use existing resources without having the Treasurer come to this House to request more tax dollars. But again you say, "No, that's not good enough."

Studies in Toronto, Vancouver and the United States have shown that rents for apartments in houses are in the neighbourhood of 15% to 35% less than those charged in apartment buildings.

One of the legal clinics that my office deals with is Scarborough Community Legal Services, and in particular with a legal worker by the name of Linda Mitchell. She deals with assaulted women and single mums who are in transition between leaving the abusive relationship and trying to get into Metro Housing. These basement apartments are used as transition points. What are we going to do with the single mums and assaulted women if we don't legalize these apartments, if we don't bring them up to standard?

It's hard to understand, again, in terms of the use of tax dollars, why the party of the taxfighters -- the member for Nipissing likes to declare himself a taxfighter -- would oppose the use of existing resources, again for these very substantive problems.

1120

Helping the home owner: Many first-time potential home buyers who were shut out of the ownership market during the inflated 1980s are now out looking again. We thank the third party and its cousins in Ottawa for allowing the interest rates to drop to a more reasonable level. The ability to rent a basement apartment legally would bring in somewhere in the neighbourhood of about $400 a month. This sometimes makes a difference between being able to afford a home or not.

There are many existing home owners who, because a spouse has recently been laid off or there's been the death of a spouse, need the extra income in order to maintain their homes. The member for Eglinton, Dianne Poole, said in the Ottawa Sun on June 22 of this year that the policy will help seniors having difficulty paying taxes and maintenance costs, and I thank the member for that supportive statement.

Back to the member for Mississauga South: The member has accused the government in the past of not assisting home owners. Yet here we are, trying to assist home owners and we're being criticized for it. She opposes the very measure that is going to help seniors stay in their homes, that is going to help young people buy their first homes, but no, the member for Mississauga South says it's not good.

We want to ensure that rental homes are safe and properly maintained. This initiative, while it's going to create new apartments, is also going to help to ensure that the 100,000 existing apartments in Ontario are properly maintained. The majority of these apartments are currently made illegal because of the very municipal zoning restrictions that the member has referred to. Similarly, tenants who may live in substandard apartments are afraid to call a property standards inspector because they're afraid of losing their homes. What we want to do is bring these houses out of the grey market and into the open so that they can be properly regulated.

With respect to the issue of the absentee landlord, our government's proposal actually counters the fear of the absentee landlord syndrome raised by the member for Mississauga South. Of course, this is an interesting position for the member to take because during the legislative debates and particularly clause-by-clause on rent control the member for Mississauga South portrayed herself as a friend of the landlord. Now what does she say? "Small landlords are evil." Yet another glaring inconsistency in the position.

In summary, our government's proposal on apartments in houses will provide jobs, help home owners and increase the supply of affordable housing. It'll clearly help tenants and landlords ensure rental homes are maintained. The member's resolution shows not a small level of being economical with the truth, both hers and the position of her party. She has accused us of not wanting to help home owners.

The Acting Speaker: On a point of order, the honourable member for Mississauga South.

Mrs Marland: I ask that member to withdraw his comment, which suggests that I was not telling the truth.

The Acting Speaker: There has been a lot of discussion in the chamber and the Speaker did not hear that. However, I put it to the honourable member for Scarborough Centre, do you have --

Mr Owens: If the member for Mississauga South took offence at that comment, I do withdraw it.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): That's a weasel way out of it right there; just weasel.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The Speaker has great difficulty in hearing the member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr Owens: In closing, I want to urge this House once again to soundly defeat this resolution so that this government can move forward in its program to use existing resources to maintain and create more affordable housing for Ontarians who desperately need this housing.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I rise in support of the resolution because I think that many concerns that have been expressed should be dealt with before proceeding with legislation. I think it's very important.

I'm particularly concerned about the position of the municipalities and the concerns they have expressed. I believe that the ministers and the ministries frequently overlook the fact that municipal governments are composed of elected representatives. The councils indeed are governments at the local level and they have certain mandated responsibilities and services. We have to remember that. So changes in legislation affecting and directing the councils of municipalities should be through consultation and negotiation and not by decree. That's awfully important to remember and to remember that the over 800 municipalities in this province have decided on a single voice to expedite consultation and negotiation with the provincial government. Of course, that's the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, composed of members from all types of municipalities in this province that are more than willing to consult at any time with the provincial government on changes.

The provision of low-cost additional accommodation of course is important and essential and the provision of granny flats is particularly essential, in my opinion. But I want to point out that they are being provided at the present time through the present planning process, which gives people, neighbours and anyone else who wishes to comment the opportunity to do so. Certainly, the input of the municipal governments in the planning process at the time of any change is important and onsite agreements can be negotiated; that's awfully important.

AMO apparently is especially concerned given that the government's proposals are not in the form of options but represent the government's policy decision. The so-called consultation paper of the government is therefore focused on how to implement the policy and not on the merits and appropriateness of the policy in the first place. In opposition to this approach, AMO has directed its response to questioning the fundamental basis of this policy decision. It's unfortunate that draft legislation was presented with the consultation paper, because what should have happened is the consultation paper should have gone out, there should have been negotiation and consultation about the many changes and then draft legislation should have been circulated for the comments of all those who wish to comment.

So I support the resolution that legislation not be introduced at this time until the concerns of those who wish to express their concerns have been expressed.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased to be able to speak today in support of the resolution of my colleague Margaret Marland, the member for Mississauga South, a resolution asking this government not to proceed with legislation which would permit apartments in detached and semidetached houses.

This proposal is most ill-advised as it ignores the wishes of municipalities. AMO says that it is strongly opposed to this province's draft legislation which would permit an apartment in a house, and calls on the province not to proceed with the introduction of the legislation.

The association does not endorse the approach taken by the province for many reasons. First and foremost, AMO objects to the provincial intrusion into the authority of zoning which has been delegated to municipal councils. Councils will now be held responsible for policy decisions made by the province. AMO is also concerned that given that the government's proposals are not in the form of options but represent the government's policy decision, the consultation paper is therefore focused on how to implement the policy, not on the merits of the appropriateness of the policy in the first place.

Municipalities from all over the province have responded negatively to this idea. Many county governments, for example, Grey and Simcoe, have determined that if enacted, this legislation would have a detrimental effect on our local municipalities: increased demands for municipal services to which they will be unable to reasonably respond, thereby creating possible health, safety and financial problems for the host municipality; parking problems with increased cars; snow removal. It would permit inappropriate conversions, incompatible with adjoining land uses.

1130

AMO says the province should wait for the Sewell commission's recommendations before going ahead with this, and I agree.

It is strange that this government is now telling municipalities to ignore zoning bylaws and allow new dwellings, as they were the same people who went into the municipalities and said no development would be permitted without their authorization. That's what happened in Grey. They went in and said, "No more development," and that stopped everything right there.

This government is in the process now of a consultation process, supposedly, for the county of Simcoe in restructuring. I've got to tell you, this government does not know what consultation means. They said they were going to consult with the people in Middlesex and London with regard to the annexation there. They said they were going to consult with the people in Simcoe county with regard to the restructuring that's taken place there. The consulting process with this government does not exist.

They say they want to have apartments in dwellings, in homes. We go to the village of Coldwater. They've had problem getting the sewage system expanded for the residential development that's there now and what has been approved already in zoning bylaws to permit further development. Here they are saying you must proceed with apartments now when you've not got approval to proceed with the sewage systems, and that is only one municipality that is in that problem.

There are other municipalities all across this province that have real problems of zoning. Scarborough and North York, as well as many other GTA municipalities, have come out firmly opposed to the draft legislation. Hazel McCallion in Mississauga is firmly opposed to this.

Although everyone supports the concept of garden suites or granny flats, there are still some very valid concerns, such as restricting occupancy and regulation of type of unit to be built, which must be worked out before unanimous approval can be given.

This legislation is another example of downloading by the provincial government on to the municipalities at a time when transfer funds are very limited. The whole discussion surrounding legalization of accessory apartments opens the debate on the merits and disadvantages of intensification.

I support this resolution by my colleague from Mississauga. I think it's a very worthwhile resolution because of what this government is intending to do. Do they not know what's going on across the province? Are you not listening to the municipalities out there telling us that they cannot get approvals for sewage systems, to expand their infrastructure? You won't give them funds to do that, yet you're saying, go ahead, put in another apartment, put in another bathroom. Where are your priorities?

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think we lost some seconds at the end of the last speaker for the government, and I wondered if --

The Acting Speaker: The Clerk has just advised me that they have been added on again. Further debate?

Ms Carter: I would like to strongly oppose the resolution from the member for Mississauga South. To allow apartments in houses will benefit individuals and society in many ways. The disadvantages claimed in the resolution disappear on closer inspection.

The point that jobs will be created has already been made, so I would like to make two other main points. The member for Mississauga South seems to assume that accessory apartments will provide a low standard of accommodation and will adversely affect their surrounding neighbourhoods. She's also concerned about absentee landlords. However, this ignores the fact that thousands of accessory apartments already exist in an unregulated state.

This legislation will ensure that where there actually are problems, they can be dealt with, whether the landlord lives on the premises or not. Because these apartments will exist openly and legally, municipalities will be better able to inspect and to enforce existing health, safety and property standards. Municipalities asked for a change in the existing requirement that officials must seize physical evidence to prove that these standards are not being met. Some failings, such as low ceilings, cannot be seized. Since their apartments will now be legal, tenants will be able to use official routes to deal with an absentee landlord who is not maintaining the building. Tenants who feared they might lose their homes if they drew attention to their illegal existence were obviously in no position to do this.

As well, the government's new Rent Control Act gives municipalities and tenants the tools for dealing with absentee landlords who do not look after their building. Such landlords will face severe penalties in the form of a rent freeze or rent reduction.

Some 100,000 existing apartments which have been made illegal by zoning but which are both much needed and affordable can now exist openly and be regulated and kept up to standard. Those which do not meet the necessary health and safety and property bylaws will be shut down. All this will obviously have the effect of improving neighbourhoods and quality of life.

Secondly, I would like to refute the contention that there has not been enough time for public discussion of this issue. This is simply not true. This issue was being debated in the early 1980s when the honourable member's one-time colleague, Claude Bennett, was Minister of Housing. The ensuing Liberal government undertook extensive public consultation on the question of apartments in houses when developing the land use planning for a housing policy statement in 1989. Some Liberal members, including Housing critic Dianne Poole, have recognized the need to go beyond this policy statement and show support for the principle of allowing apartments in homes.

The government released its draft statement on June 18. Consultation on how to best achieve the goal of allowing apartments in houses has yielded over 250 responses, which are being carefully considered. There is still plenty of opportunity for input. There will probably be public hearings during the winter.

I know there is support for this legislation in my own riding of Peterborough. According to the Examiner of September 22, the chairman of the Peterborough housing advisory committee reported to council that there was general support for the apartments concept at a housing forum last week.

Accessory apartments are in tune with up-to-date thinking about urban planning. They lead to dense cities and repopulation of inner-city areas. They help reverse a trend to low occupancy of housing due to demographics and more single-parent households.

Municipalities will save by taking up the slack in underutilized services, from sewers to schools, instead of having to build expensive new ones to serve new subdivisions. And, please note, this move has popular support. People like it. The endorsement of the inclusive neighbourhoods campaign already makes a very impressive list.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Mrs Marland's motion?

1140

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I rise today to support the resolution by Mrs Marland. The approach I would like to take on this is really one as a former municipal representative. I was alderman in the city of North York, ward 13, for six and a half years. I was on that council at the time the Planning Act of 1984 was fully developed, where there was consultation with the municipalities on the sorts of incentives and disincentives for good planning at that time.

I'm not going to suggest for a moment that the Planning Act was perfect or complete. History has proven that it is in fact in need of significant change and amendment. I point out to the members of this House, and particularly to the Minister of Housing, who is not here today for this important debate, that there is a planning commission going on right now under the auspices of Mr Sewell, and the fact that the minister has tabled this paper at this time I think calls into question the credibility of the work Mr Sewell is doing in the nature of planning in the province of Ontario.

That doesn't mean I'm going to necessarily agree with everything Mr Sewell is going to recommend -- I'll wait until I see what he suggests before I go on record in support of recommendations in the future -- but I would point out very clearly that that work is undergoing consultation and is taking place.

No wonder municipalities are frustrated with this NDP government. No wonder people are upset and aggravated and cynical. This government says one thing and does the other. They say, "We're consulting on changes to the Planning Act," and then they bring in amendments to the Planning Act, and what do those amendments do? Those amendments take away from the municipality the right to plan. It takes away from the municipality and the local members of council the right to work with their constituents to develop the kind of appropriate zoning to achieve what may be very good and legitimate and important public policy initiatives.

I point out that this NDP proposed amendment, legislation, does more than just take away from municipalities the right to plan, and I agree with AMO that it is an unwarranted intrusion at a time when municipalities are talking and working with the government at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in areas such as disentanglement and in long-term care reform in areas called devolution. While we're discussing devolution in one ministry and disentanglement in another ministry, you have the NDP ideology at the Ministry of Housing taking away the autonomy of the local municipality, intruding on traditional municipal planning authority and mandating, without consideration to local community interests, in a heavy-handed way that does not bring about the right incentives to make good things happen. That's what people are very resentful of.

Further, the way this Minister of Housing is doing it penalizes those municipalities which have been following the directive that was brought forward by the Liberal government. Those municipalities which have brought forward and put into their municipal plans appropriate standards and amendments for basement apartments, for duplexing, as it is sometimes called, already within their official plans are penalized. Therefore, what is the message that is being sent out there? The message that's being sent out by this NDP government is heavy-handed intrusionary: "We use the stick. We use the legislative hammer. Our words about consultation and partnership, our words about cooperation, are meaningless. When it comes to showing you how we do something, we are intrusionary, we have no respect for the municipal councils and we are not prepared, as a government," this NDP government says to them, "to support and encourage by incentives those municipalities which are willing to upgrade and update and bring their policies into meeting the local needs."

Further, what they're saying is, "We are taking power away from local communities and vesting that in this centrist, socialist approach, which says that we here in Toronto at Queen's Park are going to make decisions for every municipality across the province, whether there's a problem or not. We're not going to listen to the local people. We're not going to look at what actions have been taken. We, the NDP Big Brother," they say to municipalities, "know best."

I would say to the Minister of Housing, I would say to this NDP caucus, that it is not only important what you do; what is even more important is how you do it. While I would agree that there are some aspects --

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: What's not clear and what simply doesn't prove to be consistent in the inferences the member is drawing is that if you allow people to make the decision, the choice for themselves, that's removing state.

The Acting Speaker: Sorry, that's not a point of order.

Mr Perruzza: That's not imposing Big Brother.

The Acting Speaker: Order. That's not a point of order.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Put the time back on the clock.

Mrs Caplan: Could I have the time back, please, Mr Speaker?

Mr Stockwell: That was about five minutes.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Oriole.

Mrs Caplan: Don't I get the time back? Mr Speaker, I appeal to you to put the time back on the clock. I've been penalized because a member of the NDP has interfered with my speaking.

The Acting Speaker: I realize that. However, I urge you to continue. We are wasting time.

Mrs Caplan: I will wind up and ask that you consider that request by saying that while the initiative that has been put forward by the government may have some merit to it, unfortunately, the way the government has done it, the approach it has taken, I believe, will result not only in bad legislation but bad public policy and bad feelings across the province, and I support the proposal by Mrs Marland this morning.

Mr Stockwell: The basic difficulty I find with this particular piece of handiwork by the Minister of Housing is that it's taking away responsibilities that have historically been left at the municipal level. Why have they been left at the municipal level? They have been left at the municipal level simply because all municipalities have different problems. They have different problems, so they have different zoning, different approval processes and different rules. Why do they have different rules? Because you can have a town like Wawa compared to a city like Toronto. You can't tell me they don't have different problems, different issues and different concerns. Having accepted that, that was the reason we set up municipal government, so local councils could deal with local issues.

Mr Perruzza: Big brother.

Mr Stockwell: This is called zoning. If you've spent any time on municipal council, you understand zoning. Zoning is different from city to city, from neighbourhood to neighbourhood and from street to street. Why is it different? It's different because municipalities zone areas as neighbourhoods, industrial, commercial or manufacturing, so they can plan their own neighbourhoods.

Coming from a city that was very well planned, the city of Etobicoke, I think we had a good zoning requirement. We had good planning. We had good processes. Why? Because we understood that well-planned communities worked.

Mr Perruzza: Been there lately?

Mr Stockwell: I hear some heckling from the member from North York and I think North York was well planned. I think it's a good, well-planned community. It's a community that was planned very well, so the question you ask yourself is --

Mr Perruzza: Do you want to come for a drive?

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Etobicoke West has the floor. You will get your turn.

Mr Stockwell: The question you have to ask yourself is, why now must the provincial government universally pass zoning and planning for all municipalities as if they're all the same?

I know that in the city of Etobicoke, as in Toronto, East York and York, there are neighbourhoods that this just won't work in. Why? Because local municipalities have a difficult time delivering services on certain streets. Why? Because those streets are bombarded with cars in the road. Why are they bombarded with cars? Because they were built pre-war. Their driveways are narrow, if they have driveways. They have a difficult time getting fire trucks down these streets. They have a difficult time collecting the garbage. They have a difficult time clearing the snow. Why? Because cars are parked along both sides of the streets, lined up, making it difficult to pass.

When you say we're going to put basement apartments in, you're compounding the problem. You're creating more cars, more people on the infrastructures, and the infrastructures can't take it.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: Sir, I suggest that you've spent not a minute on local council, or you wouldn't say that. Why is Scarborough saying no? Why are they saying no? Because of that very reason. They don't understand the local planning process, the local zoning process, the process that has been built up over many years that has created what I consider to be fine communities in Metropolitan Toronto.

They're trying to resolve this issue, the housing crisis, trying to resolve this problem by simply creating another, and that's no way to solve a problem. If this minister would like to know first hand the she's causing, I demand that she meet with the local councils, meet with the mayors, meet with the councillors. They'll tell you what the problems are, at least in Metropolitan Toronto.

Finally, this issue came before council when I sat. When I sat it was turned down. In previous councils it's been turned down. It was turned down. Why? It was turned down on solid, fundamental planning reasons. That's why it was turned down. For you to simply unilaterally force this on to the municipalities with no thought to infrastructures, to libraries, to roads, to schools or to sewers is so blatantly irresponsible it even shocks me that you'd do it.

1150

Mr David Winninger (London South): I've enjoyed the debate thus far and I particularly agree with the remarks made by my colleague the member for Scarborough Centre and the member for Peterborough, as well. I think they've adequately reinforced for this House and for you, Mr Speaker, that the government's proposal will not only provide jobs and help home owners, but it will also increase the supply of affordable housing and help tenants and landlords ensure their rental homes are maintained. Since time is short, I would also like to dwell on the environmental considerations of this proposal.

London is a good example of the changing demographics in Ontario. In the inner-city, as couples age and their children leave home, there is surplus capacity in our inner-cities. I'm talking about water and sewer systems; I'm talking about schools; I'm talking about libraries; I'm also talking about transit systems.

This land use policy statement that was put out under the tenure of the Liberal government in 1989 certainly recognized the issue of changing household sizes and suggested that governments had to promulgate housing policies that would maximize the use of existing resources, building stock, community and physical services, rather than encourage urban sprawl, rather than encourage municipalities to eat up valuable agricultural land and environmentally sensitive areas --

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

Mrs Caplan: My point of order, Mr Speaker, is that the member may well be --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. We have a point of order here. The member for Oriole.

Mrs Caplan: I've heard several members from the NDP caucus refer to the policies of the former Liberal government. It could be misleading to this House and it would suggest to me that you should intervene.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. That's not a point of order. The honourable member for London South.

Mr Winninger: I'm now down to 31 seconds. Could I have some time back? Half a minute will do. I would say in conclusion that if we're going to preserve our valuable farm land, if we're going to preserve our valuable environmentally sensitive areas, if we're going to save the taxpayers of London and Ontario exorbitant tax increases for paying for new municipal infrastructure in subdivisions, we need to fully utilize our existing resources and meet the need in the inner-city to maximize the use of public transit, schools, libraries and so on. So I will be opposing the member's motion.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): As Liberal Housing critic, I am pleased to be able to add my comments to this debate on a very contentious issue, and make no mistake about it, it is contentious, as you can tell by the tenor of the debate in the House today.

The debate goes far beyond whether there is support for basement apartments and granny flats. It isn't simply a matter of the not in my backyard forces on the one hand versus the forces of progress on the other. In fact, some people who are strong supporters of the concept of intensification and allowing basement apartments are struggling with the way the NDP government has chosen to enforce this policy through legislation. They are concerned about the process and about proceeding, at this stage, with legislation. But first of all, before we talk about process, let's take a quick look at the merits of the issue itself.

I have been a very strong supporter of intensification over the years. I have long believed that municipalities should allow areas where basement apartments would be legal. For a number of reasons, I think it is a good policy direction. First of all, it does increase the housing supply at little cost to the taxpayer. Second, particularly for seniors and young couples who are struggling to pay their mortgage, it allows them that extra income to make ends meet; it is good planning in that it limits suburban sprawl. Finally, and to me one of the most important reasons I support intensification, it would legalize the estimated 100,000 illegal basement apartments where tenants right now have no rights and no protections. They have no rights under the Landlord and Tenant Act. They have no rights under the Rent Control Act. They have no rights to have maintenance enforced. They are afraid to go to the building inspector because their unit may be taken out of the market.

Those are the reasons why intensification should be encouraged. On the other hand, the member for Mississauga South has stated a number of very valid reasons why some people are so strongly opposed. There are definitely problems attached to this type of intensification.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Eglinton has the floor.

Ms Poole: We have had a discussion of the services that would be overlaid on an area by doubling the intensification, such as sewage, services, schools, parking, traffic. Can they handle this increased volume? Previously, that was a decision the municipality would make.

The other problem of absentee landlords is a very real one. That is why university towns such as London, Windsor, Thunder Bay and Guelph have been so firmly opposed to what the government is doing.

The government has made a decision that it will legislate what is best for communities across the province, making irrelevant the planning process at the local level, making irrelevant their official plans and making irrelevant the will of local residents. This legislation will take away municipal autonomy to make decisions for the benefit of an individual community.

Recently, I read in the Toronto Star that one of the councillors from another municipality had said that this is a made-in-Toronto solution on a made-in-Toronto problem. Ironically, this is not a consensus in Toronto. Scarborough is firmly opposed. The city of Toronto is firmly in favour. There is no consensus.

While I am personally very supportive of the principle, when it comes right down to it, I am very leery of legislation that rams something down municipalities' throats, that takes away their autonomy to make these decisions. I urge the government to extend the consultation period, to listen and to come back with a proposal that will bring in intensification without ramming it down municipalities' throats.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further debate?

Mrs Marland: Just to complete my earlier comments, I would like to say finally and perhaps most importantly that my vision for affordable housing in Ontario is not a view from a basement window. Basement apartments are an inadequate solution to our shortage of affordable housing.

In conclusion, I would quote from an editorial in Mississauga's community newspaper, the Mississauga News, "There's no question that there isn't enough affordable housing available, especially in large urban centres like Mississauga, but surely more creative solutions can be found than to throw open the doors to anyone with a basement to get into the landlord business."

I therefore ask the Minister of Housing not to introduce the draft legislation proposed in the consultation paper, Apartments in Houses. The people of Ontario deserve better.

1200

Just before I respond to some of the comments that have been made during the debate this morning, I would like to state for the benefit of the House that the member for Grey had intended to be here this morning to speak on behalf of the many municipalities that have contacted him with their concerns, but unfortunately he was detained at the last moment in his riding and was unable to be here.

But I would say to the member for Scarborough Centre -- actually, knowing this member, I'm surprised with some of his argument this morning. I thought for him to talk about basement apartments in the context of where to put assaulted women and single moms was the most deplorable statement I've heard for some time in this Legislature. If this socialist government is standing in this House saying, "We have a problem because we have nowhere to put assaulted women and single moms" -- he said, "Where do they go?" His answer was, "Basement apartments" -- the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario does not think basement apartments are a good enough solution for anyone who faces the kinds of life crises of anyone of any gender who is assaulted or is in a single marital status, male or female. We do not support that kind of regressive thinking.

And isn't it ironic to hear the member for Scarborough Centre talk about basement apartments being the solution for seniors to stay in their homes -- the very party that has just reduced and eliminated for many thousands of seniors in this province their property tax credit. It's such an irony that you say, "We'll take away their property tax credit," for many thousands of seniors in this province, "but they can rent their apartments." It is such a ludicrous contradiction it's unbelievable.

This is the same socialist government, of course, that reduces benefits to people over 65 in auto insurance. They can't talk out of both sides of their mouths and say they're concerned about the seniors in this province when everything they say and do states the opposite.

For him to suggest that I'm saying small landlords are evil was a personal insult to me. What I'm simply saying is that most of these single-home owners who create an accessory apartment in their home do not have a clue that the rules under the Landlord and Tenant Act also apply to that single apartment. What we're saying is that if it's an absentee landlord, the situation is compounded and is even worse.

As for the member for London South, who seems to be totally oblivious to what his own city council is saying, I would simply say to that member, perhaps it's time he went home. Perhaps it's time all the New Democratic Party members, with their socialist thinking and their socialist ideology, went home. Find out what your municipalities want you to do. Go home and find out what your city councils and your regional governments and your town councils want you to say in this House. Instead of listening to your union friends and your own ideological trash, why don't you decide that you're here to represent the people who elect you, and that's everybody in your constituency in your ridings. It's not your union friends, who almost pay for the opportunity to be represented by you in this House, and the people who are not members of those unions lose their voice. They have lost their voice, because these socialist members do not even listen to the concerns of their area municipalities and the people who live in them. I simply say to all of them, if you'd get out of wherever it is you're burying your heads in the sand, if you'd get your head above ground and start listening and learning and doing a bit of homework, you'd find out what the issue is with basement apartments.

I say again that if you're satisfied to create basement apartments and accessory apartments as of right, regardless of the millions of dollars that have been spent in planning our communities in terms of land use, if that's what you want and that's your solution to affordable housing, it's not mine, nor is it the solution the members of our caucus support, nor is it the solution that is even affordable for municipalities, which are going to have to pay additional staff to police these additional units.

Talk to the police forces. I know that's something none of you want to do. You have demonstrated your feeling about the police forces in this province. You don't care to listen to anybody. But if you talk to the police forces alone, you would find out that the additional costs of increasing the population is something that's not affordable today in those areas.

The Acting Speaker: This terminates private members' hour.

The division bells rang from 1207 to 1212.

TRADE DEVELOPMENT

The Acting Speaker: The first vote will be on Mr Curling's resolution, ballot item number 23.

All those in favour of Mr Curling's motion will please rise and remain standing until named.

All those opposed to Mr Curling's motion, please rise and remain standing until named.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Did all members vote?

The Acting Speaker: The Clerk here is checking that all members present have voted.

It's my understanding that two members have not voted: Mrs Marland and Mrs Witmer. They must vote. Could they please state their intention.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I will be voting in favour.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I will be voting against.

Ayes -- 16

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Curling, Daigeler, Eddy, Hansen, Marland, McLean, Miclash, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Sterling.

Nays -- 35

Akande, Bisson, Carter, Cooper, Coppen, Cunningham, Drainville, Farnan, Frankford, Haeck, Hope, Huget, Johnson, Klopp, Lessard, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Marchese, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Rizzo, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Ward (Brantford), Wessenger, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Witmer.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion defeated.

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

The Acting Speaker: We will now be dealing with Mrs Marland's resolution, ballot item 24.

All those in favour of Mrs Marland's motion will please rise and remain standing until named.

All those opposed to Mrs Marland's motion, please rise and remain standing until named.

Ayes -- 20

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Cunningham, Curling, Daigeler, Eddy, Marland, McLean, Miclash, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Witmer.

Nays -- 31

Akande, Bisson, Carter, Cooper, Coppen, Drainville, Farnan, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Hope, Huget, Johnson, Klopp, Lessard, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Marchese, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Rizzo, Ward (Brantford), Wessenger, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman.

The Acting Speaker: I declare this motion defeated.

This House will stand adjourned until 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed at 1218.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HUNTING AND FISHING CARDS

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources, and it concerns his latest blatant tax grab.

The minister recently announced the introduction of a $6 magic stripe registration card system for anglers and hunters. The minister claims the new outdoors card will make life easier for fishermen, but he fails to point out that it will also mean a 50% hike in the cost of going fishing next year.

The cost of the $6 outdoors card will be added to the cost of fees already paid for hunting and fishing licences. Anglers must now pay the $6 card fee plus the fee for a fishing licence, which is currently set at $12. Hunters must also pay the $6 card fee on top of the cost of the hunting licence, which ranges from $20 to $30 annually depending on the type of weapon used and the game to be hunted.

The new outdoors card system, which will affect approximately 1.5 million anglers and hunters, is a blatant tax grab. It's a government ripoff. The ministry will save a large amount of money because everything will be on computers, resulting in less paperwork.

Minister, I wouldn't be so upset if the money you are generating with this blatant tax grab was used to assist Ontario's conservation officers in doing their job or for restocking fish in our waterways or for other conservation efforts. After all, that was the original intent for revenues generated by the sale of hunting and fishing licences.

OUR COMMON FUTURE TOO

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I wish to congratulate the organizers and participants in Our Common Future Too, a local forum on the economic, social, health and environmental challenges facing Peterborough in the world community, held on September 25 and 26.

This conference was a grass-roots endeavour to develop a strong and viable cooperative voice for sustainability and to define our community's role in the wider world. As Thomas Berry said, "The human community and the natural world will go into the future as a single community or we will both perish together."

Key organizers were Frances Adams, Charlene Avon, Ken Doherty, Don Folz, Rudi Massimo, Clara McCue, Bel Pennick, Linda Slavin and Guy Thompson.

Panel speakers on Friday set the tone. Duncan Cameron warned that an unbridled market economy may ultimately be incompatible with democracy and that the ongoing separation of people from the land may be the biggest catastrophe in the history of humankind. Mel Watkins pointed out that under NAFTA, Mexican farmers will be replaced by agribusiness, and that we in Canada need to build on our own domestic market.

The discussions led to agreement that we need more information and consultations at the grass-roots level and more community input into decision-making. This event was part of an ongoing process involving a broad and ever-widening sector of the community. I look forward to further developments.

DEVELOPMENT IN SUDBURY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I rise today to focus attention on the completely inadequate approach taken by this government to an extremely important economic issue in Sudbury. The proposal, involving the construction of a state-of-the-art petrochemical complex, has significant job creation, energy supply and environmental quality implications for the community of Sudbury.

To date, local representatives of the provincial government in Sudbury have shown little interest in the proposal and have dismissed its potential to effect substantial benefit on behalf of the citizens within that community.

This Legislature has traditionally operated on the principles of representative democracy and responsible government. Unfortunately for the residents of Sudbury, there has been a complete abandonment of these historic principles in regard to this most important issue.

The people of Sudbury have been left without a voice in the Legislature to express their strongly held interests in this proposal. Their elected members, all of whom sit on the government side of this House, have met their constituents' outcry for action with a deafening silence.

It's ironic that the party that claimed to be different, that claimed it would govern in the interest of all Ontarians, including northern Ontarians, and not just in the interests of a few, could allow this suppression of opinion and community interest to occur.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Yesterday my colleague the member for Waterloo North attended a meeting in Kitchener concerning layoffs and cutbacks at the Waterloo regional health unit.

It is unfortunate that the regional government is taking the heat for proposing these cutbacks when the blame should be aimed at the NDP government. While it's fine to argue that the region can cut in other areas and save the jobs at the health unit, this argument rings hollow when you realize this will mean that some welfare recipients won't get their cheques, day care will be cut and other regional employees will lose their jobs.

The real responsibility for this mess lies with the NDP government. In fact, the three local NDP members didn't even have the guts to show up at the meeting. The members for Kitchener, Cambridge and Kitchener-Wilmot all know who is to blame. They're obviously embarrassed and riddled with guilt to be part of a government that says one thing and does another.

For instance, the Minister of Health has stated that two of her goals are to shift the emphasis to health promotion and disease prevention and foster strong and supportive families and communities. However, the government's words don't jibe with its actions. Public health units are front-line providers of community-based health care services which emphasize health promotion and disease prevention. Instead of enhancing public health units, the NDP has chosen to restrict its efforts by providing only a 1% transfer increase.

As well, the region of Waterloo questions the commitment of the government to public health units when the NDP continues to mandate programs while conveniently forgetting to send along the cheque to the local area.

It's time the government got its house in order and started to support community-based health care, rather than gutting it.

ENVIRONMENTAL FAIR

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Last weekend I had the opportunity to see the efforts made by business, environmental groups and individuals to achieve a better, cleaner environment. On Saturday, October 3, residents of London and Middlesex experienced the first annual green exchange and environmental fair. The message to all was reduce, reuse, recycle and refill.

Businesses such as the Western Fair Raceway, GM diesel and Bell Canada demonstrated and explained how they had dramatically reduced, and were trying to further reduce the waste generated in their respective workplaces. Others like the Body Shop, Try Recycling, Green Earth, Goodwill Industries and Field Fare, a cooperative food store, displayed environmentally friendly products, reused products and new products developed from recycled materials. Backyard composters and vermi-composters were also featured.

Global Action Plan, LEAP, Greenpeace and Rose were there to explain the ecosystem program for grass-roots action, the management and elimination of PCBs, global warming and community land trusts. There were also tours available to recycling facilities and the landfill site, so people could see first hand the urgent need to reduce, reuse and recycle.

I would also like to mention individual efforts made on behalf of the environment. On Sunday I met Pat Skidmore, a Middlesex resident, who goes out every other day in the neighbourhood to pick up litter carelessly thrown away by others. I think this clearly demonstrates that people in London and Middlesex care about the environment.

BUDGET

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to tell the House about an important meeting that will take place today of the finance and economic committee at 3:30.

The members will all know that we in the Liberal Party have had some real concerns about the way the government is reporting its finances for this fiscal year. The committee has agreed to have the Provincial Auditor appear before us to help answer some questions we've got.

I'll give you just a couple of examples of our concerns. The government owes the teachers' pension $500 million due on the 1st of January, 1993. The Treasurer has, quote, "rescheduled" that payment for the 1st of April, 1993, getting it out of this fiscal year into next year. The problem is that we are going to have to pay 11 1/4 interest on that money when the Treasurer could borrow that money on the open market at 8%. This is going to be a complete waste of at least $3 million of taxpayers' money. We're just going to throw it away for the optics of the Treasurer being able to say that his deficit is below $10 billion. We'll raise that concern.

The second concern we'll have is that the Treasurer has shown that he will get $1.2 billion from the federal government in fiscal stabilization money. The federal government has said, "They're dreaming; they're not going to get $1.2 billion this fiscal year."

The point I'm raising is that we have some significant questions about the accounting in this year's budget. We are looking forward very much to the Provincial Auditor coming and helping the committee to insist on getting the real numbers before us.

1340

BREAST CANCER AWARENESS MONTH

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I call the attention of the members of the House to the fact that October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. In this respect, I am pleased to acknowledge the work of Burlington Breast Cancer Support Services Inc, a volunteer-based organization begun by Pat Kelly and located at the Burlington Mall, which counsels and educates women on the disease of breast cancer, the leading cause of death among women in the 35- to 49-year age group.

This group assisted over 500 drop-ins over the summer alone, including women diagnosed with breast cancer, their family members and those simply seeking information. Pat and her team have also produced a booklet on breast cancer which the House of Commons subcommittee on the status of women called the most comprehensive model of information of its kind. The booklet is supplied across Canada to clinics and women's centres and deals with such topics as treatment options for women with breast cancer, as well as other crucially important information.

The centre approached the NDP Health ministry for a funding grant of $50,000 for its continued maintenance and operation, and although the Minister of Health visited the centre two weeks ago and even complimented its work, she rejected the funding request, leaving the centre to face an imminent shutdown.

When Bob Rae announced a record number of women cabinet ministers in his government, the women of Ontario thought their concerns would be advanced more effectively at the provincial level. Tragically, what we have is a Health minister who went for the publicity but not the program. During Breast Cancer Awareness Month I call on the minister to re-examine her priorities and reverse her decision, even if it would mean fewer bilingual road signs in southern Ontario.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): In 18 days we will be voting on the Charlottetown accord. Eighteen months ago, the select committee on Confederation flew to Kenora to begin asking the people of Ontario, "What really matters to you about Canada?" We continued across Ontario in seniors' centres, in legions, town halls and schools to hear the real people of Ontario.

We found that people cared about recognizing the inherent right of native people after years of colonialism and paternalism. People cared about a social charter, stating how important our social programs are to us. People cared about reforming a blatantly out-of-date patronage Senate. People cared about stating clearly that all people have equal rights in Canada. People cared that division of powers between federal and provincial levels of government be flexible enough to make services cost-effective.

Then, 130 representatives of different interest groups came together on October 13, 1991, at the University of Toronto. Our committee was hesitant. Could this experiment work? Could these people ever agree by sitting down and listening to each other? At that amazing weekend people did reach common ground, and these principles were taken to Charlottetown. Yes, the people of Ontario cared deeply and profoundly about Canada. I urge you to vote Yes.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Mr Speaker, through a scheduling mixup we missed our first opening member's statement. I would ask for unanimous consent to allow it to take place now.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do we have unanimous consent? Please go ahead.

SQUARE ONE OLDER ADULT CENTRE

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): The Square One Older Adult Centre in Mississauga held its official opening last week, on October 2. I was very pleased to be in attendance at this very unique opening of a very unique facility. The story that led to the opening of this facility is one of community cooperation between civic, provincial and federal governments, corporate citizens, service clubs and community volunteers.

Mississauga city council endorsed the recommendation from its recreation and parks department to convert the auditorium in Square One into an older adult centre. This is a room that was not being used on an ongoing basis and now is full of life and activity.

Hammerson Canada, the owners of Square One, lease the auditorium to the centre for a nominal $1 per year. A steering committee of older adults worked to guide and develop programs and to help fund-raise to equip the auditorium. Today, with the continued assistance of community volunteers, the Square One Older Adult Centre is up and running, offering a variety of programs including craft courses, exercise programs and info seminars to older adults in Mississauga.

I would offer my congratulations to all involved: Deb Bensette of the Mississauga recreation and parks department, Nance MacDonald of Square One management, the Mississauga Central Lions Club, members of the steering committee, Hammerson Canada, and of course Mayor McCallion and her council for this very worthwhile project.

VISITOR

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Before we proceed to ministers' statements, I would ask the House to recognize Mr Bud Gregory, the former member for Mississauga East.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SEXUAL ABUSE OF PATIENTS ABUS SEXUEL DES PATIENTES

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I have today released a Ministry of Health position paper, Taking Action Against Sexual Abuse of Patients, in which we propose several changes to the Regulated Health Professions Act aimed at eliminating sexual abuse of patients by health care professionals. The paper has been written in close consultation with five other ministries. They are the Ontario Women's Directorate, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, Colleges and Universities, and Treasury and Economics.

I would like to begin by expressing our thanks to the Task Force on Sexual Abuse of Patients, chaired by Marilou McPhedran. The need for reform has arisen as a result of the task force's recent findings. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which commissioned the task force, assumed a vital leadership role in determining the breadth of physician-patient abuse and in seeking solutions to the problem.

We are inviting feedback to our position paper, either in written or in oral presentations, over the next 30 days, from health professional and consumer groups as well as from others, including legal advocacy groups, aboriginal groups and concerned citizens. This advice will be strongly considered when we draft the legislative amendments, which we intend to table in the Legislature later this fall.

Je suis persuadée que nous partageons tous le même objectif. Tous, membres de l'Assemblée législative, professionnels de la santé et membres du public -- hommes, femmes, enfants -- nous voulons que l'abus sexuel cesse.

Les patientes et les professionnels de la santé doivent savoir que l'abus sexuel des patientes n'est en aucun cas acceptable et ne doit pas être toléré.

I am confident we all have the same goal. We here in the Legislature, health professionals and members of the public -- women, children and men -- all want to stop sexual abuse. Patients and health professionals need to know that sexual abuse of patients is never acceptable and must not be tolerated. If the trust between a patient and a health professional is abused, the consequences are devastating. People need to know that their right not to be victimized in this way is backed by law.

The scope of the problem is more widespread than I think any of us would have dreamed possible a year ago. It is frightening to have learned from recent reports that there are thousands of patients, primarily women, who have been sexually harassed or abused across Ontario.

An analysis of a recent Canada Health Monitor survey indicates that many women in Ontario have been in situations of sexual impropriety, transgression or violation with a physician at least once in their lives. The Canada Health Monitor reported that at least 8% of the 549 women surveyed -- that's almost one in 10 women over the age of 15 -- have been sexually harassed or abused by a physician in Ontario during an examination or a consultation. This survey sample indicates that as many as 400,000 women in Ontario may have been victims of harassment or abuse by a physician. Of the women interviewed in Ontario, 3% were violated through sexual activities with a doctor during an examination or consultation. This translates to about 120,000 women over the age of 15.

In addition, the CPSO Task Force on Sexual Abuse of Patients heard women speak of rape and of physicians using their position of trust to have sex with them by representing intercourse as a necessary part of treatment.

The statistics that I have cited represent best estimates. The number of victims could well be much higher. No one can know exactly how many women have been victims. No one can know how many men and children have been victims. People don't readily talk about these things.

1350

I want to be very clear that I believe that most of our health professionals are providing sound, trustworthy and nurturing care. There must, however, be protection against those who are not.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario acted in the best interests of the public, as its mandate requires, when it commissioned an independent task force in 1991 to deal with this problem of sexual harassment and abuse of patients by physicians. The CPSO has recently finished its review of the report and formulated new policies and guidelines as a result.

Last fall, we in the Legislature made changes to the Regulated Health Professions Act, including the requirement that the college of every regulated health profession set up a patient relations committee to establish programs to help prevent sexual misconduct by its members, but it is critical that more be done. As I indicated at that time, an interministerial working group would be established to identify what further amendments to the legislation might be necessary after reviewing the CPSO task force report and the college's response to it.

Half of the task force's 60 recommendations were directed at government. In the ministry paper released today we are responding to the task force report and the CPSO response to it and are making our own proposals.

As the content of this document is considered over the next 30 days, it is important to keep in mind the Regulated Health Professions Act, when proclaimed next year, will apply to 24 health professions. Among the ministry proposals for change that would apply to all the regulated health professions, we are proposing:

-- That there be three categories of sexual offences as grounds for misconduct and that examples of those offences, as well as the penalties imposed and the rules for reinstatement, be written into law. We propose that the RHPA be amended to provide for a minimum five-year revocation of a person's certificate for acts of sexual violation.

-- That any health professional who has reasonable grounds to believe a colleague has committed any of the three categories of sexual offences must report it to the appropriate college.

-- That the college disciplinary committees be given the power to grant intervenor status to any complainant whose good character, proper conduct or competence is in question and to groups when they can help the discipline committee. In this way the complainant will have a voice in the proceeding where it is now lacking.

-- That there be disclosure by defence counsel of the identity of experts and the substance of their opinions, that the professional will rely on at a disciplinary hearing so that prosecutors can prevent most surprises that could lead to adjournments. This partial disclosure will help the prosecutor in preparation for any accusations towards the victim's actions or character that could come up during the hearing and help reduce a sense of retraumatization for the victim.

-- That there be a survivors' compensation fund and that it be financed and regulated by each college, or cooperatively by all the colleges. On this point, we believe that the provision of any financial help for specialized services for, in this case, victims of sexual abuse is an extension of the college's mandate to govern its members. We believe that no financial responsibility for abuse perpetrated by health professionals should be incurred by the people of Ontario.

In closing, I want to say how personally proud I am that the government of Ontario is proposing these far-reaching changes. We're not only proud to be tackling these issues of patient abuse here, but also to be leading the way for further changes elsewhere.

Since the release of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario task force report, the province of Ontario has followed the CPSO's lead and set up a task force. It is our hope that the changes we make to the Ontario legislation will also prepare the way for further legislative changes in other provinces as well.

These proposed amendments to the RHPA are another important step forward in making this a safe province for people to live. They deserve proper treatment from the professionals and institutions they trust.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Responses.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I would like to sincerely congratulate the minister on moving ahead with this important and timely response. It is also, I think, fair to offer congratulations to both the McPhedran task force and the College of Physicians and Surgeons for their outstanding leadership and initiatives in this area. We offer them our thanks as well.

It is imperative that we work together to ensure that there is zero tolerance of sexual abuse of patients and I believe we've made an enormous start in doing that.

There were a number of things in particular that I liked about the response by the Ministry of Health: first of all, that all 24 colleges are involved, that this is not something that is only going to be targeted towards the traditional medical professions but all medical professions, including all 24 colleges -- I think that's a very positive thing -- and secondly, that the levels of sexual offence as grounds for misconduct be incorporated into the Regulated Health Professions Act with clear definitions at each level of offence. I think that's important.

I was very heartened to see that there will be women members appointed to the discipline committee. I think it's very important that not only justice be done but that justice appear to be done. I think it will give many women great comfort to know that there are women on this committee.

Members of the health professions board are to receive training in understanding sexual abuse, again a very important initiative. I think this will ensure that in future our professionals can help eradicate this problem.

But there are a couple of concerns I would like to share with the minister and hopefully we can work together on them.

One of the recommendations was that there be a compensation fund set up, financed and regulated by each college, and upon the finding of guilt by the college's discipline committee, the funds will be provided to assist in the victim recovery. I think that's a very positive step, but I'm concerned about the colleges that do not have enough money -- perhaps some of the smaller colleges -- and cannot have the resources to set up these funds. What happens to the victims who have been abused within these college's parameters if there is no money coming forward from the province? I hope we will take a second look at that particular one.

Secondly, under the Regulated Health Professions Act, 120 days are allowed for investigation and decision on a complaint. I share with the minister my concern that responses be very timely. This is a matter of great urgency and I personally believe that 120 days is simply too expanded a time.

Thirdly, there's only been one month allocated after the announcement for submissions to the minister. While we are very heartened by her desire to move forward quickly, at the same time it is equally as important that we do it right and that when we move forward we've made sure there has been proper consultation, in addition to the consultation already taking place, to make sure there aren't loopholes and mistakes made. I hope she will consider extending that particular time line.

All in all, we are very pleased with this initiative. We congratulate the minister, the McPhedran task force and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario for their leadership and fine work in this area.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'd like to add to the words of my colleague the member for Eglinton and point out to the minister that in fact it has been just about a full year since the Regulated Health Professions Act was dealt with by the committee of which I was chair at the time.

She has said that we can expect amendments presented in the Legislature after consultation on this particular paper. I hope we'll see that this fall. As she has pointed out, proclamation of the new act was expected this year. She says it's now going to be next year. I know there's a lot of concern about that undue delay, but it's my hope that these amendments will be included in that legislation at the point of proclamation.

I would also remind her that this issue was non-partisan at the committee. All three parties supported the initiatives that are in this paper today. I was a little surprised that it took a full year before we saw this in this House. I'm happy that it's here now, but I wish it had been here sooner. I'd also like to encourage her to get on with proclamation of the Regulated Health Professions Act, which I believe is in the interests of the people of this province and will enhance the public interest protection they so deserve.

1400

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I'm pleased to rise and respond to the Minister of Health's statement outlining her ministry's response to the final report of the Task Force on Sexual Abuse of Patients which was commissioned by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank and commend the members of the Task Force on Sexual Abuse of Patients, which was chaired by Marilou McPhedran, the 303 abused patients who came forward before the task force and the College of Physicians and Surgeons which took the initiative to establish this important and independent task force.

Almost one year ago I asked the Minister of Health in this Legislature to give her personal guarantee, especially to those who are survivors of sexual abuse, that her government would enact recommendations requiring legislative change in a timely manner. One year ago, during clause-by-clause deliberations of the regulated health professions acts, I introduced several amendments on behalf of my caucus colleagues designed to help victims of sexual abuse. I was shocked at that time to note that the government and the members of the Liberal Party voted as a bloc against my amendments, many of which are contained in the task force report and in the report released by the government today.

One example of this was the establishment of a survivors' compensation fund. I could not understand one year ago how the minister could possibly justify defeating such an amendment, and I'm pleased to see that the minister now supports such a measure to help patients who have been sexually abused.

Also a year ago, the NDP voted against a PC amendment that called upon the government to endorse zero tolerance of sexual abuse, but I will give to the minister and grant to the members of the government side and the Liberal Party that I think all members weren't aware, certainly as aware as we are today, of the extent and seriousness of the problem that exists, not only among our health care professionals but in other sectors of our society.

My caucus colleague the member for Parry Sound was the first to respond to the recommendations of the CPSO task force. In June 1991 he introduced a private member's bill amending the Health Disciplines Act. He began drafting his bill after the task force released its preliminary report.

While I'm supportive of today's report, as I've already mentioned, I do have some concerns with the minister's response. First, like the task force members, I have concerns with an expanded definition of sexual abuse which includes sexual transgression. I believe it's a watered-down version of what is recommended by the CPSO report.

Second, while I support mandatory reporting of all sexual abuse by health professionals, I have concerns about the confidentiality of professionals who, of their own accord, seek professional help and treatment. I do not wish to see professionals penalized for seeking help, whether it be with clergy or other professionals.

I would also like to recommend that the ministry take care to bring into this process hospitals and all health care providers, so we can ensure that the drafting of this new legislation, amendments to the Regulated Health Professions Act, is done in a timely but positive and constructive manner.

The report of the CPSO task force, the private member's resolution by Mr Eves, the voluntary actions that have already been taken by the professional colleges, the regulated health professions acts process and today's report, I believe, though, are all very positive steps in dealing with this very dramatic and important issue in our society. Zero tolerance must be the goal, and I know the government is working, along with health care providers, to make that the goal and the policy of this province.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Very briefly, I would like to congratulate the minister for following up on this very important issue in the province. It is about a year and a half or a year and three months since my private member's resolution was endorsed, by all members of the House, I believe, if my memory serves me correctly.

The only criticism I have of the announcement today is that, like my colleague Mr Wilson, I think the CPSO task force report and its definition of sexual offences or abuse was somewhat better. I think this is a somewhat watered-down version that has come out as a result of negotiations, no doubt, and discussions the ministry has had with various professions.

I also would like to reiterate a comment I made debating my resolution in 1991: In other professions, for example the legal profession, when you mismanage some person's money and you're found guilty of professional misconduct --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Thank you.

Mr Eves: -- the ultimate penalty is disbarment for ever, and I don't know why a physician who is found guilty of --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you, the time has expired. Please take your seat.

VISITOR

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Before we proceed with oral questions, I would ask you to recognize in the west gallery the former member for Perth and the former Speaker of the House, Mr Hugh Edighoffer.

MINISTERIAL INFORMATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I'm seeking the Chair's direction. It has to do with ministerial statements. You, Speaker, I think will appreciate that in our standing orders there's a provision under standing order 31(c): "Two copies of each ministerial statement shall be delivered to opposition party leaders, or their representatives, at or before the time the statement is made in the House."

The purpose of that is to ensure that the opposition party has an opportunity to respond to ministerial statements.

Yesterday, the Chairman of Management Board made a statement in the House which had a significant deviation from the prepared statement. I raise this because I'm looking for direction from the Chair on how this should be handled now and in the future.

Just to tell you the change that was made in the prepared statement by the minister -- which, I might add, was broadly circulated to certainly all of the offices here in the Legislature and, I think, more broadly -- and this is under "What Happens to Bargaining Rights for 7,000 Employees," the prepared text said, "These employees will be given the right to choose who represents them."

The interpretation of that would be that someone will represent them and the only decision they would have is to choose who will represent them. But when the minister delivered his statement, he changed it very substantially. He said, "These employees will be given the right to choose" -- I repeat -- "these 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."

So you can see that the minister's statement is very different from the prepared text. The prepared text says they will be given the right to choose who represents them. In his oral comments, he said if they choose to have a bargaining agent or join a union, they can choose then who will represent them.

The point of raising all of this is that I think it was incumbent on the minister yesterday to indicate to the House that he was making a substantive change in his prepared text. I might also add that when I brought this to his attention, he implied that he hadn't changed the text. Hansard will record that he implied I was wrong. I wasn't wrong, and I raise this before you, Mr Speaker, for the Speaker to indicate to the House, either today or at some time in the future, how we should be dealing with ministerial statements that deviate significantly from the prepared text, what the responsibilities of the ministers are to outline when they are deviating and how that will be communicated broadly to the people who end up having received only the written text and not what he actually said here in the House.

Hon David S. Cooke (Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet): I did speak to the member at the end of question period yesterday. I disagree entirely with his description that this is a major change. The two or three words I added made it clear that the statement presented to the opposition saying that they would choose their bargaining agent of course also meant whether they would even have a bargaining agent. That's what I was trying to make absolutely clear.

If I offended the member, who has always presented absolute perfection to the House, I apologize to the member. I will never do it again.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): There are two things I could do. If you accept the apology from the member, we'll leave it as such. If not, I think you've raised a very interesting point. I will reserve judgement, and I will give you an answer on Tuesday.

Mr Phillips: I'm not looking for an apology; I'm looking for the Speaker to indicate to the House, when there are substantive changes made in ministerial statements, what the obligation is --

The Deputy Speaker: Please take your seat. I think I've told you what I would do, and this is the end of the question. Oral questions? Pardon me?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I gave you notice of a point of privilege.

1410

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I rise on a point of privilege today. In this regard, I refer to standing order 21(a), "Privileges are the rights enjoyed by the House collectively and by the members of the House individually conferred by the Legislative Assembly Act and other statutes, or by practice, precedent, usage and custom."

In addition, 21(b) states, "Whenever a matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately."

Accordingly, Mr Speaker, as a result of the wording of rule 21(b), which requires the matter to be immediately taken into consideration, I have committed this issue to you in writing.

My initial point of privilege is directed to that part of rule 21(a) which reads "by practice, precedent, usage and custom."

As the member for the riding of Oriole and a member of the official opposition, I am also critic for Management Board of Cabinet and therefore responsible for all related legislation, such as the proposed amendment to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

Yesterday, the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet made a statement regarding the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. As has been pointed out in this House previously, yesterday was Yom Kippur, the most solemn day of the Jewish faith. Yesterday, for religious reasons, I was absent from this assembly. The government House leader and Chairman of Management Board knew I would be in synagogue yesterday, yet the Chairman of Management Board deliberately chose yesterday to deliver his statement. For this reason, I was unable to perform my critic's duties, and my privileges as a member of this House have been seriously affected.

Mr Speaker, I believe this is a matter which falls squarely within the parameters set forth in rule 21(a).

On Monday of this week, my colleague the member for Mississauga North rose on a similar point of privilege with regard to the clause-by-clause proceedings of Bill 40 within his critic responsibilities. At that time, my colleague stated, "Today, this is a matter of my privilege, but tomorrow it may be for other members of the Legislature."

Mr Speaker, it was only four days ago that this issue was brought to your attention. I find the irony and the insensitivity of this situation extremely frustrating. My colleague from Mississauga North spoke on a very similar point of privilege on Monday of this week, and here I stand on Thursday. It is quite obvious that the government has not listened to the requests from this side of the House. Yesterday, my privileges were maliciously attacked. While I stand here under the rules of the Legislature to bring this serious matter to your attention for consideration, I submit that my privileges have been eroded individually as set out by rule 21(a).

I ask that you find the actions of this government in this matter to have breached my privileges as a member and critic. The practice and custom of the Legislature of the province of Ontario is to respect the religious observance of its members. As precedents, I cite that the standing committee on administration of justice did not sit yesterday to accommodate Mr Offer, the member for Mississauga North.

It would be my request at this time that you allot me five minutes to comment on the statement that was made by the Chairman of Management Board yesterday regarding the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): For those who were not listening, perhaps I should repeat what the member has requested, "It would be my request at this time that you allot me five minutes to comment on the statement which the Chairman of Management Board made yesterday regarding the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act." Is it agreed? Is there unanimous consent?

Interjections: Yes.

The Deputy Speaker: There is unanimous consent. Please go ahead.

Mrs Caplan: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and I accept the fact that the unanimous consent is an apology that should not have been necessary in this House.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Get on with it.

Mrs Caplan: Well, that's exactly what it is.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. You were given the privilege to use five minutes. Please use your five minutes.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LEGISLATION

Mrs Caplan: Yesterday, as has been pointed out in this House, the Chairman of Management Board tabled the employer report on the reform of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. The concerns I have are that the Chairman of Management Board's statement, which he tabled and laid in this House, is substantially different from the statement which was circulated to members.

Over the course of time since I first began in government in 1985, the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act has been something that has been discussed as being in need of reform. I can say to the Chairman of Management Board that the paper he has tabled today is substantially different from the approach that would have been taken by any government other than an NDP government. The reason it is substantially different is because his government does not understand its role as the employer.

The forced unionization -- and that is what this report is inferring -- will automatically force 2,000 members now in the excluded class to pay union dues to OPSEU, notwithstanding what you have said. The others are very concerned how they are going to even have the opportunity to decide whether or not they wish to have a bargaining agent or which agent they should choose to have that they will then --

Hon David S. Cooke (Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet): You haven't read the report.

Mrs Caplan: I certainly have read the report. The Chairman of the Management Board is quite incorrect if he suggests that even though I was not in the House yesterday, I haven't had a chance to review this matter. I have.

I can tell him that from the very beginning of the attempts of this government to bring in reforms to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the estimates of the number of people who would be affected by this have been between 7,000 and 10,000. The fact that this report acknowledges that potentially 9,000 people will be impacted, I think, suggests that the concerns of your very own employees are valid and that the minister has not listened.

You suggest in this report that you've had 15 months of consultation. I would remind the minister that his own employees were only consulted in July of this year. There is all kinds of evidence to suggest that there have been secret meetings between the former Chairman of the Management Board on numerous occasions over a period of a year before that, and in this fiscal year, July 1992 was the first time your own employees were notified of your attempts to make these changes -- in July of this year. It is now October.

This report is being tabled, and people are feeling very concerned that the government has not listened to them. They're very concerned as to what your process is going to be, because this is going to have a serious impact on them. You are not behaving as a good employer, and you are also not behaving in the public interest. The crown employees, the public servants in Ontario, deserve to have an employer who understands their role and will not force either the paying of union dues on them or the fact that they will not have the kinds of rights you would wish the private sector employers would allow them.

I would say to the Chairman of the Management Board that it is in the public interest for you to remember that not only are you the government; you are the employer. You are not -- and I stress -- the head of the union. You are not part of the union. You have an obligation to behave as the employer and treat your employees fairly. Secret meetings behind doors is not the way to go. You must treat your employees fairly and equitably. The tabling of this report at this time --

Interjections.

Mrs Caplan: I don't know why you're laughing. This is very serious. There are 9,000 employees out there who are very concerned about it.

I would suggest to you, Chairman of the Management Board, that we're looking forward to seeing what your amendments are going to be when you actually table them, because this draft suggests that the people in the public service of Ontario have a right to be concerned, and the province has a right to be concerned as to whose interests you're representing.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I assume, then, that we're now in rotation, Mr Speaker?

The Deputy Speaker: Please take your seat. Please take your seat. If there is unanimous consent, the Chair has no -- is there unanimous consent? No unanimous consent.

The member for Scarborough North, on a point of privilege.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): While I'm on my feet, I want to congratulate the Minister of Correctional Services. This morning there was a scheduled meeting between the Minister of Correctional Services and a Dr Humphrey about the increased cases of HIV in correctional institutions. He also has -- under privilege, Mr Speaker -- another scheduled meeting on Tuesday. I wonder if the minister will be reporting to the House about the outcome, especially with the Bell Cairn --

The Deputy Speaker: Oral questions.

1420

ORAL QUESTIONS

NUCLEAR POWER FACILITY

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I must confess, while I rise to pose a question to the Minister of Energy, I do so with a great deal of concern and fear for the people of Bruce county and for those who work at the Bruce nuclear power station.

The Minister of Energy and the Premier and their appointed chair, who is just about ready to take leave for British Columbia, have been reported in the Ottawa Citizen of today's date, on the front page of section D, to be closing down the Bruce nuclear plant and in fact making the case publicly about a meeting to be held today between members of the board with respect to technical criteria and the environmental committee of the board in order that they make recommendations to the board meeting of October 19, about which I spoke yesterday.

The potential for losing between 300 and 700 jobs, roughly, at the Bruce nuclear generating station has caused great concern, a tremendous amount of dislocation today, as we move towards the Thanksgiving holiday season, and it has in fact destabilized the economy of my particular area.

I wish to ask the Minister of Energy if he can confirm that he and his chairman are orchestrating with the Premier the shutdown of Bruce A nuclear power generating station.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Energy): First of all, I haven't seen the article from the Ottawa Citizen which the member's referring to, but it is unfortunate that the member hasn't been paying attention for the last couple of weeks.

There was a document tabled by Ontario Hydro at the Environmental Assessment Board hearing about two weeks ago that indicated that Ontario Hydro was reviewing a list of about 10 or 12 capital projects for the purpose of deferral, because rate increases this year and next year have been rather large and we're looking seriously at ways to try to reduce the impact of rate increases in the province of Ontario over the next several years. There's a range of deferrals, including stories last week about the chair of Hydro talking to Manitoba Hydro about deferral of the purchase from Manitoba. There are deferrals being considered. This minister is not and has not been involved, and neither has the Premier, in any discussions of closing Bruce A.

Mr Elston: The development and putting in place of Bill 118, of course, was designed to give the Premier and the Minister of Energy direct control over what in fact takes place at Hydro.

While I am concerned that this type of material was provided to the people of the Ottawa area through its paper, the Citizen, a paper I regularly review, it isn't always delivered door to door in Kincardine or Port Elgin, where the effects of this decision and this orchestration of yours will have terrible economic consequences for the women and men who've been providing quite high-level service to the Ontario Hydro ratepayers over the long term.

I have information that says that, contrary to the reports which you have somehow been able to leak to the environment writer in the Citizen, there's a recommendation by Hydro that the nuclear stations be retained. But I ask, who is putting that case to the special meeting arranged by your chairman, Mr Eliesen, before he takes his vacation, when in fact Mr Holt has been fired and you have arranged to ensure that the top vice-presidents at Ontario Hydro have also been given their walking papers, or at least your intention has been well known to give them their walking papers?

Hon Mr Charlton: It's interesting that the House leader for the official opposition, the sneaky fellow that he is, has managed to get his sticky little hands on the document that was tabled at the EAB hearing by Mr Eliesen. It's a public document. What's the problem here? This is what Hydro put out publicly.

Mr Elston: I don't care if he thinks I'm sneaky; I don't care if he thinks I'm anything. What I care about more than anything else is that the women and men of the Bruce nuclear power station are treated fairly for the length of service they have provided for this province, for the high level of efficiency they have generated through Bruce. I am concerned that when the official report is publicly tabled by the Hydro people, we'll be ignored because you have terminated the positions of all those people who would know something about this stuff.

I will defend the people of Bruce county. I don't care what he thinks of me. I want to know who is going to be treating those people fairly in this orchestrated and this sort of terrible, malicious attack on the very productive units at Bruce nuclear station when the technical reports of that area have shown that there is efficiency in their rehabilitation.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The question has been asked.

Mr Elston: I want the Minister of Energy to stand up today and say that he will protect the efficiency and that he will ensure the real technical story is given to those board meetings.

The Deputy Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon Mr Charlton: The member has gotten himself rather exercised.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: He has talked about protecting the people who work at Bruce. There are also people who work at a number of other Hydro facilities around this province, who are also on that review list. All of those people and their families are part of the considerations that Hydro will make as it reviews its capital expenditure deferrals.

The member in question has said here in the House that somehow a decision has been made to close Bruce A. To the best of my knowledge, no such decision has been made. The review is a review to defer capital expenditures, to try over the course of the next several years -- and as far as I know, the Hydro board has not yet made the decision about which of the projects will be deferred and which will proceed on schedule.

FOOD BANKS

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. In 1990 Premier Bob Rae said that the use of food banks "is something we can tackle as a government and can improve on over the first term." That was October 1990 after he formed the government.

By October 1991 the use of food banks increased by more than 50% in the greater Toronto area. As the Daily Bread Food Bank begins its Thanksgiving food drive, it tells us that the use of food banks in the province of Ontario and here in Metropolitan Toronto has increased by 85% since you took office in 1990.

My question to the minister is, do you still intend to keep that promise?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): I have risen in this House a number of times to say that indeed we do believe that the institutions of food banks are not the way in which we should be attempting to deal with poverty. We as a government have made improvements in the social assistance system to try to increase the adequacy of those allowances, but we all know in Ontario what a toll the recession has taken, that we have higher numbers on social assistance than ever before. We have people subsisting on UIC levels for shorter periods of time as a result of federal action. We have an economy that is certainly causing us a lot of difficulty.

We certainly intend to continue to work on the issue of those who are hungry, of poverty on many fronts, particularly the reform of social assistance, and certainly it is our hope that we will able to make real inroads into the need for food banks by the end of this term. But when the Premier made those remarks, none of us expected the depth or the length of the recession that we have suffered, and that has certainly cut into our ability to improve the adequacy of benefits.

1430

Mrs Caplan: That is such a sad commentary on the actions, and the inaction, that have been taken by your government.

In 1991 the NDP government said it would solve the food bank problem by putting people back to work. In 1992 your Premier said that stimulating the economy was the solution. Yet every day in this province we hear of more job losses, more people on social assistance and more people using food banks because you, Minister, and your government are incapable of solving the problem. After two years, you have done absolutely nothing.

I ask you, on behalf of the hungry people in this province, when will it be the right time for you to take some action and help the hungry people of this province?

Hon Mrs Boyd: My colleagues and I feel just as passionately as our eloquent colleague across the floor about the tragedy of hunger and poverty in this province. But we are clear, and have stated in this House many times, that Ontario is only part of a worldwide recession and that we have specific problems around restructuring our economy in Ontario because of the lack of ongoing restructuring that has happened over the last 25 years. We are suffering tremendously in this province as a result of the free trade deal and will continue to suffer as NAFTA grinds on with the federal government's action.

Frankly, this kind of situation is one that is very difficult for the government to cope with. We share the concerns of the member opposite and we have indeed done much. It is sheer nonsense for her to say we have done nothing. We put millions of dollars into the anti-recession action last year, we have put $1.1 billion into the Jobs Ontario Training fund and we are continuing our work to try and help our industries to restructure and to attract industry to this country.

Mrs Caplan: That's a shameful answer coming from the Minister of Community and Social Services. Ontario is faring worse. We are doing worse under your government and under your leadership than anyone else in North America during this worldwide recession, because of your leadership. We are doing worse because of your inaction and people are suffering because you are making it worse. Your policies are causing people to lose their jobs and fear for the future.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Question.

Mrs Caplan: Since 1990, the use of food banks in the greater Toronto area has increased by 85%. The Daily Bread Food Bank has set a target for this Thanksgiving food drive of two million pounds of food. We have even heard that food banks are being established for the very first time on the university campuses in this province and that 80 to 90 students per month are in need of that kind of assistance. That's a shameful NDP legacy in this province. I say to the minister, how much more will the use of food banks have to increase before you and your government take some action to help hungry people in this province?

Hon Mrs Boyd: If we want to talk about legacy, we better talk about the legacy of governments past. Food banks didn't start under this government; they started under the previous two governments, and in times of prosperity. The Liberal government had lots of money to spend and it did not close the food banks.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Minister, there was so much noise that I didn't hear if you had finished your response. Would you wish to add on? You were finished.

VEHICLE LICENCE REFUNDS

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, last year your ministry refunded $13.6 million to Ontario residents who returned their vehicle licence plates to the licensing offices. In most cases these were small refunds, in some cases $1.50 or $2. The administrative cost for issuing and mailing one single refund was $35. Last year your ministry spent $10 million to process these refund cheques. This is absolutely incredible incompetence, because last year you refunded only $13 million. What an absolute waste of $10 million. Minister, can you justify an administrative cost of $35 for each and every cheque you send out?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Mr Speaker, before I deal with the question, you will allow me to convey our sincere condolences to a friend, the member opposite, who is our critic, on the passing away of his brother. Welcome back, David.

To the question itself, we're not aware but we're reviewing the process and you're quite right: There's no hiding from the fact that if it doesn't make economic sense, it is least defensible.

You're also very much aware and cognizant that at Transportation we have 9,700 employees and we have the responsibility of monitoring and enforcing, in accordance with the statutes, 6.3 million licensees. We conduct on the order of 70 million transactions in each and every fiscal year.

The member is correct: We have to be more vigilant because there are some difficulties in explaining why a program costing so many dollars is not reconciled with the revenues that the program should entail. What we do is reconcile the ability to look at the program in its ensemble and this is where you find the correct arithmetic and mathematics.

I invite the member opposite to share in the knowledge that the people of the ministry make available on a daily basis so that when he asks a question he will be meticulous and will be able to focus not only on one element, but on the overall picture at Transportation.

Mr Turnbull: First of all, I thank the minister for his sympathy, but I have to tell you, my brother who died was a good Conservative and he would have been just as disgusted as I am.

I really would like us to have a recording of the Skaters' Waltz available to play every time this minister gets up to utter all this drivel that has nothing to do with the question. My question was, why does it take $10 million to give back $13 million?

Your Treasurer is desperately looking for new ways to tax the people of Ontario, taxes that people and business simply cannot afford. Instead of brainstorming on new ways to tax the people of Ontario, why don't you do just a bit of thinking of better ways to reduce this ridiculously high administrative cost?

Minister, during the Transportation estimates, you stated, "We will control our spending." Do you remember that? You said, "We will control our spending." Here's an opportunity to trim $10 million and all you have to do is give the rebates as cash across the counter in the offices that are collecting money when you buy a licence. Fairly simple; I think even your party can understand the logic of that.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Oh, I am not sure.

Mr Turnbull: No, I guess that was unfair: I'm giving you too much credit.

You have an opportunity to save tax money, to get administrative costs under control. Other than saying your words about controlling, have you done anything about controlling costs?

Hon Mr Pouliot: I owe the member an apology for the answer that I gave to the original question. I should have known. Who else but the critic of the third party would remind us of a policy that was put in place years ago by the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario? This is not like the GST. In this case, we put more into the system in terms of service than what we take in. With the GST, it's the very opposite. It's a very lucrative endeavour. They pick the pockets of everyone, and both pockets.

Because nothing is etched or cast in stone, we are consistently reviewing programs and making them more equitable. This is yet another program where we're acting on it. It's not a matter of breaking even, it's a matter of providing the essential service.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I would ask the members, when a minister or any one of you is recognized to address the House, that you respect that individual as you would like to be respected yourself, please. Supplementary.

1440

Mr Turnbull: I don't know about being cast in stone. I think you should all be cast in concrete for that answer.

A related matter: Truckers pay for their licence plates at the time of purchase. If they take their licence plates back, it takes four to six weeks to get a rebate for their prorated plates. Minister, in some cases it's taking two months or even more to get that back. You're very well aware that this money belongs to the truckers, Minister; it doesn't belong to the government. You know also that the truckers have a great cash-flow problem at the moment. The trucking industry is in desperate straits.

Your government has lost control of the economy. We across here clearly understand that and the vast majority of the voters in this province know you've lost control over the economy. You're incapable of dealing with the big problems.

The Deputy Speaker: Question?

Mr Turnbull: This is a small problem, Minister. Are you going to address this small problem and make sure the truckers get their rebates within 20 days?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Obviously, by his own admission, it's a small problem but important, no less, to the people who have to deal with the rebate. The well must be running pretty dry when you get a leader's question on a housekeeping matter. It used to take eight to 10 weeks; it now takes four to six weeks to get the rebate. It's better than ever before but not yet fast enough. We'll try to make it better yet.

EDUCATION POLICY

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is to the Minister of Education. Mr Minister, over the summer the schools received an education policy program memorandum 115. One of the statements in that program said, "No credit shall be assigned to the program offered in grade 9."

Mr Minister, the students, the parents, the teachers, even your regional officers are having difficulty explaining the intent of this memorandum and the curriculum that ought to go with it. They're very confused and concerned. Just this week at a public meeting I had a parent ask me if this will be a pass-fail system. If you don't have any credit, will the student pass, or will the student fail? If so, is that the kind of system we're going to have in our secondary schools, like our elementary schools? Does it really mean, if a student fails the course, he will fail his whole year? I explained that surely that wasn't the intention of the ministry, because our intention is to keep young people in school.

So I'm giving you an opportunity, Mr Minister. If indeed there are no credits for grade 9 programs -- and you call them programs; you don't call them courses or subjects, just programs; it's very vague; I can't understand it -- would you then tell us how many credits these young people will need to graduate with their Ontario secondary school diploma and would you explain the pass-fail system?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): The changes the critic for the third party is referring to of course relate to the destreaming of grade 9 and would take effect in September 1993. It doesn't take effect until that time.

We felt, in responding to requests from school boards, that it was important to put in that memorandum, at the time we sent it out last June, the notion that with the destreamed grade 9 there would not be the need for the continuation of the credit system to apply to the grade 9 courses. There is still certainly the need for students to pass the courses and there would then obviously be a recalculation in the interim period of the credits students would have to achieve to get their secondary school diploma, taking into account the eight credits that would be achieved normally in a grade 9 year.

That really is a simple answer in terms of the question of how the recalculation is being made. I'm surprised by the comment that was made that our regional offices don't have answers to these questions, because there's been a lot of discussion with them and they certainly ought to be able to answer these kinds of inquiries from school boards.

The Speaker: Supplementary?

Mrs Cunningham: I had a really great supplementary question, but I'm not going to ask it. I'm going to ask the first one all over again, because I didn't get an answer to my question.

Number one, how many credits will these students now need, since they don't have a credit in grade 9, to get their OSSD diploma? That's the answer the parents are asking of all of us. How many credits will they need to graduate, given this new system?

Second, we also know now that the grade 10 program will be changed. Obviously it's been decided by the minister in that destreaming will take effect in grade 10 by September 1994, so you get a chance to answer that question. In that year, how many credits will the students need in order to get their OSSD diploma?

Hon Mr Silipo: I thought I said in answer to the first question that what would be done in the calculation of the credits is to take into account the eight credits a student normally is expected to achieve in any one year, so if we're not counting the credits in grade 9 towards the completion of a secondary school diploma, then it would be eight fewer credits than under the present system. I thought that was a pretty straightforward answer that I gave.

Mrs Cunningham: What is it?

Hon Mr Silipo: Eight fewer than present.

Mrs Cunningham: Well, what's present, in your book?

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

Hon Mr Silipo: With respect to grade 10, I want to remind the member opposite that there has been no decision made with respect to that issue, and that is part of the discussion that's going on now, both inside the ministry and with school boards.

The Deputy Speaker: Final supplementary?

Mrs Cunningham: It's very clear why our regional offices and our principals and our teachers can't answer the question, because the minister can't answer the question. I'm not trying to be disrespectful; I'm looking for answers.

I should say at this point in time that all of us in this House represent families and students and parents, and they want to know what curriculum is accompanying this grade 9 program, and now a grade 10 program that has been affirmed as being destreamed a year from now.

My question is this: There are comprehensive guidelines, I'm expecting, that are being developed, and the school systems want to know now the big picture. They want to know, in those guidelines, where OTAB courses fit in, where the new SWAP program that the minister talked about fits in, where the ESL program fits in and where apprenticeship programs and OTAB fit in. All of these are pieces we don't understand. It's not good enough to tell the students that they're going to be destreamed now in grade 10. We want the big picture. When will you be releasing the guidelines, as you should already have done, for the students and the teachers and the parents so they'll know what's happening within the next month?

Hon Mr Silipo: I'm not sure what guidelines the member opposite is specifically referring to. I have indicated, in the House and outside of the House, that we are pulling together what we believe to be major statements on directions for the school system, that those will be available later in the fall, and that we will try to set very clearly within that both the expectations that we should have for the school system and ongoing ways in which our teachers can be supported in delivering that.

There may be, certainly inadvertently, an attempt here to try to confuse an issue that I think is not as complicated as it needs to be. Again, I've said on more than one occasion that we are working away at these issues, we are continuing to talk with school boards and other people in the system on these issues, so none of these things are coming as a surprise and we will be able to make some more detailed responses in the not too distant future.

Mrs Cunningham: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I've just been told that I am attempting to confuse the issue. I feel the issue is so confused that I, as a critic, cannot answer the questions, and I object --

The Deputy Speaker: This is not a point of privilege.

1450

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Treasurer regarding the whole issue of jobs, which for the people in my constituency and certainly for our party is perhaps the number one issue.

The Treasurer will know that tomorrow the unemployment numbers will come out. Most economists predict they will improve; each September they do improve over August, so we are expecting an improvement tomorrow. But we are in this province devastated by the unemployment rates. We have seen 600 full-time jobs lost to the economy every single working day in the province in the last two years; every single working day, 600 full-time jobs. The unemployment rate has literally doubled in the province and it is the issue of number one concern to our party.

In your budget, Treasurer, you predicted that we would see 125,000 net extra jobs this fiscal year. The people of the province are counting on that; they assume that will be the case. My question is this: Do you continue to stand by the 125,000 jobs and, for tomorrow, what sort of drop in the unemployment rate will we see in order for you to hit your targets?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I can't tell the member opposite what the unemployment rate is going to be tomorrow or the next day; he appreciates that. In terms of the projection in the budget that there would be 125,000 jobs created this year, there's no question in my mind that we will not achieve those numbers. I think that's clear to everyone. When I went back and looked at the projections by our own folks in Treasury and by other independent forecasting agencies, I found a striking similarity: because of the economy recovering more slowly than anybody anticipated even six months ago, those numbers of jobs will not be achieved in this year. I don't think there's any doubt about that.

Mr Phillips: That's sad news for the people of Ontario, particularly as we approach Thanksgiving Day. I'm very sorry to hear those numbers.

The issue that I think many people feel will have the most impact on jobs is Bill 40. I know there's a difference of opinion on that. Some people in the business community are circulating material that says 295,000 jobs lost as a result of that; many people in the business community feel there is going to be a substantial job loss. People in the union movement say that's crazy, that there will be no job loss.

The point, Treasurer, is that I think you and your staff are the only people who have an opportunity to try and quantify this, to referee this. I will say that Treasury staff do job estimate impacts on all sorts of things. If there's a new tax measure brought in, they estimate the job impact. They estimate the job impact on new equipment investment. They estimate the job impact in terms of capital. The Treasury people can do job estimates on virtually anything. Right in the Treasurer's staff he has quality people who can step in and do the analysis.

We now know what the final bill will look like. We now know we can do the research on it. There is a strong feeling out there, I think universally in the business community; I can't find one business person who doesn't believe it's going to have a strong negative impact. The union movement feels the opposite. I would say to the Treasurer that he has an obligation to ask his Treasury officials to take that bill and provide the House, the Legislature and, more importantly, the people of Ontario with an analysis of what will be the impact.

My question is this, Treasurer: Will you undertake today to ask your officials to take that bill and give us their best estimate of what kind of impact it will have on employment here in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Laughren: The thought that you could quantify the impact of changes in the Labour Relations Act just doesn't make sense, any more than when he was the Minister of Labour in the previous government he was able to quantify the job impact on Bill 162 that changed certain aspects of life in Ontario. I don't believe he would have pretended at that point that you could do it, and I don't think you can quantify it now with these changes to the Labour Relations Act. I don't believe it's going to cost jobs, and I might say as well that before you start painting Ontario as being the recipient of labour legislation --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Here we go. Bash the feds.

Hon Mr Laughren: No, I'm not bashing the feds. Other jurisdictions in North America and elsewhere -- in Europe, in Japan -- are having serious problems in this recession. Those places are not all bringing in labour reform, yet they're still having problems. Neighbouring jurisdictions in the United States are having serious economic problems as well. To try to paint our economic problems as being caused by changes to the Labour Relations Act just doesn't hold water, doesn't make any sense.

I don't believe you can quantify through speculation the kinds of changes, because I can tell the member opposite that a very large number of large companies in this province, many of which are part of a coalition against the labour reform, are the very companies that have made very substantial investments in the province and continue to do so, because even though they may not like the labour reform changes, they still believe this is the best place in the world to invest and to work.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is for the Minister of Labour. Minister, as you know, many groups and individuals have accused you of failing to consult with them regarding Bill 40. During the past year I have repeatedly raised this issue and you have consistently said that you believe you have consulted with those affected by this legislation. Perhaps you have consulted, but you certainly did not listen.

Today I would like to raise another example of your failure to consult with the people affected by your unionization schemes. However, this time it is not the business community; it is the union membership. Ever since you introduced Bill 80, I have received numerous phone calls, letters and visits from construction unions that will be affected by this legislation, legislation which affects the disaffiliation provisions, benefit plan trustees, trusteeships and, most importantly, union democracy in the construction industry. These unions are shocked that you have brought forward this legislation without consulting them.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Question.

Mrs Witmer: They are amazed that a minister who talks about representing workers has not taken the time to meet with them to discuss this issue before introducing the legislation. Minister, will you tell us what specific problems or cases have come to your attention to prompt you to bring in Bill 80?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I think the member for Waterloo North should understand that the issue of union democracy -- if that's what she wants to call it -- within the construction trades is one that's been around for a long, long time. In the course of my 15 years in opposition as Labour critic in this House, I've had delegation after delegation come in to me asking for consideration for some changes in the role or authority they have within their own local unions.

I can also tell the honourable member that there has been extensive consultation, which is ongoing right now, with the AFL-CIO, with the internationals, with the local unions. I have met with many of them, almost all of them, on this issue, and we have been trying to work out a mutually agreeable arrangement on it. She is wrong when she says there is no concern or no understanding of the differences or the concerns of some of the workers in the construction field.

Mrs Witmer: Mr Minister, I have a pile of letters here from different unions indicating that there has been no consultation, that you have ignored their views and are proceeding with this bill. I want you to know that people are concerned that you haven't consulted with them, and I'd like to review with you the list of people who are concerned. We have the Boilermakers, we have the Carpenters, we have the Painters. I'd like you to tell us again what specific cases, since you didn't answer the first time.

1500

These people would like to know why you are introducing this bill when there is no demonstrated need for this legislation, and they would like to know, the Electricians, the Boilermakers, the Sheet Metal Workers, the Bricklayers, the Iron Workers unions: Why are you in such a hurry to proceed with it before you have consulted and listened to these people?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: It's unfortunate the kind of almost hatred we see for some union leaders in this province from some members of this House.

Let me make it clear to the member. Her own statement obviously makes it clear that we don't always say or do what the unions ask us to do, and I can tell her that I can bring in a sheaf of petitions just as large as the one she indicated on the other side of it. This is an issue that does cause some concern and divides the local unions, but when she says that there is absolutely no reason for this, I ask her: Why was it that at the Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council, just last week, four sections of the bill were overwhelmingly approved and one was narrowly voted down when it debated Bill 80 in some detail at its meeting?

FILING OF CORPORATE INFORMATION

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Madam Minister, I recently attended a meeting of the Grimsby and District Chamber of Commerce, where it was brought to my attention that many businesses are concerned about a $50 fee for incorporated companies. Recently, incorporated businesses received a letter from the companies branch of your ministry requesting corporate information and a $50 fee. In this economic environment, this seems excessive to businesses that are trying to stay afloat. Can the minister explain why this fee is required?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I'd like to start by saying that every other jurisdiction -- that includes the provinces, territories and the federal government -- all require annual filing of corporate information with a fee, and prior to 1976 all corporations in the province of Ontario were required to do the same, but that was dropped. What happened as a result was that after 1976 the mandatory requirement was lifted and many corporations became very lax in their filing.

I want to point out that this database is used 350,000 times a year by both businesses and individuals, so it's an important information database, and at the end of the day it has to be kept up to date for the benefit of the people, the businesses and the individuals. It's completely out of date, it is a mess because people have become lax, and we simply have to get it back in order again.

I must say that the fee also is comparable to all the fees charged for this across the country. It is about the same. We're merely keeping up with what the rest of the country is doing.

Mr Hansen: In a letter sent to me also from the chambers, according to the notices received, there is a short period of just 30 days allotted to complete this filing and presumably some penalty will be imposed. Since many firms in these difficult times are spending all their time keeping their businesses afloat so they can continue their role as job providers to Ontario workers, a 30-day time frame is hardly realistic.

Madam Minister, another thing too is that some of these businesses had already filed a few weeks earlier and have to file again. And another thing is, why was this new fee introduced without any warning to business, which has to pay for it?

Hon Ms Churley: I'm sure the member and many members here would like to know the answer to this. In fact, people were given prior notice well in advance, on May 8. As far back as May 8, the ministry announced that all incorporated businesses operating in Ontario would be required to provide this updated and current information on their businesses. We started mailing out special notices and information packages to those businesses back in mid-July. So people did get lots of notice. Notices, advertisements, newspaper columns and follow-up news releases have been utilized to inform all of the groups.

I want to reiterate that this is a $50 fee. I understand that at this time any fee is problematic, but we have to clean up this database. At the end of the day it is going to benefit the businesses, because they are mostly the ones that need the information from this filing system, which is really in quite a mess right now because other governments let it drop.

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of Health. The minister will know that on numerous occasions I have raised in this House in speeches, statements and questions the appalling circumstances facing kidney dialysis patients at the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines, where all people in the Niagara region who have to be dialysed must go.

Conditions have deteriorated from uncomfortable and highly inconvenient to potentially life threatening now because the staff, who are extremely dedicated, work with antiquated equipment in very crowded conditions.

Will the minister assure the House that she will give immediate approval to a new kidney dialysis unit at the Hotel Dieu Hospital out of those funds which have been specifically allocated for purposes of this kind by the Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I thank the member for the question and indicate that many of the members in the St Catharines and Niagara region have been raising this issue with me. In fact, I think the member identifies some very serious concerns of overcrowding and outdated equipment. Over the last week we had equipment failure there which made the situation even worse, both for the patients and for the staff.

The hospital has submitted a proposal and it was approved through the functional plan and by the district health council. There is an overall study going on within the area, but we are working with the hospital with respect to the proposal that it has in. We know they're operating at very high levels of activity right now and the functional plan they have proposed has had a couple of problems with it. Those discussions have been going on and we think there are some essential modifications that will need to be done in the very near future. I hope to have a positive response for them on that very soon.

Mr Bradley: The minister will know that this situation has in fact deteriorated, that it's always been difficult in these circumstances. We recognize that, but the situation is getting worse almost by the day.

Patients are writing to me and to the other members from the Niagara Peninsula. We have had a tour of the unit and there isn't a member from the Niagara Peninsula who wouldn't agree that conditions can only be described as appalling.

That's why I ask the minister, in view of the obvious needs -- and I won't get into the details of them because I know the minister is aware of them -- will the minister give an assurance today that we won't simply have further studies because, in fairness, we've had a lot of studies of this, but that in fact she will give immediate approval, the green light, to move forward with a renewed unit or preferably a new unit so that the over 100 patients who rely on kidney dialysis and who reside in the Niagara region will be able to use this new facility at the earliest opportunity?

Hon Ms Lankin: I think the member would be well aware that the proposal for a completely new dialysis facility within the hospital is actually part of a redevelopment proposal for a number of parts of the hospital, so it's not a separate issue the hospital has put forward. The overall answer on that awaits the conclusion of the capital review process, and the DHC and all the regional hospitals are involved in that.

I hope there will be an answer on that larger picture very early in 1993, but with respect to some of the essential modifications that need to be made to stop the conditions from continuing to deteriorate -- and I understand the point he's making -- and ensure that we can meet some of the most essential modifications, I hope that in the very near future we will have a response in terms of what absolutely needs to be done and we will be able to respond with respect to what capital share the ministry will put forward for that.

1510

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is also to the Minister of Health. Minister, yesterday the Ontario Medical Association released the news that a tentative agreement had been reached which included the extension of user fees in our health care system.

Minister, your party calls these charges copayments, the Liberals called them extra billing, but no matter how you dress them up, they're all out-of-pocket charges for medical services; they are user fees. Can you tell us what other user fees you intend to bring into our health care system, and when?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I'm very glad the member asked me this question. I can tell you that I was most concerned when I read the headlines in some of the media that characterized elements of this agreement as introduction of user fees. Nothing could be further from the truth. I understand that in ratification of the settlement the OMA may be putting forward its view of the whole and total package, but with respect to the issue of the $20 million that will be removed from the OHIP base for third-party billings, I want to point out to the member that the current Health Insurance Act, in regulation 53, says, "The following are deemed not to be insured services," and section 8 says, "A service that is required by a statute or regulation or for a person other than the patient."

Currently, we have very good examples where that is managed well. It wasn't in the past, but over the last number of years the previous government and our government have worked to try to better manage examples such as workers' compensation. Where a doctor performs a medical service and it is for a patient who is a recipient of workers' compensation benefits and the cause of the illness or the problem the treatment is being given for is related to a workplace accident, that is not billed to OHIP; that is billed to the Workers' Compensation Board now. OHIP used to pick up a large amount of that inappropriately.

Similarly, there are other third-party requests that are not covered under health insurance that some doctors bill directly to OHIP incorrectly. We're going to work with doctors to clear that up. I believe that this is effective management.

I know that the OMA has been characterizing this as the thin edge of the wedge with respect to user fees or deinsuring services. Let me assure this House, nothing could be further from the truth. I will not entertain moves in that direction.

Mr Jim Wilson: The minister knows full well that user fees already exist in the health care system. Yesterday's list of charges for insurance and school medicals, back-to-work notes, accident and disability claims only adds to the slate of user fees already in place.

The unemployed truck driver who must pay $50 out of pocket for a doctor to do an examination and to fill out the forms simply so he or she can renew his annual licence considers that $50 to be a user fee.

One of your first acts of coming into office was to increase the user fee for ambulance services in this province. Whether they were medical emergency cases or non-emergency transfers, people are being sent bills today from the ambulance service for taking those ambulance rides, as it were. We've also got user fees in your own long-term care documents, and they exist in the chronic care sector.

The NDP endorses user fees. Will you commit today to a full public discussion of where user fees should be appropriately placed in the system instead of continuing to run around the province denying that these exist? Get off your sanctimonious horse, acknowledge that user fees are in the system now, that your government has increased user fees and we should have a full public discussion of where they should be appropriately placed, because people are being charged fees now and they simply can't afford to pay them.

Hon Ms Lankin: I really enjoy the way the member always gets some sort of energy and excitement in his voice when he comes to the end of his second question. It's quite predictable. I don't know whether I provoke him or what happens, but it's quite a pattern between the two of us.

Let me say first of all, I want to correct the member that this is an introduction of a new fee. I want to use his example of an application for a licence. Let's say someone is going out to get their commercial pilot's licence and is required to have a medical certificate. Does the member suggest that this is something that is insured under the Health Insurance Act of Ontario or is something that is covered by medicare and universality and access provisions under the Canada Health Act? I assure the member it never has been covered, and in many cases where it has been charged to the taxpayers of Ontario, it has been incorrectly charged and inappropriately paid. We are trying to better manage that part of the system.

To be fair, the member used the example of an unemployed trucker. He now brings forward a situation where someone may not have money available to pay for something. Surely that is a different issue than someone not having money to pay for accessibility to necessary medical treatment. You are talking about an application, something that is required by an employer or by another statute, not by the health care system.

Very quickly, Mr Speaker -- I understand and appreciate your patience -- the other issue the member raises is with respect to other parts of health services and social services and whether or not people have user fees, copayments, shared payments. They have existed for a number of years in many provinces in drug benefit programs. You referred to long-term care. In nursing homes, people already pay for part of their accommodation costs. Those things have always existed. They are not part of what is covered under medicare or under insured services, which are physicians' services and hospitals.

NATIVE EDUCATION

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): My question today is directed to the Minister of Education. Before my election as MPP for Lambton county, I was a trustee of the Lambton County Board of Education and worked diligently to further the cause of education for our native students. Happily, the community-based demonstration pilot projects, which were funded for the first time during the 1991-92 school year, set a good example of partnerships between school boards and aboriginal organizations. Can the minister tell me how many of these projects have reported on their first year and what are some of the initiatives these partnership projects have developed?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I can tell the member there were 13 demonstration projects that were funded last year involving school boards throughout the province and all of these have certainly reported in. The pilot projects clearly demonstrate the kind of collaborative work that needs to be done between native organizations and school boards to try to share information that goes to the heart of helping school systems understand the learning needs of native students.

One example that I know the member for Lambton would be particularly interested in was the project between the Lambton County Board of Education and the first nations of Kettle Point and Stony Point. That project consists of in-service training sessions to identify the special learning styles of native students and has resulted in a document that is going to be distributed to all teachers dealing with that information.

Mrs MacKinnon: I'd like to thank the minister for that direct answer. Can you tell me, Mr Minister, if it is the intention of your ministry to continue this program, and if so, do you intend to expand it to other groups, please?

Hon Mr Silipo: We certainly do intend to continue the program. We have a call for proposals out now that we expect will involve some school boards that have projects now continuing and some new school boards also being involved. We have set October 30 as the time line for responses, following which a joint committee involving representatives from the various groups will advise us on their recommendations for projects to be funded for this coming year.

ONTARIO HYDRO SPENDING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Mr Minister, you did not know yesterday but you now know that there is indeed a little bit of construction going on over on the top floor of the Ontario Hydro building. You've now learned that at least $500,000 is being spent on renovations to accommodate your five new directors. You now know that this expense was okayed or approved by your chairman, Marc Eliesen. You now know that your deputy minister knew this construction was going on.

Mr Minister, if anybody can rightfully claim ownership of this scandal, it's you. As the minister charged with responsibility for Ontario Hydro, that $500,000 stops with you. How can you spend $500,000-plus to renovate executive offices when your Minister of Community and Social Services told us she is doing everything she reasonably can to help those people who are lined up at food banks in this province?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Energy): I haven't yet received the report from the chair. Having said that, some of the issues the member has raised today I think should be addressed.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Faxed over in five minutes.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: The member has suggested that the minister should be trying to operate and make the operational day-to-day decisions at Ontario Hydro. That issue has been raised here in the House a number of times in the past and I repeat what I've said before: This minister does not intend to attempt to (a) be familiar with every single day-to-day operational decision that Hydro makes and (b) start interfering in that corporate decision-making process.

In relation to the specific expenditure, I made a commitment to the member yesterday to get the details from the chair of Ontario Hydro and to provide them to the member, and I will do that.

1520

MOTIONS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding any standing order of the House, the House will meet at 10 am on Thursday, October 15, 1992, to consider government business.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I have a petition here signed by 28 people and I have affixed my signature to it. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

"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.

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

As I said, it's signed by 28 members, and also Rev John McDonald, Newington, Ontario.

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I have a petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I sign my name to this petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition from the people of Fairview Mennonite Church in St Catharines. It reads as follows:

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

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

I affix my signature to this petition, with which I agree, and I intend to comply with the suggestion that members of this House oppose that legislation when the government has the intestinal fortitude to bring it forward.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition signed by residents of York Mills:

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

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

"That the province of Ontario not pass enabling legislation which would allow the Metropolitan council of Toronto to implement market value assessment as presently proposed due to the adverse effect that this would have on the commercial base of Metropolitan Toronto; and

"That the province of Ontario instead recommend a more equitable system of reassessing properties," such as unit value assessment, "which would encourage not discourage investment in the greater metropolitan area."

This is signed by 14 people from my riding and I attach my signature.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by 81 residents of Middlesex county residents, including people from Mount Brydges, Strathroy, Lambeth and Denfield. These Middlesex citizens petition the Legislature of Ontario to "set aside the report of the arbitrator, Mr John Brant, as it relates to the greater London area because it does not reflect the expressed wish of the majority of these constituents in the county of Middlesex. It requires too extensive an area of land for annexation and it will seriously jeopardize the viability of the county of Middlesex and our rural way of life."S

I have signed my name to this petition.

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Mr Speaker, I know you will enjoy this petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

I have signed this petition as well.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition here:

"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 would cause increased hardship on retailers, retail employees and their families. The proposed amendments to the Business Holidays Act, Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all holidays 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 people from Beaverton, Sutton West and Georgina as well, so I affix my name to this.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Mr Speaker, I indeed have a petition to read:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have a signed this petition and heartily concur with it.

1530

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition here to the members of the provincial Parliament.

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

"I believe in the need to 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 Holiday Act of Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

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 Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): When last the House rose on this issue, I believe the honourable member for Mississauga South had the floor. She is not here at this point, so we will go, in the natural rotation, to the government side. I recognize the honourable member for Cochrane South.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): It's with a great deal of pleasure that I have an opportunity to participate in this debate today. Much has been said about the whole question of auto insurance and the Ontario motorist protection plan, a lot of harsh words, a lot of, I would say, rhetoric on the part of some of the people in the opposition, especially considering that it is a plan that was initially developed by the Liberal government in the past, a departure from the way insurance was delivered in this province before. Because what we're really doing is adding benefits to the existing plan, for them to stand in this House today and to criticize the plan I find a little hard to understand and a bit ludicrous.

Anyway, I'm just going to take a few minutes. I want to go through some of the changes that have been made within the plan itself in regard to the changes we're proposing to the House today and how things will develop further on.

First of all, one of the big, big changes within the plan is that under the old OMPP introduced under the Liberal government, if you had disability benefits they weren't indexed. One of the things we're saying is that we're going to index those benefits so that the money you receive today moves along with the cost of inflation over the years to come. Let's say, for example, an individual gets injured tomorrow, ends up on disability insurance and receives $550 a week. To freeze that $550 a week in time and 10 years later pay the same $550, we all know that's not going to be worth a heck of a lot. We need to make sure we index those benefits so that the money the individual receives rises with the cost of inflation so the person doesn't have to undergo any undue hardships.

There are four major categories we've made some changes to, and I want to touch on a couple of them really quickly. One of the things is the question of the temporarily unemployed. Under the old OMPP, the temporarily unemployed received somewhere in the neighbourhood of $185 a week. Basically, they stayed under that system and those numbers until such time as they went back to work; if they remained permanently disabled, they still received $185 a week as a maximum, because they were considered to be unemployed.

Unfortunately, there are people out there who, because of things that happen in our economy, such as a recession, are on layoff and are not expected to be unemployed for the rest of their days. They worked at Stelco or Dome Mines or wherever it might be, and because of the recession find themselves without employment. We've said one of the things we're going to do is recognize the fact that these people are not unemployed because they want to be; they're unemployed because of circumstance and, given the choice, would return to work. Therefore, we need to redress that underneath the OMPP.

Initially, when the person becomes injured, he would receive the disability benefits under a temporary nature, but after a period of time we would treat him the same way as anybody else who was to become injured; in other words, we treat him as an employed person. They would then receive 90% of their pre-disability income at the time of injury.

For example, let's say an individual worked at Dome Mines in Timmins and was driving down the street and got injured; the person was temporarily on layoff and ends up being injured. That person, let's say, received some $40,000 per year prior to being injured. What we're saying is at a given point time we would give the person 90% of that $40,000 per year and, on top of that, we would index those benefits as well. That's a recognition of the circumstances, to alleviate some of the hardships of the individual who was injured.

The other thing we did was around the question of care givers. One thing the Liberal plan did was to say that if you are -- I use this term so people understand the term I'm using -- a person who stays at home and takes care of children, either the male or the female partner, if you decide you want to stay at home and take care of your children, under the Liberal plan, if mom or dad drove down the street and became injured, if they are the care giver and don't have an income coming in because they're at home taking care of the kids, they'd get $50 for each child within the family unit; $185 per week in disability insurance from the insurance company, but a maximum of $200 when it comes to the question of the children.

The reality is that the person who chooses to stay at home to take care of the family has a full-time job, and that person is incapacitated in the sense that he or she can't fulfil some of the requirements of taking care of the family unit. We've recognized that and said we're going to change the program such that we're going to give $250 per week for the first child of the family unit; each child after that will be an additional $50 a week towards that care giver. Theoretically, if I have five children in my family, I would initially receive $250 for the first child, $50 a week for each child after and, on top of that, we would give $185 a week to the care giver herself or himself.

But we're giving you an option: If the person who is the care giver has worked within the past three years, we are going to allow you to claim as anybody else who had been injured, and we will consider your pre-disability income.

Let's say I had a child in the month of January last year, and I decide I want to stay home and raise that child because my spouse makes more than I do. I go home and do that. If all of a sudden I become injured, we're saying you can consider your pre-disability income as part of your settlement in regard to insurance.

So the person has a choice: You choose the one that is greater. You made, say, $50,000 a year and would get 90% of that, or, if you were not working, you would get the care giver's supplement, which is a total of $250 for the first child, $50 for each child after and $185 a week.

The other thing we've done concerns students. The student provision put forward under the Liberal OMPP has also been changed. This is quite a contentious issue, so I want to get my notes out so I get the figures right; I have all kinds of papers in front of me. Don't tell me I don't have this. That's the problem: You come out to do these things and put all kinds of papers on your desk and you say, "Where did I put it?" I'll go on to the next one and I'll remember when I come back.

On the question of what happens to death benefits and funeral benefits, we've said we're also going to increase those. There was a ceiling on the funeral benefit of $3,000 under the Liberal plan; we will move that up to a $6,000 ceiling. On the question of the death benefit, we will move from $25,000 for a spouse or $10,000 for a surviving dependent to $50,000 to $200,000 for a spouse or for other dependents.

What I'm getting at is that I've sat here and listened to this debate for the last three or four days, and there were a couple of members of the opposition that got up and I thought tried to make arguments that make some sense about how far we should have gone as a government and how many benefits we should have given and what we should have done in order to increase the benefits to the accident victim. That's fair game.

But the problem I have is, how can a party that was the government previously and introduced the plan get up and criticize its own plan that it put in in the first place? In effect, that's what they were doing. I find that a little hard to follow, in that sense.

1540

One of the things that was raised, especially by the Conservative Party and by some members of our own caucus, was the whole question of what happens around the question of the right to sue. It's important that we address that in this debate. There are clearly some instances, and nobody would argue, where the right to sue might be a good thing, but there are also clearly a lot of examples where, with the right to sue, the person actually ends up with less than he would get under this plan.

I want to give you two concrete examples, two people I know within my community; I'm not going to get into names. One individual was injured around the age of 18 or 19 in a motorcycle accident. The person was injured and incapacitated for some five years, three of those years basically learning how to live again, because the injuries this individual received were quite serious. Due to those injuries, today he is incapable of earning an income because his injuries are incapacitating to the point that he can't function within the workplace. Sure, he can walk around, he can talk to people, he can do odds and sods, he can do different things, but to sit at a job and concentrate on what that individual has to do over a period of time gets difficult for him because of the type of injuries he received.

Under the tort system, this person went to court and hired a battery of lawyers. It's interesting that a lot of the people who are upset by this are lawyers; I don't mean to dump on lawyers, but let's put this in perspective. He went to court, and it took some two to three years to be settled. During the two or three years he went to court, he didn't get any money, but lived on social assistance while learning how to live again at special schools he had to go to in Toronto; yes, it was paid through our health care system. In the end, he got a settlement. It sounds like a lot of money -- I'm not going to get into the dollars -- but the long and short of this story is that of the money he got, over 50% went to the legal community.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Are you speaking against your threshold test? Is that what you are speaking against?

Mr Bisson: I have my opportunity to debate, and I want to just make this point: Over 50% of the settlement went to the legal community. I don't begrudge the legal community. They have a living to make, they have costs to maintain, they have offices to run, and that's fair. It's not a question of them being exorbitant. But the point is that the settlement he got -- and this is the story he told me: "I stood in court and the judge said, 'This is what I'm talking about awarding.' When the lawyer explained it to me, I didn't quite understand what he was getting at. It sounded like a lot of money, and I did a bit of quick math and figured X amount of dollars divided into an account at such an amount of interest will give me so many dollars per month. When it comes to being able to live, it's a little low, but I can probably handle it."

He didn't realize, because of his injuries unfortunately, that the money he was actually going to get was going to be substantially less than the court settlement. Consequently, the person ended up with an amount of money that, for anybody in this chamber and most people watching us at home, if you took the money and put it on the table and said, "Live only on that," could last maybe two years if you were good at what you were doing. He didn't get a heck of a lot of money.

So here's a person who is basically incapacitated for the rest of his days when it comes to permanent employment and is now at a point where this money doesn't mean anything. What do you do with people like that? What ends up happening is that the system we have in Ontario, either social assistance, welfare or disability plans within private companies, has to pick up the tab in these cases. Is that fair to the taxpayer? Is it fair to the taxpayer of the province of Ontario because somebody was driving down a road one night and got involved in a motor vehicle accident and became incapacitated and the court settlement wasn't high enough -- maybe he didn't have the right lawyer or maybe the facts weren't exactly what they should have been -- and the person ended up getting a settlement that was not enough to carry him through to the point of sustaining himself and his family?

That is only one case. There is one other case I want to go through very quickly, a situation where another individual I know was, as a young child, run over by a drunk driver and today is a paraplegic, sits in a wheelchair and doesn't know what's going on about her. The long and short of this story is that the settlement she got, after a very long time in court, is not enough to maintain her needs until she reaches age 65, when she'll be able to collect a pension.

Mr Tilson: Are you trying to tell us your plan is going to help that person? No way.

Mr Bisson: The point I'm getting at and the point that I think needs to be made is that, yes, under the tort system, in some cases somebody comes out a winner, but we cannot close our eyes to the fact that many people under the tort system end up not getting enough to sustain their particular needs. One of the things this plan does is make sure that those people who are in a situation where, not of their choice, they become injured are taken care of over a period of time, not just for two years, not for five years, but for the term of their disability, up to age 65, if necessary.

Mr Tilson: Why not beyond 65?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Bisson: There are people who will argue, the same as there are people within my party who will argue, that tort is something that is somehow sacrosanct and something that we somehow as New Democrats had as a virtue in regard to the question of the right to sue. No. I've been a New Democrat all my life, and I've always advocated for going towards a driver-owned system.

Mr Tilson: The New Democrat philosophy is dead.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Bisson: But never in my position do I turn around and say that system had to be a system of tort. I believe that probably the best system is a bit of a mix between both, and one of the things we've done in this plan is address that. We said, "We're going to allow you to sue under certain situations," and that's what we have done.

I say in summation in this debate that there are a number of improvements that have been made in this plan. There are substantial improvements to what the plan initially was when it was set up by the Liberal government. The question of indexing our disability benefits, of care givers, people who are on temporary layoff, students and a number of other things were increased so that those people and the benefits they receive are able to get enough money to be able to make ends meet and enough money to rehabilitate themselves, if possible.

Is it a perfect system? No. There is no such thing as a perfect system. A perfect system would give you an unlimited amount of money. But that's not what this debate is about. This debate is about putting together a program that gives people the basic necessities and rights they're entitled to in our society and being able to make sure that they can go through.

For the opposition to sit there, especially from the Liberal Party, and to take the position it has on criticizing this particular bill is highly, highly ludicrous in my mind, because it is a system that it introduced. What we are doing is adding to the benefits that were already there. We're moving forward. Yes, in a perfect system we would like to do more. But unfortunately, in the economy we find ourselves in today and the situation we find ourselves in, we have to do the best we can, and we think we've made a very good step forward in making sure that the accident victims are protected under this plan. With that, I end my part in the debate.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I would like to comment on the speech by the member for Cochrane South. He expresses amazement that the Liberal Party is criticizing this bill, but quite frankly, he doesn't express the same amazement that so many members of his own caucus are criticizing this very same bill.

He makes an allegation, which he considers to be a statement, that this bill is going to improve the plan, bring more benefits. It's what he doesn't say that people should be looking to.

For instance, he talks about the right to sue for pain and suffering and psychological injuries being restored. He doesn't really go into the $15,000 deductible and what that is going to mean in the ordinary case, a case where somebody takes that to court, the judge awards $30,000, right off the top $15,000 is taken away as the deductible, $15,000 is left, $3,000 in disbursements, $12,000 to the lawyer, and what is that victim left with?

The tradeoff has been that that person isn't going to have the right to sue for loss of potential income. Instead, that same victim will have lost this most crucial of rights. They will be subjected to a meat chart. A meat chart that, no matter what your occupation or what your potential income may be, you are all the same. The great leveller: We're all the same.

In the real world that's not how it works. How can you compare my hands to the hands of a Glenn Gould or a Liona Boyd? You can't. Their future loss of income would be enormous. How can you compare my ability to a Tom Henke or to a Wayne Gretzky? You can't. Their potential loss of income is enormous. Yet people who have worked very hard and who have talent in their particular area, a young medical student, for instance, will not reimbursed in future. That is an enormous loss. Their proposal gives us less, not more.

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

1550

Mr Tilson: The last speaker, the member for Coch- rane South, I think if we took his speech and compared it to all the speeches that were made by the New Democratic Party when it was debating Bill 68 we would see the most blatant example of doublespeak this province has ever seen. It's unbelievable how you can come today in this House and say something to which you and other members of your party only a very short period of time ago said the exact opposite. How can you do that? How can you believe that the people of this province will accept anything that you're going to do in the future?

There's no question that Ontario -- before what this government is doing today or in this bill -- is already the most heavily regulated province as far as auto insurance where the system remains private. Too much regulation, and that's what this government is going to be doing, where the entire system is going to be through regulation, inhibits change, because there's no question it's going to be more and more difficult to change it; now in the hands of the bureaucrats, we won't be able to debate these things in the House any more. All of these topics are taken away from us.

Not only that, it's increasing costs. It's increasing costs to the consumer and it's increasing costs to the industry. I really question, with what you're putting forward, how you believe the industry is going to be able to pay for this plan that you're putting forward. Last year alone -- and this isn't even your system; this is under the Liberal system -- it cost $23.8 million to regulate the Ontario Insurance Commission. You're piling on more and more regulation. No one will be able to understand what you're doing. Yes, you're getting rid of the lawyers, but you're going to have to hire another advocates' army to assist people because no one will be able to understand your regulations. Read your regulations and I defy you to understand what those regulations say.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): It is unfortunate when members of the opposition, from both the official opposition and the third party, simply use these moments as an opportunity of a broadside attack on the government, rather than listening very carefully to the speech that was made. If one were to focus on the comments that were made by the member for Cochrane South, then one would see that it was a very carefully crafted speech presented in a logical and dignified fashion, something for which I commend the member, basically his approach of bringing to this House a constructive and insightful approach to the issues before us. He clearly, in my view, presented what he thought were the positive aspects of this legislation.

I would have been happy if someone in the opposition stood up and said, "I disagree with you on that particular point for these reasons," but that's not what we heard. What we heard and what we have continued to hear from the moment this was introduced was partisan broadsides from the official opposition and from the third party. I commend the member for Cochrane South for bringing to this debate and raising it to a higher level than we've had for several days from opposition members.

The Acting Speaker: Further comments and/or questions? The honourable member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was beginning to think I was Casper the Ghost today.

I want to associate myself with the remarks of the member for Cochrane South. I think that he's outlined quite clearly some of the improvements that our legislation makes over the previous government's bill. In terms of the issues like supplementary medical and rehabilitation, under the old system there was a lifetime cap of $500,000. We don't all rehabilitate ourselves and we don't all recover at the same rate; $500,000 could be used up quite quickly, and the person could still be in need of lengthy rehabilitation but without any access to resources.

Under the attendant care program that the former government put in, it also put in a lifetime cap of $500,000 -- we again, no lifetime cap. Attendant care isn't something you need one week and don't require the next week and then try to get it back the week after that.

Just in terms of some of the comments with respect to the right to sue for pain and suffering, I think this is a great step forward in terms of compensating innocent accident victims. Under the old system, permanent and serious injury and/or death would have to be incurred and very few people actually passed through the threshold of permanent and serious disability. Perhaps many people died, but as I stated in my remarks last time, there are not too many places where you see a U-Haul behind a hearse.

In terms of the comments with respect to economic loss, it's such an unfair system. Some people do extremely well, but then other people are left out in the cold. So with the system we've put in, even with the $15,000 deductible, people are going to get rehabilitation benefits. They don't have to wait until the 649 draw is made.

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

Mr Bisson: In the two minutes I have, I just want to go through things.

One comment was made -- I forget if it was by a Liberal or Conservative member -- in regard to the point that all people are going to be treated the same under this system. Well, first of all, what's wrong with giving people the same shot at an opportunity? I really miss your logic.

Let me bring that one step forward. Under the tort system, were people treated the same? No, people were not treated the same. People were treated according to their ability to hire a battery of lawyers. If I'm an injured individual and I can afford to buy the best lawyers in the province, I get better treatment than somebody who is not able to hire the best battery of lawyers because of his economic situation.

It's not to criticize the tort; the tort had some benefits to it. But let's be clear: The tort had its faults. It had its problems. The problem was that if you couldn't afford to go out and hire the best lawyer in the system in order to be able to go out and rectify your problems through the courts, you didn't get fair representation.

All kinds of people ended up losing all kinds of basic possibilities for settlement and are still suffering the consequences. Who pays for that? It's not the insurance companies that pay; it's you and I the taxpayer, because those people end up on social assistance, they end up on welfare or they end up on their employer's sick and accident benefit program, in some cases in situations we shouldn't talk about. But it ends up being the taxpayer who ends up paying for it. What this plan does is that it says the insurance companies will pay. The whole idea is to make the system a little bit fairer.

In regard to the question that we are the most regulated province when it comes to insurance and all other regulation, who the heck created the regulations? It wasn't this government. The regulations we're living with within this province were established with 40 years of Tory government and five years after that with Liberals. They're the ones who put it in place; let's be clear about that. Our government is dealing with making sure that we remove regulations when regulations are unnecessary, in order to make access not only to insurance but to government and other systems a lot fairer for people, and we're dealing with it. But the regulations were put in by them.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I think it's time to bring this debate back to the reason why insurance was ever brought back to this House from its usual and I guess time immemorial way of being dealt with: It was the question that people were tired of the cost of insurance. Insurance was made compulsory. If you wanted to drive you had to have insurance.

There was one time when you could pay a Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act fee under the Conservative regime. Albeit it allowed people who were not able to afford the insurance premiums or perhaps were denied insurance the opportunity to take advantage of that, I think my colleagues over there who have practised in the legal profession will tell you that the whole system, although it was, I suppose, done with an air of compassion for those who couldn't afford insurance, turned into a total morass. It was difficult to enforce. It was difficult to give justice and fairness to people.

Our bill had no-fault provisions and this bill has no-fault provisions. I have some problem with no-fault provisions, because what it tells me is that it rewards the person --

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs, Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): I never heard you say this when you were in office.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

1600

Mr Callahan: It does something that perhaps is too prevalent in our society. It says discipline is not important. In the words of Dr Spock, "Do your own thing," and responsibility is not important.

This bill goes even a little further than that, because if I read the bill correctly, it says that an insurance company will have to go through a hearing process if it's going to deny somebody insurance. That could be a process that could be carried on ad infinitum. If someone wishes to keep his or her licence, all he does is go to the hearing, have the hearing decision, then appeal to a court, and then he appeals it all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada and keep his licence in the meantime.

I think that for people out there watching -- those people who drive carefully, are responsible individuals, are people who expect that other people will do the same thing -- in the main their major concern is the cost, but they don't want to take the question of responsibility out of the whole bill. They don't want to believe that someone's going to drive by them at an excessive rate of speed and perhaps force them off the road, perhaps injure them, and perhaps that person will injure himself or herself. The fact that benefits are going to be paid to both those parties flies right in the face of responsibility. What's the point of being responsible? What's the point of having any concern about how you drive? You're going to get these benefits regardless.

If I'm right that the whole reason this legislation, both by our government and now the NDP government, has been brought forward is because of the perceived high cost of insurance and the necessity of having insurance, then surely the changes by the NDP government don't make sense.

They have removed the cap, which is put forward as a good thing, from some of the amounts that would be paid over a lifetime to an individual. They may see that as a good thing, and I suppose in some cases it might be; I can't dispute that. But the fact is that once you remove a cap and once you apply indexation to it, you have taken away from insurance companies the opportunity to arrive at what is their liability. You have taken away from them the ability to set a fair premium based on logical facts. Once you've done that, you've put them right back in the position where they can't reduce premiums or they can't maintain premiums or they can't set premiums because all of these uncertain elements are involved in the question of setting premiums.

What have you got? You've got the people of Ontario, who were promised by the NDP government that insurance premiums would be reduced or maintained, or would not escalate the way they were escalating, or that insurance would be available to all parties, and you've put that again in jeopardy.

It's kind of like going back to the bargaining table. Instead of solving the problem, what this new legislation has done has been to simply put it in some degree of uncertainty again, and it will have to be revisited.

That's where it really gets scary, because if you look at the legislation and the responsibilities that it places upon insurance companies that desire to leave the field for whatever reason -- they may leave it because of the uncertainty in terms of being able to set premiums. If they leave the field, they have to pay a penalty. We don't know what that penalty is yet. As I understand it, that's done by regulation, the fine. It could well be nationalization. I thought those things disappeared with events that took place in eastern Europe. I thought the taking away of a person's property had been done away with.

A couple of colleagues and I recently -- on our own hook, I should say for the viewers out there in TV land; we paid for our trip -- went to Cuba. Cuba's a clear example of it. They nationalized everything. People went down there expecting to operate a business and suddenly found that their business was taken over by Big Brother.

I suggest to you that's exactly what you're doing; not directly, but you're certainly laying the groundwork for that happening. If that is the case, then I have to think to myself that there are insurance companies out there that are going to begin to shrink. The opportunities for insurability will shrink.

These people are going to get out before this act is even passed, I'll bet. They're going to say, "Because I don't know what the cost of getting out is, I'm not going to stay around till the act comes into being." Therefore, you've limited the market. Once you limit the market in anything -- we've all seen it with monopolies generated for things such as Ma Bell. I'll probably get my telephone cut off after this speech, but we've all seen that when you narrow competitiveness you increase the availability of being able to charge whatever you like.

Who is going to monitor the increases? There's nothing in here that says, "This will be the increase and nothing more." You haven't fulfilled your commitment to the people of Ontario -- albeit I don't agree with it -- of public auto insurance. It's a disgrace across this country. It's a disgrace that resulted in justices of the peace being charged in one of the western provinces, and I know because I chaired the justice committee that went around on the first run at this bill. The justices of the peace were approached by people who got tickets and said, "Jeez, I can't afford to have a ticket," or, "I can't afford to have demerit points", because when it comes time to renew your licence, that's where you front-end load the cost of your inappropriate driving.

I don't know how the cases out west turned out, but the net effect was that people were charged, including justices of the peace, with obstructing justice by fixing and eliminating tickets. If that's the type of conduct that arises from a public system, forget it. I don't think anybody wants a public system.

I see this belief -- in the mental attitude it seems to me of the socialist government -- that government can do things better than anybody else, so you've left that sort of footprint in the legislation to allow you at the appropriate time to take those steps, to nationalize the insurance company industry and thereby take on all the responsibility for insuring people in this province.

I started out by saying the Conservative government thought it was a nice idea to have you pay a fee when you bought your licence plates. If you couldn't afford insurance you could pay, I think it was, $10 or $50 -- I can't remember what the fee was -- and you were covered under the uninsured motor vehicle benefits which allowed you to drive. There were limitations in terms of benefits, be you at fault or the other person at fault.

What you people are doing is taking the Tory concept, which didn't work -- I don't say that disparagingly of them; it was an effort to try to get people on the road who couldn't afford to pay the premium -- and you're enlarging it. You're enlarging it to the extent that now you're taking on the whole thing. I suggest you better get the message out to the insurance industry that that's not what you have planned, because if you don't, I predict that before this legislation is given royal assent you will see at least three or four major insurance companies fold their doors in terms of motor vehicle insurance and simply sell life insurance.

If that happens, that's jobs. Of course, we've seen the difficulties that have arisen in our economy, and certainly the people out there watching, if there are any people watching at this point, would consider it irresponsible for me to blame everything on your government. Obviously, the economy around the world is having difficulty. Jobs are being lost all over. There are things, such as the free trade agreement, that have obviously affected us.

But why add to the misery of individuals? Why put at risk the jobs of these people who are now working for insurance companies in the automobile insurance industry? Is there any need to put them in fear that their jobs are going to be gone? I hate to say it, and I don't want to be a fearmonger, but I will be willing to bet that I'll be able to say to you, "I told you so." Once this bill receives royal assent, in advance of that happening, you will see one, two or perhaps three major insurers no longer sell car insurance because of the uncertainty of this nationalization provision.

You talk about the change from putting people on a meat chart. My colleague the member for Eglinton was quite right. I remember the NDP, and not just the NDP but the Liberals and the Conservatives, always complained about the WCB and the meat chart, that it was unfair. It was the type of thing that put everybody in the same category. If you had a back injury, you got X; if you had this, you got X.

1610

It never looked at the question of how severely that person was injured, or what impact it would have on them. It just put you on a scale. It was like measuring your kids as they grow. You're six feet, so you get this. You're five feet, so you get this. That clearly is unacceptable.

The member for Cochrane South makes the comment, "What's wrong with putting everybody on the same level?" I think you'd get an argument from a lot of people in a free and democratic society about why everybody should be on the same level. Yet I believe, and I don't say this is in a pejorative fashion, that this is the socialist dogma.

Okay. No one should be higher than anyone else. We should all be on the same plain except those privileged few who might have access to situations of power.

I was thinking to myself, if the member for Cochrane South, who is newly elected and he's probably a parliamentary assistant, I guess, so he's probably making somewhere in the neighbourhood of $70,000 --

Mr Tilson: He is making more than you are.

Mr Callahan: Of course he is. He's making $70,000. I don't know what he made before, but I'm not even going to refer to that.

If he were in a car accident, number one, if his injury was bad, like it was a bad back or a broken leg or something of that nature, and some lawyer looked at his claim and said, "You can't get over the $15,000 threshold, so forget it; don't sue for pain and suffering," he's now going to get the benefits that have been praised by the member for Cochrane South and also the member for Cambridge for life or for whatever period of time it's necessary.

Is he going to be happy with that? Does he consider that this is fair? Does he consider that this is going to allow him to support his family in the way he's supporting them now, I suppose? Not at all.

I can tell you as well that if you want to put in this $15,000 deductible, all you have got to do is look at the example of everyday life. I have an insurance policy on my house that has a $250 deductible. We have bicycles and skis ripped off from time to time. You don't claim for them. The reason you don't claim for them is because, in most cases, it wouldn't be worth your while. Probably your premium would go up as well. What's the point if you've got a deductible? Why do it?

I can predict that there will be people who will perhaps have a serious injury who will be reluctant to go to a lawyer, and if they go to the lawyer, the lawyer's got to say, "Can we get past that $15,000 deductible?" You're going to have to take the action in the General Division court, because the Attorney General, unwisely, I think, has not brought in an increase in the small claims court limit.

So you're in the General Division. We all know that the Treasurer has increased all the disbursements in the General Division by about 150%, so the costs that you pay to the court, the costs that you pay to your lawyer, the costs that you pay for medical letters now -- because the Minister of Health has now taken that out of OHIP -- the costs you pay for other things are going to take your claim. You're going to need about a $30,000 claim to come away from that whole procedure with anything.

The lawyer will take about a third, even though we claim not to have the practice of taking a percentage in this good province of Ontario. The fact is that in most cases it's about a third, and I think most lawyers are upfront when they tell clients that. If you take a third of the $30,000, that's $10,000; you've got $20,000. There will be other costs. It will cost you medical reports. Medical reports can go anywhere from $250 to $500 to $1,000. You have got witness fees. You may not get reimbursed for those.

So I suggest to you that you're trying to protect the Premier who, as has been mentioned many times, said on about five occasions that Premier Peterson had lied and he was going to save us all. He was going to give us public auto insurance.

I remember quite clearly that the member for Welland-Thorold filibustered. It wasn't a legitimate filibuster. My favourite filibuster is Mr Smith Goes to Washington, where you've got to stand there for ever. You don't get an opportunity to go for a nature break; you don't get an opportunity to sit down. You stand there. Of course, every night at 6 o'clock or whatever the period was we sat to, the member for Welland-Thorold went home. He had that opportunity. I remember the Premier as well -- I was here -- rushing up and congratulating him and giving him a big hug because of the great stuff he'd done against the terrible Liberals who were bringing in this insurance bill.

Then suddenly the Premier, whom we haven't seen for quite a while, decides, "Well, we can't do that; change our minds." It's probably not the first change of mind. The Agenda for People should have been called the missing Agenda for People, because I've not seen one item in that Agenda for People, which was touted by you people as you campaigned across this province, brought forward. That's amazing. You just celebrated the second anniversary of the elevation of your fellow members to cabinet, and nothing from this Agenda for People has been done. Was the Agenda for People written by some smart public relations group with a view to deceiving the people of this province into voting for you? Was that the purpose of the Agenda for People?

I don't believe that. I think there are men and women in the benches of the NDP who really believed in that, who really believed that the Premier was going to fulfil the promises he had made in the Agenda for People. Well, surprise; it's like the Holiday Inn commercial, or I guess it's "No Surprises" at the Holiday Inn: He's not going to keep any of those promises; none of them.

Peter Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold, has been praised by a lot of people in this House for standing up and speaking out against it. I don't want to give him quite as many accolades. The member for Welland-Thorold has probably been told by the Premier: "You can go and do that because we want you to. If you don't do it, then the opposition will stand up and say exactly what they're saying, that you were muzzled."

The proof of the pudding in terms of how your caucus operates is the member for Lincoln. He votes one time against your party, isn't joined at the hip, and suddenly, I guess, has a quick visit from the House leader and his job as a Chairman, which I understand he did quite well, is poof; it's gone. That's called power. That's called keeping the boys and girls and ladies and gentlemen in check.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): You know something about that, do you, Bob?

Mr Callahan: Well, I'll tell you something: I never got into cabinet, probably for the reason that I never played that game.

I think if there's anything more important today for the people of this province and this country, and perhaps the people of the United States too in the heat of a presidential election, it is that there has to be reform and there has to be credibility in their political people. You can't go around during an election saying one thing and then when the election's over, say, "Hey, we've now got power and we're going to do this instead."

Mr Farnan: David Peterson --

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Callahan: The member for Cambridge is muttering something. He's an honourable fellow. He was a member of cabinet and I thought did a pretty reasonable job. I don't know what happened. The simple matter of writing a letter? You must have done something else. There must have been something else.

What did Mr Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold, do? He posed for a beefcake ad. You've just got to take a look at the member for Welland-Thorold and that's an inappropriate commentary, "beefcake."

Mr Tilson: What is more appropriate?

Mr Callahan: I'm not sure. I think it was just that the Premier wanted to get rid of him.

Can you imagine the member for Welland-Thorold standing up and having to defend this legislation, this inadequate approach to what the Premier had promised during the election campaign? Can you imagine him standing up there trying to defend it? That would be a debacle. "How do we get rid of him? We've got to get rid of him somehow."

1620

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Callahan: I'm sorry. Yes.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Cambridge on a point of order.

Mr Farnan: I believe the member made references to beefcake in his address, and I think sexist comments in this chamber are inappropriate.

The Acting Speaker: I don't believe that's a point of order. At this point I'd ask the honourable member to regain the floor.

Ms Poole: He said he wasn't beefcake.

Mr Callahan: That's right. It was a non-sexist comment.

In any event, can you consider the member for Welland-Thorold having to stand up here and defend the non-introduction of the bill that he spent a lot of taxpayers' money in the filibuster defending?

I'm sure Mel Swart has probably ripped up his card in the New Democratic Party. I'm sure he has. Mel is a man of honour, and I'm sure Mel will not put up with this nonsense, this non-fulfilment of promises.

Having said that, why did he get turfed? He got turfed precisely for that reason: because it would be an embarrassment to the government of the day that was bringing in this lollipop for the people of this province. It's a lollipop. This is what's wrong with the whole system. It wasn't you, ladies and gentlemen, because the backbenchers really have no say in this way we operate government. It's the Agnews, all of the spin doctors, about four cabinet ministers and the Premier who go down to the back room and decide what's going to happen. They think about it and they think: "Geez, we can't bring in public auto insurance. But what do we do with Kormos? What do we do with the member for Welland-Thorold? How do we silence him? Well, we'll arrange to have his picture taken" -- I'm not suggesting that happened, but it's a possibility -- "in the Sun so that we can use that as a reason for turfing him and keeping him quiet."

What happens is that the member who is now speaking out has to speak out. I think that's part of the plan too. You know, the Premier says, "Let him speak out; otherwise it looks like we're trying to muzzle him," and yet they are trying to muzzle him. They're trying to muzzle each and every one of you people. They're telling you, "You don't vote for this, but in about a year or two when the economy comes around, when Marilyn's casinos have been spread around the province like Pizza Pizza franchises, we'll have all sorts of money."

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Cambridge on a point of order.

Mr Farnan: Basically, Mr Speaker, your efforts to bring some dignity to the House are appreciated. When members consistently refer by first names and second names to members of this chamber, it is inappropriate. It is not following parliamentary procedure. I think the member would be well advised to refer to individuals on both sides of the House by the riding from which they come.

The Acting Speaker: I would say to the honourable member for Brampton South that that advice given to the House by the member for Cambridge is well founded and I would ask the member to remember that as he continues to take the floor.

Mr Callahan: I will do that, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Michael.

I want to go back to my favourite theme. There are people over there who've had two years of this nonsense of being joined at the hip and having to support matters they don't believe in. For God's sake, decide to say something about it. Don't always try to believe you've got to support everything that not the government but the backroom boys bring into play. If you do that, you're going to look like you shrunk the government side or you'll be on the opposition side or perhaps on the third-party side, because you'll shrink it. You won't be back. I think you'd better be able to go back and face your electorate when it comes time for re-election and be able to tell them, "You know, I wasn't prepared to put up with Bob Rae's prevarication." Prevarication -- we'll send you a note over after the period's over to tell you what that means.

But in any event --

Mr Owens: See if you can spell it first.

Mr Callahan: Well, it's not necessary, because Hansard is going to spell "prevarication," I hope.

In any event, I think what you have to do is speak up for your constituents, and you're not speaking up for them. What in fact you're doing is you're allowing the government of the day to just sort of push you around, push your constituents around, and I don't think that's really the purpose of being here.

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Callahan: Oh, my heavens.

The Acting Speaker: Please be seated. The honourable member for Lambton on a point of order.

Mrs MacKinnon: The honourable member who's on his feet is indicating that I vote how I'm told by ministers, cabinet or whatever. No, Mr Speaker: I vote to my conscience.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member. That's not a point of order. I'd ask the honourable member for Brampton South to continue the debate.

Mr Callahan: I'd like to tell the member for Lambton that she must certainly agree with an awful lot of things the government suggests, because I have yet to see her vote against the government.

Mrs MacKinnon: You haven't been here all the time, then.

Mr Callahan: No, no. But there are two ways --

The Acting Speaker: We're getting into some dialogue back and forth across the chamber. Please address your comments to the Chair and please continue your debate on the bill. I'd ask the honourable member to continue.

Mr Callahan: I will do that. Thank you for bringing me around.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Are you provoking the NDP?

Mr Callahan: No, not at all. The member for Lambton was just trying to say how she doesn't vote for every initiative that the government brings forward, and I simply had told her that I had never observed her voting any other way, and she told me that she wasn't here all the time.

There are two ways of casting a vote in favour of the government: You can either vote with your feet or you can vote with your hip, and I guess she's been voting with her feet sometimes. I mean, you disappear. The member for Welland-Thorold will probably disappear, as I have suggested, when Bill 164 is brought before the House for a final vote, because if he doesn't, he may as well come over here and join us, because he's toast. He will never see the inside of a cabinet room. He will never see the chair of a committee.

Mr Bradley: He'll be the Premier.

Mr Callahan: That's a possibility. I think that's what he thinks is going to happen, but they're only getting one shot at Premier. So he's out of luck unless something happens between now and 1995.

I want to hear from some of my colleagues as to their questions and comments on my speech. I'm sure they will be varied and diverse.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Give us a one-minute summary of it.

Mr Callahan: Okay. In summary, what you've done is you've created a bill which is neither fish nor fowl, lacks the guts of the so-called Agenda for People, is not a response and does not justify the Premier of this province, before the election of whatever year that was, calling Premier Peterson a liar, because the Premier of the day has now established a new role in terms of that very word by not carrying out even one of the promises in the Agenda for People. My good friend from Scarborough-Agincourt carries it around under his arm. I don't know why he does.

Mr Bradley: Is there anything about casinos in it?

Mr Callahan: No, of course not. Casinos were considered to be sinful. But not now. We are going to have them spread over this province like Pizza Pizza franchises.

Mr Tilson: We're going to have to drive to Windsor to go to it.

Mr Callahan: No, you won't have to soon.

Mr Harnick: We're going to take a Sunquest flight on Thursday morning.

Mr Callahan: Is that right? No, casinos will be here and what casinos are going to do is, they are going to destroy the little guy.

Finally, I want to say -- and this is slightly off topic, but for 35 seconds surely I can say it. I would like to see your government pass and give royal assent to the bill about the cheque-cashing places, because it bothers me to see these places with the flashing neon signs. All I can think of is Las Vegas. They stay open 24 hours a day, and what they're going to do is let the poor sucker coming home from work at night cash his cheque, go in and blow all the money in Marilyn's casino and go home to mother and children and so on and say, "I'm sorry, but I lost." If that happens, you people are a disgrace.

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

Mr Tilson: I'm not going to get into the merits of the member for Brampton South's comments about his own plan, the Liberal plan. I think that has been dismissed by everyone, including the Liberals. But I would like to talk somewhat on some of the comments he made with respect to cost, dealing specifically with Bill 164.

The Road Ahead, of course, which is the document -- I'm not sure what it means, but it simply says that the system they're going to put forward is going to be a system that's generous, affordable and fair. Yet when you start analysing Bill 164, it's not going to be more affordable.

1630

For example, there's now going to be unlimited benefits. That means a certain amount of risk and uncertainty. As we're all the same now, there will be people who will be forced to buy a generous package of benefits that normally they might not buy, that they may not need or want, but they'll have to buy it anyway. The whole subject of unlimited benefits means time. It means it's going to carry a very costly price tag. That seems to be more and more established as we analyse the regulations.

The government has indicated that there will be three times the amount of access to the courts. I dispute that. I don't think there will be three times the access to the courts, specifically when you start analysing the subject of the deductible. But clearly, if they're right -- and I'm saying they're wrong -- that's going to be even more costly.

When you start looking at this, there's no question, not a shadow of a doubt, that premiums are going to go sky high with this plan the government's putting forward.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Whenever the member for Brampton South gets up to speak, I always listen. He seems to have this power, a power that only a few have in this world, and that's the power that lies beyond.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Divine wisdom.

Mr Mammoliti: Divine wisdom, as my colleague says. Perhaps a crystal ball or a deck of cards might be in order for this member. Perhaps we should take out a room downstairs and ask him to tell the fortunes of all the members in this place and tell us what everybody is thinking, because every time he stands up, he talks about what he thinks other people are thinking. He talks about Peter Kormos. He talks about the Premier. He talks about everything except the bill itself. He talks about what he thinks other people are thinking. Perhaps a deck of cards might be in order; if I ever want him to tell my fortune, I will come to the member.

Mr Farnan: Maybe he should think for himself.

Mr Mammoliti: Maybe he should think for himself. Thank you.

I also want to respond to his comments on the bill in that little moment before he told the fortunes.

This bill, like many others I've found over the last two years, is a bill that is an adjustment, adjustments to Liberal mistakes. We have to do that consistently, and I'm sick of it. People are waiting for --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The honourable member's time has expired.

Mr Bradley: I won't speak about casinos at present, something near and dear to you, Mr Speaker, because the member didn't make reference to that. I should say the Speaker is opposed to this.

Because the member for Yorkview, who spoke in response, mentioned that the member from Brampton had made several references to the Premier and Peter Kormos and so on, I would like to make a reference to Mel Swart. There's an individual for whom I had a good deal of admiration. Mel and I sat in opposition together. Actually, it was revealed in a newspaper article that on Friday afternoons, because we used to sit in the mornings on Friday, Mel and I would drive back and forth together. It was a contest to see who was the more interesting driver, Mel or I, on the way back to the St Catharines area.

But many times we discussed the issue of automobile insurance, and I remember many of the impassioned speeches Mr Swart made to this House as the member for Welland-Thorold. The member from Brampton would know of him, because he sat for part of that time with Mr Swart.

He must be beside himself -- I think he's expressed this at the NDP provincial council and at the annual meeting of the NDP -- at the bill that is being considered this afternoon by members of this House, as I'm sure many of these members are. If there's one thing I knew Mel Swart stood for, and my colleague from Brampton knew as well, it was for public automobile insurance. He would have been one of the strongest advocates of it within the caucus if he were still a member of the NDP caucus. It's disappointing that a good CCFer, a person whose retirement dinner I attended and a person I've always admired and respected, is seeing his dream of automobile insurance, the dream he portrayed to the voters of his riding, disappearing as the government decides it's going to embark upon a different course of action.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments.

Mr Harnick: It's very interesting. I listened to my friend from Brampton. He dwelt at great length on the fact that although we know there are a great many people on the NDP side of the House who are against this legislation, they won't vote against it, and implicit in his remarks is how bad the bill is. I remind the member for Brampton South that it was his party that got us into this mess in terms of putting innocent accident victims behind the eight ball, and now the party that made promises and pledges to innocent accident victims is compounding the problem by taking more of their rights away from them.

The one thing the minister can't seem to understand is that when you impose a deductible on people and take $15,000 away from the 3% of innocent people who can claim for a portion of their loss, excluding their economic losses, what you're doing is funding a system that is giving more to at-fault drivers. You're penalizing the innocent to pay the at-fault. The minister knows that, and the minister knows this system is not going to work.

But I put it to the minister, who's here for the first time since I've had the opportunity to speak about this bill, if your system is so good and if your taking away of economic rights is so justified by the fact that no one's going to lose anything, if your plan is so all-encompassing that no one will fall through the cracks, no one will have an economic loss, I challenge you to give people back their rights, because under your plan there's no loss they're going to suffer. No one will fall through the cracks. No one will need to claim for economic loss. If you're that satisfied, give it back and let's see.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Brampton South has two minutes to give response.

Mr Callahan: I want to thank all my colleagues for their insightful comments about my speech. Some of them were not as gratifying as I would have hoped, but I guess that's life.

I don't expect that the government is going to change its position on this. It's one of these things where the levers of power can be great persuaders. I know of what I speak, because you sit over there on those benches, some of you people, who have probably never seen the inside of the cabinet room, and you hope and pray that if you are a good person you will eventually get into cabinet, and that doesn't happen.

Mr Perruzza: Why do you always have to resort to insults?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Callahan: I'm trying to excite you people over there, not just you people but the people on our side, Mr Speaker, because I speak to something that's very near and dear to your heart as well: that this Legislature must be reformed. There must be a great deal more empowerment of backbenchers. There must be an opportunity for them to speak out on behalf of their constituents. They shouldn't be muzzled or hamstrung by the threats of power, the levers of power, that, "If you don't do it my way, it's the door."

I don't think that's appropriate. In this day and age, politicians are expected by the people, who are good enough to go out and vote for them, to represent their views. The view I'm getting from my constituents is that the insurance is fine now; leave it alone. Don't try to bring something in just to placate the promises that were made by the Premier in order to get elected.

1640

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Runciman: I'm pleased to participate in the debate on this very important piece of legislation. Before I begin, I want to say that the Speaker made a ruling a couple of days ago in respect to wearing buttons and other paraphernalia in this House. I'm not a supporter of that because of the traditions of the House, but because of the Speaker's ruling I and other members of the Conservative Party are wearing blue ribbons today in support of the police in the province who are being so shabbily treated by this NDP socialist government.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Runciman: I've had some experience with the auto insurance issue in this province, serving as the critic for the Ministry of Financial Institutions for about five years, and briefly as the minister responsible for financial institutions.

The auto insurance issue never seems to go away. Government after government seems to be trying to grapple with this. Regrettably, when we look back at the past five years, a number of the changes that have occurred have not resolved the situation as it could have been resolved if the government of the day -- looking back to 1987 -- had paid heed to the recommendations of Justice Coulter Osborne in perhaps the most significant study of auto insurance ever undertaken in North America, the recommendations Justice Osborne made in respect to reforms to the tort system.

He said that Ontario undoubtedly had the best compensation system in the world. He indicated that undoubtedly there were some flaws in the system, some problems with the system and he made a number of recommendations as to how they could be corrected -- caps etc. He also made comment in reference to no-fault, government-run etc, and very strongly urged that we not do away with the tort system in place in Ontario. As I said, he considered it the best compensation system in the world and said certainly moving to no-fault was throwing the baby out with the bath water.

It's kind of ironic hearing a couple of the Liberal members here today, the member for Eglinton and the member for Brampton South, talking about no-fault, given the arguments we had a couple of years ago in respect to their legislation and the fact that their bill effectively ruled out about 95% to 97% of innocent accident victims having access to the courts. Now they're getting up and being critical of no-fault, when their government initiated this move. So it's pretty difficult to swallow many of the comments coming from the Liberal benches.

I toured the province on a couple of occasions in respect to automobile insurance, one with the critic of the NDP at the time, Mr Swart, the former member for Welland-Thorold, and the second time with the current and future member for Welland-Thorold, Mr Kormos. It was, I think, the second tour of the province dealing with the Liberal no-fault legislation. I've said this before in the House during debates. It was probably the most emotional experience I've ever undergone as a member of this Legislature because of the testimony that was before us, overwhelming opposition to the Liberal initiatives. Much of the testimony was from people who had been innocent accident victims, who had no vested interest, nothing to gain from retention of the tort system. They were innocent accident victims who didn't want to see innocent victims penalized as a result of no-fault legislation being brought in by the Liberal government of the day.

I vividly recall, and I'm sure the member for Welland-Thorold does, a young fellow by the name of Jeremy Rempel who appeared before us in a wheelchair, and the moving testimony of that young man and his father who also testified about the experiences of a parent dealing with an injured child and their very real concern about the inability of future innocent accident victims to have adequate compensation under the system being proposed by the Liberal government.

Of course, we heard from Mr Kormos at the time. We heard from a number of other members of the NDP, who were very, very much critical of the Liberal plan, and justifiably so, including the now Treasurer of the province who I recall sitting in on a couple of the committee hearings and obviously, at that time, being very supportive of the stance being taken by the critic, Mr Kormos, which was his concern about innocent accident victims and the removal of their access to the courts.

I guess there's a lot of irony in things that have transpired over the past six or seven years. We can just look back at the filibuster that occurred with Mr Kormos undertaking that effort and being so strongly supported by his colleagues. I think there were something like 19 in the NDP caucus at the time, people like David Reville, who was the whip for the NDP at the time, saying things during the process of the filibuster that, "Mr Kormos is our hero," during that debate. Of course, when he completed his filibuster, I think the complete 19-member caucus was here, and led by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Robert Rae, gave Mr Kormos a standing ovation as he completed his filibuster and left the chamber.

Interjection.

Mr Runciman: Anyone who was here; you're right, you were one of the 19.

I have a lot of difficulty, and obviously most of us do who were around at the time, with the complete change of tune, if you will, of the NDP now that it's in government. We've heard some references to cynicism and the view that the public has of governments and politicians generally across this country. Certainly the flip-flop of the NDP in respect to this major policy plank has fed upon that cynicism of the public. We can talk about other matters being undertaken by this government as well.

Mr Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold, said in his speech, which regrettably I missed yesterday -- I just want to quote one comment from it -- "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."

The member for Brampton South, when he preceded me, was suggesting that there was a decision made within the government ranks that Mr Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold, would oppose this without any penalty, any retribution, and I disagree. I think that's underplaying the real, strong belief that Mr Kormos has in the party principle that they've stood for for so many years and his strong and unwavering support for innocent accident victims in this province.

I think to suggest otherwise is inappropriate and simply doesn't do the member for Welland-Thorold justice. I served on that committee with him. I served shoulder to shoulder in terms of our roles as critics for the Ministry of Financial Institutions and I know how strongly held those views are, and unlike most of his colleagues on the back benches he has the intestinal fortitude to stand by his principles, the principles of the party that he has believed in for so many years.

I want to say that we had some prognostication here. I don't think that Mr Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold, is jeopardizing his position within the ranks of the party at all, because what he is doing is really standing up for something this party has fought a number of elections on, a party that fostered a 17-hour filibuster in this Legislature on it. He is very strongly supportive of that and he's prepared to stand up for that in this Legislature. He's also doing it on the casino issue.

1650

I want to suggest that I think it's relevant, when we're trying to appeal to the government ranks, to take a look at what he's doing, and I encourage you to also take a look at this with a closer eye in respect to its violation of what you have stood for for so many, many years, because when the next election rolls around I will be quite prepared to place a bet with anyone that Mr Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold, is going to be re-elected because he's fighting for what he believes in and for what his party believed in for so many years.

Unlike significant numbers of you, perhaps, he is going to be re-elected, and I can foresee the possibility of the NDP returning to this Legislature in 1995 or late 1994 with a rump which includes Mr Kormos, with Mr Rae's resignation on a plate and Mr Kormos running for the leadership of the party. I'm not going to suggest how successful he's going to be in that effort, but at least he won't have to make any apologies about standing up and speaking out on behalf of party policy that you have fought many, many elections for, which the rest of you, for a variety of reasons difficult to understand from this side of the chamber, are refusing to do.

I mentioned Mr Reville. There are a number of others who have also spoken out on this issue and who sit across the floor in government. The current Minister of Financial Institutions, who's responsible for carrying this legislation through the House, will recall the private member's bill that I introduced in this House back in the fall of 1990 calling for the return of the right to sue.

That member was then a backbencher, not being called into cabinet during the first opportunity because of who knows what -- some public comments he made following the election? I guess that was the speculation in the press in any event, but he's now there. During this opportunity he had in the fall of 1990, he spoke in support of the legislation, the return of the right to sue, spoke about his own concern in caring for innocent accident victims and generally supported the position his party had taken for many, many years. I believe -- I'm drawing on memory -- he also made some reference to his support for the concept of government-run auto insurance. Of course, we've seen that decision taken away from him. I don't believe he was in any real sense part of the process that made the decision to not proceed.

We've seen this over the years, that the perks of office can lead many a good person down the wrong path. Looking back, I can recall even in the Davis years when there were members of the Davis cabinet who probably should have left cabinet on matters of principle. Certainly, in the Peterson years I don't think we saw anyone in the Peterson ranks, backbench ranks or even cabinet, speak out or question any of the initiatives of Mr Peterson and the little gang that called the shots in the Liberal government.

We've had some comments made about Mr Rae having a press conference during the last campaign. I think my colleague the member for Etobicoke West made reference to this yesterday and I'm sure our party critic, Mr Tilson from Dufferin-Peel, has made reference to this as well, the criticism that Mr Rae had of then-Premier Peterson, in fact calling him a liar, which was certainly unusual language. When we talk about negative campaigns in elections, this was, I think, something new in Ontario, where we had the Leader of the Opposition at his press conference kicking off the campaign calling the Premier a liar a number of times; I forget what the exact number was.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Five.

Mr Runciman: Five, I'm advised, in that press conference, and now betraying the public trust placed in him by the electorate and not fulfilling the promise he and his party made to the people of this province for so many years.

I have less difficulty with what Mr Peterson did than I have with the actions of Mr Rae, because Mr Peterson was known for these sort of off-the-cuff, ill-researched and sometimes irresponsible comments and promises he would make. I think you and I would remember the 1985 campaign when Mr Peterson, off the cuff -- I think he was touring a brewery -- said, "I'm going to put beer and wine in corner grocery stores." Of course, that was a pretty big winner for the Liberal Party. Those of us who ran in the 1985 election, especially in urbanized areas, were very much attracted to the idea of beer and wine in grocery stores, but once he got into government, forget it; that was set aside.

So when he made this, again, what I believe was an off-the-cuff comment during the 1987 election that he had a specific plan to lower auto insurance rates, again I think it was an indication of the type of individual Mr Peterson was and perhaps still is and why he is no longer the Premier of this province.

I don't hold that against him in the same way that I hold Mr Rae responsible for his comments in accusing Mr Peterson of being a liar, basing an election campaign on that accusation, and then betraying the public trust, once he had received it and received a majority government, by doing a complete flip-flop on a promise that his party had stood by for so many years.

I want to talk about a few specifics of the bill. I don't pretend to be as familiar with it as the critic, but I've certainly had an opportunity to review some of it. I know there are some questions about what this is going to cost the public. We've heard the Insurance Bureau of Canada talk about a 20% average premium increase. We've had the Mercer study supplied by the government. I don't know what this cost, but I'll tell you, Mercer has made a fortune in insurance studies over the past seven or eight years off the people of Ontario. But Mercer, I guess, is suggesting a 3.9% average increase in premiums --

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Financial Institutions): Costs.

Mr Runciman: -- in costs -- versus what the minister had been indicating: that his plan was going to result in a reduction.

Hon Mr Charlton: It will; Mercer concurs.

Mr Runciman: He's interjecting that it will, and I'm not sure how that's going to occur. Certainly the cabinet is going to have the authority to regulate prices, and I'm not one who's terribly supportive of government intervening in that area.

The other element of this legislation which concerns me greatly, which relates to price regulation, is the withdrawal provisions. We're talking about where an insurance company, for financial reasons, is having difficulty operating within this province -- auto may be just one arm of their operations -- and wants to pull back or pull out or even leave this province because of the heavy-handed approach of the NDP socialist government. What this bill is going to do is bring in heavy penalties for any company or an arm of a company that wishes to take initiatives in this area because of significant financial losses. This is indeed unprecedented, and I believe it's frightening.

Hon Mr Charlton: It's also not correct.

Mr Runciman: It's sending out signals not only to the insurance industry but to investors, international investors, about this province and about this government with respect to, "Why should we be investing in this province when we have a government that's so prepared to intervene in the private sector to a degree whereby it is going to penalize you financially in a significant way if you want to make a business decision based on the profitability or lack of same of your company?"

This is unprecedented. I'd like to think about it and put it in a broader sense of the implications for anyone looking at investing in this province or for anyone operating a business or industry in this province. It's an extremely frightening initiative and an extremely frightening element of this bill.

The minister is suggesting that my interpretation is incorrect and he'll have an opportunity -- only two minutes, I grant you -- but perhaps he can stand up and clarify where we're wrong in our interpretation.

1700

I also want to talk a bit about the risk classification element. Again, as I understand it, this legislation, with the risk classification provisions, is going to institute a single system of risk classification by eliminating age, sex and marital status as areas of assessing risk. This certainly was a long-time initiative of Mr Swart. I recall when the Liberals tried to do this it created significant consternation, not only of course with the insurance industry in terms of its cost impact but with the drivers in the province who were going to be very negatively impacted upon by this change.

Obviously, this is the sort of thing perhaps the minister can explain again. It seems to me that when we talk about this single system of risk classification, the people who again are being penalized are the better drivers in society.

What the government is doing, and what its Liberal predecessors proposed to do but drew back from, is sticking its head in the sand and essentially ignoring reality, ignoring what's happening on the highways and roads of this province and ignoring the fact that young male drivers are the highest risk, that they're the people who are getting into significant numbers of accidents. If we take a look at impaired driving leading to death, those are the numbers again, people under 19 years of age. Young females are going to be penalized -- that certainly was the implication of this single system of risk classification -- and seniors.

I recall rising this in the House two or three years ago when the Liberals were suggesting they were going to do this -- it must be three years ago -- and raising the concerns of the senior citizens of Ontario and the fact that their rates were going to be increasing by 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%. They were going to be faced with dramatic premium rate increases as a result of this risk classification change.

The minister is shrugging all of this off. Hopefully, when he wraps up, he's going to be able to allay all our concerns about these initiatives, but I very much doubt it. Certainly, on the face of it, these concerns are valid.

I'm going to talk a bit about the failure of the government to reintroduce the right to sue for economic loss. This is the most significant financial portion of tort, and you have failed to touch upon that and the right to sue for future financial loss. We're talking about students. We're talking of course about the unemployed. There's no recognition of the future financial loss of innocent accident victims in those sorts of situations. Mr Minister, I'm not sure why you have avoided that. I really have a great deal of difficulty in understanding the rationale.

I want to again get back to the views that Mr Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold, had during the year leading up to the 1990 election and the hearing process we went through. As I said, it was an emotional experience, a draining experience in many ways, not only because of the testimony that we heard before us, Mr Minister, but also because of the fact that the government of the day refused to listen to that testimony. It must have been around 90% of the witnesses appearing before us were very much opposed to that legislation and, as I said, had no vested interest, had nothing to gain from it, when the government of the day totally ignored those kinds of submissions. That is also a draining experience for any legislator.

You're here and we're here to try to do a job for the people of this province. When you hear that kind of testimony and you have a group of backbenchers sitting on that standing committee who simply refuse to listen to the testimony and simply refuse to give it any credence, you can imagine the frustration of Mr Kormos and myself, or yourself, if you sat on a committee and had that kind of experience.

I am suggesting to you, Minister, that's exactly what's occurring here today in respect of this legislation. You may have made some modest changes, some modest improvements; that's an arguable point.

Hon Mr Charlton: Maybe the members across the way will listen to the victims this time.

Mr Runciman: We'll be quite prepared to listen to the victims.

Mr Tilson: I hope you give us a chance to listen to the victims. I don't think you're going to give us a chance.

Mr Runciman: My colleague the critic, the member for Dufferin-Peel, raises a good point. This is a significant change and we should put this on the record. I'm sure he will do so if he hasn't already done this.

The fact is that your government is handcuffing the opposition in respect to having appropriate public hearings. We want to sit during the break in the House in January and February so that we can tour the province and give everyone an opportunity to have input into this important legislation. Now, what this government is suggesting through its House leader, Mr Cooke, is two Fridays in travelling the province.

Apparently you'll go to northwestern Ontario and perhaps eastern or central Ontario in those two days -- I'm not sure -- and the rest of the time that's going to be allocated is only going to occur during afternoon sessions in this Legislature. People are supposed to travel to Toronto to have their views made known on this piece of legislation. That's just unacceptable, and the minister should be prepared, when we're talking about legislation as significant as this, to delay passage until we have given the people an opportunity.

You were talking about victims. You tell me how many victims' groups or individual victims are going to have an opportunity to appear before these hearings, given the restrictions and limitations that you've placed upon them: very few indeed.

This is difficult when you have the minister sitting there. I like the minister. I've worked with him for a number of years, and I think he is a genuinely sincere individual as well. But again, I believe what he is doing is something he truly does not believe in. I gather we can guess these things. We're suggesting that what he's doing is something he doesn't believe in. But if he wants to explain how this jibes with the position he took in the fall of 1990, the position he took on the hustings in 1987 and 1985 with respect to automobile insurance -- you can't jibe it.

When you look at public auto insurance, the stand you always took was the British Columbia model, which is a tort system, the right to sue for economic loss. The provisions are all there in the British Columbia system, which you supported. Then, all of a sudden, when you have the opportunity to come into cabinet -- you get the $25,000 or $30,000 a year, the fancy office, the limousine, the perks of power -- that principle, those stands that you've taken and have stood for for so many years you're prepared to set aside in order to retain those perks, and that truly is unfortunate.

It's one of the problems, the demerits of this system, not only this system in Ontario but governments right across this country. We saw it, and I'll say it quite clearly, in the Davis government, we saw it in the Peterson government and we're seeing it in the Rae government, where you have, effectively, a dictatorship, where you have government run by a Premier and a handful of unelected advisers who really call the shots from the corner office.

People like you, who are too concerned about the perks of office and the privileges that go with it and the fact that you can call yourself a minister -- I don't like saying these things to you, but I have to say them because I believe it's the case; if not, you would be leaving cabinet.

If someone like you, as a minister, were prepared to step aside on a question of principle, Mr Rae would be forced to back off. That's why Kormos is no longer in cabinet. He couldn't force this issue down his throat. What would have occurred is that you would have had a head-on conflict with the Premier of the day, saying: "I do not want to do this. This is what I am imposing upon you, Minister of Financial Institutions," and Kormos would have resigned on a question of principle. That's why he is out before that occurred, and you apparently do not have the intestinal fortitude to do the same and I regret that profoundly.

1710

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

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I'm especially pleased to comment on the comments by Mr Runciman, the member for Leeds-Grenville, because, yes, he accurately recites the history of the opposition to no-fault in this province.

Mr Stockwell: The alleged opposition.

Mr Kormos: No-fault, yes. If you like workers' comp, you'll love no-fault. Why, there were only 19 of us in the official opposition; there were only 17 in the Conservative caucus. The government was overwhelming in its numbers and I tell you, notwithstanding that clearly members of the government caucus, members of David Peterson's government, Liberal backbenchers, would privately relate to Mr Runciman or to myself or to any other number of opposition members their distaste, their anathema, for no-fault, a recognition of the attack that no-fault constitutes on innocent victims, why, by God, to the final one they stood in their -- well, sat in their seats and they stood from their seats, of course, and supported no-fault auto insurance.

At the very least Bill 68, that Liberal no-fault system, preserved for the most seriously injured people the right to full compensation. I understand there are going to be some brief committee hearings. Let's not keep any secret about the fact that there are no two ways about it; people are cynical and frustrated about what's happened since September 1990. They didn't expect to have to confront this issue once again. They thought that upon electing a New Democratic Party government the rights of innocent victims would be restored once and for all. But I tell you, as long as the word is being spread that somehow this new bill increases benefits when in fact it reduces wage replacement benefits, at least for those people who aren't in the top 10% of income earners in this province, people are going to continue to be cynical.

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

Mr Tilson: I must say, we've now heard from the left and the right. We've heard from the member for Welland-Thorold and the member for Leeds-Grenville, who have both worked together in the former challenge to the Liberal Bill 68. It's unfortunate that both of them became quite an authority on this subject and that we only are able to hear half an hour each from them. I don't want to spend any more time on the member for Welland-Thorold, but they've both spoken with integrity. They've both stood up for their principles on this subject and they have stood by where they have made their commitments in the past.

The New Democratic Party, of course, with the exception of several members from the current government -- Mr Kormos from Welland-Thorold being one of them -- said in the last election that they would promise to keep premiums down and they have said they would restore the right of accident victims to sue, including the present minister. The present minister made that promise. What in fact they have done is that they are now taking away the right to sue from even those who suffer serious and permanent injury for loss of income. They've reversed their position completely.

In fact, as you recall back, I believe, last December, the member for Leeds-Grenville put forward a bill aimed at restoring the full rights of accident victims to sue. At that time, the minister as he then was -- I think he was an ordinary member at that time -- supported that principle.

Then, of course, he had the opportunity to come into government. I don't like to sit here and attack him personally any more than the member for Leeds-Grenville, but your principles are questionable. You've completely reversed yourself on every position now with respect to this bill; every principle. You've promised a full right to sue; you've taken that away. You've made all kinds of commitments that you've now reversed and it's regrettable that the minister cannot reconsider his position and revoke the bill.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? The honourable Minister of Financial Institutions.

Hon Mr Charlton: I won't personally attack either the member for Leeds-Grenville or the member for Dufferin-Peel, but I will comment on a couple of the substantive matters they've raised in relation to the legislation, because I think that's the important part of what we're here to discuss.

The member for Leeds-Grenville raised the question of withdrawal that is set out in the legislation. He and his colleague, who was interjecting throughout his comments, accused the government of setting up legislation that is going to refuse to allow companies to leave this province when they make decisions to do so and to penalize them if they try, which is patently ridiculous.

The sections on withdrawal in the legislation are designed to ensure that any withdrawal from the marketplace in the province of Ontario is done in an orderly fashion so that policyholders of those companies are protected, their policies are lived up to in terms of the premiums they've paid and penalties are assessed in cases where that doesn't happen.

The industry has had lengthy discussions with us on that matter and we will work out wording that is acceptable in terms of the commercial questions the members refer to, because the industry has said it supports the government's intent in those sections.

On the question of the classification system, which the member for Leeds-Grenville also raised, the industry supports the need to change the classification system. It did not support the way the Liberal government attempted to do it last round. The industry has agreed to work with the government in changing the classification system and eliminating the discrimination in that classification system in an orderly fashion.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant. The honourable member for Willowdale.

Mr Harnick: It's interesting that the minister gets to his feet to tell us about the substantive aspects of this bill. He talks about companies leaving the province and he talks about classifications.

Hon Mr Charlton: Those were the issues your colleague raised. I was commenting on his speech.

Mr Stockwell: There's dozens more.

Mr Harnick: I can tell you that in the member for Leeds-Grenville's limited comments of half an hour, he spoke about a great deal more than what the minister refers to.

It would seem to me that if the minister wanted to talk about principle, he'd talk about what his bill is doing to innocent accident victims. Yesterday, in probably the most eloquent speech we've heard on this topic, we heard Mr Kormos talk about how this act is going to impact on low-income earners. We heard how the minister's 90% is going to be less than the current 80%. You would think the minister has an opportunity to get on his feet and explain to us how his 90% is in fact worth more than the 80%, which it's not.

We have seen how this impacts on low-income earners. The person making $30,000 or less is going to get less under this bill than under the Liberal bill. The minister shakes his head. I urge him to go out and buy a calculator, because he's not smart enough and he doesn't have enough fingers and toes to do the arithmetic himself.

Do it. Look at what Mr Kormos said. Mr Kormos gave you an analysis of what was going to happen to low-income earners. You didn't listen to him, but the fact of the matter is, they are going to get less. Don't shake your head. The people you profess to help are going to get less under your bill.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. I want to remind all the members that interjections are out of order, please. The honourable member for Leeds-Grenville has two minutes in response.

Mr Runciman: This is really a sad commentary on the political process that if we look back in history, and not that far back, we see Mr Rae, now the Premier of this province, Mel Swart, Mr Kormos, the current member for Welland-Thorold, and the publication Mr Rae co-authored -- or he was given the title of co-author -- something called Highway Robbery, see the emotion that Mr Rae expressed on this issue, that Mr Swart expressed on this issue, what we believe was the sincerity they all expressed on this issue in terms of the right to sue, their genuine caring for innocent accident victims. This is simply not reflected in your legislation.

1720

Forget about government ownership. Let's just talk about innocent accident victims and their access to the courts. This is a complete turnaround, a complete abdication, a complete betrayal of the things that you've stood for, that your leader has stood for, that your party has stood for, and that some very, very solid people like Mr Swart and Mr Kormos have stood for.

Now you and your backbench colleagues are prepared to in some way justify this betrayal of public trust. It just doesn't wash and it's going to come back to haunt you. It's going to come back to haunt all of your colleagues. In fact, it's impacting negatively on all of us as elected officials. As I said, I regret profoundly that this minister personally is responsible for carrying this legislation through because I think he's better than this. Hopefully, through this process, he's going to bring forward some changes, or it's complete abdication with respect to carrying this bill through, because it's bad news for innocent accident victims in this province.

The Speaker: Thank you. The member's time has elapsed. Further debate on Bill 164.

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I'm glad to be able to participate in this debate because, as did both the members for Leeds-Grenville and Welland-Thorold, I sat in on both the previous committees that heard the auto insurance debates around the province, Bill 2 and Bill 68. I must say I'm glad I was on those committees because it emphasizes to me how we have selective memories as far as what went on during those committee hearings is concerned.

I'd like to comment first of all on a comment by the present member for Welland-Thorold when he said that this debate carries with it some real déjà vu. I would agree with that except to make this comment about it: when you consider that the member for Welland-Thorold, under the previous government, had a chance to speak for 17 hours on Bill 68, and that this whole caucus, the Liberal caucus on this side of the House, is allocated half an hour more than that member had by himself with the previous government. That is what is called fairness in terms of the comments, usually, by the Premier and the Treasurer from questions raised by this side of the House.

In other words, the member for Welland-Thorold, in the debate on Bill 68, was given 34 times the amount of time that I am allocated in this debate, and to further show the irony of the situation, one thirty-fourth of Peter Kormos' time has been had again because I have been asked to cooperate with the government to allow the minister to make the concluding remarks tonight, if I would share my time with the member for St Catharines so that he could get his remarks on this bill on the record.

I would like to emphasize again the unfairness of the whole situation. If this is such an important debate, take a look at what the key points are on Bill 164. The government states: "We want to see a system of auto insurance that is affordable, fair and universally accessible. Premiums must be stable and predictable. Victims injured in a motor vehicle accident must receive benefits quickly to ensure a complete recovery. Coverage must be complete."

I thought those points were the reason the OMPP was introduced, because I can tell you, in the period from 1987 to 1990 I had lots of queries in my constituency office and my Queen's Park office about the unaffordability of insurance rates. Since OMPP has been introduced, I have had almost none, so I would think that what we wanted to achieve in this province has been achieved by Bill 68.

I would like further to state that from my experience, rates have been stabilized, in many cases rates have been reduced, most consumers are satisfied and definitely auto insurance as a topic has been taken off the front burner.

Was the Liberal plan flawless? Of course not. It deserved some of the criticism both the third party and the governing party have raised towards Bill 68 and which, by the way, the companies themselves have realized, from meeting with them. For instance, there was no indexation of benefits, because one of the purposes of Bill 68 was to stabilize rates and reduce rates. Therefore, we had to make sure that there was predicability in the system.

There was also inadequate protection of small independent business people, but because the OMPP was a completely new system, not practised anywhere in the world but adopting some of the best measures of systems elsewhere, we had to have a trial period during which we would study the effects and then iron out what needed to be ironed out.

There was no definition of "threshold." This was left up to the courts and that created a problem. There was also anxiety for the head-injured, because they were unsure whether they would meet the threshold and they were very definitely afraid of the cap on rehabilitation and long-term care.

But I must say that in my meetings with the auto insurance deliverers, they were looking at solutions to these problems.

At one of the meetings, a person came up with this definition of Bill 164: It's a definition of "a solution in search of a problem." I can underline that in my experience in my constituency office. I have had very few problems with the auto insurance system as it has been implemented by the Liberal government.

Now I want to touch on something else. One of the members, I think the member for Markham, said that the NDP had an agenda and that nothing will stop them from achieving this agenda. I have to partially agree with that comment, but at the same time I have to partially disagree.

They do have an agenda, but it is not the heralded Agenda for People from the 1990 election. It is a hidden agenda, and maybe it is that agenda for power, as we have renamed it on this side of the House, because if you read the Agenda for People, everything about Bill 164 is diametrically opposed to that Agenda for People during the last election. That secret agenda seems to me to be a secret agenda to destroy the province with socialist policies that have not worked elsewhere, for instance Sweden, and with other socialist policies that have been discredited elsewhere, namely, the former USSR, Poland, the former Yugoslavia and others.

1730

I want to get on with some of the other provisions and some of the other things that have been mentioned in various statements by other members of the House; for instance, the penalty that companies have to pay to leave the province. We have heard time and time again that this government is in partnership with the private sector to try to reinvigorate the economy. Then what do they do? They want to promote investment in this province by threatening investing companies with a penalty for not being able to make a go of it in this province after this government changes the rules of the game in midstream. As Mr Tilson, the member for Dufferin-Peel, said, "That's one way of keeping business in Ontario: Pass a law that they can't leave." They may stay, but I can guarantee you one thing: They will put no new investment in here. That puts a big red stop sign on any new investment by anybody who's not already stuck in Ontario. That is a very unfortunate thing to say on this day and in these trying times.

I would like to go back to the present member for Welland-Thorold when he opened his remarks on this bill. He says:

"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, . . . 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."

He goes on to say, "I can't think of one voter in this province who couldn't have known where the New Democrats stood on auto insurance." Of course, that was their stand on a common pause day, on their opposition to Sunday shopping, on their opposition to gambling, just to mention a few.

One thing I really want to point out is how he can use figures to show exactly how cynical the NDP government is. He states:

"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%?"

When introduced by the NDP government in Bill 164, because 90% is of net income. The 80% from the previous Liberal government was of gross income. He states facts and figures that show to the dollar what the difference is; and it's quite substantial in many cases, exceeding 10% of the total people would receive.

I would like to go on to state something which my colleague and seatmate Mr Cordiano stated when he opened his remarks. He said, "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." Well, if they were subject to Bill 164, they would not have the advantage of that pain and suffering unless it exceeded that threshold of theirs of $15,000. That $15,000 presents a false image to the people of Ontario. It seems to present an image that if your claim is more than $15,000, that is the amount you will receive. But when you take into consideration that $15,000 is a deductible, on top of which you have to add legal fees and everything else, you could wind up with a $30,000 win in court and wind up with out-of-pocket expenses. I think that is a very dangerous precedent to set. It is, again, another example of the cynicism where 90% is less than 80%.

I would like to make some general comments on the behaviour of this NDP government, especially on its attitudes and deportment towards the business community in Ontario. It reminds me a lot of the French Revolution of 1789 and the following reign of terror. I don't think in Ontario today we have a reign of terror, but from the business community point of view and from the view of my constituents and most people I have talked to, we certainly have a reign of error.

Every message this government has sent out has backfired. For instance, we have a headline today in the Toronto Sun, "Campaign To Yank NDP Plug," where what is commonly observed to be the constituency of the NDP, organized labour, is now trying to distance itself from this NDP government and its policies. For instance, Linda Leatherdale states: "A 16-year General Motors worker in Oshawa is so fed up with Bob Rae's NDP, he wants his union to pull the financial plug." Alan Clarke is a skilled tradesperson and he is going to present a petition to his Local 222 in Oshawa to get his membership to revoke its financial support of the NDP.

This follows a campaign of 1,000 workers at Budd in Kitchener, members of CAW Local 1451, who voted recently, effective September 14, to stop their monthly payments to the NDP.

I'm saying that when the NDP loses its constituency, it's time it opens its ears to the concerns of the government. Having sat on the previous two committees that heard auto insurance complaints, I know they consistently accused the Liberal government of not listening, yet the Liberal government took into consideration many of the proposals that were put before the committees. It's incumbent on this government to listen to the ordinary Canadian, especially to the ordinary organized union member, so that it gets in line with what the people of this province want.

1740

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Willowdale.

Mr Harnick: It's interesting that we have a bill that's taking away the right to claim for economic loss. We have a bill that is making people pay for the right to claim for their pain and suffering in a court; they have to pay $15,000 so they can claim for their pain and suffering. All of these things are totally contrary to what the NDP promised, totally contrary to the promises that were made, and those promises were made in order to get votes.

In this situation, I would think it would be incumbent on the government to at least have the integrity to say we're going to have full, proper, public hearings and committee hearings during the period that is normally reserved for that process so that all people in Ontario will have the opportunity to be heard, will have the opportunity to consider this piece of legislation.

But this government doesn't have the guts to do that. We're going to meet for a couple of hours on a few afternoons and we're going to try to hustle this through in a way that will not provide the scrutiny of this bill that it deserves. The reason the bill deserves scrutiny is because of the deceitful way the government has changed the promise it made to the people of Ontario.

As I've said before, the reason people are cynical about government is because government makes promises and then it changes its mind after it gets the votes. This minister has had the gall to stand up and tell the people of Ontario that's exactly what he's doing. I can tell you that the people in Hamilton will not re-elect him, not after this becomes law.

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

Mr Tilson: It appears that we are coming to the end of this debate, and I must say I find it most unusual for a bill of this stature, particularly when we have now limited the member for Leeds-Grenville and the member for Welland-Thorold to half an hour in speech. They can offer a lot to this House. They can comment on the Liberal bill; they can comment on this bill. The whole subject of debate, as a result of the rules, has now been stifled.

We are now at the end of the debate, it appears, and I am concerned that there will be inadequate time for public hearings to be heard throughout this province. I believe this House has an obligation to hear the concerns of the people of this province on the accidents that have occurred since the Ontario motorist protection plan came into existence. We'll no longer be able to hear all those problems. We won't be able to hear properly from the insurance companies and the lawyers and the insurance brokers and the members of the public who want to come and tell us their concerns with both bills.

My understanding is that we're simply going to have a couple of afternoons from 3 to 5 to talk about it. We're going to go outside for a couple of days to talk about it, out to London and Ottawa. It will probably take half a day to get there. The consultation of this government has come to a dead stop on a bill of this importance, and it's absolutely shameful.

Mr Owens: Baloney.

Mr Tilson: It isn't baloney. Why won't you go out, as for any other important bill, as you would have demanded of the Liberals in this province, for two or three or four weeks to talk on a bill as important as this? You would have demanded it. If the Liberals had done this to you, you would have screamed bloody murder. What are you doing now? A few days, a few afternoons and a few Fridays. I think you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Mississauga East has two minutes in response.

Mr Sola: In order to save time, Mr Speaker, I'd like to give that time to my colleague from St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: I appreciate the opportunity at this late hour to be able to share a few thoughts with the members of the Legislature on the issue of automobile insurance and the particular bill that is before the House -- a bill, by the way, which frankly has received most of its criticism from those who are members of the New Democratic Party, not necessarily those represented in the House, but those who have attended provincial council.

I was at provincial council in Sudbury last year -- I think it was October 4 -- to attend the 20th anniversary dinner of the Treasurer, the member for Nickel Belt, and many of the people who were at the tables there were discussing the issue of automobile insurance. In fact, in the remarks that I offered in support of the Treasurer I had a chance to mention, in a jocular way, the thoughts that perhaps some of the New Democrats would have about automobile insurance. Certainly, I detected a feeling in the room that there were a lot of discontented people because the government was not proceeding with its campaign promise, which was to provide public automobile insurance.

It seems to me, as I note some key points about this legislation -- I don't want to necessarily get into it in detail right now -- but the issue really comes down to how much you're going to pay and what you're going to get for what you pay. Successive governments have had to deal with this. It's not an easy issue to deal with. I think the new government has discovered that. I could be more sympathetic if I didn't know that they had all of the answers just a while ago when in opposition, but I suppose that happens with all parties who sit in opposition.

It's a very difficult issue to deal with because the bottom line amounts to two bottom lines, if you will. You can't allow the premiums to rise too high, and that's when the heat comes on a government. When the premiums get up high, the government starts to become very concerned. So they have two routes to take, in my view. They can go to public automobile insurance, as advocated by the member for Welland-Thorold and the previous member for Welland-Thorold, Mel Swart, and public automobile insurance has some attributes.

However, the other approach that you can take is try to keep the premiums down by limiting the benefits that are going to be derived if a claim is put forward to the insurance company. That's a balancing act that the government has to go through. I'm sure the Minister of Financial Institutions, who has been in this House since 1977 at least -- he and I came in at the same time in 1977 -- would like to see more benefits in this legislation if he could. If he had his number one wish it would be for more benefits out of this legislation for those who would file a claim, but he has to meet with his colleagues in cabinet and he has to meet with others, particularly the Premier's office. We all know how powerful the Premier's office can be. I've heard my friend from Welland-Thorold say that on many occasions and I have no reason to doubt his observations. Obviously the Premier's office has decided and the Premier will implement this particular bill.

I know that the government's difficulty is wrestling with those premiums, because that's what people call you about. Everybody has to pay the premiums but not everybody has to make a claim. So there are a limited number of people who will call their MPPs about claims if they do not feel that they have received justice, but a heck of a lot of people will call if they feel that the justice is not there in the first place because the premiums are too high.

We in the opposition believe that the Ontario motorist protection plan tried to do that. There were critics of it. Some of my friends in the legal profession were beside themselves about what the Liberal government -- I'm still getting letters from some of them, as different cases come in, pointing out what they believe to be the deficiencies in the plan of the previous government. I recognize that those in the legal profession are those who deal with this on a daily basis. They see the victims whom they represent. They themselves are part of the system and that's how they make a living as well, and that's quite legitimate. I understand their feelings when they feel that the government of any day has taken away their right to make money and their right to appropriately defend people who are in difficult circumstances.

But what I'm concerned about is that the government has moved away from a position that it stated clearly over the years and in a campaign. I've always been one in years gone by who thought -- and the member for Etobicoke West has chastised me for this on many occasions -- that the NDP was going to implement these things they really believed in. I look across at some of the icons of the NDP who sit in the House today, including the Minister of Financial Institutions, people who stood for principle over the years, who saw in their platform, as one of the major planks, automobile insurance that would satisfy the people of this province. We have seen a complete reversal of that policy. That's what this bill really represents, a reversal of that policy.

Yesterday in the House I handed to one of my colleagues a newspaper headline that talked about Premier Rae during an election campaign saying Premier Peterson had lied about automobile insurance. If one would define what Premier Peterson said and then did about automobile insurance as a lie, one would draw some interesting conclusions about what Premier Rae has had to say. The member for Etobicoke West has given me this headline. It says, "Premier Has Lied to the People, Rae Charges."

I remember, by the way, the member for High Park-Swansea -- I remember I was walking out the door and she was chastising me for something that the opposition had said in early days in here and I said, "You know, Bob Rae accused David Peterson of lying." She said, "Oh, well, of course he did lie." Case dismissed.

1750

What do you call it when the Premier of this province says he's going to bring in public auto insurance -- that means government-run auto insurance -- that he's going to restore the right to sue for a variety of reasons, and then he doesn't do it, does exactly the opposite? What conclusion could I draw, except a conclusion that might be found in this headline, one that we're not allowed to say in this House, because we cannot accuse other members of lying? I think that's a good rule to have in this House, by the way, because it brings some decorum to the place.

I heard one of the NDP members, the member for Yorkview, who's now entering the House, say, "Why are you people always quoting everybody else?" The reason we quote Mel Swart and the reason we quote Peter Kormos is that sometimes you expect the opposition to oppose whatever the government does. There's that expectation out there. Indeed, if you observe the news media today as compared to when I first started out in this Legislature, they used to go to people like Bob Mackenzie, the member for Hamilton East, for instance, and interview him after something happened in the House. Today what happens is that they interview the government ministers, then they phone up the interest groups and interview those people, and the opposition is irrelevant. Maybe a government backbencher such as Peter Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold, who has something different to say because his own government is in power, gets interviewed, and I think that's --

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: It's an observation I make. That's why, when the member for Yorkview asks, why do we quote these other people --

Mr Mammoliti: It's not what I said.

Mr Bradley: It's because there's an expectation that the opposition will oppose virtually no matter what the government proposes. There is some merit to that observation, because it happens quite frequently.

That's why I think it's important that we talk about the former member for Welland-Thorold, Mel Swart. I've shared many a table with Mel Swart and many discussions with him. I'll let him speak for himself, but I will say this to the members of the Legislature: The views he held when he was in opposition, when he ran for the New Democratic Party, are the same views he holds today.

I could go on at great length, and I've complained about the rules Bob Rae has brought in, but I only intend to speak for another five minutes in this House to permit certain things to happen. That is why I thought I should just share a couple of things that I think are right or wrong about this legislation.

In the legislation, the contention is that all economic losses will be compensated through the statutory accident benefits system. There will no longer be a right to sue for economic loss. This denial of the right to sue for loss of income is a greater restriction than the Liberal government's decision not to permit tort for pain and suffering, which the NDP denounced. I ask how the NDP government can now claim that this is the restoration of the right to sue that it promised.

I would have thought that a party that has a social conscience, that used to be a socialist party -- they now call themselves social democrats -- would be concerned about the economic loss of people well into the future. They fought for those things over the years. Many of the people who were here and some of the newer people who were elected stood on platforms and fought for people who would suffer economic loss that could not be attributed to anything that was their own fault. They must be disillusioned to see that a piece of legislation now comes forward which denies people that particular opportunity.

I understand why it's done: The concern is about premiums. But even this particular bill will surely result in increased premiums in the province. One scenario I would think about if I were machiavellian is that perhaps the government wants to create a situation where there are high premiums so that it can justify bringing in public auto insurance in the end. I'm not a person who thinks in those terms, but there are those who have contended that's possibly the case.

There is another point I want to dwell on very briefly; I don't know if I can do it as briefly as members would like me to. I will simply indicate that our party and the members of our party have looked very carefully at the legislation and have examined all aspects of it. You have to look at the total package. You can't just pick out one or two minor items and say, "I don't like that, so I'm voting against the bill." You have to look at what the total package is: Will it increase premiums? Will it restrict people in their right to get economic justice?

I don't think this bill fits that particular description of providing economic justice and of ensuring that premiums are going to be kept at a reasonable rate in this province. That's why I would join my colleagues in opposing this legislation. I'm sure, given a free vote, which I heard the Premier speak of on many occasions, we would have a situation where many of the people over there would vote against it.

One of my colleagues said the member for Welland-Thorold wouldn't vote against it. I suspect he will vote against it, and I don't think he will be kicked out as Chairman of the resources development committee; he's not a person you can kick around that easily. The excuse the government will use will be, "It's justified because he voted for what was long-time NDP policy, so we won't fire him as Chairman of the committee the way we did with Ron Hansen, the member for Lincoln," and so all will be fine with the government.

But I will look forward to seeing the member for Welland-Thorold, who gave a very principled speech, one which he stood for in opposition, one which he stood for in government. It's one of the reasons he lost his seat in the cabinet.

Interjections.

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

Mr Bradley: This contention that the member for Welland-Thorold, who opposes this legislation, was put out of the cabinet because he was a Sunshine Boy in the Sun, fully dressed, is nonsense, in my view. The reason is that he stood for certain things the government didn't stand for. He knew what was coming up. I think he could see the flip-flop on Sunday shopping, I think he could see the flip-flop on automobile insurance, and because he wanted to maintain his NDP and older CCF principles, he was prepared to relinquish his seat when the Premier gave him an ultimatum, and therefore he made his point.

He's made the point as well as anybody over here could, and that's why I need not go on for my full allocated time of only 30 minutes. I wish I could have given my full time to the member for Welland-Thorold, who was restricted to 30 minutes to speak on this legislation, so he'd have a full opportunity to canvass all opinions on this matter.

To members of the Legislature, I urge the members of the government who have a conscience on this issue to join the opposition in opposing it. If you do so, you'll have gained the respect of the people of the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Brampton South.

Mr Callahan: I just want to comment very quickly on something the member from St Catharines said. I too urge the people on the opposite side in government to follow the Premier's directive -- I'm sure the Premier has told you this is a free vote, has he not? I would hope so -- and that you people over there would vote your conscience, vote your party's policies, vote for what your constituents are telling you. I'm waiting to see, as I think all of Ontario is as well as this side of the House, whether or not you're going to stand up in the usual fashion, joined at the hip, and support a policy you can't support in conscience, or it is just going to be the member for Welland-Thorold who will vote against it, simply for the reasons the member for St Catharines has indicated and I've indicated. In fact, I've got bets that he won't vote against it. However, he might, and when you think about it, it's probably good strategy by the Premier to say, "All right, Peter, you can vote against it, and the reason you can vote against it is because the people of Ontario are not stupid. They're going to realize that you spoke at great length in a filibuster about this, and to have you now vote with the government would prove the fact that the people in the government of the day are mindless," that they don't make decisions based on what's good for their constituents, they make decisions based on what the Premier, four cabinet ministers and about six unelected spin doctors in the back hall say is important, in terms of keeping you people in power.

I think the day of reckoning is coming. The people will look at it and they'll see Peter Kormos maybe vote against it, and I think the member for St Catharines is right: that would be good strategy. But the rest of you people will mindlessly stand up and say you support this, and I think that as Mel Swart sits there watching the count, if he in fact tunes in -- he probably won't tune in, because he knows how this place works, and he knows that there will be nobody who will have the guts to stand up on the government side to support what in fact is NDP policy.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further questions and/or comments? Seeing none, the honourable member for St Catharines is forgoing his time. Further debate? Would the Minister of Financial Institutions have some summation remarks?

1800

Hon Mr Charlton: I had hoped to have a few minutes to make a few remarks and, obviously, I haven't got very many but I'll make a couple of quick ones. I would have liked to have addressed the issue the member for Willowdale raised about public hearings, but I think in light of the time, it's more important that I deal with the issues of the legislation itself.

A number of members have raised the issue of 80% of gross versus 90% of net, and it is correct that there are occasions when 90% of net is less than 80% of gross. It is also interesting to note, though, in the tradition of this debate and those who have been an important part of this debate, people keep referring to the member for Welland-Thorold and to the impassioned speeches of the member for Willowdale and those people who get seriously injured in accidents, their bodies broken, their futures stolen --

Mr Tilson: I've got news for you; that's what happens.

Hon Mr Charlton: The package that we've delivered here, as the member for St Catharines says, has to be viewed as a package and the benefits understood as a package, and 90% of net indexed for life delivers a significantly better benefit to those seriously disabled people than anything in Bill 68 would ever deliver, because it was unindexed.

We've addressed these people who are broken, who've had their futures stolen, who these members like to talk about, and --

Mr Harnick: You've taken away their economic rights. How have you addressed their problems?

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The minister has the floor.

Hon Mr Charlton: We've also had the issue here raised of the cost of this package. The member for St Catharines raised the question of premiums, and it is an important consideration. The member for Leeds-Grenville talked about the Mercer report and roughly 4% increase in costs.

We have an insurance system out there that unfortunately is significantly overpriced because of decisions that the previous government made, an overpriced system where on average policies are overpriced by about $125.

The Acting Speaker: Order. We are getting very, very close to the normal closing hour. Does the minister have a long time to go yet?

Hon Mr Charlton: I'll wrap up by saying that I will deliver the commitment I made. Premiums have already been reduced in this province. This package will not cost the policyholders of this province any additional dollars.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Charlton has moved second reading of Bill 164. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I have a message from the chief government whip to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, dated Thursday, October 8, 1992. It reads as follows:

Pursuant to standing order 27(g), I request that the vote on the motion by the Honourable Brian Charlton 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, be deferred until immediately following routine proceedings on Tuesday, October 13, 1992.

This will therefore be the case.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister without Portfolio): I would like to read the business for next week. Pursuant to standing order 53, I would like to indicate that business.

On Tuesday, October 13, we will have second and third reading of Bill 68, the Ontario university foundations. Following that, we will deal with government notice of motion number 15 to extend the hours of the House, followed by government notice of motion number 16, that this House consider the Charlottetown accord.

On Wednesday, October 14, we will continue our consideration of the Charlottetown accord.

On the morning of Thursday, October 15, the House will conclude consideration of the accord during the time normally reserved for private members' public business. In the afternoon of October 15, the House will consider an opposition day motion standing in the name of Mrs McLeod.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): It now being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until Tuesday, October 13, at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1806.