Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HANSARD OPERATIONS

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise on a point of order. I want to rise to object to the actions of the Board of Internal Economy last evening. You will recall that I voted against the two motions which were presented, one to do away with the interjectionists’ track, which has been in operation since 1976, and a motion to put the interjectionists back on the floor.

We are not referring to what formerly was here by that action last night, we are going much beyond what was here. We are now turning off the mikes, which will prevent all interjections, basically, from being picked up. Interjections by someone on this side of the House very seldom are picked up by a speaker on the government side of the House. Certainly it can’t be anticipated that the interjectionists will pick up all of the remarks.

I realize the concern of members with respect to private conversations. These private conversations, however, do not appear in Hansard because Hansard records only those things which are part of the debate that is going on in the House. The interjections, therefore, have to be relevant with the proceedings. The rest of the material, as I understand it, is ignored, and in most instances the interjections are inaudible anyway. If you do pick them up, you usually pick up a short clip.

All of this concern with respect to interjections came as a result of the interjections from the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot). The Speaker that evening didn’t hear those interjections. It was my colleague, the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) and several other of my colleagues who picked them up. The Speaker could not hear them.

Hon. Mr. Wells: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: We are already on a point of order. I will hear what you have to say.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I just want to object to him bringing this matter before the House. It has nothing to do with this House.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member may continue.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, the interjectionist in my opinion could never have picked up all the invective which was being hurled around that night. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the next day you were forced to make a decision regarding this matter. To the press, the member for Timiskaming indicated he had called the late show “the gong show.” It was only by your listening to the tape, Mr. Speaker, that there was audible proof to you that the member for Timiskaming called it “the Wop show.” Without those tapes, Mr. Speaker, you would not have been in a position to make that decision.

I suppose the upshot of all of this is that it seems that rather than deal with the invective we are going to cut off the source. What is more aggravating than anything else, I guess is the fact this matter is before the members’ services committee at the present time. I don’t know why the government was so anxious to get rid of it. This Thursday the members’ services committee -- and there are people on that committee who were at that board meeting last night who knew it -- was going to look at three items at least: How many interjections do we want picked up? Do we want the girls back in the Legislature?

Applause.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s a vote of confidence.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I don’t mind giving a vote of confidence to our interjectionists, but that isn’t what I am here for, and I hope the members aren’t.

The other point was that the members’ services committee was going to test to determine at what level they could pick up private conversations. So anxious was the government to get rid of being able to pick that up that they flew in the face of a committee report and last night, at the Board of Internal Economy where they outnumber the opposition four to two, they moved to deal with it immediately and not even await a report.

I would suggest that this matter not only should be considered by the members’ services committee, but also I think it should go to the procedural affairs committee as well. Until those recommendations are presented to the board, or better still to this Legislature where all members could speak to this, I don’t think it’s a decision that should be made by the board. It should come back to this House and this House should decide on how that would be handled, not a Tory-dominated Board of Internal Economy. I ask that you consider that, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Wells: First of all, I find it very interesting that the House leader for the New Democratic Party has decided to make his speech here, which he did not make at the members’ services committee.

Mr. Martel: I don’t think you should mislead the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am not going to mislead the House. We knew full well that the member was opposed to our motion. But the general tenor of the remarks that were made now did not come out at the meeting. Under your chairmanship, Mr. Speaker, the Board of Internal Economy discussed what has certainly been a very pressing matter for many members of this House.

I think I speak for most of the members of this House when I say we were rather shocked to learn that all these microphones, whether the light was on or not, as it is now on on my microphone, were kept on at low gain all the time in order to assist in picking up interjections. Of course as members know, the worry was that conversations which should have been privileged and private, between various members sitting in their seats, ran the risk of being picked up by these microphones.

I don’t think any of us has any hesitation in saying that we believe that honest interjections, whether they hurt or harm us, should be included in the Hansard report of discussions in this House; I think that is quite proper. However, I think we can reach the point where there are too many interjections put in. After all, the work of this House is first and foremost to have the debate, and the words recorded of that person who has the floor.

I think of the hazards -- and believe me, Mr. Speaker, we hear much today about our worries about the electronic age and the electronic devices encroaching upon our privacy; we all know we may be standing in a little group with someone taking our picture and a microphone miles away.

I just say it seemed to a number of us in this House, after we had a full discussion over the past few weeks -- and certainly the caucus of which I am a member has fully discussed this -- we felt, as I put forward and my colleagues put forward, that these microphones should be disconnected and that the interjectionists on the floor of this House could perform the services they have done for many years in equally as good a manner without the chance, albeit a small chance, of intruding upon the private conversations of the members of this House. I think it’s incumbent upon us not to allow that to happen.

I think the member for Sudbury East is just grandstanding on an issue which I would think the members of the New Democratic Party, above all, should be against, namely, some kind of an electronic surveillance of the members of this House.

I want to say on the point of order that I feel, and this whole party feels, that the decision taken by the Board of Internal Economy was a right one. We welcome the return of the interjectionists to this House and we believe these microphones should stay disconnected unless the light comes on and the person who is talking understands and knows that his microphone is live and is picking up his words.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I really would like the direction of this House, because as a result of the actions taken last night as reported to me I withdrew from the agenda of the members’ services committee the further discussion of the Hansard matter since it seemed to me the matter had been determined last night. It is a fact that it was on our agenda for next Thursday, but it seemed to me to bring Mr. Brannan back and to go through all this exercise was somewhat irrelevant in the light of that decision. So I would welcome some direction from the House if we are to continue with this debate.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I ask you a question? Is it within the jurisdiction of the Board of Internal Economy to make a decision with regard to rules of procedure in this House?

Mr. Speaker: It’s not a matter of procedure. It’s what kind of devices we are going to use to best carry on the business of this House. It is the responsibility, ultimately, of the Speaker to make such a decision on the advice of the editor of debates. I did that in good faith on the basis of information that was available to me before this session resumed.

With regard to the point of order raised by the member for Sudbury East, I will take it into consideration and report at a later date.

VISITORS

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to your attention and to the attention of the members of the House the presence in the gallery under the press gallery of the former member for Kent-Elgin, Mr. Jack Spence.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in the same context, could I draw to your attention and the members of the House that we have six guests in the gallery from the real north, the Yukon? Among them is Tony Penikett, a member of the territorial council of an area that is now assuming responsible government and heading towards provincial status.

[2:15]

NEWSPAPER COMMENT

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege to take issue with a gratuitous remark published in today’s Globe and Mail.

As politicians, I believe we grow somewhat thick-skinned over published and broadcast comments which affect us personally, sometimes in an unfortunate and often inaccurate way. However, in today’s Globe and Mail, columnist Hugh Winsor brings discredit to all of the decent and law-abiding citizens of Mississauga when he casts aspirations on that great municipality --

Mr. S. Smith: Aspirations?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Aspersions; those too.

Mr. Makarchuk: Who inspired the aspirations?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mississaugans are inspired in their own right.

To suggest, as he did, that last week’s outstanding evacuation measures were carried out so well because Mississaugans are, and I quote, “bland and boring,” is not only gratuitous, it is terribly wrong and wilfully hurtful.

I submit to this House that in fact the people of our great municipality co-operated --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: The members opposite are wasting their time; the microphones aren’t on.

I submit to this House that in fact the people of our great municipality co-operated in those emergency measures because they are law-abiding, conscientious, compassionate, and care a great deal about their families, their neighbours and their community.

I would further suggest that Mr. Winsor wields a rather wide brush, and I cannot let pass this opportunity to commend all Mississaugans on behalf of myself and my colleagues, the members for Mississauga North (Mr. Jones), Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy) and Brampton (Mr. Davis), for our citizens’ co-operation and the outstanding example they set in their efforts. While a member of the press gallery here calls our citizens bland and boring, other people around the globe have marvelled at the spirit and co-operation of the people involved in this mass evacuation effort.

I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to invite the columnist from the Globe and Mail to join with me and my colleagues in visiting our great municipality, where we have every confidence our citizens might one day forgive him for this bad judgement and prove to him beyond any doubt we are far from what he had apparently imagined. Thank you.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ARSENIC EXPOSURE

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday, the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell), reported on the public health situation resulting from arsenic levels in the Moira River and Moira Lake downstream from the disused Deloro smelting and refining site.

Today I would like to outline the measures my ministry has taken, as well as what we are continuing to do to reduce the levels of arsenic in these waters.

The source for this arsenic is the site of the old ore refinery formerly operated by Deloro Smelting and Refining Company Limited. Originally a mine, this facility was used to refine silver, nickel and cobalt ores, and produce arsenic-based pesticides, from 1905 to 1961.

Large quantities of ore wastes bearing arsenic were left on the site. Our monitoring since the early 1960s has shown that arsenic has been entering the Moira River system through runoff and leaching from the site.

A series of orders, first under the Ontario Water Resources Act and then under the Environmental Protection Act, required the owners of the site to improve the collection and treatment facilities so as to reduce arsenic discharges.

In February, Erikson Construction Company Limited, the current owner of the site, told the ministry it was abandoning operations of the collection and treatment system on the plant site as of March 31, 1979 on the grounds they could no longer afford to operate it.

We immediately took over operation of this system.

Since the early 1960s, agencies of the Ontario government have analysed samples for arsenic levels in this system. Ten years ago, we began continuous monitoring at six locations below the Deloro site and we have data from a variety of other locations collected on a special study basis.

In recent years, there have been only two locations where the annual arsenic levels have exceeded the drinking water criteria of 0.05 parts per million. They are in the river immediately below the refinery site and in Moira Lake itself.

In both locations, monitoring through 1975 indicated declining arsenic levels as a result of abatement measures. Lake levels of 0.06 which we measured were close to drinking water quality.

Our monitoring showed a slight increasing trend during 1977 and 1978, but our monitoring so far this year indicates that the water quality has improved since we began operating the treatment plant in April.

We have spent more than $100,000 improving and operating this system since April. We have repaired and replaced berms, pipes and equipment on site, cleaned out the settling lagoons and in general begun improving and expanding the system. In addition we have been erecting fencing and signs around the most hazardous parts of the site and this work should be completed shortly.

A consultant has been retained to identify any possible remaining problems and recommend permanent solutions.

We have served a writ on Erikson Construction Company Limited to recover our costs in operating the treatment system and we intend to recover, as fully as possible, the costs of solving this problem.

When our work at the plant site is complete I am confident the mean levels of arsenic throughout this system will be consistently within our drinking water criteria. I’d like to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that all traces of arsenic will disappear from the system, but there is always the possibility that sediment in Moira Lake resulting from years of discharge may contribute -- and I underline -- trace levels for some time to come.

We have worked very closely with the Hastings and Prince Edward County Health Unit in dealing with this problem. The health unit has investigated thoroughly, as the Minister of Health advised last week. We can be assured that there are no residents using either the lake or the river as a steady source of drinking water, and therefore there is no health hazard.

With the co-operation of the local health officials we are ensuring that the residents affected are kept informed. We have provided full information to the public and to interested groups, and we are now planning a public meeting in co-operation with the ministries of Health and Labour and the local health unit. At this meeting we will provide citizens, cottagers’ associations, and any other concerned parties, with complete information on this issue.

I also will undertake to keep the Legislature advised of our progress in dealing with this matter.

MISSISSAUGA TRAIN FIRE

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, now that the crisis in Mississauga appears to be receding, I would like to report to the House on the response of the health-care system to that disaster. It also provides an opportunity for us to acknowledge with appreciation the response of the health-care workers, institutions and patients within the affected area.

In less than 19 hours last Sunday and Monday three large active-treatment hospitals and six nursing homes -- a total of almost 2,000 patients -- were evacuated without a single untoward event. To do this we drew on the central resources of the provincial government, the facilities of approximately 25 hospitals and nursing homes, and ambulance and public transit services from another 25 communities outside the evacuated areas.

While my colleague the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry) has dealt with the other aspects of the disaster, I think it would be useful to provide the House with more specific detail about the hospital evacuation.

The decision to evacuate the Mississauga General Hospital, Mississauga Extendicare Nursing Home and Chelsey Park was made by Peel regional police, in consultation with the regional chairman, the mayor of Mississauga, the fire chief and the administrators of the facilities concerned shortly after 9 a.m. on Sunday.

There were at that point 450 patients in the hospital; 202 in Mississauga Extendicare and 237 in Chelsey Park 1.

Of these numbers, 262 hospital patients and nine nursing-home patients were judged capable of being discharged immediately either to their homes or into the care of relatives.

Concurrently nearby hospitals were canvassed and 16 patients were transferred to Queensway General Hospital, 17 to Mount Sinai, two to West Park Lodge, 20 to the Toronto General, 13 to Toronto Western, 28 to Joseph Brant in Burlington, 46 to Oakville Trafalgar, 20 to St. Joseph’s in Toronto, 12 to Toronto Sick Children’s, five to Humber Memorial and nine to Etobicoke General.

The nursing-home patients were moved to the regional school for the deaf, West Park Lodge and the Talumore Nursing Home at Brampton.

The decision to evacuate the facilities was implemented at 9:25 in the morning and was completed by 1:15 p.m. Shortly afterwards, my colleague the Solicitor General in consultation with the civic and hospital officials decided it would be prudent to evacuate Queensway General Hospital. Of the 280 patients, 88 were discharged to their homes or into the care of relatives. Of the balance, eight were moved to St. Joseph’s in Toronto, 10 to the Toronto General, 88 to North York General, 16 to Etobicoke General, 24 to York Finch, five to Toronto Western, 84 to Toronto Northwestern, two to Sick Children’s, 20 to Queen Elizabeth, six to the Queen Street Mental Health Centre, two to the Hillcrest Convalescent Hospital, 24 to East General and three to Humber Memorial. This move took approximately four hours.

Immediately afterwards, the evacuation of Sheridan Villa, Pines and Tara Nursing Homes began. After 12 residents were discharged, 284 were moved to Peel Manor, 22 to North York Nursing Home, 16 to Fudger House, 18 to Castleview-Witchwood and 19 to Cummerhouse in North York.

Finally, a decision was taken to evacuate Oakville-Trafalgar Memorial Hospital and Oakville Extendicare Nursing Home. It was a joint decision of the mayor of Oakville, the acting chief of the Oakville police department and the administrators of the two facilities. After 89 of the 293 patients were discharged the balance were all moved to Hamilton. Fifty-one of the hospital patients were accommodated in McMaster Medical Centre, 84 in the Hamilton General Hospital, 59 in St. Joseph’s, 18 in Chedoke, 44 in Henderson and three in the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital.

To accommodate the nursing-home patients, we were able to use some federal government emergency supplies which are in the custody of the province and part of which are stored at Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital. These supplies consist of beds and other medical facilities intended to be set up during emergencies in public buildings, such as schools. In this way 182 patients were accommodated, and 89 others were taken to Joseph Brant Hospital in Burlington.

At the peak of this massive transfer, we had 129 regular ambulances and 27 other support vehicles, such as the disaster bus operated by the Metro Toronto department of ambulances. Along with the nine based in Halton-Mississauga, we were able to draw 45 from Metro Toronto, 21 from the Ministry of Health ambulance supply base in Toronto and 10 from St. John Ambulance in Toronto and Peel-Halton. In addition, ambulances were brought in from Streetsville, Brampton, York, Georgetown, the two Hamilton services, Welland, Niagara Falls, Cambridge, Kitchener, Brant county, St. Catharines, Orangeville, London, St. Thomas, Tillsonburg, Woodstock, Grimsby, Bolton, Oshawa and Guelph. The Red Cross, the Toronto Transportation Commission, Mississauga and Oakville transit services also provided communications and support vehicles.

I have gone into considerably more detail than normal because I want to acknowledge publicly the co-operation and individual effort of a very large number of separately managed institutions and services to meet this emergency. In very short order and under the most pressing circumstances, they made available almost 1,800 institutional beds between Hamilton and the Don River without seriously jeopardizing the health of their own patients and the viability of their operations,

Many of the staff of the institutions and emergency health services worked without respite over the period of the emergency. In this regard, members of the Ontario Medical Association volunteered to work at the disaster scene and to be available as emergencies developed there. In every way, it was a magnificent performance, characteristic of the dedicated staff who provide us with the finest health-care system in the world. I know all members of this House representing the people of Ontario are grateful to them.

MANPOWER SURVEY

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, on June 22, 1979, I announced the formation of the Ontario Manpower Commission. In the course of my remarks, I made reference to a survey of manpower requirements and recruiting practices in the manufacturing industry that was being sponsored by a group of Ontario industrialists. This survey was designed by the labour market information bureau and analysis unit in my ministry and was distributed to members of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Ontario division of the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association.

The purpose of the survey was to obtain information on current shortages and future skill requirements in the manufacturing industries of Ontario. In addition, it inquired into several related matters, including the degree of difficulty in recruiting for specified occupations and employer perceptions of the specific reasons for the difficulties noted.

The survey report has just become available. It sets out the results for the province as a whole, for 33 major urban centres, as well as for 19 community college areas.

[2:3O]

Some of the major findings of the survey are that close to 50 per cent of the responding firms are currently experiencing difficulty in filling jobs. Shortages were reported in a wide range of occupations, particularly in the highly skilled industrial trades. The reporting employers expressed a number of concerns. Outstanding among these is that training in the industrial trades needs to be improved.

The government has already given a great deal of attention to the circumstances confirmed by the survey. Its results indicate that many of the measures we have taken, such as increasing the number of apprenticeable trades and the introduction of more flexible skills-training arrangements, are appropriate responses to the current skills supply situation.

The Ontario Manpower Commission is actively supporting these measures and considering others that may be required to meet the skill needs of the economy. It will make extensive use of the survey information in ensuring that provincial manpower policies and programs address the problems that are identified.

Mr. Speaker, the report is being distributed to each member of this Legislature, interested employers, unions, educators and government agencies.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MISSISSAUGA TRAIN FIRE

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Attorney General: Yesterday the Attorney General stated he would be speaking to Canadian Pacific Rail regarding the possibility of its withdrawing the waiver form it is at present forcing people to sign. Could the Attorney General tell us whether or not he spoke to Canadian Pacific and whether it is going to withdraw this waiver, or whether it basically thanks the Attorney General for his opinion and intends to carry on regardless?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I did speak to Mr. William Stinson, an executive vice-president of CP, who is in Montreal. I indicated to him that I was certainly dissatisfied with the form of waiver or release that was being used,

I suggested to him that in my own view it would be appropriate in the circumstances if they simply accepted an acknowledgement of payment for the amounts that were paid, in the form of a receipt, for the specific amounts that were paid over. I thought that would certainly afford them any protection they might wish to enjoy in the circumstances.

When he indicated CP’s lawyers had advised them not to do that, I put it to him in very strong terms that I felt that given the sensitivity of the situation, given what the individuals from Mississauga had been through, anything more than a receipt or acknowledgement of payment I thought was unreasonable in the circumstances.

When he advised me that their lawyers were insistent that they had to have a form of release, I told him that the form of release was totally unsatisfactory as far as I was concerned, and that the one line that purported to be a release of all claims was at the bottom of the form -- as some of the members know -- and that it was not very noticeable. Obviously, it would probably not came to the attention of many of the people who would be signing it.

I indicated to him that if they insisted on proceeding with a form of release, at the very least they should use a form that had stamped on it “full and final release,” in red and in inch-high letters, so the people would be aware of what they were being asked to sign.

He said he would take it up again with their lawyers, colleagues and others. The message I got back was still that they were not prepared to withdraw the form of release they were using. The only thing they were prepared to do was to reprint the form to put the release portion in more bold type.

This is a matter that has concerned us very deeply. The member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory), the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jones) and the member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy) have been very concerned about this issue, as they have been from the moment of the explosion. They have been very concerned about this form.

I want to make it clear to the Leader of the Opposition that the members from that area on this side of the House have been as concerned as myself or anyone else in this Legislature. So the bottom line at this moment is that the CP is unwilling to withdraw this form.

I had a solicitor from my ministry out there this morning speaking to a number of the claimants. A number of the claimants would appear to be happy with the ability to be able to make a quick settlement of their out-of-pocket expenses. However there is no question in our view that most of them probably are not addressing themselves to the issue -- namely, that the claim form would purport to be a release from all other claims, including future claims that may arise that they simply don’t know about at the moment. They might be health-related or other claims.

I repeat what I said to Mr. Stinson yesterday that in my view their attitude was unreasonable and the release form they were using was irresponsible. I regretted very much they were adopting this approach.

This is an issue that is, technically at least, theoretically between individuals and a private company. The mandate of the Attorney General gives him no authority to intervene and force the CPR to use a particular form of release. I’ve expressed my concern in the strongest terms. But we are going to watch the matter very closely.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: If the yappers over there would just cool it for a moment I’ll finish.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. If the Attorney General would ignore those whom he refers to as yappers, I want to remind him that his lengthy answer has taken six and a half minutes. A supplementary?

Mr. S. Smith: It would appear the Attorney General has as much clout with CP as the Premier (Mr. Davis) has with the Prime Minister of the country.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr. S. Smith: The members keep interrupting me, sir.

Given the fact that this behaviour on the part of CP, a very important corporate citizen of this country, can only be described as despicable, is the Attorney General prepared simply to sit back and throw up his hands; or is he prepared, at the very least, to engage in a full-scale advertising and education campaign beginning today, using all media, so that everyone in Mississauga knows what he or she is being asked to sign? Will he arrange to have a duty counsel from legal aid there at the site where these claims are being processed, giving advice to each person as he or she comes in to present a claim to CP?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: As I indicated yesterday in the absence of the Leader of the Opposition, I had discussed with the mayor of Mississauga the advisability of opening up a legal aid clinic in that area and had discussed it directly with the vice-president of the local bar association. I understand that is being done.

I don’t have the final details, but certainly this issue has been brought to the attention in a very direct fashion by the media people who have been reporting on this issue very extensively, and it would be difficult to imagine anyone living in Mississauga who is not aware of this issue.

Given the lawyers who are rendering assistance, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that if legitimate claims arise after this purported release is signed there are certain actions that can be taken to protect the rights of those citizens and those actions will be taken. I am not going to speculate at this moment on precisely what they are until we determine the dimension of the problem, but I can assure the member action will be taken.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Given the fact that for many Mississauga residents the major out-of-pocket loss they have suffered has been the loss of wages or salaries and not the expense of being away from Mississauga, did the Attorney General make representations to CP Rail about paying lost wages now, without waiting for a court case to be taken against them? What response did the Attorney General get from CP Rail, and what action is the government prepared to take in order to ensure that those citizens of Mississauga or workers in Mississauga can get immediate compensation up to a reasonable limit for lost wages or salaries suffered last week?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am advised they are now being compensated for loss of wages and any out-of-pocket expenses including loss of wages that are documented. For example, we have reported in this morning’s paper that a woman was compensated for boarding her dogs and cats somewhere. That would indicate, on the other side of the coin, that CP claims people are taking a fairly reasonable view of the out-of-pocket expenses. My information at the moment is that they are paying these claims for loss of wages.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, in the last couple of moments my supplementary has really been answered, but I did want confirmation that we now have hundreds of people who have signed waivers. Would the Attorney General confirm they can now be told that if subsequent claims arise there are options open, to government and through government, to them to restate their claims against the CPR?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: As I indicated earlier, if it turns out that individuals are signing this form and are not aware of certain rights they have in relation to losses of which they are not aware at the moment, such as health-related or other losses, then there are remedies open to protect those individuals with respect to any future claims. We are going to watch it very closely. Again I repeat, I am not going to speculate as to those remedies until we know the true dimension of the problem.

Mr. S. Smith: What remedies? As a supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: A new question. We have spent nearly 14 minutes on this subject.

Mr. S. Smith: Basically, I would be guided by your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Is this a new question or a final supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: A new question.

Mr. S. Smith: Then I will ask a question again of the Attorney General on the same matter.

Is the Attorney General aware that after his request that the material be in one-inch red type it would appear that CP has now made a claim report for out-of-pocket expenses where the claim at the bottom looks to be in approximately one-eighth-inch black type, hardly in keeping with the request of the Attorney General?

Can the Attorney General comment on that and, since the Attorney General said in his initial answer that the claimants were at the moment not directing their minds and their attention to the issues -- I think those were his exact words -- how can he refuse to have a lawyer on the site where they come for their claims to advise each person of what possible claims might occur that the person might not have thought of, apart even from wages and possible business expenses, unless he believes the legal aid clinic spoken of by the mayor is the one that will handle it?

[2:45]

May I draw, his attention to Mayor McCallion’s statement that the clinic she is speaking of would not be free legal aid? She said the lawyers who would be volunteering their services would not give advice and certainly would not be on the scene where the claims are being processed. Why does the minister not plant someone there to give advice to every person coming in so they truly know the real ramifications of what they are being asked to sign?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: My understanding is that there is free legal aid available. I can’t give specifics about that. The issue is certainly well known in Mississauga, but I will explore all possible avenues, including these suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, to assure us that the citizens are aware of those rights. I will explore those immediately.

I just want to make this further remark in relation to the claim forms the Leader of the Opposition has just referred to. Yes, I have seen that new claim form. Yes, I agree it is unsatisfactory. Yes, I state I am very disappointed, to put it mildly, in their attitude. I think it demonstrates an enormous insensitivity to the rights of the citizens of Mississauga. I want to emphasize that fact.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary: Can the Attorney General tell us what claims the Mississauga residents who have not signed waivers will have in terms of their jobs, where they apparently have lost their jobs as a result of having to move out during the incident in Mississauga?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The Attorney General of any province is not in a position to give off-the-cuff legal advice on every possible ramification of this. I indicated, and again I repeat it, we are going to monitor this very closely. If any instances of injustices are brought to our attention, we will explore every possible remedy to right those injustices. I can give the House this assurance at this time.

Mr. Roy: In view of the magnitude of the potential problem, the large number of claims, and given the clearly intransigent approach of Canadian Pacific, which is a form of blackmail basically, in trying to give quick payment through signing a release, although the Attorney General of this province has limitations on his jurisdiction -- something that sometimes has not bothered him before -- has he advised CP that one of the possible alternatives for Ontario -- which will surely have a claim against CP for a number of matters, I would think; police force, et cetera -- would be that Ontario would process the claims and give some consideration to class action?

Is the Attorney General prepared to go one step further and advise CP that if he needs jurisdiction, we in this House will give the necessary jurisdiction by way of legislation?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think the issue of class action, as the member for Ottawa East knows, is a very complex one and could delay the whole process considerably. I simply want to give him my assurance again that we will explore every possible avenue to expedite a fair and reasonable settlement of these claims in the most reasonable time possible. I will be very happy to discuss this outside the House as well as inside the House with the member for Ottawa East. I would be very pleased to have any of his suggestions in this regard.

Mr. S. Smith: Will the Attorney General please ask the Premier of Ontario to call the president of Canadian Pacific into his office and tell him in the clearest possible terms the viewpoint of Ontario in this regard and to demand a far more reasonable and far more just attitude on the part of that very important company?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The Premier of Ontario has followed this dialogue yesterday and today with great interest. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition he will do what he thinks will be appropriate and effective in the circumstances.

[Later (2:55):]

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I just want to advise this House that I was mistaken when I stated that the lost wages, as part of the out-of-pocket expenses, were being paid. They are allowing people to write in, with the exception of lost wages, on the reported basis, but because of insurance claims, unemployment insurance, they won’t pay lost wages at this time. I don’t think their explanation is a satisfactory one, and furthermore, Mr. Speaker, it would appear that they are now instructed not to make any exemption in the form of relief except for loss of wages. Obviously, and I speak on behalf of all members, we are simply saying we are bitterly disappointed in their attitude in this matter.

[Reverting (2:50):]

HEALTH SERVICE CHARGES

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Since the Minister of Health has rejected legislative action to ensure one common fee schedule for doctors’ services in Ontario or to ensure that the patients are not double-billed if they weren’t informed in advance by their doctors who have opted out, is the government now prepared to seek binding agreement on these two issues from doctors as part of the current fee negotiations with the Ontario Medical Association?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I previously answered that question on a number of occasions. It has been asked in various ways and answered always consistently. In Ontario, as in other provinces, we have a system for physician compensation that does provide for cases where the physician decides to bill the patients directly. Other provinces such as Saskatchewan have similar schemes. We do not plan to change that system.

I misled the member last week when I gave him a figure. I had indicated that while less than 18 per cent of our doctors are non-participating, that is billing their patients directly, something like 11 or 12 per cent of the claims were opted out. I was wrong; it is only nine per cent.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Later in the session I’ll be introducing petitions signed by more than 250,000 Ontario residents who oppose extra billing and are opposed to the government’s health cutbacks. Can the minister say what it would take to persuade this Conservative government of Ontario that the people of Ontario want one-price medicine? What will it take for this government to give the people of Ontario one-price medicine?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I want to thank the member and his colleagues and I welcome the production today of the various lists. As I indicated a few weeks ago, I intend, and I have already set things in motion, to send a letter to every single person who has signed one of those petitions, where the name and address are legible.

I intend, while answering these petitions, to give the signee, if that is the proper term, the true facts about the health-care system. I am going to tell them that since 1973 the population of the province has gone up by six per cent but the number of doctors has gone up by 19 per cent. I am going to tell them that in that same period the use of the health-care system has gone up by 30 per cent. I am going to tell them that since 1972 the per capita spending on health care has gone up from $205 to $500; even when one allows for inflation that’s a big increase in spending on health care in this province. I am going to give them the basic facts about the health-care system that members of the third party haven’t done.

I made the suggestion to the honourable member that in all of this campaign of his to save his hide he had a perfect opportunity to speak to people about something we could all do in a very constructive way to help our health-care system and that’s called giving blood. Right now the problems of blood supply in many areas, as is known, cause more problems, inconveniences more physicians, inconveniences more patients, than anything else.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: As one who has before resented the minister’s government using taxpayers’ funds in sending out letters for political gains -- for example, the Premier (Mr. Davis) sending out letters of apology to the doctors some years ago at an expense of $9,000 -- would the minister promise this House that he will use no taxpayers’ funds for this silly political letter campaign that he is going to carry on in this silly fight with the NDP?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I think it is in the interests of public information and the democratic system that the people have the information. It will be done, I can assure members, in the least expensive way possible to keep the costs to a minimum.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, the minister has made this promise twice now in this House to respond to each and every one of them. I wonder if I could ask him to dispense with that political exercise and instead use that funding to put back into the medicare system the proper funding that it requires.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, it’s interesting the number of visits I have had from representatives of various foreign countries, provinces and states, even as recently as 1:30 today, who have come here to visit with my officials and myself to examine our health-care system because it is known throughout the world, if not to that member, as the finest in the world.

Mr. Cassidy: Since the minister asked me to elaborate on some of the facts about the health-care system, will the minister not agree that the gentlemen’s agreement with the Ontario Medical Association of last spring has failed, in fact failed so badly that the current president of the Ontario Medical Association, Dr. Douglas Caldwell, is himself not only an opted-out anaesthetist but in fact has admitted to the press he does not tell his patients in advance that he intends to double bill them?

If the government cannot even get the OMA president to abide by the gentlemen’s agreement of last spring, will the minister not agree to ensure, either by negotiation or by legislation, that we get one-price medicine in this province and that every patient gets told in advance if the doctor intends to double-bill?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am sure Dr. Caldwell can look after himself and he will reply to those allegations of the honourable member. I know as long as I have been around here, but particularly in the last three or four years, the member has had this idea that somehow he could waltz into power on the corpse of the medical profession of this province. We happen to think Ontario has been well served by its doctors. We do not intend to use the doctors as political whipping boys; never ever will we do that.

With respect, I think the question has been answered repeatedly before. The honourable member chooses to take a few incidents as compared to 38 million -- I corrected that number too; I checked it -- claims on the health plan since April 1. Since I made that statement, services have been provided to the people 38 million times. Unquestionably, the member has come up with examples and I have been provided with examples where it has not worked perfectly. There’s a mechanism to resolve those differences. He doesn’t choose to use it. In fact, he chooses to ignore it. It is in his political interests to ignore it and to try to show that it won’t work. Well, it will work.

[3:OO]

RENT INCREASES

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations regarding rents in the city of Toronto. In view of the fact that rents for newly built apartments in Toronto have risen between 29 and 74 per cent between 1976 and 1978, does the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations not agree that tenants need protection against these excessive increases by landlords on recently built apartments? Therefore, will the minister introduce changes to the Residential Tenancies Act to bring all apartments under rent review so that landlords be required to justify all rent increases on the basis of cost and not profiteering?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I never break a commitment that was made by the Legislature of Ontario. The answer is no.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Given that the Legislature itself didn’t make a commitment -- perhaps it was made by the government -- will the minister consider the fact that rents on three-bedroom apartments, for example, rose from $331 on apartments built in 1976 to $575 on apartments built in 1978, a 74 per cent increase? Will the minister at least introduce changes to the act in order to require landlords of buildings built since 1975 to file their notices of rent increases with the Residential Tenancies Commission? Then the government and the public can monitor what is happening in these buildings and come to the rescue of tenants who risk being exploited by landlords who are not now under rent review?

Hon. Mr. Drea: That matter was discussed at length during the very lengthy committee hearings on the Residential Tenancies Act. It was the will of the majority that it not be done.

Mr. MacDonald: The will of the Liberals and Tories.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Just a moment, I heard some rumblings over there from somebody.

The majority of the members of the Legislature of Ontario passed legislation that said no rental unit occupied after January 1, 1976, will be covered by any form of rent control. If the honourable member is saying that doesn’t bind him, what he is saying is he doesn’t believe in democracy; the only thing that ever binds him is when he wins.

On the second part of the honourable member’s question, the answer again is no.

Mr. Cassidy: Final supplementary. Would the minister not agree that his answer indicates that nothing ever changes as far as the government is concerned when it comes to protecting tenants in this province; nor for the Liberal Party, as well? Will the minister not look at the facts of what is happening on rents on accommodation built since the beginning of 1976? Will he assure tenants in that accommodation there will be protection against excessive rent increases or against rent gouging by landlords?

Hon. Mr. Drea: That question makes as much sense to me as the city of Toronto nonprofit housing authority subsidizing people with $45,000-a-year incomes.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Mrs. Campbell: My question is to the Attorney General. A story appeared in this morning’s Globe and Mail which refers to the research paper prepared by one Larry Fox for the Commission on Freedom of Information and Individual Privacy. His findings appear to be that many of Ontario’s boards, tribunals, commissions and branches of ministries are operating under secret law in arriving at their decisions. Would the Attorney General, as a matter of the administration of justice, allocate some of his crown law officers to investigate that paper and to investigate the boards to which reference is made, to ensure that this practice is discontinued?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, I haven’t seen that background paper; I saw the reference in this morning’s paper. Certainly, we will review the paper very carefully, and take what we consider to be the appropriate action -- bearing in mind that we still are waiting for a report of the commission -- to see that these tribunals act according to the best principles of natural justice, which appear to be relevant to the news report that we read this morning. Yes, I’ll do that,

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, supplementary: In view of the fact that some of those to which reference has been made have been ComSoc tribunals or review boards -- a matter that has been of common knowledge to members of this Legislature -- would the Attorney General like to begin there with his examination of these sacred criteria?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I understand that my colleague, the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) has been reviewing this report. I have nothing to add to my previous answer. It may be that the question could be redirected to the member for Cochrane South, if the member for St. George would like to do that.

Mrs. Campbell: I would just like to ask the Attorney General if he is not in fact the Attorney General, and if this is not a matter basically of the administration of justice?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I told the member for St. George that of course we were going to look into the matter; that was my earlier response. We were going to review the situation, and again, to ensure that these tribunals perform their functions according to law and the principles of natural justice. I had already said that. But in view of the fact that the member for Cochrane South indicated he had some information that might assist the member for St. George, I simply thought it might assist her, and the members of the Legislature, if he were given permission to respond. It was for that reason and that reason alone.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, just as a point of clarification, the member for St. George is referring to research publication No. 10, printed by the Commission on Freedom of Information and Individual Privacy. The specific part of that report to which the honourable member has referred is found on pages 202 to 218.

This report was mailed to all members of the House on November 16, so I would urge members who are concerned about this matter to review the report when it has arrived in their offices. I’d like to make one quote. It’s found on the bottom of page 202:

“With a single exception, the administrative tribunals and boards surveyed do not rely on secret law for guidance.”

Mr. Roy: That’s taken out of context.

Hon. Mr. Pope: No, it isn’t taken out of context. I’ve read this report.

Then it goes on to deal with some specific questions that deal with the provincial benefits branch, the vocational rehabilitation branch and the assessment review tribunal. These are research publications that are available to the commission, that will be taken into account by the commission when it makes its final report.

Any comments that any members of the House or members of the public may have with respect to some of the very important issues that are raised in these publications, and in the final report, we’d be glad to hear.

IRON ORE SUPPLIES

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier: Since Ontario now imports approximately 58 per cent of its iron ore requirements, much of it from the United States, and since the Caland Mine of Atikokan, which closed on Friday, and National Steel, which closed this past summer, were both closed on orders from the United States and both still contain recoverable ores, what action does the government propose to take to protect the Ontario miners and the communities in these one-industry towns?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the member raised this with me a while ago -- if memory serves me correctly -- and the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), who is unfortunately under the weather at the moment, was going to answer. I have some of the information, which I will share with members, but I want to make it clear this is information that has been provided to me.

“Firstly, the world surplus of iron ore pellets still exists, although some improvements have taken place, primarily due to the high level of steel production in Canada and the US. Secondly, the high level of production is expected to drop in 1980, thus the strength in iron ore is only temporary.” These are the views of people who are analysing the situation. I do not assume responsibility for their point of view.

“Thirdly, while the demand for iron ore is high in North America by standards of recent years, on a wider context supply has outstripped demand, leading to a situation where,” in the words of the same report the member quoted -- and I am going back to the report he quoted here in the House -- -”prices in world markets remain at a depressed level.” That is in the document the member read to me some 10 days to two weeks ago.

Mr. Martel: It was four weeks.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Four weeks? Time goes so rapidly in this pleasant atmosphere.

The member did not perhaps have time to read two other crucial sentences, which read as follows; “Costs continue to increase faster than prices and, as a result, gross operating income from Hanna’s domestic iron ore operations in the first six months of this year was down 10 per cent from the same period in 1973. This illustrates that market conditions are not sufficiently favourable to support high-cost operations.”

That was really a partial answer to the question the member asked me. If he had read the total report, he could have answered the question himself. The member quoted the report correctly as having said “iron ore shipments from the company’s Brazilian operation were up 10 per cent during the first six months of this year.” That is an accurate quotation he made; he read it correctly.

The report went on to say -- and I guess the member missed this part -- “However, the cost increases at this facility outpaced price increases, thus operating income declined by 13 per cent, a further exemplification of the underlying weakness of the iron ore market.”

That is information that really was available to the honourable member. It does not solve the problem and we acknowledge that. We are making every effort to see what can be done to alter the situation, but it cannot be done overnight. The member knows full well of the efforts of the Minister of Labour, the Premier and others to try to keep this facility viable, and we will not cease in our efforts to do so.

Mr. Martel: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker; Since Ontario imports only 55 per cent of its needs, since the Premier created a special cabinet committee in 1977 to come up with policies respecting the one-industry towns in northern Ontario and since four out of Ontario’s nine iron ore mines have closed down in the past 12 months, when can we expect some policy from that heralded group of his in the cabinet, which has yet to meet, I suppose, and when can we expect some legislation which will protect the communities? I ask this particularly because, as mentioned, we are now bringing in 58 per cent of the needs of the steel mills in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The honourable member really is more aware of the complexities of the situation than his question would indicate. He knows full well that this particular mine, the viability of it, the kinds of pellet it produces --

Mr. Martel: I am talking about Caland,

Hon. Mr. Davis: This is the one the member asked about, and this is the one I am answering. The member knows full well the problems that exist with Caland.

Mr. Martel: You didn’t listen to today’s question at all.

Mr. Speaker: You are not listening to the answer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s right, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Martel: That is not the answer to the question I asked four weeks ago.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I supplied the answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Given the fact we appreciate the complexities and the market requirements, would the Premier not agree that surely the time has come in Ontario that foreign-controlled operations, such as Caland, should not be allowed to come in, mine high-grade and then pull out of Ontario and Canada leaving minable ore there that is not in sufficient quantity to allow a domestic company to go in and set up a mining operation? Surely the foreign company has to take some of the bad with the good and at least complete the resource and keep those communities going as long as possible. Would the Premier not agree?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would agree it would be highly desirable if the result the honourable member referred to were to take place, there is no argument about that. The way of achieving this is something a little more difficult to develop in terms of policy. The problem is not simple. It would be very difficult to suggest to anyone, whether domestic or foreign-controlled to produce a product or to try to market a product .for which there is no market. That is the problem at the moment with Caland. It is as simple and unfortunate as that.

[3:15]

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Does the Premier not realize there are 1.7 million tons of ore already available at Caland and Caland itself admits there are 16 million tons that are acceptable and minable that could keep the town of Atikokan going over the next six or seven years? What action did his government take when it was notified by Caland last week that it was closing its pelletizing operation five months earlier than previously announced? What steps did his cabinet committee take to preserve those 200 jobs?

Mr. Laughren: You didn’t give a damn.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect to the member for Nickel Belt, I heard his interjection. I just hope that what the member said is noted in Hansard, after the fuss earlier today.

I would say to him in reply to his interjection, that if his party showed the same genuine concern in actually trying to accomplish something for the people of this province that this government does, he would be in a position to make that kind of criticism.

They think over there they’ve got a monopoly of all the concern. I just wish they would spend a little time trying to solve some of the problems in this province instead of just constantly talking about them.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Health has the answer to a question previously asked.

FRENCH HEALTH SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, on November 15 the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) asked me why letters received in French at the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital are sent to Toronto for translation. Following that question, I had my staff check with the administrator of Brockville Psychiatric Hospital. To the best of his recollection, in the past two years there has been only one letter written to him in French, from a relative of a patient, requiring translation. The letter was translated by staff at the hospital. That occurred prior to the establishment of our office of the French-language services co-ordinator in the ministry.

In the last six months, he reports, there have been three letters which have required translation in Toronto. One was a Christmas letter which he is sending out to all patients and two others were form letters he is sending out to be used by the facility. In addition, two letters of a more straightforward nature were translated at the facility at Brockville Psychiatric Hospital.

PCB SPILLS

Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment in connection with the spill of 50 to 75 gallons of PCBs in the Grimsby area last week by Chemical Waste Management Limited.

Can the minister explain why his ministry has continued to support requests to the Environmental Appeal Board to delay holding a hearing concerning 20 conditions applied by his ministry last December 14 on the operations of chemical Waste Management Limited at Smithville, Ontario, which conditions, if applied, would have eliminated the possibility of the spill that occurred last week?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I’m not persuaded it would have eliminated the possibility of the spill, but I do agree with the member that the negotiations have gone on long enough. Knowing of the member’s prior concern I have already put in motion the formulation of a letter that will be sent to the appeal board asking it to get on with the appeal hearing.

Mr. Hall: Supplementary: The delay in having a hearing proceed, on the basis of negotiations with Chemical Waste Management Limited, seems to me rather unfair because of the fact the conditions were agreed to with the municipality of the township of West Lincoln, which is not a party to any changed negotiations. I don’t think it is fair for two parties to negotiate a three-party arrangement without the knowledge of the municipality. That’s my concern.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: As the member knows, we did consult extensively with the municipality on the conditions and they were well aware of them before they were placed. It sometimes avoids the delay of an appeal hearing if one can negotiate an agreed position. In this instance, because the municipality was involved in the first negotiation, I can assure the member it would have been involved before those conditions had been changed through negotiations. We would have involved them and they would have known. Therefore, although they were not present in the negotiation process, we would have given them the right to agree or disagree with any conditions that would be changed as a result of those negotiations. So in effect they were there.

PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of Health. Now that the minister is finally proceeding with the setting up of 36 psychiatric beds in Sault Ste. Marie, even though the Algoma District Health Council has stated there is a need for 42 beds, can he inform the House when he will be responding to the recent report of the Ontario Council of Health which identifies a serious shortage of psychiatrists and psychological services in Sault Ste. Marie and district?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I anticipate that as far as an overall response is concerned it will come early in the new year. We’re still receiving some of the task force reports associated with the overall report.

We have, in the last year or year and a half, initiated a number of projects in northern Ontario with respect to psychiatric services, including the announcement which was made on my behalf by my colleague, the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Ramsay), to do with the Plummer Memorial Public Hospital.

Mr. Wildman: Why six beds short?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: There’s a physical limitation one has to take into account as well -- the building to be converted.

We’ve recently initiated the travelling clinic from the Algoma Sanatorium, upgrading of services at the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital and the like.

I can assure the member that one recommendation we are moving on right away is to reorganize our own ministry with respect to psychiatric services in order to bring it all under one umbrella.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary: In the minister’s studies, has he come up with any policy recommendations as yet on how he is going to attempt to attract more psychiatrists to the north, being aware, as he must be, the Ontario Council of Health has stated there is a need for 14 psychiatric specialists in Sault Ste. Marie and district where there are only two?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In some areas we’re already using financial incentives. For instance we pay a 20 per cent bonus for psychiatrists to work at Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital and in that area. We are prepared to use the underserviced area program with the physical incentive there. Obviously, I can’t force them to go. We don’t lave conscription of the medical profession yet -- the NDP is not in power.

We will have to find imaginative ways to come up with incentives to get them to practise there. We have difficulties in getting psychiatrists to go to many areas. We’ve had to come up with financial incentives to practise in various parts of the province. We will continue to use whatever means are available to us to convince psychiatrists and to influence them in making such decisions to go into other areas of the province than just around the teaching centres.

PEEL REGIONAL POLICE

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, on November 2 the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) asked me a question concerning the allegations of physical abuse involving the Peel Regional Police Force made by one William Nykyforchyn. I am now in a position to supply the House with a report.

The matter already had been investigated by the Metropolitan Toronto police, the Peel regional police and the Ontario Police Commission. All the investigations indicated Mr. Nykyforchyn’s allegations could not be corroborated or substantiated. The threats and assaults were denied by the police officers whom he accused. On July 12, 1978, Shaun MacGrath of the Ontario Police Commission wrote to Mr. Nykyforchyn saying the matter had been thoroughly investigated and reviewed and that his complaint was not substantiated. On July 13, 1978, the then Solicitor General, the member for Burlington South (Mr. Kerr), wrote to the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip), who had raised the matter during estimates, to the same effect.

William Nykyforchyn was a private investigator at the time of the events in question. During the early part of 1978 the Peel regional police, the Metropolitan Toronto police and the Ontario Provincial Police were involved in a joint forces investigation which led to charges against Daniel McGarry, John McGarry, Centaur Temporary Help, Centurion Investigations and William Nykyforchyn.

In the course of the investigation Mr. Nykyforchyn was interviewed and his allegations of threats and assaults arose from those procedures. Preliminary inquiries have been held on most of the charges and the trials are set to proceed during the February 18 sessions in Peel county.

On September 21, 1978, Mr. Nykyforchyn voluntarily attended at the Peel Regional Police Force and provided a statement to some of the very officers whom he had accused of threatening and assaulting him. The crown intends to introduce the statement at his trial.

It is our view this may afford Mr. Nykyforchyn an opportunity to discuss his allegations of mistreatment by the police on that occasion, if he so chooses.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Nykyforchyn did in fact attempt to lay charges before Justice of the Peace Robert Powers, but no process was issued. The justice of the peace, of course, had a judicial discretion in the matter. If Mr. Nykyforchyn wishes to dispute the court’s failure to issue criminal process there are other avenues in law open to him, including the right to commence a civil action.

BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Would the minister tell us the rationale for his government guaranteeing up to $100,000 to Browning-Ferris Industries in their proposal to put a liquid-waste solidification plant in Harwich township in Kent county; and would the minister comment on the justice of a system so weighted on behalf of a commercial company and so lacking towards the residents of the township who wish to research this project themselves? Would the minister tell us also the particular law he invoked in making this guarantee?

Mr. Bradley: Friends of big business.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I will come to that in a second.

I think there was a great rationale for what we did and I am very proud of what we did. The commitment we made in an attempt to address a problem the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) has brought to this House many times and which I believe is of great significance to this province -- and that I am prepared to act on -- was that we needed facilities in this province for the treatment of liquid waste.

We asked various companies to make proposals, but we also put a lot more on the record and I hope the honourable member is aware also of what we said. We said the eventual cost of a successful hearing would be borne by those who do business. We asked six companies to come forward and make proposals and said we would select two. That we have done. If they are unsuccessful, it would be at our request that they went forward with those proposals.

I think it is as logical and as defensible as possible to have that cost borne by this province in order to solve the problem of liquid industrial waste. We are moving on a very aggressive front and I am pleased about that.

The honourable member says we are not protecting the people. I tell him at the same time the announcement was made that no facility would go in without a full environmental assessment hearing at that site. There is no finer, fuller protection for the citizens in any jurisdiction than under our Environmental Assessment Act and they are given that full protection.

What really does disturb me a great deal is that having said we will do the fullest possible job of informing the public, of protecting the public, that somehow or other, long before the proposal is put forward, long before the hearing is held, the honourable member has said it must not happen. If that is the case, if everyone in this province took exactly that same approach, there would never be a solution to the liquid industrial waste problem. We would always be plagued with the problems of indiscriminate dumping, et cetera. We would never have a solution.

I tell the honourable member that he can’t have it both ways. I am very proud that we are permitting in this province an opportunity to treat our waste. I am proud we are paying for that, if they are unsuccessful. I believe they will be successful and we will have a solution. I hope that the member will be more open minded than to say before he has heard any of the evidence, “It can’t be done.”

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I have been answered on the first half of my question but my second half is how does the minister see the justice of the system whereby people who don’t have great faith in the system cannot defend themselves in this matter?

[3:30]

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The whole point of an environmental assessment hearing is that they can be there, they can hear all of the evidence and they can object to it. I will tell you what, Mr. Speaker; I will go one step further and I am pleased to do so. I know the member opposite would like a meeting with his local officials in my office. I am prepared to do much more than that. I am more than prepared to go into the member’s constituency and talk about the need for liquid industrial waste facilities and the logic of what we are doing. I am more than pleased to tell the members opposite we will be there at an open meeting, because I believe what we are doing is the right thing to treat this problem.

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary: How can the minister say the residents are protected before the environmental hearings when it is a David and Goliath situation if nobody pays the opponents’ costs, except themselves out of their own pockets, and the government pays the cost of the proponent? How can he call that a fair hearing?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I believe it is fair for this very basic reason: I believe an environmental assessment hearing is there for the protection of the people of our province, not for the benefit of the proponent. The member has the cynical view that a hearing is whitewash, I don’t. I believe in that process and I know the information will come forward, It is there for the protection of the people.

PETITIONS

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, today New Democrats are submitting petitions that have been signed by 274,856 residents of Ontario protesting the government’s cutbacks on health care. This is the largest petition in the history of Ontario. Specifically, I wish to present, under rule 29(b), a petition signed by 239,942 Ontario residents which is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and which states:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows: We protest the government's restraint program for health care. The quality of health care in Ontario is now threatened by deterioration of services in hospitals and lack of access to doctors billing at OHIP rates.

“We are opposed to any form of extra billing by doctors, to extra fees being charged to chronic and other patients, and to the unfair OHIP premiums. We already pay a lot in taxes and we insist that the government acts to provide needed hospitals and health services and to ensure that everyone has full health insurance coverage.”

I have appended my name to this petition. Before bringing it up to the table I just wish to say thank you to some of the New Democrats who are here in the chamber today who have helped, with many thousands of others, to bring to the Legislature the opinions of more than a quarter of a million Ontario residents on the deterioration of health services.

Mr. Stong: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which contains 10 pages of names, so it’s somewhat more modest. It is directed to the Lieutenant Governor and the government of Ontario: “We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to apply Wintario funds to support our hospitals and medicare throughout the province of Ontario.” Mr. Speaker, I submit that petition.

Mr. Wildman: Mr, Speaker, I have a petition signed by 8,311 residents of northeastern Ontario, addressed 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: We protest the government’s restraint program for health care. The quality of health care in Ontario is now threatened by deterioration of services in hospitals and associated agencies. We request that northern Ontario be recognized as a unique region. We pay the same premiums as residents in the south yet do not receive the same services. In this respect, we insist the air ambulance services be reinstated for non-emergency referrals and greater assistance be given to specialists locating in isolated communities.

“We are opposed to extra fees being charged to chronic and other patients. We already pay a lot in taxes and we insist that the government act to provide needed hospitals and health services and to ensure that everyone has full health insurance coverage.”

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Bounsall), myself and all the people of Essex county, I would like to present a petition with the names of 26,603 people who care about our health-care system, unlike that government.

Interjections.

Mr. Cooke: You people are awfully upset about something today. The petition reads as follows: “We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows: We protest the government’s restraint program for health care. The closing of beds in Windsor without the necessary alternative forms of care, such as chronic home care, adequate number of nursing home beds and the quality of regulated rest homes, has resulted in overcrowding of hospitals to the point where patients have been stacked up in hallways and emergency rooms, putting people’s lives at risk.

“We are opposed to any form of extra billing by doctors, to extra fees being charged to chronic and other patients and to the unfair OHIP premiums. We insist that the government act to provide the needed hospitals and health services to ensure that everyone has full health insurance coverage.” There are 26,000 names.

Applause.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure our visitors will be happy to know they are welcome here, but no outbursts or applause or anything of that nature is allowed within this chamber,

Mr. Cassidy: They worked hard, Mr. Speaker. They deserve it.

Mr. Speaker: It little behooves the leader of the New Democratic Party to encourage that kind of thing.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS ACT

Mr. S. Smith moved first reading of Bill 185, An Act respecting Environmental Bights in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. S. Smith: The purpose of this bill is to provide for environmental rights in Ontario. The bill permits an action to be brought in the Supreme Court of Ontario by any person for the protection of the environment. The bill also provides for public notice and review of certain approvals, permits and other environment-related orders before the approvals, permits or orders come into force.

Other provisions of the bill provide for public access to information relating to environmental decisions and for regular review by the Environmental Assessment Board of all regulations affecting the environment.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Van Horne moved first reading of Bill 186, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to prohibit the employment or use of strikebreakers in the course of a lawful strike or lockout. It is hoped this type of legislation would preclude needless violence and deaths, such as that of Mr. Illingham in Simcoe, Ontario, this summer.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Bounsall moved first reading of Bill 187, An Act to amend the Education Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to require school boards in Ontario to develop definitive, orderly procedures and rational policies for determining in this period of declining enrolment whether or not schools should be closed. All procedures and policies must be approved by the Ministry of Education and a full moratorium on all school closings will be in effect until such approval is received. The bill contains requirements for full public hearings at all stages and the provision of all information by the board to affected citizens, including financial and social effects and a complete survey of alternate choices of education likely to be made by parents in the event of a community school closure.

Should a board decide to close a particular school, provision is made for an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, which shall consider all matters that were before the school board and the public hearings.

Although I have an excellent resolution standing in my name on the Order Paper requiring the government to bring in as amendments to the Human Rights Code the recommendations that are contained in the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s report, Life Together, I will proceed with the bill I have introduced today on December 6, when my slot for private members’ bills comes up for debate.

If I could just add one more thought --

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has given us quite a clear and full explanation of the intent of the bill.

Mr. Bounsall: I would just like to say that I have plagiarized most of this from the minister’s opening statement on pages 112 to 116 to the estimates committee a week ago.

Mr. Speaker: Your sources are your own business.

[3:45]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COMPULSORY AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved second reading of Bill 160, An Act to provide for Compulsory Automobile Insurance.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks. This is really an historic bill. It brings to an end the motor vehicle accident claims fund, or the unsatisfied judgement fund, as we know it.

I want to make a few remarks about that fund, because notwithstanding its present difficulties -- I imagine there is going to be utter silence in the House when I tell the House what its present difficulties are -- notwithstanding that, over the years, that fund increased substantially. Bear in mind, from 1958 to 1961 it was $5 for an uninsured vehicle, $20 from 1962 to 1966, $25 from 1966 to 1973, $40 in 1973, $60 in 1975, $100 in 1976, and $150 from December 1, 1979.

Over a period of years the fund was in receipt of over $200 million and paid out some $181 million, leaving a theoretical balance of $29 million with the Treasurer. In that period of time it did yeoman service in the province. It provided payments to those who otherwise would have had difficulty getting any payments. It brought in the concept of almost self-insurance by the driver in paying the annual supplement to his driver’s licence fee to protect himself against stolen cars or the hit-and-run auto -- a function, incidentally, that will continue -- but obviously the MVAC, or the unsatisfied judgement fund, has outlived its usefulness.

Were it an insurance company being regulated by my ministry it would be declared insolvent; it would be declared bankrupt and we would begin wind-down procedures. The truth of the matter is that in this fiscal year, there will be better than $52 million direct operational losses. Had we operated this government fund as we insist that others do under insurance principles, the actual deficit as of July 30, 1979, was somewhat in excess of $21 million.

It is a matter of record that this fund no longer even serves as a deterrent. Realizing some of the financial difficulties of the fund, last year I raised the fee from $100 to $150. The response from those in this province who prefer not to have insurance was rather dramatic. From 74,000 who had paid the $100, we dropped down to 42,000 who were willing to pay out $150 as a penalty for not accepting their responsibility to carry public liability and property damage insurance.

In short, even if we are to raise the penalty fee to double, triple, or quadruple, the only thing that would occur is fewer and fewer would pay it. I doubt seriously if any of those who ducked out on the raise from $100 to $150 ever showed up with an insurance company. If we went to $500 or $600 or $700 a year -- which indeed would be more than they would have to pay for an insurance premium -- we would be getting very little money into the fund and we would still be having to pay out on a rather substantial basis, particularly when we have no idea of the coverage or payments we are liable to provide because we don’t know the number of people who choose to totally ignore their responsibilities to themselves, their neighbours and the community by deliberately not having insurance.

I’ve given this report on motor vehicle accident claims because from time to time there is the comment that compulsory insurance cannot guarantee that on each and every moment of each and every day, all motorists in this province will be insured, and since the present system seems to be working, why change it?

The simple fact is the present system is not working. Were we not making a change, I would be before the members before the end of this session to ask for supplementary estimates in the range of $2.5 million.

Mr. Speaker, the budget of next year would hardly be dry before I would be back again to ask for more supplemental estimates and that pattern would continue. Bear in mind that many of the claims we are settling now are for 1977 and 1978. Bodily injury claims are not the cheapest; indeed, they are the most expensive. They take a considerable amount of time to finalize. I want to put to rest the comment that the present system is quite adequate and sufficient. It may have been at one time but it certainly isn’t now in terms of motor vehicle accident claims.

As a matter of fact if all goes well, it will take two years of using the driver’s licence contribution -- that $1 a year -- to stabilize that fund. With some good claims experience, with our reserve being a little more adequate than we would allow or would think about in the private sector and with the collection agencies beginning work early in the new year on somewhere between $40 million and $50 million worth of unpaid amounts into that fund, hopefully we will be able to put it into a solvent position operating on that $1 a year, the driver’s licence contribution rather than the penalty, we should be able to provide protection to the people of Ontario against only the stolen car and the unidentified driver.

I believe this is historic legislation because it is a reaffirmation of a very fundamental principle in our society, that a person must be responsible if he or she is going to enjoy the privileges of our society. If one has enough money to buy or operate an automobile, then one has enough money to purchase insurance to cover the liability to those who will be the innocent victims of the operation of that motor vehicle.

Mr. Speaker, you hear people say, “I can’t afford insurance. We shouldn’t be forced into compulsory insurance.” I have never heard a single person say to the bank, the finance company, the leasing company, “I can’t afford to buy collision insurance to protect your chattel and mine.” It’s always on the other side.

Mr. Laughren: That’s silly.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It’s not silly. Can the member show me one person who has ever said, “I will not borrow from your company because you make me buy collision insurance to protect the chattel”? Can he show me one? If that’s the case he’s not driving. He will protect his own chattel, he will protect the bank and not raise any objections but he will not accept his responsibilities to the rest of society.

Mr. M. N. Davison: That’s a very gratuitous comment.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It’s a very accurate one,

It is a matter of responsibility. It is a matter of purchasing insurance to the minimum standards set by the province, which is $100,000. Indeed, in today’s society it is not really very much, but it is something that is required more and more. It is something that one will be very easily able to do. I want to compliment the industry for the resources, including the financial resources but particularly the human resources they have devoted to the establishment of the Facility Association. This will provide a very accessible and very fair method of insurance purchase for motorists in this province, even for the worst of drivers, the highest risk motorists. Were it not for the industry, and the resources it has devoted to it, I think we would not have as good a system; certainly the taxpayer would have had to pay to have that system developed.

Secondly, I would like to compliment the agents of this province.

Mr. Laughren: I’m glad you’re proud of them.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I am very proud of the insurance industry of this province. I will take your Saskatchewan wand, or whatever is left of it, and I will compare it any day on a number of tests and we will find --

Mr. Laughren: Let’s do that.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Oh! Yes, we will. We will test it for solvency. I would like to see their figures and so would the rest of Canada.

I make no bones about it, I am very proud of the 183 insurance companies of this province which offer coverage. I am also very proud of the agents in this province. They have devoted considerable time, notwithstanding the fact that at the very same time that we were bringing in compulsory insurance they were also developing a self-regulatory procedure for the future operation of their industry through RIBO, the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario.

The agents faced a very formidable task since the beginning of this year in taking themselves out of totally government regulation into self regulation. Notwithstanding that, notwithstanding the great energy and resources that had to be devoted to them, I commend them for taking a day-to-day interest in the evolvement of this legislation, in holding the seminars and the information sessions for agents. So that indeed, for normal people in this province, and to motorists, this bill will show very little difference in the procedures that have gone on in the past.

I would like, in closing, to mention a couple of items, because I want to make them very clear. Anybody who has one of the quarterly plates has to renew a quarterly plate for the last part of the year; notwithstanding the fact they may have paid a penalty before for not having insurance, after December 1 they will have to have insurance in order to get that plate.

I assure members that I have some concerns about the practice of people with commercial plates; and I am not necessarily talking about private vans but of people who in the past were operating businesses using trucks with commercial plates and paying a penalty fee. That, I must admit, had escaped my knowledge; and I presume it also escaped the knowledge of most of the Legislature, because I notice in the very voluminous work that was done by the select committee in its two reports that this question of trucks -- at least the lighter trucks, perhaps not the PCV -- the arrangement under which they could merely pay a penalty fee, while at the same time operating a business or having it as part of a business, was not dealt with. I am glad that this, quite frankly, is coming to an end.

[4:00]

I have the utmost confidence in the ability of the industry to absorb the “question mark” number of motorists who will be buying insurance for the first time. I don’t even think the select committee, with all its knowledge and all its actuarial attempts, nor the industry, nor anybody, really has a handle on how many motorists do not have insurance on any given day. We know at licence-plate time 95 per cent or 96 per cent do have it; there are varying suspicions as to what goes on after that. In any event, on a very conservative estimate, at least 250,000 drivers will be buying insurance for the first time.

I’m very confident about the ease with which they will be absorbed into the system and the ease with which they will accept their very fundamental responsibility to be in a financial position, as best they can be, to protect the innocent from whatever might happen as a result of their operating a vehicle, as well as to protect the people in the vehicle they are operating from whatever might happen in an accident. I think it will be handled very quickly, very efficiently and without any disturbance to the vast majority who have had car insurance as we know it for so many years.

Because of the length of question period today, and because I know others want to speak on it, I will just close with this. We have followed as much as possible -- and I want to compliment them -- the work of the select committee on company law. Without their guidelines, without their advice, without the work they did, the evolution of this legislation, which I concede is long overdue, would have taken even longer. Quite frankly, it is relatively easy as a minister to develop legislation when you have something put in front of you as straightforward, as clear and as incisive as the work of this select committee. I compliment them and, although they have gone on to other areas in the field of insurance, they will follow this model and that they will be as concise, as incisive, as efficient and as stimulating as they have been in the past.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, as the minister and many other members of the House are well aware, I’m delighted to speak on behalf of my party with respect to the second reading of Bill 160.

As the minister mentioned, the select committee on company law has had the study of insurance generally, and of automobile insurance particularly, before it during two years of sessions. The first report of that committee, under the chairmanship of the member for Wilson Heights at that time, Vernon Singer, was delivered to the House on March 28, 1977. That committee was organized in May of 1976 and there was a substantial amount of time spent on public hearings during the summer of 1976.

The report was written in January of 1977 and it focused on a number of particular subjects. The subjects dealt with were not only the standard automobile policy, premiums and claims, but also, which was very important from the point of view of the select committee, the report dealt with the subject of compulsory third party liability insurance.

I must say that many of the leaders of the insurance industry and its various groups are under the Speaker’s gallery at the present time. As I look at these familiar faces watching this bill finally come into law, I think it is fair to say, from all members of the select committee, that the various component parts of the insurance industry were ready, willing and able to bring us all the information that was asked for. Indeed I’m sure many members of the committee found out more about automobile insurance than they really wanted to know.

In any event, in that report, I would refer briefly, for the interest of the members of the House, to chapter 24. There are only four pages, but they deal very well with the particular principle of compulsory third party liability insurance.

There is one quotation I would like to make from that chapter, dealing with the original recommendation which the committee made on page 173. It is as follows:

“The committee strongly recommends the enactment of legislation requiring that every person who owns a licensed automobile have a valid policy of automobile insurance providing third party liability coverage and accident benefits coverage. The principle on which compulsory automobile insurance is based is that every person who owns an automobile that is used on public roads has a moral obligation and ought to have a corresponding legal obligation to bear his fair share of the losses that are incurred on the roads, and should be entitled to benefit from the payment by other automobile operators of their fair share of such losses through their insurance premiums. This principle of reciprocal benefit and obligation is so axiomatic that it should hardly need argument or justification in order to be accepted.”

That was the principle upon which the committee relied in dealing with this whole idea of compulsory automobile insurance. There were two particular groups that had to be referred to once that principle was accepted by the committee.

The first dealt with self-insurers, that is to say the very large companies, or sometimes agencies of government, which simply dealt with claims on an annual basis, paid them as they occurred and did not have insurance coverage as such for their various fleets of vehicles. Examples would be the railways or Bell Canada.

The second area of interest was that dealing with a very small group, almost the complete opposite of those large fleets; that was the small group of conscientious objectors from the Conservative Mennonite Churches of Ontario.

I must say that it is a pleasure to see that in the legislation we have before us we’ve had the opportunity to deal with both of those sides of the issue.

The matter of self-insurers is dealt with promptly in the bill, and I’ll refer to that later, and of course the opportunity exists under the exemption portion of the bill to attend to this other small but meaningful group whose traditions in my opinion have earned them the opportunity to be dealt with in a somewhat separate way, but a way which will protect the public interest.

For the matter of conscientious objectors, as members might wish to refer to that chapter, the objection is really that the purchase of insurance was something they felt was a constraint upon their traditional point of view. A bond or guaranty is the kind of thing that they have been able to accommodate in other branches of the group, and in certain of the northern United States. Copies of that material were provided to the superintendent’s office with the hopes that some similar type of arrangement, on a clearly known basis with the names of those persons who would particularly be involved, could accommodate this small, perhaps 100- or 150-driver population who were of this particular opinion.

We’ve had the opportunity, in the legislation, to therefore see these two particular themes attended to with the hopes of their being finally accommodated.

The matter of the first report, as I say, was brought to the House in March 1977. While there were comments that the principle of compulsory automobile insurance was a theme that the government was particularly prepared to consider, we on the select committee obviously had to take the next step, that is to consider how this kind of project could be enforced.

The members of the select committee spent the summer of 1977 reviewing the proposal further, and in preparing for their second report dealt with the subject of enforcement of compulsory insurance. This was the first year I had the privilege of chairing the committee. I was most pleased at the efforts made by all members of the committee to complete the report and substantially agree on a variety of the recommendations, particularly those dealing with the prospects of enforcement.

Having asked for compulsory insurance, it was now beholden on the members of the select committee to seriously and responsibly suggest how it could be accomplished intelligently. A major portion of the second report, which was tabled in the Legislature on June 22, 1978, deals with that particular theme.

The enforcement of compulsory insurance is particularly referred to on page 157, in the summary chapter of conclusions and recommendations. I would refer you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of the House, to three of the recommendations made in chapter one at that time.

The fifth recommendation was as follows: “The committee is convinced that the basic requirement of an effective compulsory insurance system is that all vehicles must be insured and remain insured for as long as they are licensed. This requirement can be fulfilled as follows: (a) All vehicles which require vehicle licences should be required to carry the minimum third party liability insurance and accident benefits coverage; (b) private corporations and government bodies whose activities are substantially commercial should not be excluded from the requirement to provide proof of insurance for their motor vehicles; (c) the present exemption for government should be reviewed so that only federal and provincial government ministries, departments and agencies not engaged in commerce would be considered to be exempt from compulsory insurance, municipalities should be required to provide proof of insurance; (d) exemption from the principle of compulsory automobile insurance should be granted to those religious groups able to demonstrate it is against their fundamental religious conviction to rely upon the automobile insurance system. This exemption is conditional upon the applicants establishing that the losses which they occasion will be paid as fully as though they were insured under all compulsory forms of insurance.”

The seventh recommendation was this: “Regardless of the compliance procedures that are introduced, there will always be uninsured vehicles. Accordingly, provision should be made for significant minimum penalties for noncompliance. The penalty for not having insurance or falsifying insurance is suggested to be a minimum of not less than twice the approximate cost of the insurance and should include licence suspension.”

The eighth recommendation was this: “The committee has concluded that there is value in setting out clearly in the Insurance Act specific authority of the police to stop a vehicle for the purpose of checking for compulsory insurance coverage and recommends that the minister make such changes to the act.”

Those are three of the particular recommendations in the first chapter of the second report which suggested a framework in which enforcement of automobile insurance might he accommodated.

In the second chapter we looked into some of the implications of compliance with respect to the operations of companies within the province. In the third chapter we were more particularly interested in ensuring the availability of insurance to all the drivers in Ontario. In the fourth chapter we talked about the motor vehicle accident claims fund.

The minister has reviewed the background and framework of the claims fund. All members of the House are mindful of the necessity of keeping this fund going because of the problems that hit and run or stolen cars will occasion, and because of the requirements of those drivers who may be driving with suspended licences and no insurance in spite of the law that has been passed. So the enforcement of this program was something which the committee seriously considered.

[4: 15]

In between the first and second reports we had the opening of the second session of our present 31st parliament. In the speech from the throne which Her Honour gave to the members of the House on February 21, 1978, the following paragraph occurred:

“My ministers have approved in principle the introduction of compulsory automobile insurance in Ontario with a view to implementation in December 1979. The program, to be developed by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, will take into account recommendations of the select committee on company law whose report on the enforcement aspects of such a plan is expected soon.”

As I mentioned, this came in between the first and second reports, and induced it was encouraging at that time to have the commitment of the government that a program was going to be considered, sorted out and implemented in deliberate course, recognizing that it would necessarily take some time to deal with the particular problems.

Mr. Roy: What was the date of that statement again?

Mr. Breithaupt: The date, for my colleague from Ottawa East, was February 21, 1978.

It was important, of course, for us to realize that the implementation of compulsory automobile insurance was something which was going to have to be thoroughly considered by the various ministries involved. A committee of deputy ministers was formed, including representatives not only from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, but also from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, and I believe also from the ministries of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General. These individuals have been meeting with support staff, and also with me as chairman of the select committee, so that we could be assured we were both proceeding at least generally along the same course. It would have been most inappropriate, I think, if the select committee had been going off in one direction on enforcement and if the interministerial committee had been looking at it from an entirely separate point of view.

It was indeed fortunate that the work which had been done by our committee was found to be of interest and of use to the interministerial committee, and I believe their deliberations took into account many of the other details that we may not have been entirely familiar with on the insurance basis and which had to be attended to.

The minister has mentioned the matter of the commercial vehicles on a short-term licence, which is a particular matter that has to be attended to; in addition, of course, the use of some sort of a sticker approach on the licence plate or on the windscreen, as has been done by a variety of states within the United States, was the kind of thing that had to be sorted out in a practical way. That was the function of the interministerial committee. Those decisions will eventually come forward in the form of regulations and will be dealt with and phased in during this next licence year.

We then had the commitment made by the government that this legislation would be coming forward, Of course, it had been hoped that perhaps early this spring we might have had the opportunity of having a draft bill before us so that the various component parts of the industry, as well as members of the House, would have had a chance, possibly over these past summer months, to consider this legislation in an almost final form; however, that was not possible. We then saw as our next opportunity that legislation might be in our hands as soon as we returned in October.

The legislation, as you will recall sir, was in fact introduced on November 2 and copies of the bill were available to interested persons and organizations in the insurance industry on November 6. On that date I sent out some 80 copies of the bill to a variety of interests, and I presume they had a chance to see copies earlier as well and were all involved.

Hon. Mr. Drea: As well as the Advocates’ Society, the commercial section of the bar.

Mr. Breithaupt: Oh, yes. There were many groups, of course.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Prior to its being drafted.

Mr. Breithaupt: Yes, there were many groups involved and I am sure recommendations have come back. I recall speaking with the superintendent of insurance when we were both in Windsor a week ago attending a conference on insurance matters. He commented in his affable way that this was perhaps the 21st draft of the bill. I have no doubt a tremendous amount of work has gone into reviewing and refining the details with the hope that good legislation will result from the deliberations which the House is now undertaking.

Interest in compulsory automobile insurance has developed and was seen in a variety of editorial comments and other comments that were made once the bill was before the House. In the Hamilton Spectator on November 6, the comment was as follows: “Compulsory auto insurance won’t put an end to reckless driving or to accidents, but will go a long way towards ensuring that the victims of motor vehicle accidents will receive fair compensation and that the most irresponsible drivers at least will be forced off the roads.”

If I had to sum up the several volumes which were written on this subject by the members of the select committee, I could do no worse than copy a paragraph like that, because that’s really what it’s all about. We do want fair compensation, and in that respect I must suggest the policy limits of $100,000 in Ontario are, I believe, the highest in North America.

There are many states in the United States that are on the old basis of $5,000 and $10,000. There are some that have got up to $20,000. Indeed when one looks at the framework of insurance within Ontario, the commitment of the $100,000 basic figure is the best there is. I am not saying for one moment that it is perfect, and I don’t think anyone in this House would think it is, because there is, unfortunately, the occasional exceptional accident which will leave a tremendous burden on an individual. But in the basics we’ve been able to accomplish within the system we have, or within the variety of systems that exist throughout Canada and the United States, I believe there is some commendation which can go to the ministry, not only for accepting the select committee’s recommendation that that be the limit, but also for going ahead and doing it. I believe that credit should be given in that instance where it is clearly due, to the superintendent of insurance and those who are involved in his portion of the ministry, and as well to the leaders within the insurance operations within Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, you are probably wondering whether I am going to speak on the bill. I can assure you I am about to start just right about now. The estimate of the numbers of people who are going to be involved by the passage of this legislation was referred to in the second report of the select committee at page 6. The figures, as commented upon by the minister, were the best guesses we could make at the time. He is correct that other than the actual days when a person might choose to have insurance in force for the obtaining of a licence, no one really knows how many people are on the roads of this province without proper, thorough and consistent automobile insurance coverage.

As I say, at page 6 of that report, we looked over the 4.6 million drivers within the province and came to a conclusion that perhaps some 10 per cent of that figure certainly had periods of time during the year at which they were not insured. About three of those 10 were paying the $150 figure, in total some 140,000 drivers.

Another one and a half or two of those percentage points are certainly going to be picked up by this legislation. We recognize that as the fee for the motor vehicle accident claims fund increased not necessarily everyone took advantage of paying that fee or buying insurance. Obviously, a goodly number of people managed to avoid doing either, and there is no point in pretending otherwise. The falling number didn’t necessarily mean that more people were being insured, although I would hope at least some were taking on that responsibility.

We are looking at the other, I suppose five per cent of those 10, the last five per cent of the drivers within this province who have not ordinarily paid insurance premiums, and indeed may attempt to avoid doing so. We have to deal with those people in a thorough and serious way by making sure the enforcement provisions in the legislation are not only standard and easily followed by the police authorities, but that the penalties occasioned by their abuse be enforced and get their attention.

The principle of compulsory insurance is dealt with quite simply, quite briefly, in section 2 of the act. We see that no owner of a motor vehicle shall operate the motor vehicle or cause or permit the motor vehicle to be operated on a highway unless the motor vehicle is insured under a contract of automobile insurance. Of course we have those two exemptions to which I referred earlier on; the matter of self-insurers, which is dealt with, and the matter of conscientious objectors who can be accommodated satisfactorily under subsection (a) of section 15.

It is my view that we have legislation before us which is basically quite good, but which obviously can still use a few improvements. Therefore I think, and I understand it’s also the opinion of the members of the New Democratic Party, that this bill should go briefly to a standing committee, hopefully for a day, at which time the clause-by-clause discussion of the bill will allow a number of areas to be reviewed, and in my view some matters corrected.

We look at the first offence provisions. For example, in section 2(3)(b), and as well in section 3, I think something can be discussed in the committee stage on the idea of giving a certain period of time to provide the insurance coverage. These fines are substantial and it may well be that members of the committee, the standing committee on justice I would presume, may have questions to ask with respect to the possibility of a 24-hour rule or something like that. I don’t know if this sort of grace period, as opposed to having to have the card with a person at all times is practical or whether it lends itself to some abuse. It is only a suggestion that I think is worthy of a bit of discussion.

In section 6 we deal with the penalty provisions, and I presume those penalty provisions referred to are the ones attended to in section 14.

In talking to the principle of the bill, I am concerned about the service of documents on the Facility Association. It seems to me the way section 8 has been developed, service on the directors or on officers, as opposed to some more clearly defined address which can be dealt with by regulation, is somewhat awkward, I am interested in looking at the approach which will allow the superintendent of insurance, in section 10, to set insurance rates. Certainly this is quite a change from those two sections of the insurance bill that have been referred to in earlier reports which have never been proclaimed.

[4:30]

The duty to set rates is going to be an important responsibility which the superintendent has. The committee might want to consider the whole opportunity of the allowance or disallowance of rates, based upon the approach which has been taken in a number of other provinces. It has an opportunity to look at the system the Alberta rating board has to approve or disapprove rates after discussions.

It may be that, in this approach we are giving one person full control over all rates, if there are no insurance rates which are going to be higher than the Facility Association rates. I believe traditionally the Facility Association or the residual market rates have ordinarily been the highest rates. The setting of those highest-rate categories could impose a domino effect on the other rates which insurance companies may charge for their variety of coverages. It is an interesting theme which can be talked about, I am sure, at some length in another place.

The matter of self-certification is one which is referred to. Certainly the approach the people of Ontario have taken over the years has been to responsibly insure themselves to that level of 90 per cent or so. I think the approach to self-certification, in the framework which we have in the province, is going to be a balanced way of dealing with insurance coverage. Certainly the penalties there are substantial ones which should get the attention of any driver or insurance agent or company that gets mixed up in providing information in an improper or incorrect form.

There are two themes I think should be referred to at this point because I believe they may be errors in the act. I refer to section 16, the matter of amendments to the Insurance Act. Section 214 of the Insurance Act is said to be repealed by this section. I put it to you that the simple repeal of that section may not be what is wanted at all. Section 214 states:

“The insurer is not liable under a contract evidenced by a motor vehicle liability policy for any liability: (a) imposed by any workmen’s compensation law upon any person insured by the contract; (b) resulting from bodily injury to or the death of any person insured by the contract; or (c) resulting from bodily injury to or the death of any employee or of any person insured by the contract while engaged in the operation or repair of the automobile.”

That breaks down roughly into three themes. The first is workmen’s compensation coverages; the second, the husband-and-wife situation; and, third, the matter of the mechanic in the garage driving your car around the block to test it out.

I suggest it would not be a good idea to repeal the subsection dealing with the Workmen’s Compensation Board. I think it is satisfactory to deal with the husband-and-wife situation and it may be reasonable to repeal the garage mechanic idea, but it would be, at least in my opinion, an error to repeal the Workmen’s Compensation Board subsection unless the matter is dealt with elsewhere. If it is, I am not aware of it.

A second possible error that may exist in the bill deals with the reprinting of section 230. Members will note, if they look at the bill, that this is a particularly involved section, but it would appear that a subparagraph on page 13 of the bill is one that should have been reprinted as well on page 12. This can be dealt with in committee because it’s the subject which is referred to in the following terms: “Where such director or officer or employee or the spouse of such director or officer or employee is not the owner of an insured automobile.”

This subparagraph appears under the numeral 2 of subsection 2(h)(iii)(c) in part of a section which I think should have been reprinted as well under the previous numeral 2. It’s a detail which is perhaps difficult to explain, but one which the committee may be able to tidy up, if that is the case.

I do welcome the provision of this legislation. It is indeed a substantial step forward and the minister is to be commended for pursuing the topic, which has not been an easy one. This is a ministry that covers nearly everything under the sun, as I have found out in the last year or so as the critic for the ministry.

Mr. Ruston: If no one else wants it they give it to him.

Mr. Breithaupt: It’s almost that way, because when one looks at the Order Paper the securities bill is there; there are some registry office bills; there’s a condominium bill; and a variety of other things difficult always to put to one’s mind. But in this bill we’re dealing with a particular theme, one certainly whose time has come. The prospect of having more persons driving on the roads properly insured, properly paying a fair rate for the kinds of coverages which we in Ontario believe should exist, is one that I welcome.

Over these past three years it’s been an important part of my life to have been involved with the work of the select committee and with the subject of automobile insurance, as well as the general coverages and, of course, the life insurance the committee is reviewing at the present time. The first two reports were seriously put together with the assistance of our consultants and counsel, as well as with the active involvement and interest of all members of the committee. I believe a very happy day will occur when again another series of recommendations is accepted, as this bill accepts them, and when legislation will be brought into place in Ontario.

I certainly have welcomed the opportunity of speaking in favour of this bill and I hope the minister will be able to accommodate not only speedy passage on second reading today, but perhaps a day in committee so the legislation will be in place by December 1.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I consider it an honour, a privilege and a treat to enter this debate right after the member for Kitchener, who serves in the capacity of chairman of the select committee on company law and who I hold personally responsible for many of the innovations with which the minister has finally moved ahead. I just want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that a bit later in the debate I intend also to quote from chairman Breithaupt’s big red book on the auto insurance industry.

It’s an interesting comparison today, on a day when we saw presented the largest petition in the history of the Legislature, over a quarter of a million names of people who are dissatisfied with the way government is handling health insurance. As a footnote, it would probably be equally easy to find in short order to sign petitions an equivalent number of people who are fed up and unhappy with the way this government is mollycoddling the auto insurance industry in this province.

The issue was raised by the member for Kitchener regarding the long time it has taken the government to move from a commitment that’s almost two years old -- February 21, 1978, through to introduction of the legislation on November 2. It’s rather interesting to view that against the defects that still are visible in the bill, even after almost two years of circulating about drafting and redrafting within the ministry. I realize the minister stated back in 1978 that he wanted to have it in place in December 1979. I’d heard at one point that he had set the date as December 1, 1979. That’s correct, is it?

It’s sort of interesting because I’m not exactly sure how it is we arrived at this 11th-hour position dealing with Bill 160. We have what I am sure the minister will admit is the most significant initiative of the fall session -- probably of the last year -- as far as the minister is concerned, in terms of legislation and certainly within the insurance industry.

The minister then puts us in a position where on November 20 we are just starting second reading of this bill. We have to go through second reading, through committee stage outside the House -- which hopefully won’t take too long -- and come back for third reading and royal assent. All of these are necessary steps of legislation which would mean if he still intends to have it in place by December 1 this year, he has given the assembly a week and a half to deal with an important piece of legislation. I really can’t understand why the minister would do that and why the minister would put such a rush on to the Legislature at the last minute for a bill that is clearly not good enough.

I know the professionals who work in that ministry and I know they couldn’t be guilty of such poor planning and timing. I wonder what the reason is for this kind of manipulation of the Legislative Assembly.

I want to tell the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that it’s nothing new. For years members of this assembly, organizations and individuals throughout the province have been arguing and building a very strong and convincing case for compulsory automobile insurance and the government has never acted on those requests over all that period of time. It was a case of continual foot-dragging on the part of the government in this area.

The member for Kitchener quoted from the first report on automobile insurance the select committee on company law had put out during the terms of his predecessor in the chair, Mr. Singer. He quoted from the top of page 173. There is an interesting quotation further down that page which predates by some time the recommendation of the select committee and the quotation from the McWilliams report that was done for the ministry back in August 1972. It puts forward a similar argument to that put forward by the select committee. I quote:

“The time is past when anyone can seriously argue the proposition that all persons operating a motor vehicle should be covered by public liability insurance. From the frequency of requests from people who appeared before us throughout the province -- and these were members of the public, agents, adjusters, solicitors and insurance representatives -- we think that the people of Ontario would accept, if not demand; the requirement that all persons owning a motor vehicle in Ontario should be insured. There is no longer any justification for permitting a man the choice of insuring himself or paying a fee in lieu of into the motor vehicle accident claims fund.”

That was in August 1972, some seven years ago, and there were many reports and arguments put before the government, but it just let it drag on and on. That was really the most unbelievable sort of negligence on the part of this government over the past decade and more.

The member for Kitchener talks about defects in the bill; there are numerous defects in the bill. Hopefully we will be able to repair some of those when we go to committee. I know it’s not appropriate to get into sections of the bill during second reading but one of the broad areas that concerns me is the rather light level of penalties and fines imposed on insurance companies that are found to be violating this new legislation. That’s one area in which the bill is defective and one area in which we’re going to have to have amendments to have that area tightened up.

[4:45]

In this party we welcome the introduction of compulsory auto insurance and we’re going to support the bill, but I’ve outlined three areas of criticism which I’ll summarize.

The first criticism is that the ministry announced this initiative two years ago, and then waited until we were in a position when there was only a week and a half to deal with this important piece of legislation. I think that’s shoddy.

The second area of criticism is that, given the obvious need for this kind of legislation over such a long period of time, I cannot understand why this government has tried to be the last state in the civilized world to introduce compulsory automobile insurance.

Mr. McClellan: Not tried -- we are.

Mr. M. N. Davison: One wonders some days.

My other concern, which I think is a legitimate criticism, is that we’re going to have to amend this bill in committee to make it at least passable in terms of being a good bill.

There’s also another area of criticism I have. It concerns the blind and totally unjustified faith of this minister and indeed of all the members on that side of the House, as well as a couple of members to my right, in the private automobile insurance companies. Their faith in those companies is not justified. The minister should know that.

No matter which way the minister reads this legislation, no matter the kind of gloss he tries to put on it, consumers in the province are going to be paying more money to private auto insurance corporations’ profits. That’s what the minister is asking the consumers of the province to do: to give more profits to the private auto insurance corporations. When he does that, he puts consumers in the province at the mercy of private auto insurance corporations. When I think of those companies, when members on this side of the House think of those companies, and when the public thinks of those companies, mercy is not the first quality that jumps to mind. I understand that, and I think the minister should understand that.

Time and time again in this House and in the community we’ve seen examples of those auto insurance companies ripping off and gouging consumers in this province, and the minister is aware of that.

The minister will recall that we’ve had debates on the budget and in his estimates where it has been shown that those auto insurance companies ripped off the consumers of this country and of this province to the tune of millions and millions of dollars, with their ripoff techniques and their needless gouging of consumers.

The minister will remember that every year it was in operation the Anti-Inflation Board had to order those insurance companies to give back millions of dollars to the consumers. Does the minister remember when the AIB reported in 1977 that one insurance company -- Allstate -- had gouged consumers to the tune of $15 million all by itself, never mind the rest of the auto insurance companies?

The minister knows that, given a chance, those auto insurance companies will go after the consumers once again and gouge them. Boy, has the minister given them that chance by bringing in this bill; and, believe me, they’re going to take him up on it. The minister is going to be responsible when consumers have to pay more for auto insurance that isn’t even adequate.

The minister is obviously the only minister who has anything like the responsibility or an obligation in that government to protect consumers. There is not another minister on that front bench or in the second row who has any interest whatsoever in protecting consumers. We see that daily.

If there is any minister over there who is supposed to have the responsibility of protecting consumers, it’s the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I suggest he pay some attention to that responsibility, the responsibility of protecting consumers, instead of to some desire to assist people in the auto insurance industry to engage in continuing the highway robbery they perform.

Time after time, whenever we come to an area of consumer protection against vested interests, the minister is over in the corporate corner playing water boy. That’s wrong.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Me? In the corporate corner? The member has flipped his cork, he really has.

Mr. M. N. Davison: They’re not my friends sitting in the gallery in the grey, three-piece suits.

Hon. Mr. Drea: You can’t even say it with a straight face, You’re breaking up yourself.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I don’t have any trouble saying that with a straight face. The minister is constantly an apologist for corporate greed, and that’s got to stop. He is the minister in that government who should be speaking for the consumer interest. It’s about time he started doing that. The consumers of Ontario deserve better than what they’re getting from that government and from the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Hon. Mr. Drea: They like me.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Who does? The auto insurance industry? They love you. They think you’re just a grand fellow. The consumers of Ontario, on the other hand, don’t feel quite the same way, I'm sorry to say.

Hon. Mr. Drea: They like me and they have never heard of you.

Mr. M. N. Davison: If the minister will stop interrupting me, I will tell him -- if he can control his emotions --

Hon. Mr. Drea: I don’t have any.

Mr. M. N. Davison: -- it’s okay because, fortunately, after the next election there will be a minister sitting over there who is interested in consumer protection and a new government that’s interested in consumer protection. It will be a government that’s not interested in further padding the profits of private corporations. It will be a fine day. I suggest you call the election as quickly as it can be arranged.

Interjections.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Does the minister want to talk some more about inability to protect consumers? I’d be happy to engage further in that discussion. I’ve got a few more examples if he’d like to hear them.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I’m sorry. Another member and I were discussing his victory margin.

Mr. M. N. Davison: The consumers in Ontario are going to have neither adequate nor affordable automobile insurance with Bill 160 alone, nor with Bill 160 just added to the rest of the legislation in Ontario. It seems to me to be very clear, and it’s very clear to my party and it’s very clear to a large number of people in Ontario, that if consumers are going to have adequate and affordable auto insurance, we’re going to have to move to public auto insurance in Ontario. If we don’t do that, because of this bill we’re going to have yet one more scandalous ripoff of the auto insurance consumer in Ontario. I wish the minister wasn’t so dogmatic about it, and so rigid ideologically about moving to accept such a good plan and a good idea.

I’m sure the minister would be interested to know -- I’m sure he does know -- that even the jurisdiction of Tasmania has public auto insurance. Surely this province that is second to no jurisdiction in the world, as the Premier (Mr. Davis) is always telling us -- Did you ask where Tasmania is?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I’m telling the minister that all kinds of jurisdictions, countries and states in this world have provided adequate and affordable car insurance for their consumers through public auto insurance plans. Those jurisdictions, which are so less well off than Ontario, have these plans. Surely we shouldn’t be lagging behind even Third World countries that are providing that benefit.

Even Third World countries are providing those benefits to their citizenry. My goodness, we have to worry about Ontario becoming a have-not province in Canada; we may soon have to wonder if, under the stewardship of the Conservative government, we’re not becoming a have-not province throughout the world. Maybe the government should be writing to the United Nations for some sort of aid if things are that bad.

The idea of compulsory auto insurance provided through private companies is unacceptable to me. The only way we can properly provide and institute compulsory auto insurance is through a non-profit plan. The minister should think about this. It seems to me there is something that offends me morally about any company or individual or group of people engaging in business to make a profit out of somebody else’s suffering. That is wrong. It is wrong by my standards and it is wrong by the standards of most people in this province. I think that is an element here that should be considered.

Mr. Laughren: It is doctrinaire and sectarian.

Mr. M. N. Davison: That’s right. There is something wrong with an idea that has one seeking to make money from somebody else’s injury. I think that should be considered, especially as we move to compulsory auto insurance in Ontario.

Without a public auto insurance plan, bringing in compulsory auto insurance is simply forcing consumers in Ontario to contribute further to the profits of private auto insurance companies. It is just wrong. In Saskatchewan, in Manitoba and in British Columbia in this country, there is functioning, good, adequate, appropriate auto insurance provided to those citizens. Those plans are public auto insurance plans and they are working.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: What happened to the one in BC?

Mr. Laughren: It’s still there. They had a surplus last year.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I am being asked, Mr. Speaker, to explain this further, and I intend to do that in just a moment at the request of the fine member for Mississauga East, the minister and his buddies sitting to his right. I will do that in just a moment.

Mr. Rotenberg: We don’t need your explanations.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would remind the member for Wilson Heights he is not in his own seat.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I want to say these programs are so good and so popular with the people in those provinces that even when the NDP has been temporarily out of power in those provinces, the governments that have taken over in those short periods of time haven’t had the nerve to take them away, no matter what their capitalist ideology or no matter what dogmatic theories they believe in in the market place.

Mr. McClellan: Even a man like Lyon has had to keep it on.

Mr. M. N. Davison: That’s right. When the Liberals were in in Saskatchewan, they didn’t remove public auto insurance. The Conservatives, who are in government now in Manitoba, didn’t remove it, and one can’t find any more right-wing Conservative than Sterling Lyon. In British Columbia with the Social Credit, which is a mixture of Tory, Liberals and used car dealers, that crazy coalition didn’t have the nerve to do away with the plan, because the plan is a good one and people in those provinces liked those plans and liked the service they were getting from them.

[5:00]

When the select committee on company law issued its second report on automobile insurance it included a study by that incredible, left-leaning financial organization, Woods Gordon and Company. That corporate source may be a bit radical for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and other members across, but that company in its report said the institution of a public auto insurance plan would save consumers in the province $50 million. That figure is low, when one considers that was some time ago and the effect of further ripoffs that will result from this new bill. So it is millions and millions of dollars the consumers in the province could be saving if this government would just give up this dogmatic position and accept a reasonable approach to the provision of auto insurance in Ontario.

I would refer the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to this totally objective study done by Woods Gordon and Company. He should look on page 445 of that report. He should read it every night before he goes to bed. Maybe it will get through on one of those occasions, from repetition. It sets out in detail the advantages to people in this province if we were to adopt one of those plans. It is in point form; it is very easy to read: “Benefits to motorists: reduced premiums.” That is quite a benefit for you.

Let’s stop just for a second before we talk about some of the other benefits we could have. The minister will also notice on page 406 of that report there is a chart, table five, which is a recent premium comparison by cities on liability of $200,000 inclusive, collision $100 deductible, comprehensive $50 deductible. It compares two cars -- a 1976 Ford Grenada and a 1966 Chev stationwagon -- in the cities of Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, Winnipeg and Regina at that time. The comparisons are rather interesting; I am sure the minister has these burned into his memory from reading them so frequently.

For other members of the assembly who don’t read that table as frequently as the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, for an accident-free driver of a car that was driven for pleasure but not driven to work, the rates in those five cities for the 1976 Grenada were Toronto $321, Ottawa $305, Vancouver $270, Winnipeg $192, Regina $224.

But look what happens when one moves along from those differentials, which are not negligible, to the end of that column where they talk about an accident-free, under-the-age-of-25, male driver. Talk about private insurance companies being out of line; for that driver of the same car in the province of Ontario, Toronto $784, Ottawa $733. Even out in BC it was down to $650. In Winnipeg $284, Regina $260. How do they justify that? There is no justification for that.

Consider what you do to the poor person who has had an accident. We can feel sorry for that person in an accident if he happens to be male and under the age of 25, because when one moves along to the final chart on that page: Toronto $1,360, Ottawa $1,271, Vancouver $1,156, Winnipeg $234, Regina $273.

Look at the startling comparisons for the person who is driving a 1966 Chev stationwagon during that time. In Toronto that person who was an accident-free, under-the-age-of-25 male was paying $1,056; in Regina $173. It shows the premium ripoff and it shows the clear advantage there could be to consumers in Ontario in terms of the reduction of premiums.

There are a lot of other benefits that come with the public auto insurance plan as opposed to the kind of plan this minister and his government continually want to have existing in this province. Saving after saving to the consumers of this province are listed throughout this report. There are all kinds of arguments in favour of public auto insurance, which I have repeated at length in this assembly on other occasions. I know every member of this assembly has read those speeches so I won’t go through them all again.

I know that members of the assembly have read the select report of the committee and I know that other members will be wanting to talk about it.

Mr. Rotenberg: Why don’t you read the disadvantages?

Mr. M. N. Davison: Does the member want me to read the entire report? Maybe I could put it in some perspective for him. I am sure he has read it himself, though.

Mr. Rotenberg: Of course I have. Just don’t give one side of the question.

Mr. M. N. Davison: When he has a chance to speak, he’s free to read whatever he likes from the report; whatever he thinks is appropriate to put on the record of the assembly. I don’t think there is anything in that select committee report he could read that would make up for the ripoff that is taking place now, that is going to continue to take place and that will be even worse in Ontario because of the government’s failure to bring about a public auto insurance plan here.

In conclusion, I want to say again that while we’ll support the introduction of compulsory auto insurance in Ontario, by itself it is an inappropriate step. The plan is not the best solution for consumers in Ontario. It is unfortunate that once again the government has let go a chance to bring in a good plan in Ontario. It is unfortunate that we have to open the consumers of Ontario to further gouging by auto insurance companies. There is a real need for something more than Bill 160 at this time.

The alternative system is a publicly operated automobile insurance plan. That is the system the Ontario New Democratic Party favours, and that is the system Ontario will get after the next election, when the people across the way are no longer the government.

Mr. Kerrio: Ho, ho, ho!

Mr. Bradley: The member for Niagara Falls, of course, is no doubt directing his laugher at the previous speaker’s remarks and not at those I will be making.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to indicate considerable support for this particular bill. It is something for which I think many members of this Legislature have been striving for a number of years.

The select committee on company law has deliberated long on this subject, and I congratulate all members of that committee, and most particularly the chairman, on the exhaustive study they have undertaken and the determinations they have made, the main thrust being that there is a need for a compulsory form of automobile insurance in this particular province.

Most people in Ontario recognize that they have a moral obligation to assume financial responsibility for those who are placed in a disadvantageous position as a result of an automobile accident. Most people in this province have lived up to that obligation over the years, but some have not and hence the need for compulsory automobile insurance.

There are many who make the argument in 1979, and I am sure into the 1980s, that government intervenes far too often in the private sector and in the individual lives of the citizens of this province. However, when it is required, when there is a necessity for it, it is my view that government must step in and make compulsory something that should be done on a voluntary basis but is not because of some who wish to dodge what would be a perfect moral system.

We recognize there are two categories of people who have been hurt over the years by the lack of compulsory automobile insurance.

The first group is the victims of accidents; those who have been in an accident -- usually an accident that is not their fault -- and who find that the person who was at fault in the accident is not insured sufficiently, is not insured at all, or is insured only with the previous fund, which proved to be rather unsatisfactory. As a result, many of the victims of accidents have found themselves in almost a penniless situation, having to assume heavy medical bills, perhaps property damage bills, and being unable to assist themselves in terms of being able to carry out their employment obligations.

If we look at a third party that is affected by this, I suppose it is the public, who have had to pay out some forms of social assistance to some of these victims, which assistance comes ultimately from the taxpayers of this province.

However the other group I had in mind is those people who, for various reasons, perhaps lack of foresight, perhaps lack of a feeling of moral obligation to do so, have not obtained sufficient automobile insurance to cover all eventualities should an accident occur. Those people, even if they paid into the unsatisfied judgement fund, are still likely to be financially ruined because they have to pay back the sums of money paid out and many of them are obligated for a lifetime to those against whom they have committed, I suppose if it’s not too strong a word to use, the crime of perpetrating an accident. This situation cries out for compulsory automobile insurance in this province, although some of us are a little reluctant many times to use that word.

If everyone in this province is compelled to be insured, and I recognize that enforcement isn’t 100 per cent although the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) did address himself to enforcement, it might well inspire better driving habits. People will recognize they are going to be hit very hard if they have poor driving records or accident records and have accumulated many points under the Ontario system. They will recognize through compulsory automobile insurance that they must upgrade their driving ability to avoid being placed in those categories where the premiums are very high. This might well be a positive side benefit to this particular legislation.

We also look at the issue of the penalty for those who do not comply. It is necessary, of course, to have penalties which are stiff enough to persuade people to become involved in the insurance plan. The member for Kitchener mentioned that fines would be substantial, that perhaps the person’s licence would be suspended and that licensed drivers in this province would be required to subject themselves -- and once again I say this with a little bit of reluctance -- to spot checks from time to time by members of the police force to determine whether or not they have automobile insurance. Many of us are reluctant to have citizens stopped without what might be called necessity and interrogated by the police force, so it is difficult for us to accept the fact that the police should be able to check to see if people have insurance. Certainly this is done in any event at the present time when there is a violation of a traffic law. It is necessary to have these fines and other penalties to ensure that people do comply.

Also, I noted the recommendation of the committee that there be a contingency fund to cover those cases which would fall outside the insurance industry, for instance the hit and run situation. People who are victims of a hit and run accident should have some financial recourse and I think the committee was very wise in recommending that.

Looking at the price of automobile insurance to the consumer, one often is very concerned about the rates which people have to pay and how those rates can be brought down. One suggestion made by the member for Hamilton Centre (Mr. M. N. Davison) is that a non-profit plan, similar to those in existence in a couple of other provinces and certain other jurisdictions, would provide the answer to the high cost of automobile insurance. It is one solution that this Legislature has to keep in mind; as an ultimate or last resort in the minds of some, as a first resort in the minds of others, particularly the members to our left.

However, I think it is incumbent upon the provincial government to monitor the situation in terms of the competition that exists within the industry itself. If that competition exists, and if the rates being charged can be determined to be fair, then the present system can be allowed to exist.

[5:15]

If, on the other hand, the provincial government is able to determine there is not the kind of competition that produces the lowest rates and the best coverage, then the Legislature has to at least have a look, with some seriousness, at some alternative form of insuring the motorists in Ontario.

We recognize as well that the bringing down of the rates involves not only the possibility of elimination of profits -- that is one way that has been suggested- -- but also it deals with the safety conditions that exist on our roads; so it is incumbent upon the Minister of Transportation and Communications to ensure as much as possible that the road conditions are such they work against the possibility of accidents.

It is incumbent upon the Solicitor General of the province to ensure the police forces enforce the rules of the road to such an extent that we can eliminate many of the accidents that now happen. Of course it is incumbent upon the entire government and members of this Legislature to ensure there are rules and regulations governing driving and driving habits which can have a major effect on lowering the number of accidents, and therefore the reasons insurance companies can advance for charging the premiums they do.

As I say, I rise in favour of this particular bill. It may not meet all of the suggestions that were made by the select committee on company law -- many of those suggestions were excellent -- but it does go a long way towards ensuring those people who have in the past been victims of automobile accidents, and the financial consequences of those automobile accidents when there is no automobile insurance in place, will have that situation rectified.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on the debate on Bill 160, a bill that is bringing compulsory automobile insurance to Ontario at long last. It is the last jurisdiction in Canada, by the way, that hasn’t arrived at this conclusion, which only proves this government is determined to be the last in Canada to do the right thing.

Like other members in the House, like the first speaker from the Liberal Party, I have served long and hard on the select committee on company law, that very prestigious committee. We spent the past three years in the trenches of the board rooms, and it has been tough slugging all along. I am pleased to see the minister recognize the hard and good work we did, and I am quite proud of our report. I must say that out of dozens and dozens of recommendations which the committee saw fit to make, the ministry and the government, and this minister, have been very reluctant to come forward with all of those things which we saw as necessary in order to put the insurance of automobiles, third party liability, on the right track.

I have great faith in this minister. He fought long and hard with those right-wingers in his cabinet, because he is a very progressive minister. I am sure if he had his druthers he would be in here today with a bill to bring public automobile insurance into Ontario. I can hear this minister fighting and clawing in that cabinet office for the rights of the consumer of this province. He knows in his heart of hearts that is where he will eventually be successful and he knows that is the only way he is going to be able to protect the consumers in Ontario.

Despite the weakness in the bill, I know, and I think the minister understands, this is but the first small step to a publicly operated automobile insurance system. The compulsory part of public auto is the basic step in bringing in a universal plan so the people of Ontario can reap the benefits, as indicated by the member from Hamilton, from a public automobile insurance plan.

Despite the minister’s failure in the cabinet, the government of Ontario has certainly climbed down from its marble pedestal. How often have I heard this government, from the Premier on down, saying “We don’t want to interfere with the lives of people. We believe in the free enterprise system where people are free to do or not to do as they see fit,” At long last and quite belatedly, they have abandoned that principle because it just doesn’t work; and it hasn’t worked, despite all of their efforts, over the past -- who knows, 20, 25 years?

Their first attempt at compulsion was thinly veiled under a system known as the unsatisfied judgement fund The minister himself admitted in his opening remarks this was not a fund to protect people who were injured by uninsured motorists. He referred to it as a deterrent fee. By this thinly veiled threat of penalizing them -- making them pay a fine before the event -- it was felt in some way or other that that would force them to go to the private market to buy insurance. Despite all the raises in the amount of the contribution over the years to the present $150, he admits the system has failed.

The system was properly titled; it was indeed the unsatisfied judgement fund because everybody was unsatisfied: the victim, the person who didn’t have the coverage, and the government of Ontario. Everybody was unsatisfied so they changed the name. They came up with the motor vehicle accident claims fund. The change of name, of course, didn’t accomplish anything the unsatisfied judgement title hadn’t done. It was still an unsatisfactory system because people were just not deterred by paying this penalty prior to the event.

So here we are with compulsion. While I’m not a basic free-enterpriser, the word “compulsion” implies I am going to be forced to do something that I might not otherwise want to do; and in fact it is doing that to me, because what the government is saying to me tonight is that I must contribute to private profit. That is the bottom-line figure, and I’m opposed to being told that I must contribute to private profit.

Once a government imposes compulsion on its citizens, it has a responsibility to supply the service it compels them to take, in this case third party liability. The government still doesn’t supply that product; instead it is forcing me to go and do business with yet another insurance company, which in this bill is called the Facility.

We already have approximately 181 insurers --

Hon. Mr. Drea: One hundred and eighty- three.

Mr. Germa: One hundred and eighty-three; we’ve gained two more companies. We have 183 companies functioning in the province selling automobile insurance. I think we have 33,000 insurance agents on the highway selling the product, and still the privateers are not meeting the market demand, the government still has to intervene. Yet this government still insists the private market can meet the needs for automobile insurance.

Those figures alone tell me that by adding one more insurance company known as the Facility -- and while he says it is not an insurance company it is that in fact, it is an insurance company of last resort, when the 183 other companies don’t want to have anything to do with this person then the Facility will have to do with the person as it pleases. I see a great weakness there, despite the fact the superintendent has the right in the bill to approve or disapprove rates of the Facility Association.

The committee, as I said, dealt long and diligently with the subject of compulsory insurance and they laid down certain requirements that would be necessary if, in fact, the government saw fit to bring in a compulsory plan. Could I just put them on the record and test to see if this bill meets the requirements as indicated by the select committee?

The committee said: “This could be accomplished” -- compulsory auto insurance -- “by: retaining the procedure whereby motorists certify on their licence plate renewal application form that they have valid insurance in force; eliminating the option for motorists to pay a $150 fee to the motor vehicle accident claims fund in lieu of carrying insurance coverage; eliminating the alternative available to certain self-insurers of providing their own commitments or of depositing securities or posting a bond with the registrar of motor vehicles that then permits them to depart from the requirements to obtain insurance coverage; relying on the law enforcement agencies to aid in the apprehension of uninsured motorists when investigating traffic violations and accidents or while conducting spot checks; increasing substantially the minimum penalties for owners of uninsured vehicles using the roads; and retaining the motor vehicle accident claims fund to be financed by a portion of the driver’s licence fees at least for the time being.”

The enforcement of compulsory automobile insurance is, I think, one of the major problems the government is going to face. As I said earlier, we are not the first -- in fact we are the last -- jurisdiction in Canada to introduce compulsory automobile insurance. Many states in the United States have had it for many years, and they have met with limited success, I must say, in some particular states.

In the state of Florida, for instance, page seven of the committee’s second report tells me, 17.8 per cent of the drivers do not have insurance, despite the fact that it is compulsory. California has a 16.2 per cent delinquency rate, and Massachusetts has a 15.3 per cent rate. Bringing in a bill which says it is now compulsory does not necessarily mean that everyone is going to have third party liability.

The cost to the province of Ontario, which in fact is a subsidy to the insurance industry, is not estimable. The minister has brought in no figures to estimate the cost to the taxpayers of Ontario of enforcing compulsory automobile insurance.

The government has been delinquent, in part causing the problem, in not ensuring that drivers who should have been taken off the road were taken off the road. They relied on the insurance industry. While I’m not a defender of the insurance industry, time after time it cited that the government was weak in not ensuring that certain drivers are not capable of driving and should be removed from the road. The bill does not deal with that problem.

Perhaps I would just put on the record one driver’s record that the committee pulled from its sources. It is on page 317 of the first report of the committee and perhaps I could just read part of the citation. It starts on the ninth day of the fourth month of 1973. He was convicted of speeding at 40 miles per hour in a 30 miles per hour zone; on the 12th day of the sixth month, speeding, 40 miles per hour in a 30 miles per hour zone; on the 12th day of the 12 month of 1973, speeding, 40 miles per hour in a 30 miles per hour zone; on the second day of the fourth month of 1974, speeding, 54 miles per hour in a 35 miles per hour zone; on the second day of the fifth month of 1974, speeding, 40 miles per hour in a 30 miles per hour zone; on the seventh day of the 12th month of 1974, speeding, 50 miles per hour in a 30 miles per hour zone.

[5:30]

It goes on and on and on. Despite this horrendous driving record, the government of Ontario has no facility for removing that kind of a driver from the road. This contributes to the high accident rate and the high payouts required in the insurance industry.

The Facility Association, which is cited in the legislation, is put in place to form a pool for those drivers whose risks are so high no independent insurer wants to accept the risk. If there were one insurance company in the province of Ontario, the risk pool would be large enough to accommodate all of the drivers. It would be on a preselection basis; there would be no option for the insurance company to avoid taking that risk, it would be a case of taking all comers. But the 181 companies functioning have a tendency, because their motivations are to increase the bottom-line figure, the profit figure, to cream the market. There’s just no way to cure them of this habit. It’s a weakness in the system. When they decide this person is not beneficial to their profit picture, he is rejected and is going to be put into the Facility Association.

This type of a hand-off system has been in place for many years under different names. There’s a slight variation in how they function. They’ve called them the insurance exchange in some jurisdictions, the assigned risk plan in other jurisdictions and the reinsurance facility in some other places. But the basic principle surrounding this is that it is the insurer of last resort.

The driver whose record is such that the private insurer, the individual insurance company, doesn’t want him, will have to go into the Facility Association.

It is to be hoped when the superintendent reviews these rates, he will ensure the rates are commensurate with the risk which is being accepted. We are putting a great onus on the superintendent to protect from exorbitant rates those people who are, through one method or another, put into the Facility Association.

If I could get back to the motor vehicle accident claims fund, the government has also been delinquent in that area in allowing a deficit position to build up to the extent of $40 million or $50 million. The minister tells us next spring he is going to get the collection agencies active and is going to bring in that money.

The minister also made comment on the concept of insurance agents becoming a self-licensing, self-governing, self-policing body. The committee dealt with that at great length. I’m not aware we came to the conclusion this organization had reached a state of maturity that it could be trusted with its own affairs.

Hon. Mr. Drea: But I did.

Mr. Germa: I’m glad we’ve got the minister on the record.

Let the minister then take responsibility for what’s going to happen when he lifts the responsibility from the superintendent’s office. The superintendent now is responsible for policing and examining these people. I have great faith that is the only thing that kept it reasonably clean. Despite his intervention, we know that all is not well in the insurance agencies. I, as a person, do not believe they have arrived at a state of maturity to allow them to become a self-licensing, self-governing, self-policing body.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: The member doesn’t know what he is talking about.

Mr. Germa: Yes, I do. I know a lot of insurance agents. There are some in this House.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes, there are.

Mr. Germa: That is probably why I made that statement, because I know them personally.

I question the minister’s wisdom when he proudly says this is one of the progressive moves which is forthcoming from his ministry. But, despite the various criticisms that I have made regarding compulsion, I know that it is the first step to a system that I think should be brought into Ontario, a system similar to Tasmania, I understand; Tasmania, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Drea: How many times has the member driven in Tasmania?

Mr. Germa: If the minister doesn’t like Tasmania he should go and take a look at Manitoba. The figures were put on the record, as well as those from Saskatchewan and British Columbia. The evidence is in that this would be a better prospect for the people of Ontario than what we have now. I think it is the first step and, at the earliest possible moment, I know the minister will be bringing in another bill, Mr. Speaker, which will bring public automobile insurance to Ontario.

Mr. McKessock: I rise to support this bill. I feel this legislation is long overdue. I’ve had experience with some of my constituents on both sides of the present system where you pay a fee, if you wish, instead of obtaining car insurance. I feel it’s a mess no matter which side you’re on, whether you’re the victim who has been hit by a driver participating in the motor vehicle accident claims fund or you’re trying to get money from the fund, because there have been great delays in getting your benefits if you’ve been hit by such a driver and also there are limits put on the fund.

Also, if you are participating in the fund it is a hardship if you have to pay back the money to the fund. I feel participating in the motor vehicle accident claim fund is like playing the futures market where 70 per cent of the participants lose. They lose by spending the rest of their life, perhaps, paying back into the fund or maybe by losing their licence forever.

I remember discussing this issue of compulsory insurance with the director of the motor vehicle accident claims fund a year or two ago when I met him concerning a problem I had in my riding. I felt at that time that compulsory insurance was at least part of the answer. I’m pleased to see it’s coming forward now.

One concern that has been brought to my attention about the bill is it doesn’t indicate that a person might be allowed 24 hours to produce his certificate of insurance if for some reason or other it hasn’t been left in the vehicle or in his billfold -- similar to the way the police allow you 24 hours to present your licence, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It’s the same discretion.

Mr. McKessock: It’s at the policeman’s discretion?

Hon. Mr. Drea: It’s at the policeman’s discretion.

Mr. McKessock: Can I take it from that remark that it will be a similar situation --

Hon. Mr. Drea: It will be identical.

Mr. McKessock: I understand the minister to say it is identical to the driver’s licence, and one probably will have 24 hours to produce it.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Or more.

Mr. McKessock: At the discretion of the police?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes.

Mr. McKessock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to see that this bill is proceeding.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member for Sudbury East -- I’m sorry; the member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: You have no idea of the explanations I would have had to go through back in the riding, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Acting Speaker: That would have made it tougher still, would it?

Mr. Laughren: As a matter of fact, the most difficult of all.

Mr. Kerrio: It’ll be the same speech.

Mr. Laughren: It may not be the same speech. As a member of this party who represents the strength in centre, I am very unpredictable.

Mr. Speaker, I think the government and the minister understand very clearly just where we stand on this question of compulsory auto insurance. The minister is shaking his head; I don’t believe it.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I do not understand. I wish the member would tell me.

Mr. Laughren: Does the minister not understand that we are supporting compulsory automobile insurance?

Hon. Mr. Walker: That’s not what the member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa) was saying.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, it is. We are supporting compulsory auto insurance in Ontario. But what the minister should understand and what my colleague from Hamilton was trying to tell him was that when he reduces the component of it being compulsory in Ontario, he therefore takes away the right of citizens in Ontario to make it an option as to whether or not they will do it. For example, we don’t make the purchasing of bread compulsory in Ontario, because persons could bake their own bread; that is the way it should be. I don’t want to be too elementary for the minister, but I think I do have to explain it to him very clearly.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The only thing compulsory in all of this is for a person to accept the responsibility. It may be strange to the member but it is not strange to me.

Mr. Laughren: Responsibility is not at all strange to me. As a matter of fact, if the minister wants to engage in a debate about responsibility, we could start to talk to him about his responsibility for consumer protection in Ontario, which has been sadly lacking since he became the minister; that is strange, given the background of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Some day, Mr. Speaker, I think I am going to walk in here and introduce a private member’s bill that will change the name of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations to the Ministry of Commercial Relations, because there is no consumer protection in Ontario. My colleague from Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) rises in his place day after day and gives examples of where the minister is not protecting consumers in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Even you don’t believe that nonsense.

Mr. Laughren: I certainly do believe that -- and, Mr. Speaker, I know you would want us to address the bill before us. The point for me, when it comes to compulsory auto insurance, is that we are removing from the public an option --

Hon. Mr. Drea: The right to be irresponsible.

Mr. Laughren: I know; I am supporting it. If the minister would just listen for a moment --

Hon. Mr. Drea: I can’t fathom you or follow you.

Mr. Laughren: If you would listen, Frank, you can’t --

Hon. Mr. Drea: “The minister.”

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word “Frank.”

What I was attempting to explain to the minister was that we are no longer making the provision of auto insurance optional. Whether he wants to admit it or not, until this point a driver in Ontario did not have to buy auto insurance; now we are saying he must buy auto insurance.

[5:45]

The minister surely understands we are supporting this bill. But what we are saying is from the point this bill takes effect it is going to be compulsory for drivers in Ontario to buy policies from the private sector insurance companies in this province. That’s what it comes down to, That’s what makes us so nervous. We don’t believe, as the minister does, that is the way to dispense auto insurance in Ontario or in any other jurisdiction. That is what it comes down to. Surely the minister understands that.

I should make it clear that is the reason I rise in my place -- not to repeat, I hope, what others have said but to make the point if we are going to make auto insurance compulsory in Ontario, we have an attending obligation to bring it into the public sector. It is no longer an option, it is compulsory.

I would not for one moment recommend that anything be brought into the public sector unless it can be justified on social and economic grounds. It must fill that requirement. If I thought the private auto insurance industry could better deliver auto insurance to the people in Ontario than the public sector, I wouldn’t be suggesting the public sector do it.

The fact is public auto insurance is more efficient and delivers a better product than does private sector insurance. People who read the background material, who study the systems in the three western provinces and here, come to that conclusion. Please, I am not talking about some kind of Pavlovian, doctrinaire, sectarian response; I am talking about thinking it through to determine which is the hest system for the people of Ontario.

The Minister of Consumer und Commercial Relations had his mind made up before he ever rend a report.

Mr. Rotenberg: So did you.

Mr. Laughren: No, it is not the same with me.

I know people think public auto insurance isn’t the answer. I understand that. All I am saying to people like the minister, who used to be Frank, is set aside those prejudices and look at the pros and cons of public auto insurance versus private auto insurance. That’s all I am saying. That’s all I am asking the minister to do.

Mr. Rotenberg: Why don’t you set aside your prejudices?

Mr. Laughren: I did.

Mr. Rotenberg: No, you didn’t.

Mr. Laughren: I want to tell the member, I have done so, as did the people from Woods Gordon, who were very objective about it. I have done it just as they did.

Mr. Rotenberg: No, you didn’t.

Mr. Langhren: Well, I did, and if the member would read the conclusions of the Woods Gordon report, he would come to the same conclusion I did.

The only difference between the people over there and me is that I didn’t go into it with a prejudice.

Mr. Rotenberg: Yes, you did.

Mr. Laughren: No, I viewed the question of public versus private auto insurance in this province very objectively.

I will tell the minister one of the reasons is the lack of consumer protection in the province of Ontario. It is not the most compelling reason for me, but it is one of them.

The minister likes to pretend he is very popular out there. He is a populist minister. “Populist” is the right word, not popular.

Hon. Mr. Drea: You take that back. That’s something the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) thought up.

Mr. Laughren: Oh, then I will take it back. The minister thinks he is providing consumer protection and the consumers of Ontario love him. Well, that’s simply not true. They are beginning to realize, because of my colleague from Hamilton and my colleague from Welland-Thorold, that the minister isn’t providing the consumer protection he should be for the people of Ontario.

I want to move on, Mr. Speaker. I stated earlier I believed we should only provide something to the public sector if it can be justified on social and economic grounds. I believe this can be.

There are all sorts of analogies one could draw. In the United States for example, medicare is a very topical issue today. We know the cost of medical services in the United States is a higher percentage of gross national product than it is in Canada. We know that. We have a public health system in Canada and there is not one in the United States. That is the greatest free-enterprise system there is, at least in their terms.

The minister can’t stand in his place and claim the private sector delivers things automatically more efficiently than the public sector. I believe for social reasons, the public sector should provide auto insurance. That’s true if we are talking about education in Ontario, which the public sector delivers; it is true of the highway system and I think it is true for auto insurance as well.

We could spend a moment on some of the reasons I think auto insurance fits into the category of social reasons for it being delivered by the public service.

First for all, there’s an opportunity for the people who provide the service in the case I recommend -- the public sector, the government -- to utilize the surplus pool of funds that would be available for purposes other than simply investment for something called an insurance company. In other words, it would be for the benefit of the people who contributed the funds. The minister would admit surely, that with the private sector delivering auto insurance, if the insurance company wants to invest in something that has no relationship whatsoever to the public sector or the people who buy the policies, they are free to do so.

Does the minister know the insurance industry in Ontario can invest in South African bonds? Did he know that? They can invest in South African bonds. What advantage is that to the driving public in Ontario? Perhaps the minister could tell me how investments by the private insurance industry in South African bonds could help the driving public in Ontario. That is one compelling social reason.

A public auto insurance plan can develop proper rehabilitation programs for bad drivers, conduct safety programs for drivers, driver education, and also of course provide a return to policy-holders if there is a surplus at the end of any given year.

Second, if the public sector delivers the insurance there could be more equity among drivers, if it’s considered desirable. I mean whether or not young drivers should pay more or less or whether the high-risk driver’s premiums should be shared by others is not a decision the private sector should be allowed to make.

Most important of all, I would ask the minister when he responds to tell me how he justifies the policyholders’ funds being used to invest in other jurisdictions, because that’s the way it is under the Insurance Act now.

Third, if it is compulsory auto insurance, the argument is even stronger than if it’s just auto insurance delivered by the private sector. It’s a case of the public being required, being forced by law, to contribute to the surplus of the auto insurance companies.

Fourth, the fact we have a public auto insurance program makes it much easier, much more logical to effect consumer protection in the province. The way it is now, the minister must confront the industry when there is a consumer protection problem. If it was in the public sector it would be part of the program of the public auto insurance. We don’t have that in Ontario and I think we should have.

I heard some members talking about some of the problems of public auto insurance. I look to what happened in Manitoba and Saskatchewan and British Columbia and I saw the shambles into which the industry had allowed the situation to develop in those provinces.

I looked at Manitoba. Prior to Autopac in Manitoba at least three per cent of vehicle owners were not insured for third party liability coverage; 55 per cent did not have the protection of the accident benefits coverage; 26 percent did not insure their vehicles against collision damage; six per cent did not have fire and theft insurance; and 71 per cent of vehicle owners did not carry medical payments coverage. That was a fine record in Manitoba by the private auto insurance industry, wasn’t it?

It was only when public auto insurance was introduced in Manitoba that those problems were solved. I know the minister will say, “We don’t have those problems in Ontario,” but I want to tell him we don’t have consumer protection in Ontario at the present time. It’s simply not there. It is going to get worse and the minister is going to have complaints on his desk when this law goes into effect such as he has never had since he became minister, because now it is going to be compulsory.

In British Columbia, there were problems there before they introduced ICBC. Efforts to cope with a large residual market were divided between the operations of two different high-risk plans, the Facility and the BC Insurance Exchange. Creaming in the market was practised by insurers who enjoyed the privileges of being selective in the risks they chose. This was considered to be an undesirable practice, resulting in alleged gaps of availability. Increasing claim costs and processing delays were said to be creating dissatisfaction with the system as operated by the private industry. Midterm and arbitrary cancellation by insurers was said to be widespread. These were the problems in British Columbia.

No matter which province one goes to where there has been private insurance that has been replaced by public insurance, those problems have been solved. Perhaps one of the cost compelling arguments, which I hope the minister will respond to, which my colleague from Hamilton Centre raised as well, is that when public insurance was introduced by NDP governments or CCF governments, when another party took power -- the Liberals in Saskatchewan and the Social Credit in BC

-- they didn’t change the system. There are quotes from those governments that indicate they could not improve upon the public auto insurance system. I think the minister should explain why he thinks public auto insurance is still in effect in those free-enterprise provinces.

The other thing I would like to touch on briefly is the whole question of efficiency. We had a study done, which was referred to already, by Woods Gordon and Company. There were a couple of very interesting comments in it. On the question of moving to a public auto insurance program in Ontario they said, “The private general insurance in Ontario employs an estimated 16,300 company employees in 236 companies.” They also said, “The general insurance industry uses the services of approximately 1,350 adjusters and an estimated 12,000 agents, brokers and their employees.”

The report goes on to say, which is really significant, “Government ownership of automobile insurance would affect at least half of the close to 30,000 general insurance industry employees in this province. It is evident that the provincial corporation would absorb a segment of private industry employment, but a significant restructuring of job opportunities is likely to result.”

If I could read between the lines briefly, what that really is saying is if we brought in public auto insurance in Ontario we could do it with fewer employees than the private sector is using at the present time. So much for the efficiency of the private sector. That’s not an efficient way to deliver auto insurance to the driving public in Ontario. It’s not the way to protect the driving public in the province.

The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is not doing his job as long as he allows the private sector to deliver auto insurance in Ontario.

On motion by Mr. Laughren, the debate was adjourned.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.