Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

House in committee of the whole.

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resumption of consideration of Bill 165, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act, 1972.

On section 1:

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Chairman, I’m going to have to ask your indulgence for a moment. I think you have a copy of the amendment which I submitted to the Clerk’s office this morning. The amendment consisted of several parts to section 1 of the bill. The minister has already moved some portions of that, so I’m going to have to alter slightly the way I move these amendments.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Charlton moves that section 167 of the act as set out in section 1 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“1a. The minister shall register a notice referred to in subsection 1 upon the real property in Ontario or any interest therein of a corporation that is liable to pay tax, interest, penalties, costs and other amounts imposed under this or any predecessor act for an amount in excess of $1,000 where such liability has been outstanding for a period of one year.”

Mr. Charlton: In speaking to the amendment I’ll start out by repeating our intent in this amendment. It was felt by myself and the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) and a number of other members of the caucus that at some point there should be some obligation on the minister to register a lien against the real property. We felt total discretion was not appropriate -- some discretion in the first year of arrears perhaps, and some discretion under a reasonable amount. I should point out, and my colleague from Riverdale did point out during the debate on second reading, we are not hung up on the $1,000 figure. The minister and I did discuss on one occasion, unfortunately after this amendment was already in the process of being prepared by legal counsel, the value of another approach to a limit to an obligation, perhaps a percentage of the total taxes owed by a corporation or company. Perhaps there is some other way of dealing with it. We are not holding hard and fast to the $1,000 figure. If the minister can propose some other way of dealing with this kind of limit, we would be prepared to listen to it and consider it.

In a communication to us earlier, the minister raised a number of concerns, including the fact that the bill in its present form allows him to register a lien immediately. I can see nothing in this amendment which prohibits that. It very clearly says when we reach $1,000 and a year of arrears in terms of time, the minister shall register a lien. I don’t think that necessarily precludes the minister from registering a lien prior to that.

However, if legal counsel advises that it does, we are also prepared to deal with that so we are covered in both situations. If something indicates that in the minister’s discretion a lien is warranted immediately or within the first year because of the numbers of dollars involved or the reputation of the company involved or whatever the case happens to be, we are prepared to see that the wording is such that these situations are covered.

I can’t see anything in our amendment which would prevent the minister from using subsection 1 prior to the year. The proposed subsection 1a merely has us reaching a point where an obligation on the minister’s part to register a lien comes into effect.

The minister has also laid out some other concerns or possibilities with regard to this amendment. The minister is saying there may be situations where there are ways of dealing with the arrears other than by a lien against real property. If that is the case, another very simple amendment would cover that by saying, “where no other means exist.” I think it would be useful, though, if the minister could lay out for us what other procedures he may have in mind.

At any rate, it seems to us there should be some obligation on the minister’s part when, through time and dollars, the situation worsens. Perhaps the minister can offer suggestions on points I have already mentioned, primarily on a better way of dealing with this kind of an obligation. As I have said, we are not totally committed to the $1,000 figure, which I must admit is an arbitrary figure on our part.

The Liberal critic mentioned to me outside the House earlier today that perhaps our $1,000 figure was too high. We would just like to see some obligation or some point at which discretion is no longer there. Through this amendment I don’t want to call into question the ministry’s integrity. But all of us in this House have seen, at one point or another, discretion abused. I think that is what we are trying to avoid.

Mr. Breithaupt: Could the minister advise us as to the number of companies involved in these kinds of circumstances? One would think that a very small proportion of the many thousands of corporations within the province might be in arrears. If the minister could give us advice as to the numbers of companies or the percentage of companies involved and also the average amounts of money involved in this kind of circumstance, perhaps we would be in a better position to decide whether or not the amendment before us is reasonable.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: To answer the last speaker’s question first, I have some figures before me. According to our records, only 800 accounts owe taxes in excess of $1,000 and they have remained unpaid for more than a year. Of the 800 accounts, 30 per cent are secured, leaving approximately 560 unsecured. Some of the 560 accounts may not necessarily own real property.

The process of registering liens for these accounts has been in full swing for some weeks and will be concluded within the next few weeks. We are already registering liens against these properties to ensure that we have the matter under control when, and if, this piece of legislation passes.

Mr. Breithaupt: This concerns accounts greater than $1,000. Can the minister tell us the number of accounts involved owing lesser amounts and what his registration procedures are?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I believe we have something like 22,000 accounts owing under $1,000. Some of them may be as low as $1 or $2. I can’t give the member a breakdown of exactly what percentage of those accounts are $500 or $900, or anything like that. It ranges from $1 to $1,000 and there are 22,000 cases. The ones we feel insecure about are being registered as well as the ones above $1,000. We are still registering liens.

In many cases, of course, we won’t register liens. As I indicated earlier to the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) -- and this was a question the member for Hamilton Mountain had asked -- we have means other than liens to collect or secure accounts. I listed six of them. One is taking security bonds and shares; the second is mortgages; the third is warrants of execution; the fourth, garnishments; the fifth, personal guarantees; the sixth, bank letters of credit.

We use all these means to secure any money owing to us from corporations under the Corporations Tax Act. We have all these means at our disposal. It’s not always necessary or prudent to register a lien against the property. We may secure the money owed to the province by other means; these are six of the other means we do use and have been using prior to the introduction of this bill.

Because all these things are available to us, we don’t feel there is any danger that the taxpayer will lose out on money owing through taxation because of the amendment to the Corporation Tax Act we now have before us.

The member for Hamilton Mountain did mention some of my concerns about the amendment. It’s a matter of opinion, I suppose, as to whether or not this amendment could be interpreted to mean we must register a lien and we must wait a year to do it. We’re concerned about that because in some cases we may want to register a lien immediately. While we know that is not the intent of the amendment, it may be interpreted that way, depending on who is reading the section.

[8:15]

We have cases where there could be situations in which we believe a corporation is intending to dispose of its real property. We would want to register a lien very quickly in that case, We wouldn’t want to get into a legal argument as to whether or not we were able to do that.

I am told by staff, in answer to a number of the members’ questions, that liens are also being registered on accounts where tax is less than $1,000, which is what I indicated to you a little earlier. The liens presently being registered are not restricted to the ones in excess of $1,000. It depends on the circumstances involved as to whether we place a lien or whether we do it through one of the other sources we talked about.

A couple of other concerns we have in the matter of this amendment is the proposed amendment to the bill would require registration of a lien after a year. That’s the way it’s written. As I indicated earlier, we have ways and means of ensuring the money is going to be paid to us other than liens. My legal staff would interpret this amendment as indicating that after one year I must place a lien, whereas I might want to use a different method under different circumstances. This is one of the other concerns we have about it.

In all of the other taxing statutes we use liens and we use other means of securing money that’s owed to us. Our tax loss has been very minimal. I think we have done very well in collecting the taxes due to us through the various means we have at our disposal at the present time to ensure the money owing is going to be secured.

In short, there are circumstances in which I would not want to wait a year. It’s a concern we have. I might want to register a lien where the tax owing was less than $1,000, but would not need to register a lien, in any event, if other adequate security was there and available to the ministry.

Mr. Breithaupt: But you wouldn’t want to have to do it.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Yes. Actually, Mr. Chairman, while I realize the good intent of this amendment, I would prefer to reject it at this point because I believe everything is covered. There is no danger of having a tax loss because of the proposed amendment we have before us.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Chairman, the minister has suggested the amendment was of good intent. It would seem the minister agrees with the intent. It would seem to me the concerns he has raised can be easily dealt with in the wording. The two major concerns are one, he may want to register a lien earlier. It seems to me we can deal with that in wording as an addition to this subsection. Two, he has a concern there may be other ways of securing the taxes owed. If that’s true, it seems to me we can deal with that in the wording as well and still accomplish the good intent of this amendment.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Chairman, when I said “good intent” I wasn’t referring to the amendment itself but to the intentions of the member.

I feel there are adequate facilities at our disposal at the present time to ensure there is not going to be any tax loss. I don’t like to be tied down to this sort of situation where there could be some doubt as to whether or not I should impose a lien prior to the year and under $1,000. I’m concerned about that.

If there was any doubt in my mind that we were not going to be able to collect the tax dollars owing to us then I would probably be very supportive of this amendment, but I just can’t see where that situation will arise. I still would prefer our way because I think this amendment is more or less redundant. It is not going to do anything we can’t already do, other than instruct the minister to do certain things under certain conditions.

I am already charged with the responsibility of collecting the taxes that are owed to the people of Ontario and I can’t evade that responsibility. What we are doing here is recharging the minister.

VISITORS

Mr. McCaffrey: Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, I would like to take this opportunity, and I think the other members of the Legislature will support me at this moment, to introduce the Tran family, new to Canada from Southeast Asia, with Reverend Denholm from Northminster United Church, Sue Watson, Mr. and Mrs Nosworthy and Mr. and Mrs. Al Jang, active sponsors of the Tran family. I would like to welcome them to the Ontario Legislature.

CORPORATION TAX AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Mr. Charlton: I have one final comment to make to the minister. Several days ago when I mentioned this also in the debate on second reading, the minister suggested to me I should discuss this bill with two of my colleagues, which I did. He suggested that on the basis of his knowledge of their expertise in the area. I have done that and, as I have suggested, they agree with the intent of the hill.

Those people to whom he has referred me also suggested in the strongest terms this amendment is necessary. They see some problem if it is not there. The minister referred me to their expertise since I am not an expert in the corporate tax field just as the minister is not an expert in the corporate tax field. It seems to me, therefore, if there is a concern there by somebody who has a fair bit of expertise in this field and if it is as strongly felt as it is, then perhaps we should all reconsider it.

If we deal with the two major concerns about this amendment the minister has expressed, we deal with those in wording. I don’t think the minister can tell me how this amendment can do the operation of the ministry any harm. If we deal with the two concerns the minister has expressed, the one of still having the ability to register a lien prior to the year and less than $1,000 if the situation in the minister’s mind warrants it, and the other of getting himself off the hook and not having to register a lien, if he can secure the taxes owed by some other method, as he suggested.

I don’t have wording on the top of my head and I am not legal counsel. If I had the wording of it it wouldn’t be the correct legal wording, but those two matters don’t seem to me to be very difficult to deal with. If they are dealt with in the wording of this amendment, I can see no harm that will come to the ministry because of this amendment. It would cover the concerns that have been expressed to me by those experts to whom the minister referred me.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: My final remarks on the matter, as far as I am concerned, are that I certainly did talk to the member for Hamilton Mountain and I suggested to him that he speak to the two other members of his caucus because I know they are experts in this particular field. I must remind the member for Hamilton Mountain that four amendments were proposed and two of them have been accepted, so I think that little conversation was fruitful. It doesn’t necessarily mean because I suggested he talk to his colleague that I have to accept every amendment they might produce.

I think when you are batting 50 per cent that is a pretty good average. My staff is telling me that amendment is not necessary and all of the necessary legal terminology and rules and regulations are there to ensure the taxpayers of Ontario are not going to suffer any tax losses. To bring in an amendment such as this would really do nothing more than what we can already do now, so I don’t see the need for the amendment.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Is there any further discussion on the amendment moved by Mr. Charlton?

All those in favours of Mr. Charlton’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Amendment stacked.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Chairman, will that be stacked until 10:15 p.m.?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: It will be stacked until 10:15 p.m. regardless of whether we have dealt with another bill in the interval.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment to section 1 of the bill.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Charlton further moves that section 167 of the act as set out in section 1 of the bill be amended by adding thereto subsection 3a:

“The minister shall register a notice referred to in subsection 3 within 60 days of the date on which the Corporations Tax Amendment Act, 1979, comes into force upon the real property in Ontario, or any interest therein, of each corporation that is liable to pay tax, interest, penalties, costs and other amounts imposed under this or any predecessor act for an amount in excess of $1,000 where such liability has been outstanding for a period of one year or more on the date on which the Corporations Tax Amendment Act, 1979 comes into force.”

[8:30]

Mr. Charlton: just before I speak to the amendment Mr. Chairman, there should be one other change to it as a result of the minister’s amendments. “The minister shall register a notice referred to in subsection 3, before January 31, 1980” -- which is the amendment the minister moved prior to the supper hour -- “upon the real property in Ontario.”

Hon. Mr. Maeck: You’re deleting everything after “subsection 3.”

Mr. Charlton: Deleting everything between “subsection 3” and “upon the real property in Ontario” and substituting therefor --

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I see.

Mr. Charlton: -- “on or before January 31, 1980.”

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Let me read that then. I am not reading the whole amendment but just 3a as I presently have it.

“The minister shall register a notice referred to in subsection 3 on or before January 31, 1980, upon the real property in Ontario or any interest therein of each corporation that is liable to pay tax, interest penalties, costs and other amounts imposed under this or any predecessor act for an amount in excess of $1,000 where such liability has been outstanding for a period of one year or more on the date on which the Corporations Tax Amendment Act, 1979, comes into force.”

Mr. Charlton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll be very brief.

This amendment obviously is complementary to the other amendment and dependent on it. It deals with the question of the existing unregistered liens. The minister has already stated that some of those are in the process of being registered now. This amendment is just to ensure that all of those in the category suggested in the proposed subsection 1a, should be registered in the 60-day period of grace which is now given to the minister in the amended subsection 3.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Chairman, I understand the amendment the member for Hamilton Mountain is making. But as he said it’s complementary to the amendment under 1a and because of that and because of the reasons I have already given, I must reject this amendment as well.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Any further discussion on this proposed amendment?

Mr. Haggerty: I would like to direct a question to the minister as it relates to this amendment. How many outstanding liens are there that go beyond one year?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I already gave that information. I don’t know if the member was here. According to our records, 800 accounts at the present time were taxed in excess of $1,000 as owing and the taxes have remained unpaid for more than one year as this amendment refers to.

Mr. Breithaupt: There could be many, many more older than one year.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: These are all of the accounts in excess of $1,000.

Mr. Breithaupt: There may be many more that are less than a year old.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Oh yes, there are lots that are not yet a year old. These are the ones that are a year old and over $1,000.

Mr. Haggerty: Could the minister indicate the highest number then? He said $1,000. Is there anything up around $200,000 or $300,000, something in that category?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I haven’t those figures here. I couldn’t tell you that. I don’t know whether my staff would have that information with them or not.

Mr. Haggerty: Could you give me the total that is outstanding beyond the one-year limit? Would your staff have that?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I will have the staff check and find out.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Chairman, the minister has just given us one of the reasons why we want to see in this bill the obligation that is laid out in the proposed subsections 1a and 3a. He doesn’t know, but if he has an obligation perhaps he will sit down and find out so that none of this stuff gets by us.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: If the member thinks that because this amendment was passed I am going to keep track every day of how much money is owed by corporations in Ontario, I think he is dreaming.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Chairman, as I understand the minister’s previous comment he is opposed to this amendment because he feels it’s unnecessary. I want to suggest to the minister that my colleague, the mover of the amendment, has consulted experts and those experts believe the amendment may add something to the bill. Surely the fact that it is unnecessary is not a good enough reason for being against it.

It is our duty here to make legislation clear, to make it unambiguous, to make it helpful to the public. In those circumstances, surely if this helps clarify what the bill is going to do, then it is an amendment that should be supported by the government. I urge the minister to consider it in that light.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I have considered it in that light, as a matter of fact, and I have had my legal staff look at it. It was my suggestion that the member discuss it with the people you say are professional people and I agree they are. I am trying to co-operate. Out of four amendments we have passed and accepted two. I think that’s a pretty good average.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Charlton’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Amendment stacked.

Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.

COMPULSORY AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE ACT

Consideration of Bill 160, An Act to provide for Compulsory Automobile Insurance.

On section 1:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Shall subsections (a) to (f) of section 1 stand as part of the bill?

Agreed.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I move that subsection (g) of section 1 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“(g) ‘insurer’ means the Ontario automobile insurance plan.”

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I don’t see any part of this bill dealing with an Ontario automobile insurance plan. Can the member point out to me how that is in keeping with the spirit of the bill?

Mr. M. N. Davison: Section 1(g) simply defines an insurer for the purpose of this bill and it defines an insurer as an insurer licensed under the Insurance Act. What I propose is an alternative definition for the word insurer. The definition I propose is the Ontario automobile insurance plan. I think that is perfectly in order, Mr. Chairman. I don’t see any problem whatsoever.

Mr. Breithaupt: Perhaps we could be informed as to what this animal called the Ontario automobile insurance plan, is. I am not entirely familiar with the details.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I would like to thank the member for Kitchener for inviting me to explain to the House what the Ontario automobile insurance plan is.

Mr. Breithaupt: It seemed only fair.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Yes, it was very good of him.

The Ontario automobile insurance plan, when we manage to carry my proposed amendment and subsequent amendments, mere technical alterations, in this and other odd bits of legislation that might be necessary, will bring into being in Ontario a public automobile insurance plan. As I was explaining to the House --

Mr. Nixon: A point of order.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I think the honourable member for Hamilton Centre is trying to explain why he thinks he can bring this within the bill. Then I will hear the honourable member.

Mr. Nixon: I am on a point of order. Is he on a point of order?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I understood be was on a point of order because I had questioned whether or not this was properly part of the bill.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I was speaking to the motion; I was asked to explain what it was.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Yes, all right. I had asked that the committee be told how he was to fit this into the bill. I can’t see it yet, and I wanted to give him ample opportunity to explain how he was going to fit this proposed amendment into the bill.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I don’t have any trouble doing it. Section 1(g) of the bill simply defines what an insurer is. We have to define insurer for the purposes of this legislation.

Maybe I should read in full the definition given in the bill. “‘Insurer’ means an insurer licensed under the Insurance Act and carrying on the business of automobile insurance, but does not include an insurer whose licence is limited to contracts of reinsurance.” That then becomes the definition for the word insurer in this bill and carries with it a certain set of important consequences for the people of Ontario.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I understand that. My problem is there is nothing in the bill dealing with an Ontario automobile insurance plan, and it seems to me that to deal with that you are --

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: -- expecting there will be something to follow, which I suspect will not be in keeping with the principle of the bill.

The honourable member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk on a point of order.

Mr. Nixon: I am sure, Mr. Chairman, you are aware that the honourable member is simply attempting to change the principle of the bill by proposing amendments which will change it into a state-operated automobile insurance program. There is ample opportunity to discuss this, but it is not the principle of this bill.

It could very well be that the honourable member is anxious to establish this new authority and appoint me its chairman, and we can discuss the matter when and if this ever comes about; but I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that it is clearly out of order. This is not the time to have this lengthy debate and you should so rule.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: The chair did not wish to jump to that conclusion until it heard the arguments.

Mr. Van Horne: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Yes, the member for London North.

Mr. Van Horne: This whole discussion is out of order, because in fact the member for Hamilton Centre would seem to be addressing himself to the Insurance Act, which we are not discussing now.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Perhaps I am not explaining it very well. We are dealing with an act to provide for compulsory automobile insurance in Ontario. Because we are dealing with an act to provide for compulsory auto insurance in Ontario, we, as legislators, are allowed to make alterations, to make amendments as long as we remain within the principle of the bill. All I’m trying to do is present a better and fairer way of providing compulsory auto insurance to the people of Ontario.

I think my amendment is perfectly in order. I can’t see any problem with it at all. I look forward to your decision and I look forward to explaining the advantages of this definition as opposed to the disadvantages of the definition that’s currently in the bill.

[8:45]

Mr. Breithaupt: This legislation before us clearly flows from commitments made in the speech from the throne in February of 1978 following the report of the select committee on company law. The involvement with respect to compulsory automobile insurance was clearly debated on second reading of this House and the principle of the bill was approved by this House.

That principle is twofold: One, the provision of compulsory automobile insurance within Ontario; and two, its provision through the present insurance industry. As a result of that, any attempt to amend this is clearly not the principle of the bill that was passed in this House on second reading.

I believe the proposal to change, in a somewhat cute way, the definition of the word insurer is working against the principle of the bill which this House passed.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Chairman, I’m surprised at the confusion that reigns here this evening. People seem to be reading between the lines.

Under the definition, an insurer means an insurer licensed under the Insurance Act. I’m sure the chairman knows that there are 184 companies I could define; if necessary I will write out the names of the 184 companies to which this definition applies.

All the amendment is doing is adding one more company, the 185th company. How can there be any implication that the principle of the bill is not being adhered to?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I’m hearing a point of order, if the member will make it reasonably short.

Hon. Mr. Drea: That motion does not add a new class of insured. That motion is very plain. It says, “The only insurer in the province is the automobile plan” and there is no such thing.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Let me hear the member for Sudbury out.

Mr. Germa: How did the minister get the floor, Mr. Chairman? I was speaking when he arose. You might explain that.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I recognized you.

Mr. Germa: How did you recognize him at the same time?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I don’t think I did, but he was a little more pressing than you.

Mr. Germa: Was the minister out of order?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I don’t think the chair is obliged to answer that point. If the chair took up the position that it had to answer the points every time a member is out of order we’d get no business done in this House. If you will proceed with your point of order.

Mr. Germa: I had a very good argument formulated, Mr. Chairman, which was disrupted by the minister.

As I was saying, this is only adding one more company to the list of 184 presently licensed by the Insurance Act. I submit that because we are not deviating from any principle covered by those 184 companies the amendment is strictly in order.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Since it’s your question we’ll hear from you once more; then I’ll make my ruling.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I’d like to raise a point of privilege first, in regard to the comments made by the member for Kitchener when he called my amendment “cute.” I consider the word “cute” to be unparliamentary and I would hope he would withdraw that remark.

Mr. Breithaupt: I would certainly withdraw it with respect to the member but as far as his amendment is concerned I still think it was cute.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: To the point of order, the member for Hamilton Centre.

Mr. M. N. Davison: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman when we discussed this bill during second reading the whole focus of the debate revolved around the necessity for compulsory automobile insurance to be accompanied and brought in through a nonprofit, publicly-owned, government-run automobile insurance program. That was the entire focus of the debate on second reading. All the amendment does is take one small step towards that; it simply brings a proper definition to the word insurer to Ontario. I think it is in order and we should have a debate and a vote on this matter.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: The chair is ruling the amendment is not in order. It is not within the principles of the bill as approved in second reading. That is my ruling on the proposed amendment.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

On section 3:

Mr. Roy: I want to get back to the point I raised with the minister during second reading, about the operator having compulsory insurance and my concern that if one wants to avoid the provisions of this section he will purchase insurance, get his registration and then cancel his insurance.

The minister talked about the difficulty of the enforcement of that particular section and that we may be in a position to have better enforcement once we start linking names to plates. He described the difficulty in doing that now.

I would like the minister to tell me what we have at this stage to prevent this abuse? What sort of follow-up do we have, apart from a driver being stopped and being unable to produce insurance? Is there any way at all we can follow this through? Secondly, when does the minister think we will be in a position to associate name to plate and give this effective enforcement?

I think the minister understands that for the percentage of people who don’t have insurance now who will be forced into buying insurance if they want to drive on our highways, there is a strong possibility, without being overly paternalistic, or pessimistic, towards them, the percentage of people trying to avoid insurance from that group will be higher than the general public.

I think this section -- compulsory insurance -- will only be effective if there is proper enforcement. I would like to have the minister’s comments.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Just to put in into perspective, the figure used right now for those who don’t have insurance is about 250,000, or four per cent. Those are the people who never made any pretences or fooled around; they just haven’t had insurance at all. That’s always a great comfort to everybody, at least it has been in the past, to know that 96 per cent of drivers are covered by insurance. Indeed, I think that’s been probably some of the reasoning as to why this bill is only coming in now.

The member has touched upon a very important subject.

Mr. Roy: What you are saying is four per cent don’t even have the government insurance.

Hon. Mr. Drea: They don’t have anything.

Then we get to those whose insurance has lapsed. They don’t cancel; they just buy it for 30 days. They used to take the pink card down when the pink card was required. Now they sign on their form that they do have insurance for the 1979 licence year to avoid paying $150. We know that because they have accidents and it all spills out.

I explained to the member the other evening the difficulty with putting in a system to beat an offender at the licence counter, to ensure he won’t be able to do that. It is virtually impossible on a manual system. We say an insurance company must notify somebody when insurance is terminated. If the insured decides after 12 months of insurance he doesn’t like the agent, he doesn’t like the company, he would like somebody closer, the resulting interchange is obviously a tremendous task but the big problem is the interchanges might be mismatched. In other words, the cancellation notice comes in and the driver gets something from the government saying his licence is suspended, all because the slip of paper saying he really did have insurance didn’t come.

Implicit with a plate-to-owner system is total computerization. Bear in mind that’s a computerized system for every licence issuer. It’s not quite as simple as putting the system in the government offices, because the small offices really handle the bulk of licence renewals, except in Toronto.

As to when that computerization, along with plate-to-owner will come, I can give the member a reasonable guess -- It’s not in my ministry -- I had hoped it would be here by 1979; obviously, it is not. I would think a reasonable guesstimate on the earliest we could look for it would be 1985.

In the meantime, what steps are we taking? First of all, as the honourable member knows, falsifying a licence application is an automatic $500 fine. Allowing the insurance to lapse and not having in force property damage and public liability up to $100,000 is an automatic fine of $500. If a person lies in the beginning, when he has no insurance, there’s $500, plus the other penalty. If he has his insurance lapse, there’s $500, plus the other penalties.

In addition to the other fines the court may impose, depending on what the driver’s doing, he has to buy insurance in order to get his driver’s licence back. And when he buys insurance after being caught, he’s going to have to prepay for 12 months.

These economic sanctions add up to quite an imposing amount. Also, we’ve extended the limitations period beyond the usual six months to one year. It’s up to three years.

If you are in an accident, Mr. Chairman, the ordinary limitations will not protect you. You’re playing up to three years on it.

I agree with the member; enforcement will be difficult until we computerize. Computerization is very essential and will make the law more enforceable. Until then, enforcement is going to come from being on the highway.

The RIDE program, for instance, provides for more enforcement on the road than was there in the past. So do the spot checks. I will tell the member for Ottawa East, we’re going to find most offenders by way of accidents, speeding, or being stopped by a policeman. That’s exactly what we find now. They have claimed to have insurance; they don’t have insurance; the motor vehicle accident claims fund has to pay out for them. That is how we’re finding them now.

I’m relatively optimistic about it because the people who want to beat the cost of insurance are concerned about economics. The economic sanctions in this are so substantial -- in addition to losing your driver’s licence, if you’re an habitual the plates coming off the car -- that it doesn’t make any sense to try to beat the system.

Mr. Roy: My concern is very often directed toward the victim of one who does not have insurance. What is the fund now, is it $100,000?

[9:00]

Hon. Mr. Drea: The fund will no longer pay. This is where the victim is probably in much better shape. The fund will only pay for an accident involving a stolen car or for a hit-and-run accident where there is not an identifiable driver. Under this, your own insurance company will act for the uninsured, just as it does now, where there is a vehicle from out of province that is not insured and hits your vehicle, or when you’re in another jurisdiction and an uninsured vehicle does damage to either your vehicle or yourself.

It’s not under your collision coverage, by the way. The insurance company, acting as though it was its own insured, will pay you. If you don’t like the settlement, then you can go to binding arbitration or the courts. The binding arbitration is on the insurance company, not on you. The insurance company will go after that person for the fund.

In terms of the service to the innocent victim up to the $100,000 limit, the member is quite correct, the $100,000 limit is not only for the old motor vehicle accident claims fund, but it’s also the minimum package that can be sold by a licensed insurer in the province. Up to those limits you will get better service because the MVAC, traditionally, has had to go to great lengths to protect the rights of the uninsured and so forth. But you will get better service.

In addition to whatever court penalties there are, the uninsured driver is going to have to repay that insurance company. I somehow think they will get him a little bit better than we’ve been able to. Bear in mind, after the first year I got collection agencies out there looking for between $40 million and $60 million which has never been paid back into the fund by people who promised to pay. We’re not talking about blood from a stone or anything. Indeed, in terms of the innocent victim, the innocent victim is covered.

Your problem is going to be not so much on the $74,000 or up to $78,000 -- it’s dropped down quite a bit; it was a higher fee -- that we know we’re paying into the fund, but it’s going to be on these lapsers who, traditionally, have done this. The only thing I can suggest to the member is that on-the-street enforcement will be up, particularly because of the RIDE program, which wasn’t around even a year ago; secondly, the economics of it are that the penalties are so substantial that, realistically, you’re far better off to buy the insurance package. I think most of them will.

Mr. Roy: Yes, I quite understand that but, as I explained to the minister, my concern very often was for the victim of all this. When he gets into an accident, he may be facing a driver who is not insured. As I understand what the minister is saying, the fund only pays if the car was stolen or if it is a hit-and-run type of situation. Otherwise, if you’re talking about lapses and that sort of thing, your own insurance company pays and then takes steps to see what it can get.

This must be an agreement you’ve worked out with the insurance industry. Would the minister bring to my attention what sections amend the Insurance Act to that effect?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Section 16(3) of the bill amends section 230 of the Insurance Act.

Mr. Roy: That’s in Part II of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes.

Section 3 agreed to.

Sections 4, 5 and 6 agreed to.

On section 7:

Mr. Germa: Mr. Chairman, section 7 is that section which sets up and establishes “an unincorporated association of insurers to be known as the Facility Association.”

The Facility Association, as we all should know, is designed to accept those risks which the ordinary insurance company has deemed to be high and consequently has refused coverage.

That is supposed to be the principle by which an insurer is put into the plan. This is where the compulsory part comes in and this is where I object to it. I object to the establishment of a compulsory system which forces me to participate in the profit motivation these insurers are deemed to follow. We know the problem of uninsured vehicles is caused largely by the insurance companies and their instinct for creaming the market. They cannot stay away from seeking out what they deem to be the good risk, the high profit maker for them only. Their only consideration is the bottom line figure.

Whenever the public of Ontario is put into a situation of compulsion and transferred into the Facility, they have a right to expect that service is offered at the lowest possible price. That is not the case of the Facility Association.

Let me just go ahead to section 73, Mr. Chairman, to show the relationship. I will read the section: “The association shall, in its articles of association, establish a plan to be known as the plan of operation for providing a contract of automobile insurance to owners and licensed drivers of motor vehicles who, but for the plan, would be unable to obtain this insurance.”

I just happen to have a copy of the plan of operation, and within it is described what will happen to surplus funds, that is profit. There is a provision in the plan for profit to be distributed back to the insurance companies participating in the Facility Association.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, remember that document hasn’t been approved. Perhaps I should read the member something first. That document was only out there November --

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for Sudbury has the floor, unless he wants to yield to the minister.

Mr. Germa: Could I ask a question before the minister explains?

In 7(3), to be known as the plan of operation, can the minister tell us what plan of operation, if not Facility Association plan of operation, we are talking about? Let him define the document known as the plan of operation.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, I will try to help him out. That document is a draft document that hasn’t been approved. I want to read something from a letter, November 26, 1979, which is addressed to the general manager of the Facility Association. This is on page three, and I can give you a copy of it if you want. “(5) We expect the Facility Association rate basis will not generate a profit on the Facility Association portfolio business.”

I will read that one again for you: “We expect the Facility Association rate basis will not generate a profit on the Facility Association portfolio business. However, as provision against the unlikely event that a profit emerges, it is expected the Facility Association will submit a suitable schedule for refunding such profits to the Facility Association policyholders.”

I know of no other way you can guarantee absolute rock-bottom prices. If a penny is made it must be sent back.

Mr. Germa: The letter as read by the minister says we expect you to do this. What proof does the minister have that this is the principle by which the Facility Association will be governed?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, it is very simple: otherwise we don’t approve their rates.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Chairman, what we are being asked to approve in this legislation is the plan of operation. Flow can we approve the plan of operation unless we have that document in our hands? The plan of operation is the backbone of how the Facility Association is going to function. One miserable letter, written by the minister to the general manager, does not constitute a plan of operation. The plan of operation is a 25-page document. Here we are approving in principle -- we have gone further than that now, we are approving in fact the plan of operation which we have not seen. We are giving carte blanche permission to the Facility Association to go ahead without our scrutiny.

Can the minister alleviate my concern as to how much power we are granting to this organization known as the Facility Association?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Section 10(2) of the bill says: “Prior to the 31st day of December, 1979, the superintendent” -- who is sitting in front of me -- “may, by order,

(a) prescribe the articles of association and bylaws of the association where the articles of association and bylaws are not filed in accordance with subsection 1; or

“(b) amend the articles of association or bylaws of the association filed under subsection 1 where he believes on reasonable and probable grounds that such amendment is necessary for the carrying out of the intent and purposes of the association and this act.”

You have got it there.

Mr. McClellan: No, you haven’t

Hon. Mr. Drea: Then vote against it. I’m not going to go through this three or four times. You won’t even listen.

Mr. McClellan: What kind of nonsense is that?

Mr. M. N. Davison: The minister quoted to my colleague from Sudbury a letter he had written to somebody?

Hon. Mr. Drea: This is the fifth time. I was trying to help out the member for Sudbury. Believe me, it is the last time tonight I will volunteer anything. The particular document the member for Sudbury was reading from is a document that has not yet been approved by the superintendent. That’s all, we have that document.

The letter that was written is in response to that document. The letter is dated November 26, 1979 and is to Mr. John M. Mathews, general manager, Facility Association. It talks about Ontario rate filing and what it does. On page two it says: “The following requirements apply to the manual of rules:

“(1) Effective December 1, 1979, private passenger rule 25, driver record 5, provision A coverage should be deleted.

“(2) It is expected by February 1, 1980 at the latest that a driver’s record forgiveness rule be submitted for approval to prevent drivers who have established five-year, claim-free records being immediately moved to driver record 0 on their first claim in a number of years.

“(3) It is expected that by February 1, 1980 at the latest an appropriate multi-vehicle discount rate will be submitted for approval.

“(4) It is expected that the wording of general rule 5, additional charges, shall be modified to ensure the dollar amount surcharge for all perils coverage does not exceed the dollar amount surcharge for collision coverage.

“(5) We expect the Facility Association rate basis will not generate a profit on the Facility Association portfolio of business. However, as provision against the unlikely event that a profit emerges, it is expected that the Facility Association will submit a suitable scheme for refunding such profits to the Facility Association policyholders.”

What I am trying to say is, notwithstanding what is in there about refunding to the insurance companies, that will not be approved and that will not be the procedure. In order to have their rate filing approved, as they must, particularly in conformity with section 10 of this act, they must be in a position that if they are making any profit on it to propose a plan of refunds to the individual policyholders.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I would like to thank the minister for answering my question. As I extracted the information from his last comment, the quotation he had provided, which he called number five, in response to the document the member for Sudbury was referring to, is a letter from the minister. Is that right?

Hon. Mr. Drea: From the director of insurance services.

Mr. M. N. Davison: From the director of insurance services to the general manager of something called the Facility Association dated November 26, 1979. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes.

[9:15]

Mr. M. N. Davison: I have a substantive question which goes back to the question raised by the member for Sudbury, but I would like to ask the minister first how it is there is in existence something called the Facility Association when this Legislature has not passed the bill. It’s in section 7(1) of the very bill we are talking about now: “There is hereby established an unincorporated association of insurers to be known as the Facility Association.” Did somebody already have the name before the minister got to it or what?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, the Facility Association cannot be formally established until this legislation is passed. In order to prepare for it, so they won’t start up business in the morning from scratch, they have been working on it for some time. Another reason is that they have to operate under some message of intent from us, otherwise there would be some difficulty setting rates and so forth in combination with the Combines Act.

Mr. Charlton: This is absolutely disgraceful. The minister has had almost two years since his promise to bring this legislation in; but he didn’t; he dragged his feet. Now he has got the association working away; they have their own little general manager and the Legislature hasn’t even passed the legislation. He doesn’t know, I suppose, in what condition the legislation will emerge from committee of the whole House. As a matter of fact if my amendment earlier in the evening had carried it would have emerged in a quite different way.

I think it is very arrogant of the minister to go ahead and set up this organization, before the bill has passed committee stage. He has a Facility Association which hasn’t yet been established and it has a general manager. The minister is engaged in writing back and forth with this alleged organization over the past number of days. That’s arrogance for you.

Mr. McClellan: I remain mystified by the minister’s assurance that his letter to the association constitutes a guarantee of nonprofit operation. It doesn’t. All it constitutes is the particular understanding of this particular minister at this particular time. It has no assurance with respect to what happens in the future if this minister changes his mind or if the government changes the minister.

The business about section 10 doesn’t solve the problem either. I would suggest an easy way out; that is to put the principle expressed in the letter into section 7 by way of amendment. What is so difficult about that? I don’t want to try to draft an amendment, I haven’t been working along on this bill; but I would guess the minister or his staff could draw an amendment to cover the points set out in his letter relatively quickly. We could stand this section down for a few minutes and let the minister draft something we could have a look at. But let’s not kid ourselves; we’re not going to take the assurance of any individual just because he writes a letter to somebody, or because there is general discretion within another section to give the official power to set conditions that the conditions are going to be set. That’s silly, that’s irresponsible legislation.

So let’s put it into the bill. Let’s put it clearly in the bill that, for example, there is hereby established an unincorporated nonprofit association of insurers to be known as the Facility Association. There would need to be, I assume, another subsection dealing with the dispersal of any accrued profits. That’s what I don’t know how to draft, but I am sure the minister does. Why doesn’t he do it?

Hon. Mr. Drea: It’s redundant.

Mr. McClellan: It’s not redundant. It certainly is not redundant, because there is no provision in the bill.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It is redundant.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The member asked me a question.

Mr. McClellan: I think I still have the floor.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for Bellwoods has the floor.

Mr. McClellan: I asked the question and all the minister said was that it’s redundant. I say I look in the bill and I don’t see it in the bill. I want to see it in the bill.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, the minister does not set the rate, the superintendent of insurance does; therefore, it doesn’t matter what minister is here, the superintendent of insurance does it.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Chairman, this is about the silliest thing I have ever engaged in. The superintendent is going to guarantee this is a nonprofit corporation. How is he going to do that if it’s not in the legislation? The minister agrees it’s not in the legislation; it’s in a letter of intent but the letter of intent does not constitute legislation. That’s the simple argument or the simple objection we have.

It’s even worse than that. What we are asked to do is adopt a document known as the plan of operation, which by the minister’s own words is not even written yet. He says the text I have is not approved, so this is not written. We are asked to adopt this document which hasn’t even been written. How can that make sense?

The minister has the cart before the horse, obviously. What should happen here is that document -- the plan of operation -- should be placed in front of us or appended to the bill, and we would know what we’re talking about, because there are other things in this plan of operation to which I object as well. We’re going to be in trouble all the way through the bill unless we get that basic principle answered.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Chairman, I would place a bit more, not a lot more, credibility in the guarantees of the minister, viewing the way things can happen around here, if this was the only statement the minister had ever made. This response of November 26 is from the superintendent of insurance to the chairman of the nonexistent Facility Association, but in fact in that month that’s the second interpretation put on the process of the Facility Association by either the superintendent or by the minister.

On November 2, 1979, the minister stood in the assembly and put it in a much different way to members of the assembly than the superintendent of insurance has put it to the nonexistent Facility Association. The minister’s phrase, “Rates created by the association will be subject to approval by the superintendent of insurance to confirm that they are properly calculated and ensure that high-risk drivers are treated as fairly as possible.” That’s a good deal different from phrases like “at the lowest possible cost,” “no profit” or “if there’s profit it will have to be turned back.”

There are at least two different interpretations, one by the minister on November 2 as to what the Facility Association was and how it would work, and another interpretation by the superintendent on November 26. I don’t know which of them is the real policy, and I don’t know if there’s a third or fourth possible policy that has been kicked about in the past month, or in the past year and a half or two years.

I think the suggestion of my colleague from Bellwoods is very good one. If the minister is firm in the position he has taken, that this company should operate as a nonprofit company, that this company should return any surplus or any profit back to those drivers, he should put it up front in the legislation.

Mr. McClellan: I am quite prepared to move the amendment at the suggestion of the minister.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. McClellan moves that section 7(1) be amended by adding after the word “unincorporated” in the first line the word “nonprofit.”

Mr. McClellan: It seems self-evident that this will put in the statute what the minister seems to want.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Germa: Still on section 7, Mr. Chairman, in order to ensure that the Facility Association is a nonprofit operation, to ensure that the lowest possible automobile insurance rates are given to the people, the board of directors must include somebody other than those in the insurance industry.

Does the minister have any correspondence which changes the method by which the directors are appointed, as indicated in this document known as the Facility Association plan of operation? I will read to the minister how they plan to set this up. He can tell me this is not yet approved, but I have no other document to work with other than this one.

“The board shall be composed of 10 directors who shall constitute a representative and equitably balanced cross-section of the automobile insurance industry. To be eligible to be elected or appointed as a director, a person must be a senior official of a member.”

If the minister wants a full cross-section of the automobile insurance industry on the board, he has to have the consumer represented or he has left out the biggest part of the industry. The consumer contributes the $800 million a year plus in premiums to the insurance pool of Ontario, and if the whole automobile insurance industry is going to be represented on the Facility Association the minister must include someone who bought a policy and is not connected with the insurance industry; otherwise, this doesn’t stand.

Can the minister explain how this board of directors is representative and will guarantee that this organization is operated at the lowest possible price, to give the lowest possible rate to those people forced into the Facility by his dictating? This is dictatorship, and when you dictate to people, you have to be a little careful and give the semblance, anyway, that they have some participation in this dictatorship.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, I think the member would he well satisfied if he read section 11 of the act. It provides that a report by the directors must be given to the superintendent along with all information, et cetera, so that it can be verified and checked and reported.

There is an amendment coming up which may save a bit of time. I really have no terrible objection to it, but it is redundant because the superintendent of insurance gives an annual report, through me, to the Legislature. The superintendent of insurance, in regard to Facility Association, will be making a special annual report in his report, which will be tabled by the minister in the Legislature.

Mr. Martel: Drawing the entire board of directors from the industry is like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank.

It might be an old line, but if I were a consumer and I wanted protection, I would want to be assured that there would be representation from the general public on that board. I might think the superintendent of insurance is a lovely fellow, but I have had differences of opinion with the superintendent of insurance in the past and I suppose I will have some in the future; I would like someone who is, let’s say, more neutral.

[9:30]

I would feel more comfortable if that board were made up half of consumers at large, maybe from a consumer agency to represent my interest on this board. I’m from Missouri. I guess I’m a doubting Thomas. Twelve years in this place have convinced me if I want some form of protection, I should have someone on that board who has the same interests at heart I have.

The minister well knows that in various other boards and commissions we usually attempt to have the consumer represented. If you’re talking about the self-governing professions, we always take pride in the fact that a number of people on those boards are from the general public. I don’t see why we would not want the same thing here just to give everyone a little more comfortable feeling.

Maybe some of you people over there are totally convinced they will do it all properly. But as a member of a profession, I have found we as teachers on occasions tend to be overprotective. I suppose in the legal and other professions it is somewhat the same. I know in the medical profession that happens. To balance it, we take a few people from the outfield area, if I might use that term, of the association or the profession. Justice doesn’t just have to be served, it has to appear to be served.

With the greatest of respect, I would think the minister should insist that a half or if that’s a little too strong for his taste, maybe a third of that board should come from the public. As I say, someone from the various agencies voluntarily involved in consumer protection might serve on that board. The minister should give that some thought before he rules out of hand.

As I say, while it will go to the superintendent of insurance, there are those of us, at least speaking for this member, who have differed on occasion with the superintendent of insurance. To give it a really fair chance, I would urge the minister to accept the suggestion. He might want to put the number in himself, but I would urge that the minister himself ensure there are people from outside the industry on that board.

Mr. Renwick: I’m not certain I understand the operation of section 7(4) in so far as it relates to section 5(b). What is the distinguishing factor that determines whether or not an application is an application under the plan? Subsection 4 states: “The association shall ensure, through its members, that a contract of automobile insurance is provided with respect to every application for automobile insurance submitted under the plan to an insurer under clause (b) of section 5.”

What is the distinction and on what basis does an application become an application under the plan as distinct from any other kind of an application? I take it there are basically two classes of application: one under the plan and one not under the plan. What determines when an application becomes an application under the plan?

Hon. Mr. Drea: When someone comes in to purchase insurance, the agent or the direct writer, the agent particularly, attempts to place it with one of his companies. If he cannot place the risk he puts it into the plan. Does that answer the member’s question?

Mr. Renwick: I take it then that the basis by which an application becomes an application under the plan is that it has been refused by an insurer; would that be a correct statement?

Hon. Mr. Drea: It may not necessarily be refused by the company; it may be on the basis of convictions or the very high risk it represents to the companies the agent is writing for that he might proceed through the plan.

Am I answering the point you have raised?

Mr. Renwick: I think we’re talking about the same question. As another way to approach this, is the person whose application has become an application under the plan advised at any time that his application is now under the plan and that he is subject to the rules of the association?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes.

Mr. Renwick: Is he given a reason it is under the plan?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I don’t know that he is automatically given a reason. If he were to ask, it would certainly be on the basis of his convictions, his at-fault accident record and so on. It might very well be the person would say, “That’s not correct, it’s not me.”

Mr. Renwick: Is there going to be a uniform basis by which the various insurers make the decision they are not going to accept that application?

Hon. Mr. Drea: No. It’s very difficult. It would depend on the area of the province. It would depend on the particular agent. An agent might say to the applicant, “I have to place your insurance through the Facility.” Certainly that particular driver has every opportunity, if the competition exists in his area, to go to a direct seller or to another agent where he may get insurance outside the plan.

In some of the more remote areas of the province where there might be only one agent, the reason would be handed down that way. We want to make the process as uniform as possible, but we still have to recognize some of the exceptions that may arise, depending on where one is in the province, or on the applicant’s driving record, which could also be significant.

Mr. Renwick: I am aware of the basis on which people are rated higher for insurance purposes. What I am concerned about is does the person who is refused insurance in the ordinary market, for whatever reason and regardless of how many companies he has gone to, have in writing the reasons he has been refused? Does he have any appeal against going through the plan, since he knows that under the plan he is going to have to pay more than if he was insured in the general market?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I don’t know how many written replies the applicant could get, but if he is not satisfied he can come directly to the superintendent of insurance as is done now. If a person feels his rate is wrong, he has that opportunity now. We get a great number of such cases through the superintendent of insurance and they are adjudicated fairly.

With regard to a uniform process, the member knows it does not necessarily involve just the number of accidents. The high rate could result from one spectacular accident and the causes for it. If one were to consider three convictions, they could be three very minor convictions rather than more serious ones, such as for impaired driving, which being under the Criminal Code would almost automatically get one into the Facility Association. This uniformity, at least as I understood the member, is somewhat difficult to achieve.

But on the practical end of it, somebody, because of a subjective judgement, may be paying a higher rate than they should. Where do they go? The obvious answer is right to the superintendent of insurance for an adjudication or a review of the matter, just as is happening now.

Mr. Renwick: That’s not in any statute. That’s the minister’s version of consumer protection of some sort; that you can come to the superintendent and ask that it be done, ask him to use his good offices, is that what it amounts to?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Not necessarily. The present system has worked well for a goodly number of years. I haven’t received complaints from members that people haven’t been able to get a remedy when they have difficulties. I think it has worked well. I think it’s a very effective form of consumer protection.

Mr. Renwick: Does the insurance policy a person ultimately gets on an application under the plan indicate that he’s under the plan?

Hon. Mr. Drea: No. It could be written by any insurer. There’s no such thing as a Facility Association policy. If you’re asking whether we’re going to have an insurance policy that says Facility Association, the answer is no.

Mr. Renwick: It’s not going to have a special stamp on it or anything to indicate that he’s different from his fellow citizens?

Hon. Mr. Drea: No. It’s just a pooling arrangement to make sure there is equity for the policyholders who get their insurance outside of the plan.

Obviously if it’s a relatively small company they might have to raise their rates to cover a significant number of high risks. It’s just a pooling arrangement and there shouldn’t be any stamp or anything else on it. It might very well be that at times in our careers, the honourable member and I might be very high-risk drivers and at other times very low risk. There shouldn’t be that type of thing on it.

Mr. Renwick: I’m not sure when you use the term “agent” in section 5 and again in section 7(4) how that relates to the direct writers. I take it the direct writers, being insurers authorized to carry on business in Ontario, are by this statute bound to be members of the association?

Hon. Mr. Drea: They are licence agents within the meaning of the act.

Mr. Renwick: But they write insurance directly and not through agents?

Hon. Mr. Drea: For licence purposes, notwithstanding they are not agents, they still get an agent’s licence, even though they are in direct selling. In here, you could have agent as the independent agent or a member of the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario, as we understand I it, or the direct seller; under the Insurance Act they are both agents.

Mr. Renwick: So the term “agent” is an all-inclusive term, whether or not they are writing for direct writers or not?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes.

Mr. Germa: I’m still concerned about the control of the Facility Association. I did bring to the minister’s attention the appointment to the board of directors. The minister seems to feel that as long as they are executives or senior officers of an insurance company they are going to look after the welfare of the consumer. I don’t agree with him on that, and I guess we’re not likely to change his mind, but let the record show this in no way satisfies the consumer out there when he’s forced into this association.

The association, according to this plan of operation, shall call a meeting on a yearly basis. The voting rights within the association are not controlled by people in the usual democratic sense of one person, one vote. We are elected to this Legislature on the basic principle of one man, one vote. But for voting purposes within the Facility Association, according to this plan of operation, which we in theory have not seen or approved, if an insurer of the Facility Association writes in excess of $46,500,001 in premiums he will have five votes at the annual meeting, and an insurer writing less than $4,650,000 will have only one vote.

[9:45]

What you’re doing here is transferring the power to the big dog in the field. The senior insurers of the province are going to rule the Facility Association, make no mistake about it, because about five of the big operators are going to have the majority of votes. Some of these insurers are offshore insurers and may well not be voting in the best interests of the people of Ontario. There’s just that slight chance these people might not be acting in the best interests of the consumers of Ontario.

I have an objection not only to the way the board of directors is appointed, it’s non-representative of the consumer, but the voting rights at the annual meeting are also non-representative of the consumer.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Those who are bearing the bulk of the risks for high-risk drivers across this province really have a say.

Mr. Martel: They have what?

Hon. Mr. Drea: “Say.”

Mr. M. N. Davison: Before I become totally confused and lose track of all the Facility Associations I’ve heard about tonight -- I so far have tracked three of them. There are three. There is the Facility Association which will be established by the passage of An Act to provide for Compulsory Automobile Insurance, Part I of Bill 160, that’s one. There is the Facility Association that exists, perhaps only on paper, in that document from which my colleague from Sudbury has been reading, which was tabled before the select committee on company law. Then there is a currently existing semi- clandestine operation to which the superintendent of insurance corresponded on November 26, 1979. There are three different Facility Associations.

Here’s my question: Inasmuch as the Facility Association is not clearly defined in all its aspects in legislation in Bill 160, can the minister tell me what the base will be for filling in those blanks and filling in those spaces? Will it be the 1977 document from which the member for Sudbury has been quoting or will it be this operation that’s already going on out there somewhere entitled the Facility Association? Which of those two?

Hon. Mr. Drea: It will be the latter, but I want to make one thing clear: The Facility Association cannot exist until after tonight. Of course, if this bill does not go through tonight it won’t exist at all, properly formed and using that name. I think the member is begging the question, although I have tried to explain it as best I can.

The legislation provides for the Facility Association. There will only be one Facility Association. In order to have the Facility Association ready to go on December 1, it was being set up in various stages. It is not empowered to do anything until this legislation is passed and, subsequently, until it meets the standards set down by the superintendent of insurance.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Can I try this one last time? As of February 21, 1978, as far as the citizens of Ontario were concerned the government had no intention whatsoever, at that time or the day before, of implementing compulsory auto insurance.

Hon. Mr. Drea: What?

Mr. M. N. Davison: The first time the government committed itself to the implementation of compulsory auto insurance was February 21, 1978. I can understand how there might be some kind of “at-the-post” Facility Association, with the minister having his people all ready to go; so that at midnight of the night we finish this these people can race into high gear and get going in performing their function. I can understand that. It is also okay that the minister and his superintendent of insurance are writing to this organization.

What I don’t understand is how the select committee on company law can receive a document from a Facility Association back in June 1977, which is long before the government announced any intention to bring in compulsory auto insurance. What was the Facility Association, which existed, or might have existed, or was proposed at that time?

Hon. Mr. Drea: First of all, Mr. Chairman, it wasn’t operating; it had no authority.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Can you tell me the name of the general manager of the Facility Association, who is the person to whom the superintendent of insurance wrote on November 26?

Hon. Mr. Drea: It was John Mathews; I read it out to the member.

Mr. M. N. Davison: John Mathews?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Was John Mathews not the general manager of an organization or group --

Hon. Mr. Drea: I have no idea.

Mr. M. N. Davison: -- that presented a brief to the select committee on company law?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I have no idea.

Mr. M. N. Davison: The minister has no idea?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I have no idea; that’s three times.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Exhibit 47 to the committee was a presentation to the select committee on company law by the Facility Association, represented by Mr. Colin Atkinson, deputy chairman, Mr. Ronald Walker, and Mr. John M. Mathews, general manager. So, in fact, this Facility Association, which is going to swing into action at the moment we pass this legislation, is an organization that I take it has existed for at least two and a half years; is that correct? They were working on this long before it was introduced in the House.

The same group of people have been the Facility Association. It really didn’t occur to the government that there might have been some adjustment in all that time, but this happy little group has been working all the way through, and it is a fait accompli. Obviously there is good reason to believe that whatever is included in this green paper and in that exhibit 47 will be what the Facility Association is.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that we have to debate the plan of operation, and none of us in the House has a copy of the document approved by the minister. We have the cart before the horse; we are approving the plan without officially having seen the document.

Is the minister satisfied with the agency commission as proposed in the Facility Association plan of operation?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes.

Mr. Germa: He approves that forcibly, by dictate, the consumers of Ontario are going to have to pay an insurance agent 10 per cent of premium? Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes. It’s less than the agent would get if he was booking it outside of the plan.

Mr. Germa: There is a difference, Mr. Chairman, in that a private agent out seeking business has certain expenses imposed upon him in seeking business. He might have to drive two blocks, two miles or 10 miles to seek the business. But in this case the consumer is dragged into his office, kicking and screaming to buy an insurance policy. There is no expense placed upon the agent. That is where the minister fails to understand the 10 per cent in my mind is in excess. When I, by compulsion, must come in and beg to do business with this agent, why should he be allowed to rip off 10 per cent of premium?

Some of the premiums on these policies are going to be pretty high, Mr. Minister. I think 10 per cent is a little in excess of what we should expect.

Mr. M. N. Davison: On exactly that point, Mr. Chairman, that sheds rather interesting light on the debate we had a bit earlier about the difference between the statement in the November 26 letter, the immediate response that was made to the member for Sudbury when he used the term “at the lowest possible cost” and the minister’s original statement.

What becomes quite clear now is that anybody involved in the process can rake off a profit, can rake off percentages like 10 per cent when they are doing very little work in this field, as long as at the end the Facility doesn’t show a profit or the Facility doesn’t make money on the deal. It is quite possible for everybody else involved to make as much as they can, perhaps even more if some other plan of operation is approved than the one that was issued in 1977. It means those people in the highest category categorically will not get their insurance at the lowest possible cost. I think the minister should admit that.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the minister what input the government of Ontario has in determining who the servicing carriers will be under the Facility Association?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I am sorry, I didn’t hear the last part of that question.

Mr. Germa: I will repeat my question. Can the minister advise us what influence the government of Ontario will have in the appointment of the servicing carriers under the Facility Association?

Hon. Mr. Drea: The carriers are the ones who came in and were willing to do it at the time, and we approved them.

Mr. Germa: Once again, Mr. Chairman, different carriers service their policies in different manners. Some insurance companies have a good reputation as far as service is concerned. Each insurer operates in a different fashion. Some of them have a good record of servicing their clients; other insurers have a horrible record of servicing their clients.

We know one insurer that gives good rates in Ontario but gives horrible service. They will do everything but pay a claim. That is why they can give good rates. They are famous for not paying claims. Are you saying to this House that you are going to have no control over who the servicing carrier is?

Hon. Mr. Drea: The service will be there. If a person says someone is famous for not paying claims, I wish he would tell the superintendent of insurance about it.

Mr. Germa: We have seen the statistics and the superintendent has seen the statistics, Mr. Minister. Maybe the minister should interest himself in the figures of claims payouts by various insurers in Ontario and then maybe he will take my question a little more seriously than he seems to have taken it. I am serious about this.

Hon. Mr. Drea: So am I.

Mr. Germa: There are some insurers that should not be the servicing carriers.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Name them.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I will give you one. If the minister would like the name of an insurance company that I wouldn’t like to see handling any insurance in this province, period, if I could do anything about it, I’ll give him the name of Allstate, a company that ripped off consumers to the tune of $15 million in one year until they were obliged by the AIB to return that money to the consumers of Ontario.

There are a number of insurance companies operating in Ontario that during the life of the Anti-Inflation Board were obliged to pay back money they had ripped off from their consumers. Many of those same companies then found very inventive ways by which they could end up not paying or try to get out of paying that money back to the consumers of Ontario.

Maybe when the minister looks for bad guys in the insurance industry, ones we should be looking at very carefully, he might go through the AIB records to see which of those insurance companies were wearing white hats and which were wearing black hats.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

On section 8:

Mr. Breithaupt: My only concern is with respect to subsection 3, concerning the service of documents on the directors or officers of the association.

I understand of course that there will be 10 directors and possibly there would be three or four persons who would be classified as officers of the association. This kind of service is not quite what I had hoped for. I would have thought that the service would be more properly done at a known address even if it was initially through the office of the superintendent of insurance.

It could be, obviously, that we can’t know a street address at this point because the operation may not be in any permanent headquarters. We might know the particular officers who might be served. But I would have felt that there was some opportunity perhaps to use the office of the superintendent as the information point for which the names of the directors or particular procedure might be followed.

I just thought that service in this way, on any one of possibly 15 people or whatever, just didn’t seem to me to be very thorough or practical. There may be reasons in law why this particular approach is being followed. There may be the hope that anyone who is served is very quickly going to get on with finding out what is to be done about documents that have been served upon him or upon her.

I just was wondering whether the minister could comment on this approach -- why it has been taken in this way. It may be quite satisfactory, but I just raise the questions because I had them on my mind, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I am advised by the legislative counsel that the approach is a very standard one and is the best we could arrange.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Germa moves that section 8 be amended by added thereto the following subsection 1a:

“At least three of the directors of the association shall be public-interest directors appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council from among the Canadian citizens resident in the province who are not associated with any insurer.”

Mr Germa: The obvious intention of moving that amendment is to ensure that the consumers of Ontario have representation on the Facility Association to guarantee it will deliver insurance at the lowest possible rates and at the least possible expense. Only in this way can we ensure the principle the minister has enunciated in his letter, that it shall be a nonprofit corporation -- that is, to have someone there to ensure that some charges are not passed on which would preclude the rate from being the lowest possible delivered on the policy.

The principle is quite consistent with representation on various other boards and commissions. In fact, the Facility Association could very well be a public service board in that it is set up to take on all comers and, theoretically, to service the people of Ontario. The people of Ontario have no choice in the matter other than to participate in this association.

There are many reasons why the minister should reconsider his originally stated position and ensure that the consumers of Ontario have representation on this board, After all, the minister carrying this legislation through the House is entitled “the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.” He sometimes forgets the consumer part of his portfolio. This is one time when he can take that job seriously.

I know in his heart of hearts he has the consumers’ best interest. I am sure in the dark of night when he is alone he often wonders how better can he serve the consumers of Ontario and how better can he protect those consumers out there. Then when the light of dawn comes and he has to face the cabinet he is in -- and we know he is a lone wolf in that cabinet -- all of these thoughts he had in the middle of the night are gone by the wayside.

Here we are. There are very few of that cabinet in the House and the minister could quite easily sneak this amendment through without the rest of the cabinet knowing it. Then when they wake up in the morning, they will find out he has truly protected the consumers of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I am not going to accept that amendment. It’s a grandstand play by the member. In his heart of hearts he knows what he is doing tonight. He just wants to stall the bill. In the dark of night when he is alone, which is a little bit more often than I am, I don’t know what he does, but when the dawn comes he has to carry on with these charades in the House. Therefore, the amendment is not acceptable.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I think the reason my colleague from Sudbury has run into conflict here is that he has been overly generous in the compromise. If I had been moving that amendment, I would have asked for a majority of those people to be consumer, public interest, representative people; certainly half, five at worst.

I find it really quite unbelievable the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations won’t put just three, 30 per cent of the people, on the board. I wouldn’t be surprised if the member for Sudbury could be further compromised into proposing even two, but I think it should certainly be five. The minister has an obligation to make sure there is consumer representation.

The more and more I hear about the Facility Association, I wonder if the reason that amendment from the member for Sudbury was rejected may not be, seeing that this little Facility Association is already existing and operating and has its own fancy little stationery and general manager, that it already has 10 directors. Maybe already you’ve picked out the 10 directors and they are operating on the Facility Association and you would have to fire three of these people to get some consumer, public interest representation on the Facility. That wouldn’t surprise me in the least.

I think it is a good amendment, and I would hope the members of the Liberal caucus would take a look at it and ignore the minister’s blithe charges about grandstanding by the member for Sudbury. It is a good amendment; there should be some consumer representation on the Facility Association.

Mr. Renwick: You forgot to tell us how the directors will be appointed to the board of the Facility Association. If he will not have any public interest directors on there, could he tell us how the members will be selected? Obviously they will be from the private interests.

Hon. Mr. Drea: To be eligible or to be elected or appointed as a director, a person must be a senior official of a member. To provide representation for each jurisdiction, at least one of the directors shall be a senior official member actively engaged in the business of automobile insurance. In a jurisdiction, not more than five directors may be senior officials of servicing carriers for the association.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Could the minister inform me who are the directors of the currently existing semi-official clandestine Facility Association? Are they people who meet the requirements of the legislation the minister has before us? Who are those people? Are those the people who will simply be put into these positions with the official third version of the Facility Association?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, I will send them by note to the member when I get them. I don’t have them here. I will send them by note to you.

You are not going to finish this tonight. You are just fooling around.

Mr. M. N. Davison: We are trying to get some consumer input into this association.

I would suggest that rather than voting on this particular section before we find out who these 10 people are, if they indeed exist, who are already operating on this current association, that we stand this down until we can get the names of these 10 people and see exactly in whose interest they are operating. I don’t think it would be appropriate to proceed with the vote on my colleague’s amendment until we have that information.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Germa’s amendment will please say aye.

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Amendment stacked.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: We agreed that vote will be deferred, but in view of the fact it is now 10:15 p.m. and we agreed to take votes on the other bill, I think the committee should return to the other bill for those votes. This vote will not be taken tonight, is that right? Do you wish this one taken? Do you want this one taken tonight?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: All right. We have to call in the members for two deferred votes on Bill 165 and one on proposed amendment to section 8 of Bill 160.

The committee divided on Mr. Charlton’s amendment to section 167 of the Corporations Tax Act, as set out in section 1 of Bill 165, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 20; nays 64.

The committee divided on Mr. Charlton’s further amendment to section 167 of the act, as set out in section 1 of Bill 165, which was negatived on the same vote.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Bill 165, as amended, reported.

The committee divided on Mr. Germa’s amendment to section 8 of Bill 160, which was negatived on the same vote.

On motion by Mr. Wells the committee of the whole House reported two bills with amendments and progress on another.

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, may I at this time table the answer to question 354 standing on the Notice Paper.

[10:30]

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 28, the member for Wentworth has expressed his dissatisfaction with an answer given earlier. We will listen to him very attentively for the next five minutes.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will stop the clock for those who are not interested to make an orderly and quiet departure. I want to remind members the House is still in session.

TELEPHONE CHARGES

Mr. Isaacs: I appreciate your stopping the clock, Mr. Speaker.

Last Friday I asked the minister whether he would provide financial assistance to those who wished to intervene before the Ontario Telephone Service Commission in opposition to proposed general rate increases of the so-called independent telephone companies. I mentioned specifically the current application from the Community Telephone Company. I drew his attention to the fact that the federal government has provided funds to interveners before the CRTC in Bell Canada hearings. The minister’s response to my request was no.

I regard the minister’s response as a clear case of the Ontario government’s treating customers of the so-called independent telephone companies as second-class citizens. Not only has the federal government provided taxpayers’ money to assist interveners before the CRTC, but the Ontario government has itself intervened before the CRTC in opposition to Bell Canada. In fact, the minister was boasting about that during question period earlier today. That effort has also been made possible by money provided by all Ontario taxpayers.

The so-called independent telephone companies provide 178,000 telephone numbers to taxpayers of this province, yet those taxpayers receive absolutely no assistance in their fight with the telephone company. Indeed, they contribute to the cost of the fight with Bell Canada for which they obtain no benefit at all. The government is not giving these taxpayers fair treatment.

Taxpayers who are served by the Community Telephone Company come from exchanges as widespread as Adolphustown, Caledonia and Nairn, to name just three of the 21 telephone exchanges, which carry a total of 22,000 telephone numbers.

I want to give just one example, that of Mr. and Mrs. Gillis of Mount Hope, who receive multi-party-line service, and somewhat unsatisfactory service at that, from the Community Telephone Company’s Caledonia exchange. The present basic monthly rate for Mr. and Mrs. Gillis’s telephone service is $16.50. The proposed rate increase would lead to a basic monthly telephone rate of $29.60 for telephone service for these people.

Community Telephone Company is not your friendly local telephone company with the president living just down the street. It is, in fact, a branch operation of a huge multinational corporation that is attempting from its American headquarters with its high-priced lawyers and other financial experts to rip off 22,000 telephone customers in this province. How are the telephone customers going to fight that without some help?

How does the minister reconcile his appearing before the CRTC against Bell Canada with his refusal to help these people before the OTSC? Surely CRTC and OTSC are similar regulatory bodies, and the people need equivalent help. Will the minister at the very least provide one member of his staff for a few days to work with these people to help them fight the telephone company? That seems to me to be a very elementary and straightforward request, and I do not understand the minister’s refusal to assist.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am very well aware of the application before the Ontario Telephone Service Commission at this time for a very substantial rate increase, perhaps the highest rate increase application I have heard of for any utility. There may have been higher ones but I am not aware of one. I know this has the 22,000 subscribers in the 21 or so exchanges very concerned and I can understand that.

The question basically was regarding the funding of interveners in such cases. It has not been the policy in the past of my ministry, or of the government, to fund interveners in such a case. I think there is quite a difference to be drawn between intervening in a case for a Bell Canada rate increase to the CRTC, and to an application by one of the local telephone companies to the Ontario Telephone Service Commission.

We have about 35 or 36 private telephone companies in Ontario, either privately owned or municipally owned, that generally offer an excellent service to the citizens of the community. Sometimes we do hear from subscribers that they wish they were part of the Bell system, but the province has no way of telling a private telephone company it must sell out to Bell or telling Bell it must buy that company. Certainly in most cases I don’t believe the subscribers would want that to happen.

The policy of the Ontario Telephone Service Commission and the holding of its hearings are on a much more informal basis than the CRTC. I agree with the honourable member that my ministry, on behalf of the people of Ontario, does appear before the federal regulatory body. This is not necessarily to give blanket opposition to a rate application but to ask pertinent questions, to make sure the rate that is granted is based on the proper information, and that all the questions are drawn out in the hearing.

The hearing will not be held in Ottawa, as a CRTC hearing is. It will he held in the local community. I believe this company applied for a rate increase last year. Hearings are usually located by the chairman in the areas where there has been substantial complaint or opposition or interest shown by the subscribers. As I recall this, last time hearings were held in the village of Erin or Hillsburgh and down in the Newcastle/Orono area. This company has a number of exchanges in the eastern Ontario area. It has some at Orono, it has the exchange up at Hillsburgh and it has a number down in the Haldimand-Norfolk, Hamilton-Wentworth area.

I cannot say tonight where the hearings will be held. The chairman of the commission, Mrs. Bielski, will set the dates and times and places for those hearings when the time for the submission of input to this application has expired. The normal practice, and I would expect it would be adhered to, is that there will be local hearings in those areas, so that it will be easy for the people involved or their representatives to make their submission to the commission.

I am sure the honourable member is well aware that I as the minister cannot interfere in or really comment on the merits of an application for a rate increase while it is being considered by an independent regulatory body, such as the OTSC. Ministry officials have been contacted by the subscriber groups and have attempted to provide information without offering any opinions in the case.

Mr. Speaker, I assure you there will be a full and fair hearing of this rate application and it will be dealt with appropriately.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Bellwoods, for up to five minutes.

DEATH OF FOSTER CHILD

Mr. McClellan: I note with some concern that the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton), who was here for the vote at 10:30, is not here now. Perhaps if he is within range of my voice he would do us the courtesy of returning to the debate.

Mr. Speaker, on January 12, 1979, Shawn Lee Mandamin, a ward of the Kenora Children’s Aid Society, died in Winnipeg of injuries sustained at the hands of the foster father with whom he had been placed by the Kenora Children’s Aid Society. Shawn was 16 months old at the time of his death. He was a member of the Whitedog Indian band at Shoal Lake and had been removed from his natural mother and placed with a family headed by a Mr. Joseph Jolicouer in September 1978. On November 9 Mr. Jolicouer was found guilty of manslaughter in the death of Shawn Lee Mandamin.

I raised this question this afternoon in the House for two purposes. First, I want an explanation. Baldly put, Mr. Speaker, what has happened in this province is that a child has been killed by child abuse in a children’s aid society foster home, in what is supposed to be a place of safety. I want an explanation. I asked for an explanation this afternoon from the minister and did not receive it.

I want, by way of an explanation, a tabling of the results of the investigation the ministry has carried out. When I asked for that this afternoon the minister did not give us any assurance that these reports would be tabled. I repeat this request again tonight, that any reports available to the minister be tabled and put before this House.

Second, and I think more important, I want an independent inquiry into the state of foster care in this province and in particular the state of foster care as it is available for ethnic minorities and our native people. We are aware from ministry documents that there has been a decline over the last decade in the number of suitable foster homes available in this province.

I have talked to officials within the ministry and senior officials in charge of the ministry’s foster-care program tell me that the problem in foster care is a simple one of matching the child to the most suitable home. The officials tell me the optimum ratio of available foster homes to homes actually in use ought to be three to one. In 1978 there were 4,619 foster homes in use. Ideally there should have been 12,000 foster homes available to maintain a ratio of three to one, but in fact there was something in the vicinity of only 6,500 homes available.

The ministry has allowed the foster-care program in this province to deteriorate as part of its constraints and cutbacks and I want an independent inquiry that will look at the whole question. I suggest the model of the Garber task force on child abuse, which served us well. I am not content to leave the question in-house within the ministry. I think it is far too serious for that.

When the minister answered me today he dismissed the Paquette incident. You will recall the Paquette child was placed back in her own home because of the absence of foster-care services for francophone children in the Ottawa area. She was put back in her own home where she had been tortured and abused in the past. When she was put back in her own home she was tortured and abused and killed.

The minister said that was many years ago. I remind the minister that less than a year ago the Paquette children were placed back in that same home because there was still no foster-home facilities for francophones in the Ottawa area.

The problem has not been solved. The minister does us no service by refusing to participate in this debate or by refusing to provide explanations to such urgent and distressing questions. He does us no service by refusing to appoint an independent public inquiry.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

The House adjourned at 10:45 p.m.