Journal des débats 1986-oct-30 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

That in the opinion of this House, recognizing that purchasers of new homes are severely inconvenienced by multiple extensions of completion dates, the Ontario new home warranty program immediately investigate what further protection could be given to these purchasers.

Mr. Offer: As I have indicated with respect to the moving of resolution 50, it is necessary to recognize that new home purchasers are being "severely inconvenienced by multiple extensions of completion dates." In this province, we have the Ontario new home warranty program, which provides protection in certain instances to purchasers. It is incumbent upon this Legislature, and I ask it to support this resolution, to send a clear, strong message to the building sector about our deep concern with respect to this problem.

This is a matter of growing concern to a growing number of people in this province. It is causing great inconvenience, turmoil and upheaval to many families and their home lives. In my riding of Mississauga North, where there are approximately 160,000 people, there is a vibrant new home industry. Many people are purchasing homes, and I have styled this resolution because of problems that have been experienced by my constituents with respect to multiple extensions. They have asked and expect me as their representative to bring this matter to the Legislature, and indeed that is what is being done today.

I would like to indicate at this time that this matter has been raised in the ministry and that the government certainly is involved in the matter. They are keeping abreast of what is happening with respect to the new home industry and the inconvenience to many people throughout the province, not only in Mississauga North.

At this time in many parts of the province a great number of people are finding themselves in the fortunate position of being able to purchase new homes. For those fortunate enough to so purchase, there is the Ontario new home warranty program, established by a piece of legislation designed to protect the purchaser from defective workmanship. The program in Ontario, as far as my investigation has been able to uncover, is probably the second largest program in the world. We have the only legislated program in Canada and one of only three or four in the world.

There has been conciliation in more than 25,000 disputes. Most likely there has been a saving to home owners in this province of hundreds of thousands of dollars with respect to legal costs and, in many cases, legal recourse. We have paid out more than $21 million in claims to several thousand home owners, and more than 75,000 disputes have been resolved by correspondence.

It is necessary at this time to understand the claim that what we are dealing with is very much a private sector, free market problem. We are discussing matters of importance to the new home market and its reliance on the building sector. It is important to realize that we must impress upon the builders of homes in this province that people are relying more and more upon their expertise in the building of new homes.

The warranty program is, as I mentioned, set up by a piece of legislation designed to protect the purchaser. In the main, it is a good piece of legislation. It provides among other things that a person's deposit or money paid for any extras up to $20,000 is protected through this legislation. This means that after a person has paid a deposit up to $20,000, if the builder runs into financial difficulty or the home is not completed because of some problems the builder has experienced, the program will refund the money to the purchaser.

In addition, if a builder has not completed work on a new house in a good and workmanlike manner, for which the builder is responsible, the program provides a procedure in which the purchaser can have the work completed through the program at no cost. With respect to this, it is important to note that this protection to the purchaser will be secured only if the purchaser notifies the program within one year from the date of formal completion of the purchase transaction.

Also, the new home warranty program provides the purchaser with protection against an unwilling builder if there exists what is called a major structural defect. This protection is available to the purchaser for a period of five years from the date of formal completion of the purchase transaction.

This is a major piece of protection afforded the purchasers of new homes. It is a unique piece of legislation in this province, and it deals and attempts to deal with consumer protection. Yet, for the very reason that we have this legislation, problems arise.

10:10

First, the purchaser is generally unaware that his deposit and money paid for extras is protected by the Ontario new home warranty program to a maximum of only $20,000.

Second, the purchaser is unaware that the program will apply in most circumstances only to uncompleted work if notification procedures have been carried out within one year of the date of completion.

Third, the protection is applicable only to work done by the builder that is not completed in a good and workmanlike fashion. Protection under the act is not afforded to the purchaser where the builder has failed in whole to provide something he has contractually agreed to provide, and a major structural defect is the only item protected for five years under the Ontario new home warranty program. In large part, the Ontario new home warranty program is protection afforded to the purchaser for one year from the date of formal completion.

I believe it is incumbent upon this Legislature to send a clear message to the building industry that to preserve the health and confidence of that sector, this information should be made known to prospective customers before they enter into binding contracts. It is necessary for the building sector to provide this information on the provisions of the new home warranty program to prospective purchasers so these purchasers can fully and properly avail themselves of the protection offered by the program.

I have had much discussion, not only with my constituents but also with others who have been affected in this province, and the single largest concern that has been given to me is that they did not know. It was not necessarily a criticism of the plan or of the act; they were unaware of the provisions.

By passing this resolution today, members of the Legislature can send a clear message to the building sector that we expect that information to be made known to the their purchasers. I believe the building industry must meet not only the challenge of building a home but also the challenge of informing the purchaser of his or her rights and privileges under the program.

I have been in contact with the Ontario and Toronto home builders' associations, and there is indeed a code of ethics, with which I have been provided. One part of that code deals with dealing honestly and fairly with customers. I believe that providing this information to prospective customers before entering into binding agreements of purchase and sale will go a long way to providing and meeting that point of the code of ethics.

I have been provided by the associations with customer awareness brochures with respect to renovations, mortgage financing, purchasing guides, building site inspections, community involvement and purchase contracts -- what a person should do from the time he enters into a purchase agreement to the day on which he completes that agreement. It is clear that the building association is prepared to give this information to prospective purchasers.

It is clear also that we have to send a message to the building industry that all parties in the Legislature believe it must get on with the task at hand. Although we have in general an effective new home warranty program, and I believe an industry able to convey that program, it rests with us in the Legislature, as I have indicated, to send the strong clear message that we expect them to provide the purchasing public with this information. By doing so, they will be fully and properly meeting the part of their code of ethics that indicates honest and fair dealing with respect to their customers.

There is more that we have to do. Concerns have been raised with respect to what other items or conditions we can ask the building industry to have to make certain that extensions of closing dates do not take place. In this respect, we have to realize that at this time the new home building industry in Ontario is buoyant and vibrant, there is great demand for new homes in this province and working capacity is being stretched to the limit. In many cases, there are good and valid reasons for the delays in closing.

The question we have to ask is, in the event that there are good and valid reasons for delay, be it weather, working capacity or extreme demand, what obligation is there on the building industry to inform the purchasers at the earliest possible time of the necessity for an extension? How should they inform the purchaser? When should they inform the purchaser? Should it not be incumbent on the building industry to make certain that initial closing dates are realistic to the market and the demand available?

I have heard talk about interest paid on deposits. Should not interest be paid on the deposits of people purchasing new homes? That is clearly a matter of contract and negotiation. Perhaps most important, we have to ask ourselves whether, if interest is paid on deposits, that would in any way alleviate the multiple extensions of closings. We have to take a long, hard look at that concern.

Although I believe there is room for interest to be paid on deposits, I also believe we would be fooling ourselves to think that in itself would alleviate these multiple extensions of closings. We have to realize that the building industry is as anxious to complete the transactions as are the purchasers and that the interest paid on a deposit might not do much in making that happen.

What about consumer protection and information? What about provisions in the agreement that deal with multiple extensions of closing? What about provisions that deal with the right of a purchaser to rescind his agreement? What about information as to what the Ontario new home warranty program does and does not provide?

The building industry should immediately look at providing standardized clauses with respect to consumer information to be inserted in a clear and undeniable manner in their agreements so greater information can be given to the purchasers of this province as to their rights and privileges.

I see that I have three minutes or so of my initial 20 minutes.

There is much that can be done by the building industry. From my discussions with purchasers who have suffered severe inconvenience, their number one concern is that they were not informed; they did not know what was going on and they did not know what their rights and privileges were. The building industry should make certain that the provisions and protections under the Ontario new home warranty program are brought clearly and unmistakably to the attention of the purchaser. It should immediately investigate the advisability and feasibility of providing standardized clauses in agreements in a clear and simple language that is understood by all. That would go a long way to providing protection with respect to information that the purchasers of new homes in this province so sorely need and so greatly desire.

10:20

Mr. Speaker: The member has two minutes and 12 seconds for his wrapup.

Mr. O'Connor: The government's handling of this issue is a classic case of too little, too late. This has been a serious, ongoing problem for thousands of Ontario home owners and prospective home owners for the better part of this year and the government has been well aware of it. I have a batch of newspaper articles from which I could quote at length that fairly and accurately document the problem that has existed throughout this year. There were headlines as far back as February and March 1986 in the Toronto Star. I will quote one, "Builders Aborting Home Deals Could Create Real Uproar."

The minister and this government have been aware of this problem throughout this year. After meeting with groups of people in my riding who were affected by this situation, after discussing the problem with town officials in Oakville and after developing a five-point program for the alleviation of some of these difficulties, I wrote a lengthy and thoughtful letter as early as March 12 to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) to try to assist in this situation. After repeated requests for a reply and after incessant nagging of his office to get something out of him, on May 16, in excess of two months later, he deigned to send me a two-paragraph letter thanking me for my thoughtful letter of March 12. Big deal; how did that help the situation?

After further pushing and badgering his office for some substantive reply, I finally got a second letter, dated July 31. I must admit the minister was improving. This time the letter had three paragraphs. However, the letter was similar in nature and wording to the first letter. He did indicate that he recognized it was a problem and that he was prepared to refer it to his staff and to the Ontario new home warranty program to monitor the housing market to determine what might be done. Again, big deal.

The problem has been well known by this government through the newspapers and through representations from myself and other honourable members representing ridings in the Golden Horseshoe area, where the problem is most severe.

Throughout the piece, many have urged upon the minister the requirement for some legislation to better protect prospective new home buyers. The minister's consistent response -- I will give him credit for being consistent -- has been that he will not legislate, that there is no way he will interfere in the free market in this circumstance. Again, the papers document this as do his letters to me and as does his response as late as yesterday to questions put to him in the House by members of our party. He whined to us about the difficulty of legislating in areas where circumstances -- I admit there are some -- make delays inevitable and unavoidable in relation to weather and lack of supplies. It is difficult to legislate in that area, but there is much that he could do.

I commend the honourable member who proposed this motion for reviewing some of the areas in which legislation might be appropriate. However, after a year of full knowledge of the problems and with very substantive proposals put to the minister as solutions, what has been the government's response? It is a private member's motion which, in reading the motion and setting aside the verbiage, recommends that the Ontario new home warranty program immediately investigate -- that is a curious word "investigate." Here we are, nearly in November, and the minister decides, through his parliamentary assistant, this group should investigate. We have been investigating all year. We are well past the point of investigating. We know all about the problems. What we want are some solutions to the problems.

Mr. Jackson: That is asking too much.

Mr. O'Connor: It seems it is asking too much of this government. As I say, we have investigated and we have met with the people involved. I have met with town officials and others. We have put together a program which, again for the record, I would like to put to this House so it will not be lost on this government. As I said, it is a five-point program, and it is the policy of this party. It would go a long way to solving a lot of the problems that are getting worse as time goes on.

1. This government should introduce legislation requiring builders to pay interest on deposits at a reasonable rate for the period of time commencing with the completion date set out in the agreement of purchase and sale until the date of closing.

At present, I have people in my riding who have waited in excess of a year. I know of one person who has waited in excess of two years -- the delay has gone on for two years -- for the commencement of his home. He has put down a deposit of $25,000. Under current law, he is not entitled to any interest on that deposit whatsoever. Of course, the builder holding the deposit can invest it and make interest for himself.

There is thus a great incentive for builders to want to delay the commencement and the completion of these new houses, not only for purposes of gaining a little interest on these fairly substantial deposits but also because of the rising house market, in which prices increased this year in the Metro area by 30, 35 or 40 per cent. There is great incentive to want the purchasers to get out of their deal so they can resell that lot and that house to someone else for perhaps 40 per cent more than they did to the waiting purchaser. It makes eminent sense that the incentive to want to delay should be taken away from the builder by requiring him to pay interest when a delay is created.

2. The government should also introduce legislation prohibiting the sale of any lot prior to registration of the subdivision.

As my friend has pointed out and as the minister has pointed out, some of these delays relate to registration delays, red-tape tie-ups at the municipal level. If that problem were eliminated, a good deal of the delays could be eliminated. Why do we not legislate that simple point?

3. The government should promote the establishment of municipal information centres to inform prospective buyers of the stage of development and any problems that might occur in registration if the legislation outlined in item 2 is not implemented.

Again, my friend referred to better information and co-operation with the builders in that respect. I commend him in that regard, but surely that promotion should come from this level, with a requirement that these information centres be set up so home buyers are adequately advised as to the potential for delays and problems in the purchasing of their new homes.

4. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations should develop standard new home purchase agreements that are directed more towards consumer protection.

At present, these agreements are drafted by the lawyers for the developers; they are horrendously one-sided. If there were some ministerial input that required a better balance between the home purchaser and the builder, providing him with some of the protections I have mentioned in items 1, 2 and 3 right within his agreement, that would be of assistance. That does not require legislation; it can be done at the ministerial level without legislation.

5. The minister should sponsor advertising campaigns to warn prospective buyers of the pitfalls of buying a new home, including the possibility of legitimate delays involving labour, weather and related purposes.

Again there is no requirement for legislation there. The excuse the minister has used consistently for doing nothing, nothing at all, in this area is that he cannot legislate because it would disrupt the situation more than help it. At least three, and perhaps more, of the points we have suggested by way of a program do not require legislation. The ministry should at least move in that area. It has been blatant in its lack of response and lack of protection for the people of Ontario in this regard.

10:30

Yesterday the minister took issue with a point I made, that there are thousands of people involved. From checking around with some of the members who represent ridings in areas that are affected, I suggest the figures are well into the thousands. It is not an insignificant number of people. If we go around the Golden Horseshoe and Toronto, they are, and we are, well into the thousands. I see the parliamentary assistant nodding in agreement perhaps at that point.

The government has fallen down badly on this issue. It has not done the job it was elected to do. I suggest that if it could swallow its political pride and adopt some of the points of this program, much of what is now a problem could be met in the near future.

Mr. Swart: In rising to speak on this resolution, I must say I have not decided yet whether I will support it. It purports to do something for the hundreds and thousands of home owners who have had problems with closure, but it is such a weak resolution that it has little meaning or substance. It largely appears to be an apologist motion for the government in power in this province.

The first thing we have to recognize is that the present home warranty program, and particularly the composition of the board, is inadequate to provide neutrality, because it is a board composed of builders. At least to some extent, they are going to protect their own. By having them do the investigation, we will not get a totally neutral report.

I want to recognize that the home warranty program has provided some very substantial benefits to home owners, but not nearly as much as it should have were it an independent program. I am not terribly happy with the proposed Ontario Motor Vehicle Arbitration Plan to give protection to buyers of new automobiles, but it is much more independent than the board of the home warranty program, which is totally an industry board. It is rather ludicrous to have it investigate. There should be a committee composed of consumers, and some of the people from those homes where they have had the major problems should be on that committee, not just the builders in this province.

I was a bit amused to hear the member say that this was a free market problem and that the government perhaps had to intervene in this issue. His minister has stated over and over again that he wants to leave everything with the marketplace. He certainly has with regard to insurance, and we know what has happened to the people. Now we have his parliamentary assistant saying they had better intervene. They had better intervene, but it had better be meaningful intervention and not what is contemplated in this resolution.

The member suggested this House should send a message. If this is the only message we are going to send from this House, it is going to be so weak it will not change a single thing.

I too wrote to the minister. The member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor) stated that he wrote a letter setting out his party's policy. I wrote a letter setting out my party's policy, and I suggest it will do a bit more for home owners who are caught in this terrible situation of closing dates not being met and sometimes going on for six months or a year afterwards. I sent that letter to the minister on July 30. I want to put some of it on record.

I stated to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations:

"The problems of house builders pushing back completion dates has reached a magnitude requiring decisive action by you, including the introduction of legislation. Some developer-builders are using unrealistic closing dates as a gimmick to promote sales. Further, they are consciously delaying completion in order to get a higher price from the agreed purchaser or from a new buyer if the original backs out because of the delay."

I pointed out that the harm from this practice, and often it is severe, is always to the buyer.

"Frequently, they have sold their home or given notice to the landlord and have no place to live. They may end up paying more than the contract price or cancelling the contract, yet the price of purchasing another home will have risen since the first contract was signed. Always, the buyer is the loser while the developer-builder benefits."

Deer Run Estates in Bolton is another recent horrible example of this widespread problem, and I am aware of it in Mississauga and elsewhere in this province. I talked about the responsibility of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to deal with these very real problems. As the member for Oakville has already stated, he said he is going to leave it to the free market; he is not going to introduce any legislation or even any regulation.

This is what our party proposed in my letter to the minister:

"A law to provide fairness to new home buyers is absolutely necessary and need not be complex or difficult in administration. First, it would be mandatory that standard agreements of sale-purchase be used." Even the minister has admitted that would be desirable. I suggest it should be mandatory.

"Second, the completion date on the agreement would be binding. Where it is not met by the builder-developer, substantial penalties would be paid by the developer-builder to the purchaser.

"Third, where there is a long postponement of completion, the buyer would have the option of cancelling the purchase contract, with the down payment refunded and interest and penalty levied against the builder.

"Fourth" -- this is important -- "an independent panel, including consumer representatives, would be established with authority to waive part or all of the late completion penalty if it was established that the delay was beyond the builder's control," whether it be from strikes, unavailability of materials or whatever the case might be.

I said to the minister:

"I urge you to prepare legislation based on the foregoing principles and announce immediately that it will be introduced when the Legislature reconvenes in the fall. If not, I will be tabling my own private member's bill for debate and vote." I intend to do that.

Instead of having something from the minister, what we have today is this weak-kneed resolution from the parliamentary assistant that will do nothing to resolve the existing problems or prevent them from arising in future.

I want to make one other point, because it is important; it is relative to the Rembrandt Home Owners' Association. If there is any group of people in this province who have this long, ongoing problem, it is the Rembrandt Home Owners' Association. They took it up with the Conservative government. The minister at that time, who now is looking after horse racing, promised the government would compensate them and take some action on it. The Liberals brought this up time after time. It was not just some of the critics; even the man who now is Premier (Mr. Peterson) brought this up as Leader of the Opposition and demanded that the government compensate them. Eventually, the Rembrandt Home Owners' Association took it to the Ombudsman, and the Ombudsman made a recommendation that they be compensated.

Orland French had an article about this in the Globe and Mail a few days ago. He said: "Even the intervention of the Ombudsman's office has not helped. The Ombudsman looked into their case and decided they warranted assistance from the government." The Ombudsman decided there had been enough negligence on the part of the government -- this was before the home warranty plan -- that they should be compensated. "The Legislature's standing committee of the Ombudsman also recommended to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations `pay or cause payment to be made' for the repair of damage."

10:40

What has the minister done about it? He has refused to accept the recommendation of the Ombudsman. A letter sent to the Rembrandt Home Owners' Association by the minister, after giving all the reasons the ministry should not do it, states: "In this particular case, this ministry did attempt to mediate the dispute between the Rembrandt Home Owners' Association and the builder. Unfortunately, these efforts did not lead to a satisfactory solution. It is now the view of my ministry and the government that it would be inappropriate to comply with your recommendation and that of the standing committee on the Ombudsman."

If the member who introduced this resolution wants the government to show its good faith in dealing with these kinds of problems, he will go to the cabinet and say, "You have an obligation to look after and compensate these Rembrandt home owners." That is the way he can begin to show he means this. The next very important step is that the government bring forward legislation to protect these people. A weak-kneed resolution is not sufficient for the problem we have in this province.

Mr. Callahan: I am pleased to rise to speak on this motion. I would like to approach it from a slightly different angle. One of the difficulties that exists today is that most purchasers commit, not a cardinal sin but certainly a very large mistake, by not taking offers to purchase to their lawyers before they are signed. The difficulty which arises is that no contract is a standard contract. In fact, contracts become more and more complex every day. They acquire more and more pages attached to them. They contain more and more rather unusual terms, though nothing dishonest. For that reason, it is very important that a person planning on purchasing a home take that contract to his lawyer. That is the largest responsibility of the lawyer, which is reflected in his fees, as I think my colleagues in this House who are of the legal profession will agree. If the purchaser fails to do that, he is then bound by the terms of the agreement.

When one couples this with the fact that homes today are being built and sold in great numbers -- in fact, so much so that homes are being sold even before they are built -- it in some respects causes problems for the prospective purchasers. What happens is that if the developer has sold the home already, he can move his tradesmen on to the next lot, work a little bit on that one and then move on to another. Of course, that results in delays to the purchasers, who, understandably, are expecting to complete a transaction on a particular date. They may have taken steps such as those suggested by the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) and expect they are going to be able to move in.

The reality of life is that the increase in the value of real estate has been so dramatic for the past 10 years, and still continues, that very often when the person signs the contract, by the time closing comes around he has already acquired a rather significant capital gain, so he does not complain much. He is happy to extend it, because to extend it is to have an asset which is growing in value.

The danger exists -- and I do not for one minute suggest that the bulk of builders out there would ever do this -- that a builder may use noncompletion and extensions of deadlines to the detriment of an unsuspecting purchaser in that the purchaser may decide he cannot continue to wait for this house to be built and may very well decide to get out of the contract. Of course, the capital benefits will accrue to the builder. In addition, in the wording of most contracts, the purchaser will lose the interest on any deposit that he has paid on which interest may have been accruing if he had some foresight.

To go to the home warranty program, perhaps the terminology might be changed a bit. The word "warranty" seems to produce a feeling that builders responsibilities are greater than they are. The home warranty program is excellent in that it provides certain protections for home owners, but within the framework the word "warranty" could sometimes be misleading to a purchaser.

I can honestly say the program has taken positive steps to try to bring to the attention of the public, including real estate agents, prospective purchasers and so on, its functions and limits. If a purchaser takes his contract to a lawyer before it is signed, he will recognize he is paying, under most contracts usually, the fee for the home warranty. This can be in the neighbourhood of $200 or $225, I believe. One would think he would want to have an assurance on what that warranty covers. As my colleague indicated, there is a limitation on the listing of defects in workmanship that expires after a year, and one loses any benefits one had.

I have run into experiences where purchasers have not even realized they have to go out seven or eight days before the closing to list all the defects on this warranty so that those are covered, because that is all that is covered. This is not a problem that is going to be solved in any single fashion by tinkering with a piece of legislation. It is going to be helped only by a number of things. It is going to be helped by making the public aware of the provisions of the home warranty program in a current and up-to-date fashion, and that is being done. I understand that within the past few weeks this program has produced videotapes for distribution to various public areas so that people can educate themselves about the program.

In addition to that there will be a responsibility, and perhaps we are sending a message as well to the real estate agents. They are a very responsible group in this province and will accept that message from this Legislature in passing the bill, but perhaps they should be a little more comprehensive in explaining what the program is and how it protects the buyer. If they fail to do that, the real question in a nutshell boils down to knowledge and the ability to benefit from that knowledge. If one does not have that knowledge, one can put the best programs in place and people will never reap the benefits of them.

In the main, it falls to the responsible parties involved in these transactions with purchasers that there be this indication of what the program provides. Perhaps it should also be highlighted in a preprinted form that would be attached to every offer to purchase and would tell them exactly what the home warranty program provides. In that way, if they do not choose to go to a lawyer beforehand to have it explained, people will at least know what they are dealing with, and that is of some significant advantage.

It is very important that this program continue to exist, because it does provide protection for home owners, but only if they understand the limitations and the scope of the program. Having paid for the protection, one would think they would want to know what it is.

I will support the motion of the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer), because it may jog the memories of those people who are responsible for providing this information to the purchasers and make them aware that, in doing this, they enhance their own profession. If we find situations coming up -- and they may come up because of the turnover of real estate -- where people have paid a fee and are losing their rights under the home warranty program because of delays, it is going to put the whole program in jeopardy.

In the long range, the people who will suffer from that will be the public; in addition, the building profession will lose the good name it has in the main. In the larger building units, as in every bushel of apples, there are a couple of bad ones. Basically, they are responsible people and they should be doing everything possible within the framework of their profession to make certain that people are well informed so there will not be any people hurt and it will not spill over on to their untarnished reputations.

I am going to support the motion made by my colleague.

10:50

Mr. Cousens: I rise to speak about the problems of the new home buyer in our province. We are encountering one of the largest rates of growth of any community in the country, probably even in North America. In my riding in the southern York region, 6,000 homes are under construction in Markham, about 4,000 to 5,000 in Vaughan and another 3,000 to 4,000 in Richmond Hill. Eighty per cent of the homes are being built by reputable, good contractors and builders and are houses that are being sold without any problems, but 20 per cent or under are having problems the like of which people do not deserve to go through.

What are we doing about it in this government? Nothing. The Ministry of Skills Development is not putting the money in there to help find or train tradesmen to do the job. Therefore, it is no wonder builders are having trouble.

We see the Ministry of Transportation and Communications doing next to nothing to increase public transit by train in our area. We are seeing nothing done about roads that go in. We are seeing nothing done by the Ministry of Education for schools. There will be 7,000 or 8,000 young people without schools next September. We are seeing a myriad of problems in our growing communities and these problems are being generated by the lack of support and concern from the government.

There is no financial protection for the new home buyer when he goes to get his mortgage. The mortgage and finance companies will hold the price of a mortgage for nine months, but if a delay goes beyond that length of time, buyers may well have to renegotiate their mortgage. Interest rates being stable for now, it has not been a problem. It could be a problem if interest rates started to rise next year as people realize the bad job the government is doing.

We do not see any consumer protection. For a person who buys a house, there is often nothing but an artist's rendering. There should be a rule that says: "No artist's rendering. What you get is exactly what is in this picture." One will see landscape, trees and all kinds of other things that might not be possible because the houses are jammed together and the sidewalk is right up to the door.

I am concerned that home buyers in Ontario are not getting the protection that consumers get when they buy a condominium. Condominium buyers have a 10-day cooling-off period; the ink is wet, but they have 10 days in which they can rub it out. We do not have any protection. The ink is still wet, and that contract made between the new home buyer and the builder is in effect. Why do we not change it so that there is some protection for the new home buyer?

When one is buying a cottage, there are three things one looks at. The three rules are location, location and location. If one is buying a new home, the first rule should be the builder; the second one the builder; and the third one the builder.

What is a builder doing for one? How reputable is he? How good is he going to be? What can one do to depend upon him to fulfil his responsibilities? We have to do a lot of things. Fortunately, the Toronto Home Builders' Association is trying to do a job. It is trying to discipline its members from within, and I am grateful it is doing that, but a small number of bad apples are doing an awful lot to hurt the rest of the industry, especially the consumer who is about to make his biggest investment.

We need new regulations on the building industry, a self-regulating body to be implemented to monitor the performance of builders, similar to the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario. Lawyers are registered, accountants are licensed, real estate agents are licensed and surveyors are licensed; they are all licensed. This prevents unscrupulous people from acting in their businesses.

Why do we not license builders personally rather than by a name, a numbered company that can change when it decides to go out of business and do something different? It could prevent unscrupulous, dishonest, disreputable builders from re-registering and restarting up. The industry should begin to regulate itself more.

I agree that we have to expand the mandate for the new home warranty program. We should look right from the very beginning stage when a person signs a contract for a new home. That is when HUDAC should begin to have more of an interest in it; the time should begin then so that the new home buyer has some protection.

Maybe we should begin to look at least at giving people interest on their deposit money in cases where there is a delay in building a house. Maybe we should begin to look at expanding the protection limits of HUDAC from the $20,000 set in 1974 to something more realistic today. Maybe HUDAC should begin to start looking after the leaky basement. A leaky basement is the big problem people have when they have a house, believe it or not, and it is not covered under the new home warranty program:

Let us not deal with HUDAC in one area. Let us look at the whole subject and expand it. Let us have more information on builders. At present, if people want to check out their builder, how do they do it? Where do they get the information? How do they find out how many conciliations that person has had? I believe there should be a central registry that would give new home buyers objective evaluations of builders, possibly giving them a rating. The existing available information to a new home buyer is very limited, and that could be improved.

Why does the government not come up with an ombudsman for building, for new building, for new home buyers, so they could go to someone who would help to arbitrate disputes between the builder and the buyer? Such an office could be part of the new home warranty program. It would have the power to make decisions up to a certain level of cost. Car manufacturers are doing that now, and it is working out extremely well.

Why do we not do something about the inspectors who are making the inspections for the warranty program? What training and expertise do they have? Should there not be a stated, specific level of training to help standardize and give the public a degree of protection? Some inspectors have extensive building experience and others have minimal. There is little or no value to some inspections when there is no consistency and there are no base standards.

How about the final inspection? This is something we could all begin to do to help new home buyers when they are about to take over their home. The final inspection is often rushed. The builder has a schedule and he has three or four to inspect that morning, the new home buyer's family is in the car waiting to take over the house and the truck is coming up the street to deliver the furniture. More time should be given to that final inspection and more guidance given to the new home buyers so they know what to check off. Maybe at that point the builder could give a final certificate saying the house is complete, and then there is a point at which the new home warranty program can say, "All right, that is the time the house was completed and handed over to the buyer."

I believe there has to be far better disclosure in the contract between the new home buyer and the person he is buying the house from so there are no hidden charges and that there should be a way of describing what all the costs are rather than à la carte. Sometimes the new home buyer is taken because he does not have all the information he should have. There has to be some way to protect the new home buyer other than by sharing it with a lawyer. Maybe one of the most important things we could do is have more information disseminated to new home buyers across the province so that they become aware of their rights and what is being done and what is not being done.

For instance, why do we not come along and change the agreement by attaching to an offer of purchase a description of the neighbourhood, of what is going to be there, things such as schools, stores, shopping and roads? Could that not be attached to an offer and become something the builders in new subdivisions are compelled to give, so there is some honesty and people are not surprised later? We have to have far more openness and far less secretiveness, so the new home buyer is truly protected.

I have a serious problem in my riding and I am concerned that many people who are unlucky do not have any recourse. They do not have anyone to turn to. I would support anything we can do to give more teeth to the new home warranty program. I would do anything to help the builders themselves to have more policing strength over the bad builders and to support the good ones. I would also support the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations looking at all the acts that affect all the areas in order to help the buyer.

11:00

Mr. Offer: In the short time left to me, I would like to personally thank the members who have taken part in the debate.

I take note of the comments of the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens). However, there is one thing about which I was somewhat concerned; that is, not one suggestion was directed towards the problem of delayed closings.

I thank the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan) for his thoughtful comments on the obligation and responsibility of the legal profession.

I thank the member for Welland-Thorold, yet I regret his reservations about allowing this Legislature to send a message to the building industry. I am concerned that there are more words than actions, and I ask for his support in this resolution.

I thank the member for Oakville for his comments. I would like to touch upon two things, the first being the interest paid on deposit. As one who practised in the real estate market for many years, I think we have to properly and honestly ask ourselves whether that will alleviate the problem of delayed closings. I think we know what the answer is; the answer is no. The builders have as firm a desire to complete the transactions as the purchasers.

Second, with respect to the standard agreement, in the new home industry we have, by and large, a standard agreement; many of the clauses are the same. My concern is that I want standardized provisions within the agreement clearly brought to the attention of the consumers of this province so that greater information and protection can be afforded to them. With that, I believe the purchasers of this province, not only of Mississauga North but also of all ridings, will be properly and fully protected.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): This ends the debate on item 21.

AUTOMOBILE SAFETY

Mr. McCague moved resolution 22:

That this House recognizes the improved safety resulting from eye-level brake indicators on automobiles and strongly encourages the Minister of Transportation and Communications to take appropriate measures to encourage the seeking of mandating of their installation on all new vehicles manufactured for sale in Ontario and to encourage citizens of Ontario to retrofit their vehicles.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member has 20 minutes for his presentation, and he may reserve any portion of it for the windup.

Mr. McCague: I am pleased to have the opportunity to present this resolution to the Legislature and would like to reserve any time remaining after my remarks to be used at the end.

I realize that part of this resolution has been answered by the federal government at this time. This resolution has been on Orders and Notices for about a year, and as of September 1, 1986, it is necessary for all car manufacturers selling in Ontario to have the lights installed on those vehicles. Therefore, I will spend the bulk of my time today talking about the installation of these lights on cars that do not have them.

The rear-window brake light is simply a third stop light mounted on the centre line of the vehicle between the top of the rear window and a point no less than three inches below the edge of the window.

In 1978, a United States field test evaluation of rear lighting systems was done to establish the effectiveness of different rear lighting and signalling systems. This was the concept that was tested. It was to provide a single, centre, high-mounted stop light at the approximate eye level of the following driver. The stop light was positioned on the vehicle's trunk, just beneath the centre line of the rear window. This stop signal was supplemental to the normal stop light.

Second, it was to provide two high-mounted stop lights, one on each side of the trunk, directly below the rear window, at the approximate eye level of the following driver. These stop lights were supplemental to the normal stop and turn signal lamps of the vehicle, to separate the present lamp from the stop and turn functions of existing signal lamps in the vehicle and provide no redundancy.

Approximately 2,100 taxicabs in Washington, DC, participated in the study. Four groups of equal size were formed to evaluate the rear-end collision experience of vehicles configured in terms of the three design concepts, as contrasted with the experience of a conventionally configured or control group.

During the 12-month study period, the four groups accumulated approximately 60 million vehicle-miles under a broad range of weather and road conditions. Drivers in the several groups had been matched for age, sex and prior accident records. During the 12-month period, the four groups experienced a total of 1,470 accidents, of which 217, or 15 per cent, involved taxicabs being struck in the rear while in operation.

The most significant finding of the study was that the taxicabs equipped with the rear lighting configuration involving the addition of a single, centre, high-mounted stop light had fewer than half the rear-end collisions experienced by the control group.

This reduction was achieved whether measured in terms of absolute number or frequency of accidents or in terms of accident rate per million miles travelled. This finding apparently is statistically reliable with a possibility of less than one in 10,000 that the results would occur by chance alone.

In addition, the effectiveness of the single-light configuration increased during night-time operation and under conditions where there was almost complete certainty that the stop lights were illuminated just prior to or at the time of impact.

Further, the mean cost to repair the cabs with this rear lighting system was lowest by an order of magnitude among the systems tested, indicating that these accidents were less severe than accidents involving other stop light configurations.

While the rear-end accident rate of cabs with a single, centre, high-mounted configuration was impressively lower, the rear-end collision rates of the other two experimental groups were similar to that of the control group.

It was concluded that the supplemental single, centre, high-mounted stop signal has the potential to dramatically reduce the occurrence of rear-end collisions on a national scale. It was recommended that the findings in this study be verified by further testing the single-lamp concept in a different geographical area and with a different type of passenger vehicle.

The conclusions drawn from the results of this study are as follows:

The mounting of a single, high stop light on the rear of a passenger vehicle will reduce the incidence of rear-end collisions by half, as compared with the accident rate for vehicles not having the additional lamp.

This reduction of rear-end collisions is due in some way to the enhanced conspicuousness of the stop signal since it was found to be more effective both at night, as opposed to during the day, and for situations where it was highly likely that the brakes were applied prior to the impact.

Also, the effectiveness of the high-mounted lamp increased during night-time operations and under conditions where it was more certain that brakes were being applied just prior to or at the time of impact.

Where the presence of a single high-mounted lamp did not prevent a rear-end collision from occurring, it did reduce the damage suffered by the lead vehicle in such collisions.

The damage estimates for vehicles having single high-mounted lamps were 38 per cent lower than the damage estimates for control vehicles.

It can be concluded that the single high-mounted lamp resulted in faster brake application in the following vehicle, resulting in a slower speed at impact and therefore less damage to the lead vehicle.

11:10

It was recommended that a second field study should be conducted to validate and verify the findings of this investigation. The second study should attempt to replicate the experimental conditions of the present study, comparing the lamp with the control configuration using a fleet other than taxicabs and a city other than Washington, DC.

A second study sponsored by the US Department of Transportation was commissioned, and a final report came out in May 1980. This study confirmed the effectiveness of an auxiliary high-mounted stop light in reducing collisions. The present study used 5,400 telephone company passenger vehicles, half test, half control, which accumulated 55 million miles during a 12-month continuous data collection period.

The results showed a statistically significant 53 per cent reduction in relevant rear-end impact rates in the test group as compared to the control group. These findings were thus consistent with the previous study on taxicabs, which showed a 54 per cent reduction in rear-end collisions.

Both studies suggest not only that the rate of rear-end accidents is decreased but also that the cost is less for accidents that occur involving the test vehicles. Both studies also suggest the effectiveness of auxiliary stop lamps may be even greater at night and in the hours of dawn and dusk.

An important difference between the present and the previous study is in the population of drivers used and the nature of their driving. The previous study used taxicabs. Cab drivers operate routinely in highly congested areas: airports, bus and train terminals, city streets. Cab drivers are, in our opinion, aggressive drivers who change lanes, turn and stop more abruptly and more often than the average driver does. In part this is due to seeking, picking up and discharging fares and attempting to complete each run quickly. Cabs, moreover, do not generally shuttle between specific locations familiar to them. In responding to a call they often must search for an address, and the associated driving is of an uncertain, stop-and-go nature. Such is the nature of taxicab operations.

The population of drivers in the present study is quite different, however. They are not under the pressure of being paid by the mile or the metre. They do not routinely operate in congested areas, as do taxicabs. Their driving patterns conform much more to those of the general public than does the pattern of the cab drivers. The telephone company drivers use much less hunting behaviour, in that they do not seek passengers from the street, nor do they search for a high number of unfamiliar addresses.

The present population of drivers is, in our judgement, a very safety conscious and conservative group. Accident reporting is compulsory, and safe driving is a fundamental requirement of continued employment. As such, the accident rate for the telephone company vehicles is lower than for the general public. They have relatively few drivers under age 20 or over age 55. They operate for business purposes, and they drive mainly during daytime business hours. Walk-around inspection of each vehicle is mandatory before a driver takes a vehicle out of the garage or off the company lot.

Thus, in many respects the sample of drivers and vehicles in the present study would seem to have provided a stringent test of the possible benefit of the auxiliary stop lamp. In fact, one may wonder how the lamp could show a 50 per cent reduction in relevant rear-enders, as was found. Much of the answer lies in the nature of the accidents involved. Even the most defensive of drivers is vulnerable to impact from the rear, and so to find a reduction in relevant rear-enders similar to that found with taxicabs is not as unusual as might first appear.

It may also be noted that the previous study used full-sized vehicles, all of which were Chrysler products. Theoretically, the effect observed in that study might have been limited to vehicles of that manufacturer, possibly because of the manufacturer's configuration of the tail lights in the control group. The current results, however, indicate that the effect holds for all the major US vehicle manufacturers and across a wide range of model years from 1970 to 1979.

In sum, the driver population used in the taxicab and telephone company fleets would appear as extremes that bracket the driving public fairly well, with the exception of recreational driving, alcohol involvement and young drivers, say age 16 to 20, or elderly drivers, age 55 and beyond.

The benefit of the auxiliary stop lamp observed in the current study is a conservative estimate of its true potential for reducing rear-end accidents.

In the vehicle signalling and lighting community, there has been much discussion as to why a given configuration of lamps would or would not be an improvement over existing design. By and large, laboratory and simulation investigations have been inconclusive. Controlled driving studies have not been much more encouraging.

One reason for the lack of results is that in a laboratory or controlled driving experiment, one must control the risks to the subject drivers; therefore, the driver is not exposed to the normal day-in and day-out hazards of driving. In addition, most subjects in an experiment consider the activity as a test of their abilities; therefore, they are alerted and are generally on their best behaviour.

The foregoing conditions tend to eliminate the potential alerting function of a novel stop-lamp configuration in a controlled experiment. Thus, the study is reduced to comparing driver reaction times for different displays in reactions made by attentive subjects. Once signal intensity is above threshold, however, it is difficult to demonstrate significant differences in reaction time because of test conditions. Attention-sharing studies in which the driver presumably is distracted by secondary tasks attempt to get around this problem; nevertheless, they also are conducted on alerted subjects.

A large field study offers some release from these constraints and thus may be more likely to reveal effects that are otherwise masked. This appears to be true for the current study and the taxicab study.

One question is why a single, high-mounted auxiliary stop lamp would be effective where dual high-mounted lamps apparently are not of additional value. The previous study evaluated dual high-mounted lights, and there are sparse data on the dual high-mounted lights on the Buick Riviera and the Oldsmobile Toronado. In the foregoing situations, the dual high-mounted lamps were completely redundant to the standard lamps, both functionally and in terms of essential visual geometry.

The single, centre, high-mounted stop lamp, however, has certain unique properties. First, it is an unambiguous signal that the vehicle's brake pedal is being depressed. The auxiliary lamp never serves as an ongoing or turn signal, whereas at night, the standard lamps require the following driver to detect an increase in the brightness as a signal from depression of the brake pedal and the single lamp merely requires detection.

One might argue that in the daytime, both the single, auxiliary lamp and the other lamps operate in the same way, especially where the turn signals are separate and a different colour. Yet there is still a degree of ambiguity, because during the early morning and at dusk, in rain, haze or fog, some vehicles will be running with their present lamps on while others will not.

I will reserve the remaining time until the end, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Charlton: I rise this morning to support the resolution of the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. McCague). Having said that, I think members will have to pardon me if, during the course of my comments, I express some cynicism and sarcasm. The resolution deals with a very important issue. That is why I feel I probably will have to express a little bit of cynicism and sarcasm.

The member explained in his opening remarks that the resolution has been in Orders and Notices for a year. I understand that and it is a fair comment. That does not detract from what I feel about the whole issue of vehicle safety on our highways and thoroughfares.

11:20

The eye-level brake indicator at the back of cars is to me a symbol of almost complete failure on the part of our society -- in the case of Ontario, represented by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications -- to provide significant leadership in the quest for safety on our roads and highways. I say it is a symbol because there are so many other examples sitting out there, unfulfilled, that could provide increased safety to the motorists and pedestrians of this province.

This resolution has been on the order paper for slightly more than a year. For a short time before the last election, the member who has placed this motion was the Minister of Transportation and Communications and could have made the changes this resolution talks about. Prior to his stint in that ministry, he was in the cabinet of this province for a number of years and should have been leading the fight for these changes. The eye-level brake-light indicator we are talking about in this resolution is only a small symbol of the things we should be seriously looking at in this province, through the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, to provide leadership for the people of this province in highway and road safety.

We have heard discussions for five or six years about the studies that have been done elsewhere about headlights. We are right in the middle of a week of "leave your headlights on" because studies from around the world clearly show that having headlights on at all times while vehicles are in motion can provide a significant reduction in accidents. Our governments have been talking about it. To some extent, the auto industry has accepted its eventuality but has opposed its immediate implementation for a number of years. We do not see it happening in terms of government regulation at the provincial or federal level. The talk is still there, and eventually it will happen.

I suggest that the actual regulation, whether it is eventually provincial or federal, will not be put in place until all the major auto manufacturers have done it anyway. This is the case with the example we have today. The former minister, the member for Dufferin-Simcoe, is correct that, although his motion was moved or tabled last year before the regulation came into effect, as of September the regulation was in place after all the auto makers had already done the job.

We have seen the airbag debate hanging around for 10 years, and there is still no final resolution to that debate. We have also seen growing concern over impaired driving in Ontario. It has been escalating over the course of the past few years. The former Attorney General, Mr. McMurtry, picked up that battle some years ago and the present Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has gone through this House with some amendments to legislation to proceed to increase the pressure in the battle against drunk driving.

On the other hand, in the real world, we have known about technologies that could provide real assistance on the question of impaired driving. There are very simple devices called breathalysers, which we use after the fact in today's approach to drunk driving, which are installed in the centre of steering wheels and refuse to allow an inebriated driver to start his car.

Why will we not take on the auto makers? Why will we not force the installation of those kinds of devices that will greatly enhance the safety of motor vehicle operations in our province? We will pass a regulation installing those kinds of breathalyser switches in cars probably eight to 10 months after the major auto makers have already put them in place.

Why are we not providing the leadership in the approach we take to highway safety? Why can our governments, which have access to all the studies constantly being done worldwide, not take the facts that are provided to them in those studies and provide the leadership to ensure that an absolute minimum of people are put at risk as a result of the inappropriate operation of vehicles in this province?

One of the things we knew a long time ago about the operation of motor vehicles is that a vehicle which is unsafe puts not only its driver but also a great many other people at risk. We set up an auto inspection system that most people refer to as the safety check to try to deal with that. It was a good start, but it was inadequate in the ultimate sense of safety on our highways. One has to go in for the safety check only if and when one is selling a car to someone else. Once a person has had his car safety-checked, it is good for as long as he keeps that car. Everybody knows that is not adequate to protect the public. Other jurisdictions have gone to annual safety checks. We have not taken that step in Ontario.

We also know there are technologies whereby, because of the computerization the automobile industry has developed today of its own volition, we could be making small additions to the computers that run the ignitions of our automobiles. The computers that already tell us when there is a problem with our braking system could also tell us we cannot start that car until that problem is rectified.

As I said, this motion before us today is but a symbol of our failures to provide real leadership for the people of this province in terms of protecting them on our highways and streets, both as drivers or passengers in vehicles and as pedestrians.

I will support the resolution because it is a symbol. We need to get on with the job of getting over that hump, overcoming the failures of the past and ensuring that our Ministry of Transportation and Communications becomes the leader in safety in the future.

Mr. Knight: I am pleased to be able to offer some comments on the resolution put forward this morning by the member for Dufferin-Simcoe. I have not indicated that I was pleased to participate in a debate, because I did not consider there would be a debate as such on this resolution. I will be surprised if any members of the House are opposed. I commend the member for Dufferin-Simcoe for bringing it forward.

As the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) has indicated, it is possible to discuss many other aspects of vehicle safety and attempts to reduce accidents on the highways. This is only one particular recommendation the member for Dufferin-Simcoe has brought forward, and I think it is worthy of acceptance by all members. It is an indication that the member for Dufferin-Simcoe was dedicated in discharging the responsibilities he held as Minister of Transportation and Communications, a position in which he served long and well, though perhaps not as long as his predecessor and perhaps not as well as his successor. Certainly, he discharged his responsibilities with a high modicum of dedication.

11:30

The resolution is important because it is necessary to publicize that older motor vehicles should be retrofitted with a centre, high-mounted auxiliary brake light. That is important because, as we look at the statistics tabled recently by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications for the road safety report for 1985, we see they show there were 190,000 accidents and 109,000 personal injuries. Even though the incidence of fatal accidents has been decreasing over a number of years, and we are all thankful for that, the number of accidents in total is remaining constant. Of course, the reason for that is the increased number of vehicles on the road. I understand there are now in the order of five million cars in Ontario. Some mornings, as I am coming in to Queen's Park, I wonder if perhaps they are all parked along the Gardiner Expressway. I am sure others think they are parked on some of the other highways on the way into Toronto.

However, the accidents we are particularly interested in are those caused by rear-end collisions. The statistic on this is not accurate because of the source of the information, in that when a traffic officer fills out an accident report on a rear-end collision, he may not always charge the driver responsible. Indeed, the driver of the car behind is not always responsible. Sometimes the charge laid is other than the one statistic I can refer to in the annual report, which is the only statistic that indicates the number of rear-end accidents, where there is a charge of following too close.

In any event, that represents approximately 10,000 accidents in Ontario each year. Therefore, if there is anything we can do to help reduce the number of accidents, it is something we should encourage. The installation of that centre, high-mounted auxiliary brake-light system would be a way to reduce those accidents.

I would like to correct the member for Dufferin-Simcoe. He had indicated that part of his resolution had been addressed -- which is correct, in that the Canadian government has now requested that all vehicles manufactured in Ontario will now have such a system installed -- but the fact is that it was gazetted for the manufacturers only as of October 1. They wanted to have it in place for September 1986, but there were some holdups. Therefore, it will be effective January 1, 1987. That would mean the 1988 model year.

I believe the Americans have made it mandatory as of 1986. New vehicles here will have the auxiliary brake-light system installed, beginning next year. We have to make sure the message is taken to the public that older vehicles should have this system installed. I would like to indicate that the government of Ontario has already taken steps to deliver that message. That is not to say there should not be more publicity brought to the issue in the future.

Since the member for Dufferin-Simcoe indicated that his resolution had been in Orders and Notices for a number of months, I would not want to preclude the possibility that his resolution precipitated the action on behalf of the government; but inasmuch as it was not something the member brought forward when he himself was the minister, I suspect this precipitation was not a result of the resolution.

In November 1985, the minister did release to the media a communication, an urging, a recommendation that all owners of automobiles in Ontario outfit their cars. That was made by way of a news release issued on November 6, 1985, wherein the minister indicated -- as studies in the United States have demonstrated, as the member for Dufferin-Simcoe has indicated -- a high-mount brake light seems to be the most effective way to prevent rear-end collisions and that the minister would encourage all motorcar owners to install the single high-mount brake light on their vehicles.

In the spring of 1986, I believe, the minister encouraged the government ministries to make sure their vehicles were equipped with such a system, and I understand that all vehicles in the government pool now have such systems installed. I also believe Ministry of Transportation and Communications passenger cars and vans will be equipped with such a system. The cost is somewhere around $15,000 for between 200 and 300 vehicles. When one considers that it takes the elimination of a couple of accidents to recover that cost, it is an indication that we should be pursuing such an objective throughout the entire province.

In the spring, the minister also sent a communication to all members of the Legislature encouraging the installation of such a system. I presume all members of the Legislature now have such a system installed in their car, including the member for Dufferin-Simcoe.

I suggest that when we do install such a system, we make sure we use only a single, centre-mounted brake light. A number of installations have been undertaken with what I would refer to as gimmicky installations, where one has two lights, one mounted on each side. Some look like strobe lights and seem to work in concert with the car radio. There are others that are appropriate but that appear not to have the same safety value as a single light in the centre.

I suggest that perhaps we could encourage by further publicity the installation of such a system. Perhaps we could encourage the insurance industry to offer a premium break when one is installed. It costs only $50 to install and perhaps there could be some small break to encourage it. Perhaps local licensing authorities should ensure that taxicabs have such a system installed. Perhaps MTC could look at the regulations in the Highway Traffic Act to see whether we can make it a standard procedure.

11:40

Mr. Gregory: I am very grateful for the opportunity to say a few words on the resolution of the member for Dufferin-Simcoe, for whom I have a great regard for his past performance as Minister of Transportation and Communications. He is well aware of that of which he speaks. He does not often hear very many compliments from me, but this is possibly a new trend.

I totally support the initiative of this resolution. It has seemed to me for a long time, and it must be occurring to everyone else, that the greatest cause of accidents today on highways and on city streets is the rear-ender, as my colleague from across the way has mentioned.

In my opinion, this is because of many things. The chief and most obvious one is that a driver on the highway at night is required to pay constant attention to the car in front of him. He is not required to see a stop light coming on; he is required to see an intensity in the light. All cars have the regular red running lights on. When the brakes are touched, the only thing that happens is that the red light increases in intensity.

While everyone should drive with his attention focused fully on that, it is impossible when you are driving a long way on the highway, sometimes under adverse conditions. Your mind is not sharp enough to discern immediately that increased intensity of light. You become almost hypnotized by the lights ahead, and the sudden change of intensity does not always catch your attention as soon as it should.

The installation of an eye-level light changes that whole situation. As soon as the brakes are touched, a new light comes on where there was no light before. It seems like a very small point, but it is very important when you are driving at night, lulled into a feeling of comfort, relaxation or whatever, and a new red light suddenly flashes in front of you. That gets your attention very quickly. It is not that the regular lights do not get your attention; it just takes a little longer. Sometimes that lapse in time is not enough to prevent a collision.

There is also the fact that as we get older -- and I am not using myself as an example; we are all getting older to one degree or another -- your vision deteriorates in so far as night driving is concerned, even with the addition of glasses. It is not a case of not being able to see, but of the quality and sharpness of your night vision deteriorating. Perhaps we need this extra boost of a new light flashing to get our attention. With advancing age, reactions also tend to slow down for some, although not for me as yet.

It is something that is recognized by the police. You do get lulled into a slowdown when driving long distances at night. This can be accentuated not only on highways where there are no lights but also on streets where there are lights; they tend to add to the confusion when driving at night.

The other thing that frightens me when driving on highways is the transport trucks. Transport drivers are competent and probably very capable drivers. At the same time, they have a tendency to tailgate. There is nothing more frightening when one is driving along a road than to glance in the rear-view mirror and see only a transport's headlights which appear to be two inches behind the rear window. This scares anybody. You know that when he is there, you cannot stop because he cannot stop. Unless you want to be a sandwich, you virtually try to get out of the way.

It would be a help, even to the transport driver, when he is driving along, to see a fluttering of the elevated eye-level light, so he knows he has a nervous driver ahead of him and he had better do something, maybe slow down, and give the fellow a little space. That would be very helpful.

When I am planning a trip out of town and will be driving on the highway, I try to calculate at which time the transports will not be there. Frankly, they scare the devil out of me. I see this as not a very big factor in alleviating my fear, but it may help the transport drivers themselves to get a sense that they are scaring the bejabers out of that driver in the little Japanese-built car ahead of them, which they can probably run right over if they want to.

It is a positive step that the federal government is taking steps to make this mandatory in all automobiles. I would like to be assured -- and I do not have this assurance at present -- that this is going to apply not only to American-built and Canadian-built cars but also to cars manufactured in other countries so it is mandatory that these lights be installed before the cars are admitted for sale in Canada. Is that true?

Mr. McCague: Yes.

Mr. Gregory: I have the answer to my question, so I am totally relieved. It will be mandatory that all imported cars have this. That relieves my feelings on it. We can look forward in the near future to all cars having eye-level brake lights.

The only other thing is that any car older than right now or anything older than 1987 does not have these as mandatory equipment. This is a difficult thing indeed. The intent of this resolution, if I read it correctly, is to make these lights mandatory. This means all owners of cars built before 1987, or before it became mandatory on new cars, will be required to install them.

It would bode well for Ontario if the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton), in concert with the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Nixon) and the Treasurer -- they are both the same person -- were to make some arrangement to eliminate, possibly on a temporary basis, retail sales tax on this equipment. I do not think we are talking about a great deal of money. I am not sure the elimination of the seven per cent retail sales tax is going to make everybody charge out to buy them; however, any inducement or incentive at all to attain what we are trying to do would be helpful.

They might even go further. I know the Treasurer is a generous man. They might want further to encourage people with some sort of financial incentive. It seems that people do respond to financial incentives. Even with the knowledge that what they are doing is perhaps going to save their lives, people do not always react quickly and put something on the car that will save their lives. If there is a financial incentive, they move more quickly. This is apparent with car seats for juveniles.

Mr. Knight: What about insurance companies and reduction of premiums?

Mr. Gregory: Insurance companies? Reductions? Very good. I thank the member for the suggestion. I did not have that in my speech, but I undoubtedly would have thought of it as I went along. The member across the way suggests insurance companies might well be encouraged to reduce premiums on automobiles equipped with eye-level brake lights. That is an excellent idea, and I encourage the member across the way to speak to the Minister of Transportation and Communications and the Minister of Revenue to do something. He is an insurance man himself; he can speak to the industry. I am an insurance man, or was at one time, and between us we will undoubtedly get it done with the help of lawyers such as the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer).

I have said all I want to say. I fully support this resolution, and I congratulate the member for Dufferin-Simcoe for its introduction.

11:50

Mr. Speaker: The member for Welland-Thorold. I believe there is approximately nine minutes.

Mr. Swart: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I probably will not be that long. I want to start by saying that obviously we in this party support this resolution. I do not think anybody who has looked into the situation at all could oppose the principle of this resolution. We all recognize it is now a fait accompli. The federal government has taken action, after the lead from the United States. We do not need to promote this before this House or to try to encourage the federal government to take the action asked for.

This is primarily a federal government matter, and they have acted on it, but I suspect there may be some degree of regulation that the province can apply with regard to the extra stop lights. That aspect of it needs some further pursuit. Perhaps when the member rises to reply, he can answer my question about whether the present regulation enacted by the federal government applies to vans and trucks. The resolution mentions only automobiles.

Anyone who drives on the highways will agree that the greatest difficulty found in following another vehicle is when you are following a van or something of that nature and can see nothing in front of you. With automobiles, you can see through the windshields in front. All those who give instructions in good driving say you should always be watching the second or third car ahead. You cannot do that with a van. I hope the member can give some indication of whether vans and trucks are included or whether he intends to pursue that to make sure they are.

Because of what has taken place and the regulations already now in place on this matter, I am somewhat surprised the member did not substitute another resolution for the one we have before us to deal with something that needs to be done. Believe me, there are lots of things needing to be done in the field of transportation, such as those mentioned by my colleague the member for Hamilton Mountain, or improvement of the proposed Ontario motor vehicle arbitration plan to provide for greater protection for the purchasers of new cars. I thought we might have a resolution before us that would have been operable after we passed the resolution rather than dealing with a fait accompli.

As already stated, I do not think there is any argument about the desirability of this. The only question is why it was not done years ago. We have dragged our feet on this matter in this province, compared to what many other jurisdictions have done, including the US, where I understand exhaustive studies were done. As long ago as 1978, I am told there was a study of 525 taxicabs for 18 months in Washington, DC. There was a 54 per cent reduction in rear-end accidents in taxicabs that had a brake light installed in the rear window as compared to those that did not. Another study, done in 1980 by the American Telephone and Telegraph Co. on 2,500 vehicles, showed a 53 per cent reduction in rear-end crashes. There was also a study of New York taxis which showed a 58 per cent reduction in rear-end crashes.

When we know that something like 17 per cent of all the collisions that take place in this province are rear-end collisions, it is very apparent the benefits that would accrue to the motorists and to the insurance companies in this province by having high-mounted brake lights in place on all vehicles.

The insurance companies have indicated this is very desirable. However, they have not gone so far as to say, as they should have -- and once again it shows a bit of irresponsibility on their part -- that a person who installs these should get some reduction in his insurance. They have refused to do that to date. It would have been a real incentive if they had done that. However, as always, they are more interested in the volume of premiums they get than they are in encouraging good safety features, as this would be.

Therefore, I am going to vote in support of this resolution, realizing the principle has already been accepted, but there may be some refining that needs to be done.

Mr. McCague: I thank the members who have spoken of their support of this resolution. The member for Hamilton Mountain mentioned that I should have done something about this when I was Minister of Transportation and Communications and that I had the power to do so by whatever means. I am not sure what he is referring to. I must point out to him that I did not have the regulation-making power to mandate these in a way that would have led to their use across Canada. It might be within the realm of the power of the Minister of Transportation and Communications to pass such a regulation, but it would be very difficult were it not done in the whole of the province.

I am pleased the minister put out a press release last fall. He did that after the introduction of my resolution, and I thank him for being in support, almost immediately, of the points I put forward.

The member for Halton-Burlington was very supportive. I am not sure how to translate the comments he made, but I will read Hansard later and get a truer picture of what was said. Then I may have to ask him what it meant.

I agree with the member for Halton-Burlington that we should standardize the kind of rear light that can be used. There are some rather fancy, razzle-dazzle ones that do not serve the same purpose; in fact, they may even distract drivers rather than get their attention.

I am pleased, of course, to have the support of my colleague the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory). He brought up some very important and relevant points in regard to this.

I did not change my motion after its introduction, as some members of this House have done, because I felt that if the federal government saw fit to mandate them on all cars sold in Canada after September 1, 1986, it was still very worth while to proceed with the retrofit side of it. The support it is getting from the insurance industry is interesting. I do not have any shares in Speedy Auto Glass, but Speedy Auto Glass and Royal Insurance have combined to offer $10 off for retrofits. It is a worthwhile project, and the president does come from my riding; so I congratulate him.

In answer to the question asked by the member for Welland-Thorold, I do not know what the situation is with vans and trucks. It is a good point, but as I recall, the lights on a van or a light truck are much higher from the ground than those on a car, and that may serve some of the purpose. The honourable member brings up a good point.

Not only do I support this resolution, but I am very much in favour of headlights being on all day. Perhaps the member for Welland-Thorold will bring forward a motion and extol all the virtues of that.

CONSTRUCTION DELAYS

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Offer has moved resolution 21.

Motion agreed to.

AUTOMOBILE SAFETY

Mr. Speaker: Mr. McCague has moved resolution 22.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 12:02 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LAYOFFS IN SUDBURY

Mr. Gordon: Since 1983, the Falconbridge work force has been reduced by 45 per cent. While working people were losing their jobs, production increased by 33 per cent. This corporation cries that earnings have not been sufficient and that small profits are not enough. Let us make no mistake about this, exorbitant profit is what they are after. The working people of Sudbury have worked hard and honestly for Falconbridge for decades. The working people of Sudbury made money for Falconbridge and its shareholders.

In 1984, Falconbridge's profits were in excess of $28 million, the following year they were $38 million, and now we have another layoff. Why is it that working people must time and time again be the anvil upon which multinationals hammer out the view that what is good for the company is also good for the community? It is time for the people to become the hammer for a change.

Falconbridge has spent $40 million to expand its facilities in Norway to handle Botswana ore, and in Sudbury we have a layoff. Falconbridge purchases nickel on the London Metals Exchange, and in Sudbury we have a layoff. Falconbridge purchased Kidd Creek Mines in 1985, and in 1986 we have a layoff in Sudbury.

It is time for the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to heed the request of the members of Parliament, the members of the provincial parliament and the regional people to have a public inquiry in Sudbury.

GO TRANSIT

Mr. Breaugh: Today I want to make a plea to the government on behalf of all those people in and around Metro who commute each and every day.

In the mid-1970s, the government of Ontario made some very ambitious plans to allow for expansion in the area -- particularly the one I am concerned with -- east of Metro. All of the municipal councils in the regional municipality of Durham have accepted their responsibility for a great deal of expanded residential commuter facilities. We have a problem that is growing worse and worse day by day.

The government is supposedly committed to the concept of GO rail transit to Oshawa and beyond Oshawa. We await with bated breath the final announcements that will put in place the plans for GO rail transit to Oshawa. We watched with some trepidation when these plans were altered as the previous government changed from a light rail transit system to heavy rail transit. We know the facilities are needed. We know we have accepted the housing. We know the commuters are there. We know the roads are clogged each and every day, twice a day. We need GO rail transit, we need it now; and we need a commitment on the part of this government not only to plan wisely -- we have that -- but we also need the final commitment actually to put in place GO rail transit to Oshawa.

RECOGNITION OF SENIOR CITIZEN

Mr. Callahan: I have before me a recreation of Marguerite Bourgeoys, the first Canadian saint. This entire item was produced by handicapped people.

In the government members' gallery is Mrs. Alicita Marshall. She and her late husband were the founders of Marina Creations, which is an organization that employs handicapped people to create these dolls. There are 89 in all and they represent people in the history of Ontario and Canada.

This lady and her husband were also involved in opening up Marina Cardiac Lodge, which is the only facility that deals specifically with people who have suffered strokes and heart attacks.

I bring these matters to the attention of the House because this lady, who is 82 years young, has devoted her entire life to this project. She has instructed me to hand this over to the Speaker, compliments of Mrs. Marshall.

LIBERAL-NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY ACCORD

Mr. Baetz: Listen, everyone, it is storybook time again. Today it is the exciting story of Peterson the wolf who tried to blow down piglet Robbie Rae's house. Once upon a time, piglet Robbie lived in a house on the edge of beautiful Queen's Forest. For many months, Robbie romped happily and played games with all the other piglets who had organized themselves into committees.

One day Peterson the wolf, who was also king of the forest, heard that Robbie and the other piglets in the house were playing funny games that were against the rules and provisions of his kingdom. This made him very angry, but knowing the tellybirds, with their one all-seeing eye, were watching silently from their roosts, the wolf first asked Robbie, ever so sweetly, "Little pig, little pig, let me come in." But the smart piglet Robbie Rae knew the wolf wanted to eat him up, so he shouted, "No, no, by the hair on my chinny chin chin, you cannot come in."

When Robbie refused to let the wolf in, the wolf growled in a loud, menacing voice, "I will huff and I will puff and I will blow the house down." So he huffed and he puffed and he puffed and he huffed, but he could not blow the house down because piglet Robbie Rae's house was not built of straw or sticks, or even bricks, but of a magic stuff called accord that could withstand all the huffing and puffing of even the biggest and angriest wolf.

Finally, not being able to blow down the house built on accord, the wolf slunk away into the forest. What had made him so angry and frustrated was that he knew he had only himself to blame because he had taught piglet Robbie Rae how to build a puff-proof house.

Mr. Speaker: The member has huffed and puffed his way.

CONFERENCE ON NORTHERN COMPETITIVENESS

Mr. Wildman: The purpose of the Conference on Northern Competitiveness to be hosted by the Premier in Sault Ste. Marie next Monday and Tuesday is, to quote from the invitation sent out by Canadian Marketing Group of Willowdale, "to establish a dialogue among business, labour, government and community leaders."

This is a very laudable purpose, and we in the New Democratic Party are looking forward to participating in the conference, but we are concerned about how successful this conference will be because of the apparent haphazard approach to organizing it.

Southern Ontario consultants such as Coopers and Lybrand apparently did not begin to contact people until late this month. Consultation with interested parties over the last two weeks has been on a very short notice basis. Outdated mailing lists have been used for invitations, and organizers are still trying to obtain correct addresses even as late as this week. Particularly in the labour sector, it is quite obvious that a number of people who should have been contacted and consulted have been missed or are just being contacted initially this week.

On such short notice, I wonder whether this conference is going to be as successful as it should have been and could have been.

DR. R. GORDON BELL

Miss Stephenson: I should like to invite all members of the Legislature to join me in congratulating a most distinguished Canadian who happens to be a resident of the constituency of York Mills. His name is Dr. R. Gordon Bell. On Saturday of this week, he becomes one of two Canadian physicians to receive the Order of Canada, the Royal Bank Prize and an honorary doctor of laws degree from York University.

Dr. Bell is a graduate of the University of Toronto, in 1943, and is a most distinguished physician who has become a world-recognized expert in the successful treatment of alcoholism and drug addiction. It is a great honour for all of us to have a man of that calibre, that quality and that capability in our midst. Will members please join me in congratulating Dr. Bell on this achievement.

DAY CARE

Mr. Allen: I want to express my congratulations and, I am sure, the congratulations of the Legislature as a whole to the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, which, notwithstanding the reluctance of the provincial and federal levels, decided at its regional council meeting a week ago to engage itself in substantial additional funding of day care in this province in order to upgrade the underpaid and low-level wages and salaries that day care workers are currently receiving. It decided it would initiate new funding -- 100 per cent local dollars -- to meet the upgrading needs of the workers in that system in the Hamilton-Wentworth region.

That should be a good example to the minister opposite, who, I am sure, would like to carry all the weight he can into cabinet to secure the same thing across the province as a whole. At the same time, I congratulate Leslie Russell, who was recently given the provincial children's service award in early childhood education for her leadership of the day care centre of Northwest Communicare of Hamilton and, later, the Chedoke-McMaster centre. One of the leading figures in day care work in our region, she is one of the figures who have made the day care coalition in this province the kind of force it is today.

13:41

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

RICK HANSEN

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: On October 24, I had the distinct honour of welcoming an outstanding Canadian into Ontario on behalf of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the government of Ontario. It was my great pleasure to greet Rick Hansen, the Man in Motion, at a special ceremony and reception in Ottawa sponsored by Ontario.

Today I have a special announcement to make. The government of Ontario is recognizing the extraordinary achievements of this outstanding Canadian wheelchair athlete by proclaiming the week of November 3 to November 9, 1986, as Rick Hansen Man in Motion Week. By the time Rick wheels into Toronto on November 2, this dedicated athlete will have completed more than three quarters of his journey, which has taken him to four continents and 33 countries.

Many organizations and groups will be expressing their appreciation for Rick Hansen's efforts by holding special events and activities during the Rick Hansen Man in Motion Week. We are pleased that in the midst of his very exhaustive schedule, Rick has accepted our invitation to come to the Legislature on November 6. This will give us the opportunity to greet and honour a young man who has inspired people around the world.

Rick's arrival in the Legislature will be preceded by a luncheon hosted by the Lieutenant Governor, the Honourable Lincoln Alexander. This occasion is being held to pay tribute to Rick and the many volunteers who have been so helpful to the success of his world tour.

Rick Hansen is fulfilling a personal challenge to wheel his chair a distance equal to the circumference of the world. By completing this symbolic distance, he hopes to increase awareness about the abilities and potential of people with disabilities and to raise funds for spinal cord research, rehabilitation and wheelchair sports.

Through his courageous efforts, Rick Hansen is creating an historic event. He is providing a unique opportunity for Ontarians to recognize the determination and ability of all people to meet life's challenges. The Premier has asked me to encourage everyone to support the goals of Rick's tour.

In June, the Premier and I announced Ontario's Decade of Disabled Persons. The goal of the decade is to promote the fullest possible participation and integration of disabled persons into all aspects of society. With his commitment and perseverance, Rick's efforts will contribute significantly to this goal. Rick Hansen encourages all of us to work together to create a better life for everyone.

In closing, I would like to read the proclamation of Rick Hansen Man in Motion Week:

In recognition of the outstanding courage of Rick Hansen, the multimedallist champion athlete and one of Canada's outstanding citizens, in undertaking a global journey of over 40,000 kilometres across four continents, 33 countries and all 10 provinces of Canada in a wheelchair with such stalwart spirit and commitment; and

In appreciation of the inspiration that this achievement and heroic example of willpower is engendering among those with physical disabilities on how to overcome adversity and face challenges with renewed hope and confidence; and

In realization that the three-year wheelchair journey across the world is making a tremendous contribution to the public's awareness of the important accomplishments the physically challenged can and do achieve; and

In respect of the positive attitude that is being fostered for the integration of disabled individuals as full and equal participants in our pluralistic society; and

In praise of Rick Hansen's unselfish goal of raising funds for spinal cord research, rehabilitation and wheelchair sports and his dedicated efforts to encourage citizens of the world to contribute to the realization of these noble and humanitarian aims;

We therefore extend on behalf of the government of Ontario our sincerest congratulations to Rick Hansen and all the supporters of his worthy cause, with best wishes for continued success in helping the physically challenged members of our society to achieve their goals.

Whereas Rick Hansen has inspired us all and made us proud, we are pleased to recognize November 3 to 9, 1986, as Rick Hansen Man in Motion Week and commend its observance to the people of our province.

Mr. Baetz: I had the honour and the pleasure of joining the honourable minister to welcome Rick Hansen to Ontario when he crossed the bridge between the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. It was certainly a very inspiring occasion. They had a tremendous welcome for him in Ottawa. We were delighted to hear the announcement of a $100,000 grant from the Ontario government for Mr. Hansen's personal crusade.

We can only welcome Rick Hansen to this province. We can only promise from this side of the House our full support for him, his crusade and, above all, what he stands for.

I had frankly hoped in this announcement today -- and we can simply agree with every word that is in there -- we would also hear something a little more tangible, a little more specific in terms of grants that this government would make, not only to Rick Hansen's crusade but to the disabled generally.

Surely this is a time to be doing this, because one thing that has impressed me about Rick Hansen, and I think the minister would agree, is that during the International Year of Disabled Persons we had that wonderful slogan, "Label us able;" Rick Hansen has personified that fine slogan in action.

Rick Hansen could be no better served and no more pleased than if, during his stay here in Ontario, we heard this government make some very substantial, specific, concrete contributions to the whole field of the disabled, because we know that with some help we can have them live fulfilled lives.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I rise to praise Rick Hansen and to congratulate the government on recognizing a week in honour of the work he has done and the incredible travails he has undergone in his worldwide journey, trying to draw attention to the problems of people with his particular handicap but also to those of the disabled in general. For all of us, he has been remarkable and courageous example, especially in the lowest days when no one was paying attention and he was being robbed and harassed in various places. To have overcome all that and to re-enter Ontario in victory is a great tribute to him.

However, I stand as well with a little bit of cynicism. It is easy for us, as politicians and as governments, to attach ourselves to public heroes, people who have undergone these amazing travails in public and have drawn attention to their particular tribulations; but we seem to do so little to help those people who every day in their private lives are having to meet with a very private courage the troubles they have.

I have the strange privilege, it might seem, to have to exercise for cardiac rehabilitation at Variety Village. There I exercise with people with a variety of handicaps -- quadriplegics, paraplegics, the blind and others -- and watch them in their daily struggles just to strive to participate in life as it is in Ontario. I would feel much better standing here today if I had heard some major public announcement about overcoming some of the problems those people face on a day-to-day basis. Rick Hansen would believe there was some real response to what he is up to if he had that kind of response from this government.

Let me give members some examples. A member got up today to talk about things that are produced in sheltered workshops. Do members know what we pay people in most of the sheltered workshops in this province? It is hideous, the small amount of money we provide to those people and then deduct it from their family benefits.

How many members have tried to take cases of people who needed attendant care or assistance to get into schools? I remember one 21-year-old boy for whom I tried to get assistance at York. His family was going bankrupt with the cost of trying to get him a few more years of schooling, perhaps before he died, and was unable to get that kind of money from the previous government. It is just as difficult to get that kind of money today.

There is a fellow in my riding, a quadriplegic who is 40 years of age. He has been in Providence Villa for 20 years and has never ventured out. He is just doing it now; he is going back to school two days a week. He cannot get assistance from this government or from the Metropolitan Toronto government to provide him with the money for his transportation and extra school costs, if members can believe that. I wonder how Rick Hansen would feel if we were providing support to him rather than just getting up and announcing a week in his honour.

As I said last week, if Rick Hansen were single and living in Ontario today, he could be receiving as little as $329 a month to live on, if members can believe that. Surely we should be doing something about that today, not just announcing another week to draw attention to some of the problems.

Let me tell members about the 80 per cent of handicapped people in this province who are unemployed. The government offers one very small program, the work incentive program. Recent statistics that the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) has given me about the success of the work incentive program show that only 600 or so handicapped people out of the total 4,000 who are participating are using that program; of those, only 47 per cent have managed to get a full-time job as a result of that program and to stay with it. It has been a dismal failure when we have more than 50,000 people on family benefits disability in this province today.

All members have received letters from the Ontario Cerebral Palsy Sports Association talking about Bill 38, which I dare say, if the government got a majority, it would reintroduce. What could that do to sports for the handicapped in Ontario?

Rick Hansen's journey is a wonderful symbol of what all handicapped people go through. For years and years they struggle on their own, leading very rough lives, isolated in our communities. He finally has come to some prominence, but is it going to be fleeting prominence, or are we going to see some structural changes that are going to integrate those people in our society, as they should be?

The minister's estimates are coming up, and I intend to take him step by step through what he can do to make the handicapped part of our community in a real way, not with just symbolic gestures, such as a week in the honour of a wonderful man such as Rick Hansen.

13:55

ORAL QUESTIONS

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Grossman: This afternoon, I want to return to what is becoming more apparent day after day, a rather large coverup of the Urban Transportation Development Corp. transaction. My question therefore is to the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

The minister will know that this morning the standing committee on public accounts was studying the UTDC matter and heard from Kirk Foley, while at the same time the minister and his ministry staff were at estimates in the standing committee on general government.

At that time, Kirk Foley acknowledged that a report on the future of UTDC had been prepared for the government in the fall of 1985. We understand that report indicated quite a good future for UTDC and a concern over the government's dismantling of UTDC and suggested the corporation not be sold. At the same time, in another committee, the minister denied ever having seen the report.

Is the minister prepared this afternoon to acknowledge the existence of the report, apologize to the House for not having it distributed and made public and give it to us?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Possibly the Leader of the Opposition has done us both, and particularly his critic, a favour. In fact, the critic asked a very similar question this morning. There is a problem with both the public accounts and estimates committees going on concurrently.

The critic asked about a report with an uncertain title, an unnamed author and an unspecified date. Now that the Leader of the Opposition has identified the author, perhaps he can provide me with the title and the date of the document he is referring to, so I can locate it in response to the critic's question. I will be happy to deliver it to him. He asked that question this morning. I answered it. I said to him that I would attempt to track it down

Mr. Harris: What a coverup.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: There is no coverup. The question was asked in estimates this morning, and we guaranteed that if we could locate the author, the title and the date -- and the member has just provided further information -- we would do that.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory) have a point of privilege?

Mr. Gregory: I just want to correct the record, Mr. Speaker. I specifically told the minister the name of the report this morning, and I wish he would admit it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That could be a point of personal explanation; it certainly is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Grossman: The minister's answer indicates either the total disorganization with which he and his ministry have handled the sale of UTDC or, in the alternative, unparalleled arrogance in violating every speech the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has given about open government.

The report, as my colleague told the minister in committee this morning, was to the government of Ontario on the future of UTDC. It was prepared by Kirk Foley, who was then running UTDC. UTDC has been in front of the public accounts committee, and the minister has been asked for information on UTDC in this House for almost one full year. He and his government have hidden a key report outlining the future of UTDC and relating directly to all the questions that have been asked.

Is the minister prepared to acknowledge this afternoon that on the closing of UTDC, he received $10 million cash and that by the end of tomorrow he will have paid $21.2 million to Lavalin and got back $10 million?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The Leader of the Opposition continues to mix apples and oranges. His question is as empty as his benches. There is incoming revenue from old UTDC on the one hand and there is incoming revenue to the province on the other. The question that was asked of me this morning was whether I was in possession

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: In regard to the question about the one piece of information that may or may not have been made available -- obviously the Leader of the Opposition has it, and his member rightfully asked for that information this morning -- that was a document I was not aware of until the member for Mississauga East brought it to our attention this morning. He did not state the author and was not quite certain of the title.

Mr. Grossman: That was not the supplementary question. Get back to the question.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The member included it in his question, and I am going to include it in my answer. As I stated to him on the record, in Hansard, when we have located the report, he will be the first to receive it.

Mr. Grossman: When the Minister of Transportation and Communications who sold UTDC finds the report filed by the president of UTDC on the future of UTDC one year after it was written and six months after the announcement was made that it was being sold, he will be kind enough to share it with us. That outlines his attitude. Let us put it on the record.

Interjection.

Mr. Grossman: The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has just shouted across the floor that UTDC itself was an outhouse. Let the record show that is the Attorney General's opinion.

Interjections.

Mr. Grossman: Can the minister support that gratuitous insult, that arrogance shown to the workers at UTDC in Thunder Bay and in Kingston, as outlined by the Attorney General? Does that explain why --

Hon. Mr. Scott: Come on. Remind the member about the television.

Mr. Grossman: The Attorney General gets very antsy when we talk about him. I will ask him questions about women's issues or abortion if he is not careful.

Does that explain why the minister accepted --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: That was a good question.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the member for Sudbury East.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I think the member for Sudbury East heard more of the question. Perhaps he would like to answer it.

When I think of all the questions that have come in from the Leader of the Opposition about UTDC and when I think about Lavalin, about the employers, the employees and all the workers who are dependent on an ongoing and financially viable operation, I wonder why the member constantly asks questions and makes comments in such a negative manner, predicated on failure.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I am answering his question.

Mr. Grossman: We are now in day three, and the minister is continuing to cover up the sale price. We will be back to find it.

RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION LEGISLATION

Mr. Grossman: On the question of coverups, the tenants of Ontario are eager to know what rents they are going to be facing as a result of Bill 51. Let us try for a third day to find out from the Minister of Housing in a simple, skill-testing question what rents the tenants are going to be facing.

As a result of the questions I have been asking the minister, Gardner Church, his assistant deputy minister, alleges that on the facts I presented to the House, my figure of a 22 per cent increase is wrong and it can only be 15 per cent. We spoke this morning to Fred Peters, who the minister will discover is his executive director of the rent review division and his expert on Bill 51. Taking Mr. Peters through the fact scenario, he acknowledges that the rent increase possible is 19.25 per cent.

I invite the minister to select one of the following: our 22.25 per cent, Mr. Peters's 19.25 per cent or Gardner Church's 15 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I cannot believe the Leader of the Opposition would have the gall to stand up today to ask me any questions with regard to this when the report in the Globe and Mail conceded that those figures are wrong. I am appalled that he would use the tenants of this province in these tactics of giving erroneous figures, if the Globe and Mail is correct, just to manipulate and frighten millions of tenants in this province. He should be ashamed of himself.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I will just wait while the members have their conversations across the floor. I remind all members that interjections are out of order.

Mr. Grossman: Three days ago we gave the minister this fact scenario. This afternoon I want to ask the minister, does he agree with Fred Peters, who works for him as executive director of rent review, that under the scenario we presented, the possible rent increase is 19.25 per cent? Does the minister agree with his employee Mr. Peters?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The Leader of the Opposition brings hypothetical questions to us every day and then wants an answer. He searches for certain answers. I do not know how I can trust the figures he brings forward. I think I should stick to the facts. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition will present this to me and I will write to him. I cannot teach Bill 51 to him in question period.

Mr. Grossman: I agree with the minister. He cannot teach Bill 51 to anyone. I agree with him about that. The minister is right about that and silos.

I want to say seriously to the minister that he and his leader are doing a lot of sabre-rattling about having their way on Bill 51 or the bill will be withdrawn. If that is the proposition of the minister, it is only fair and responsible for the opposition parties to try to determine on behalf of the tenants of this province what possible rent increases they face as a result of Bill 51.

We have checked out, a not unusual fact circumstance, with his ministry, with Fred Peters, head of the ministry's rent review program. Mr. Peters has acknowledged to us that by his calculations, not ours, the possible rent increase is 19.25 per cent. My simple question for the minister is, does he agree with Fred Peters of his ministry that by this scenario, rents can go up 19.25 per cent under his legislation?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sargent: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am amazed at the licence the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) has. I have been tossed out three or four times for doing a hell of a lot less than that. He never asks a question. He just talks back and forth.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

14:10

Mr. Harris: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?

Mr. Harris: A question was asked by the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. The Liberal members all yelled, and you waited until the noise died down. Now we are ready to hear the answer from the minister.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the help of the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris). However, it is up to the Speaker to make decisions at question period time. From the attention I am getting now, I am sure we are going to continue to get that attention for the balance of question period. We will get in a lot of questions; therefore, we will have time for a brief response by the minister.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Our study at the ministry has shown that rents will increase far less than under the previous bills that were in. We had seen increases of up to 40 per cent or 50 per cent. We are now seeing an average increase of almost 4.7 per cent. If the Leader of the Opposition is bringing in figures that are wrong, as he admits, just to frighten the tenants of this province, he should act in a much more responsible manner.

PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

Mr. Rae: I had a question for the Premier, who was here. It was my understanding he was going to be here.

An hon. member: Here he comes.

Mr. Rae: My question to the Premier concerns equal pay. The Premier will know we had discussions about this in the House on Tuesday. There are reports in the press today that the House leader has been saying that if amendments are carried in the committee, it is his intention to pull the bill.

I would like to ask the Premier whether that is the policy of the government. Specifically, what is so wrong with our party moving amendments that are entirely in keeping with the accord, which the Premier and I both signed, which applies to both the public and private sectors, as he will know? Why is the legislation that is now before the House and before the committee not going to do anything for literally hundreds of thousands of nursing home workers, hospital workers and other people who, surely the Premier would agree, are entitled to their claim to equal pay for work of equal value, as well as those who work directly for the government?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I apologize to my honourable friend for being out of the House.

I am not sure I read the same quotation in the paper that the honourable member did this morning. My impression was that he said it was one of the options in the circumstances. As the member knows, the House leader, being an expert on parliamentary procedure, and with the advice of a number of eminent authorities, is deeply concerned about the precedents being set by the committee in overruling the advice of the chairman in that regard. From a procedural point of view and in keeping with the traditions of this House, it is of very great concern to the House leader, as indeed it is to this government.

With respect to the second part of the question, it is this government's intention to proceed on equal pay as we said we would: in the public sector, then to the broader public sector and to the private sector as well. It is to be done in an orderly way. I believe it has been thought out carefully and I think that commitment is clear and there for everyone to see.

Why it is necessary for members opposite to take advantage of their obvious superiority in terms of numbers in this House by violating, in our view, a tradition that is so fundamental to this Legislature is to us a very disturbing proposition. We are going to solve those problems, we are working on them and we expect to present that solution in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. Rae: Let us not deal in technicalities and let us not play politics with this issue. Let us look at it hard and straight with respect to the issue. What is the Premier's problem with the idea of extending legislation that applies to the government directly and letting that legislation apply to women who are working in nursing homes, women who are working in hospitals and women who are working in municipal governments and for municipal services?

What is the problem with that, in substance? What is the big hangup over there? Does the government not believe in equal pay for work of equal value? Does the government not understand this is the principle it signed and said it was in favour of? What is the government's hangup? Do not deal with the technicalities; deal with the substance. This is the only bill we have before us. Surely the government is not going to deny us, as members of the Legislature, the right to amend legislation that is put before the House?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: When one is entrusted with the responsibility of governing, one of the realities is that one has to concern oneself with technicalities, laws, information and the responsibility therefor. If my honourable friend wants to accuse me of playing politics, I think on this issue he should follow his own advice, particularly before he puts a question of this type. As a respected member of this House and as someone who understands parliamentary tradition, he knows what happened in that committee was a very serious violation of our traditions.

I believe the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt), who exercised his position of responsibility in this House in a very thoughtful and evenhanded way, in my opinion, came to the same conclusion. I am sure the member's advisers on parliamentary procedure, by whom he is surrounded on both sides, would give him the same advice in their quiet dispassionate moments, which I know are rare in both their cases but I am aware they do have those moments.

What I am telling the member for York South is that we are proceeding on those issues. He knows how we are proceeding. We have shared that with him and with all members of the House. We believe we are proceeding in an orderly way to cover the public sector, the broader public sector, the people he speaks about in his question, as well as the private sector.

I think he has to have respect for the government's responsibility of introducing this legislation and bringing it in and he has to have respect for the traditions of this parliament as well.

Mr. Rae: The Premier knows perfectly well that what he is doing is using gobbledegook to cover up and to obscure an issue that is very simple. It is very straightforward. It has to do with the commitment of the Liberal Party to a document which he himself signed and to a principle which is of importance to more than two million women who are working in Ontario. That is the issue and the Premier knows that is the issue.

I would like to tell the Premier that what seems orderly to him is excruciatingly slow. We have seen no bill on the private sector. There has been no discussion of any legislation dealing with the private sector. We have not seen it. Is he going to pull the only piece of legislation that is now before this House dealing with equal pay for work of equal value? Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to my honourable friend I would never accuse him of being simple, but this is not a simple issue, as he knows, in its implementation and in the regulations and laws pertaining thereto. A great deal of thought has been given to this by this government. I do not know how many times he would like me to restate my commitment to the principles and the implementation. We are doing that in a thoughtful and orderly way.

He is entitled to stand up and make all the speeches he would like to make about how it should go quicker, how it should have been done last year or 10 years ago, or anything else he wants to do. That is a legitimate area of his responsibility and he is exercising that responsibly; but when he abuses the power of the opposition in this House, violating long-standing traditions, then I suggest to him that he wants to rethink what he is doing in this particular circumstance.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Rae: I have a new question of the Minister of Financial Institutions. The minister has inspired several leaks over the last few days, which have caused various effects that my colleagues will be discussing later in the question period. I want to ask about the latest leak, after what must have been a fascinating cabinet meeting yesterday.

Apparently, his response to the insurance crisis is to appoint a commission to study the commission whose report we had last spring, a commission on a commission, which even for the Liberal government is almost a record. I presume this commission will produce a white paper that we can then study.

14:20

Is the minister aware of what this delay is costing the consumers of this province? Is he aware, for example, that if one takes the 1983 figures, all auto insurance figures combined -- Manitoba average premium, $269, Ontario average premium, $368; a $100 difference -- there is a 37 per cent difference, more than $500 million in excess premiums, when one compares province to province? Is he aware that he is sticking the consumers of this province with a $500-million bill because of his inability to deal with the question of insurance in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: As usual, the leader of the third party goes off on his particular pet hobby-horse, dealing with nationalizing the insurance industry in Ontario. I can tell him we are dealing with the insurance problem in a rational, organized and responsible manner.

Mr. Rae: If one has to ride a horse, I would much rather be riding this one than the one the minister was riding yesterday. That is all I can say.

Dr. Slater produced his report. The government said there would be a period of consultation after the report. The minister has gone on record on many occasions as saying the government would take steps once those consultations were over. What will the government do for the drivers of Ontario about the insurance ripoff?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I suggest to the leader of the third party that if he will have a little patience, he will see what our response will be.

Mr. Rae: I appreciate all the condescending advice I have received today. It certainly does my soul a lot of good.

Is the minister aware of the cost of his delay, of his prevarication, of his vacillation and of the government's inability to deal with an issue that is affecting drivers and consumers right across this province? Is he aware of the extraordinary difference in premiums being paid in Ontario today as compared to those being paid in provinces that have public insurance plans? If so, how does he justify the $500-million ripoff, the at least $99-a-year ripoff, on average, of every single motorist in Ontario because of his inability to act and to deal with the private-profit insurance monopoly in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: If I may, I want to give the honourable leader of the third party another lesson in the insurance industry. If the member has read anything other than his own propaganda, he will know that for every $1 of premium that is paid in Ontario for insurance, it costs $1.31 in claims. If the government got into the insurance business, there would not be one fewer accident, there would not be one fewer repair and there would not be one fewer employee working to do it. If anything, bureaucracies being what they are, there would be more. The only difference would be that there would be a profit motive. If one charges $1 and pays out $1.31, there is no profit. The only profit is in other aspects of insurance.

What the member is suggesting is that everybody in Ontario, whether or not one drives a car, should be subsidizing those people who drive cars. That is a position we are not prepared to take.

MINAKI LODGE

Mr. Rowe: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation and fire sales. Last Thursday in this House, the minister announced the possible sale of Minaki Lodge. Now that a week has gone by, would the minister share with this House further details on the sale of Minaki Lodge? Specifically, when will the deal be signed and how much money did he actually receive for the resort?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I said in my statement to the House that as soon as the signing takes place, I would table all the documents relating to Minaki Lodge, and I am quite prepared to do that.

Mr. Rowe: Quite prepared.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Rowe: It is quite clear now.

Can the minister confirm or deny that $3 million was paid for this $33 million resort and that a further tax holiday --

Interjections.

Mr. Rowe: Listen to this; it gets better. This is the good part. Three million dollars was paid for this $33-million resort. A further tax holiday at the expense of the Ontario citizens was granted in the amount of $30 million, which would actually mean that he paid someone $2 million to take Minaki Lodge off his hands. Can the minister confirm that?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: First, the honourable member does not know what he is talking about. He is very much like his leader. When he quotes figures I do not put much credibility into it.

I will also tell him the taxpayers of Ontario will be very pleased when I table all the documents in this House.

PCB SPILL

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of Energy regarding the polychlorinated biphenyls spill into the Mississagi River north of Iron Bridge and Thessalon yesterday, a major fishing and tourist area. This spill took place at Ontario Hydro Wells generating station. It is the second PCB spill by Ontario Hydro within two weeks in northern Ontario.

Is the minister aware that 30 litres of liquid, which was 70 per cent PCBs -- that is, millions of times more dangerous than the spill at Chapleau -- escaped down an open drain into the river? Can he explain why Hydro ignored the Ministry of Environment's recommendation of weeks ago that Hydro not replace PCB-filled transformers in that area as long as the drain was open into the river?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Yes, I am aware of the spill. It is under investigation. I am very anxious to know just how the spill took place, the types of precautions that were taken and the ones that should be taken. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) is examining the situation. I cannot report to the House right now, but I shall when I have more information.

Mr. Wildman: I appreciate that the minister is going to investigate the situation. In his investigation, will he determine what steps Ontario Hydro is going to take to ensure that these types of spills do not occur any more and to ensure that Ontario Hydro follows the recommendations of the Ministry of the Environment?

Is he going to give us a report on what compensation Hydro will give to the tourist outfitters along the Mississagi River, who will be adversely affected if the fish take up the PCBs?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Yes. I confirm to the honourable member that I am very concerned particularly as it relates to the threat to humans in the area and, secondarily, as it relates to the fishing opportunities there.

It is always of great concern when we have those types of spills in and around our waterways. From the little information I have, it seems that there was a spill when a crane was hoisting a transformer, which struck a rock, burst open and the spill occurred.

I am also very anxious to find out the precautions that are taken by the workers when a transformer full of PCBs is being handled and whether there should not be more caution taken in the handling of such devices.

I will certainly bring a full report back to the Legislature as soon as I have it.

14:30

LAYOFFS IN SUDBURY

Mr. Gordon: I have a question for the Premier. Peter McBride, who is the public relations director for Falconbridge, has been quoted as saying the company does not see any need for a public inquiry into the corporate activities of Falconbridge. Is Falconbridge's attitude towards a public inquiry the Premier's?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not know Mr. McBride. This question was raised a week or so ago by the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel). I am meeting tomorrow, I believe it is, with Mr. James from Falconbridge. I will be making my own determinations about what his plans are.

Mr. Gordon: What concerns the people of Sudbury and the people of Ontario is not Mr. James's plans, but the plans of the government and the Premier of Ontario to speak up for the people of the Sudbury region.

It is believed by the union that in past years the company has purchased Soviet or Cuban nickel on the London Metals Exchange. There are questions about their activities with regard to the purchase of Kidd Creek and how that affects the layoffs in Sudbury. It is believed the purchases made on the London Metals Exchange were made on the backs of the workers in Sudbury.

If the Premier is not going to have a public investigation or inquiry into the activities of Falconbridge, is he prepared to tell this House that Falconbridge is not buying Soviet or Cuban nickel on the London Metals Exchange?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Not at all. It is my understanding that they did buy some nickel on the London Metals Exchange. I do not know all the facts, but my understanding is that there was some sort of rational explanation in the sense that it was to meet a short-term demand situation. I am under the impression that it is not ongoing, but I could be mistaken.

Obviously, those are questions to which I will be trying to get an answer. If it is my honourable friend's suggestion that we have a public inquiry into Falconbridge, then let him stand up and say so. If that is his position --

Mr. Gordon: What does the Premier think I said? I just said that.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member did not say that. He asked what we were going to do. I am telling him that I am obviously concerned about the viability and the plans of Falconbridge, as I am about Inco and many other companies in northern Ontario at present. I am very concerned about the prospects. As I said, I will be having a conversation tomorrow, and I will see what the situation is.

Mr. Gordon: That is a very narrow position. I am very surprised. I thought --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Sudbury has already asked his question, and now it is time for the member for Bellwoods.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. McClellan: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions with respect to the leak two leaks ago from the ministry to the Toronto Star. Two leaks ago was Saturday. The story says the Ontario government will introduce legislation establishing private pension inflation protection at the level of 60 per cent of the cost of living, the consumer price index. Is that leak as false as all the other leaks, or is it true that the cabinet was sufficiently bird-brained to approve a policy that will allow 40 cents on the dollar of pension contributions to be eaten away by the ravages of inflation?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The members of the third party are constantly referring to the Toronto Star as the source of their information. If they want to govern their responses on that basis, that is their business. As far as I am concerned, when I introduce legislation or make statements in the House, the members will have an opportunity then to question me on those policies. It is counterproductive to get into a debate about things that appear in the newspaper.

Mr. McClellan: I assume the answer was the first one, that it was as false as all the others and that the minister, in his condescending way, refuses to discuss the consequences of his actions.

Is the minister aware that as a result of the leak, Abitibi-Price has broken off negotiations with the Canadian Paperworkers Union? He will be aware that these are industry trend-setting negotiations. Abitibi-Price has broken off negotiations on the grounds that it will not proceed to negotiate pension benefits until the minister clarifies his statement on his intention to bring in inflation protection at a level of 60 per cent. Maybe now he will answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The statement the member refers to was not my statement. It was a statement in the paper of someone's interpretation of what he thought we might do, and that is nothing I can respond to.

RENTAL HOUSING LOAN

Mr. Gillies: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. It is the same question I asked the minister three days ago. The minister knows he and the province have the responsibility for enforcement of the Building Code Act. A large apartment complex under construction on the waterfront in this city does not have the benefit of a building permit. Will the minister live up to his responsibility and either ensure that an investigation is undertaken or ensure that a building permit is issued on the Huang and Danczkay project at 350 Queen's Quay?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I have asked my staff to monitor the situation very closely. When I have a report on the matter, I will report to the honourable member.

Mr. Gillies: I am very pleased the minister has a report, but we checked just before question period: construction is continuing; the project still does not have a building permit; the building commissioner is furious.

I remind the minister that when a couple of island home owners wanted to do repairs on their houses without building permits, a stop-work order was issued and the buildings were ordered demolished. How can the minister have us believe this Huang and Danczkay project is not receiving special treatment when clearly the Building Code Act is not being applied equally in that case as it is in every other case?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I was informed last night that the city had issued a stop-work order on the project. As I said, as soon as I get a detailed report of what is going on, I will let the House know.

The member stands in the House each day and makes sweeping allegations implying that there is interference and that some illegal things are going on. I would like the member to stand up and give concrete evidence of what he is trying to indicate.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I ask the members to control themselves. I know they get a little heated at times, but it is time to calm down and let the member for Essex North (Mr. Hayes) ask a question.

DETROIT INCINERATOR

Mr. Hayes: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. The Ministry of the Environment has been aware of the proposed garbage incinerator in the city of Detroit since September 1984. No doubt the minister was aware that construction would start in May 1986. Why did the minister wait until April 1986 before raising concerns on this issue with the representatives from the state of Michigan?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I read somewhere in the paper that apparently there was some reference to this back in 1982, which is four years ago. I know this member is asking basically the same question or making an assertion that a member of Parliament has made in the federal House or elsewhere.

What is important, because the actual hearings and the actual proceeding with the incinerator, final approvals and so on took place relatively recently, is that when it was clear they were moving in that direction, I indicated the opposition of Ontario in very strong fashion.

14:40

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The minister botched it, just as the previous government did.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: That is not true. The member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) can wax eloquent on this, but he is simply inaccurate in what he is saying.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Riverside was not asking the question.

Mrs. Grier: The facts are very clear. On September 24, 1984, the ministry -- and it was not his ministry then -- received a letter informing it of a public hearing into this incinerator. There was no response.

Despite the fact that this minister took office in 1985, it was not until April 1986 that concerns were raised. Does the minister not agree it is shocking that the city of Detroit has to hear of Ontario's concerns only by way of the media? Now that its delay has obviated all opportunities of legal redress, why has the Ministry of the Environment of Ontario not directly approached the city of Detroit, the builder of the incinerator, and asked for scrubbers?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: First, I cannot answer the question of what happened previous to when I was the minister. That is the way it was then; I cannot answer that. The member will have to ask the former minister.

In regard to the present circumstances and how they developed, it would be inaccurate for anyone to suggest this government has not indicated the province's position in very clear terms to our counterpart, the state of Michigan, which has certain regulatory authority over this incinerator. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) has drawn it to the attention of the Governor of Michigan on many occasions. As the Minister of the Environment, through my office, I have drawn it to the Governor's attention and that of the natural resources department.

We have indicated clearly that we are prepared to intervene in the most effective way in the courts if that is necessary. To go back in history to determine whether that would have had an influence is interesting speculation, but the state of Michigan, the US Environmental Protection Agency and the city of Detroit all know the position of this province.

With the continued persistence of this government and the assistance of the federal government, which is on side with us in this regard, along with the people in the Windsor and Essex area, I am confident we will have the impact that is going to be necessary. The best available technology should be applied; that has been my position consistently.

MINORITY-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Mr. Davis: I have a question for the Minister of Education, who is aware that the Prescott and Russell County Board of Education is electing an English-language education council -- for his information, it is ELEC -- under Bill 75 this fall. The board wanted to hold elections through three regional general meetings to ensure appropriate representation from all areas of the county. However, it was told it could have only one general meeting to elect the members.

Will the minister please explain to me the rationale for telling the board it can have only one general meeting rather than three regional meetings?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am happy to be distracted from my reading about the last days of the ancien régime. That government was really ready for a change. If the member has not bought it, it is worth it, if only for the first half, which deals with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) having had a furniture fetish while he was a minister as well as when he became Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker: This is not the appropriate time to try to sell books.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I did not realize the Leader of the Opposition worried so much about the leather chairs in the cabinet office.

Miss Stephenson: Shall we start talking about the minister's fetishes?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I have aroused the interest of the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson), about whom there is much --

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

Mr. Davis: It is interesting to know that the Minister of Education, like his colleagues whom he sent across this province to explain Bill 75, is unable to answer a simple question. Perhaps he might like to try the supplementary.

Why would the minister not allow the Prescott and Russell county board to have many regional meetings when he has given permission to his own board, the Renfrew County Board of Education, to have more than one general meeting in its area?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I warn the member that some of these people say Bill Davis was the fall for the last gang; let the member not be the fall for the next time.

Those elections are taking place because this government, under the leadership of this Premier (Mr. Peterson) and on the part of this Legislature, has made a commitment to minority-language education that is going to give francophones in Ontario and anglophones in communities such as Prescott and Russell the right to have control over their own schools.

We have set before the people of Ontario various opportunities to meet the requirements, and I am pleased to report those elections are taking place with, by and large, much enthusiasm and very considerable effect, despite the naysaying of the honourable member.

OBSTETRICAL SERVICES

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Health. I would like to read two paragraphs of a letter from Dr. Elliott Lyons, an obstetrician, to his patients:

"The fee for uninsured services for obstetrical care is $500. You can choose to pay this fee in advance or in instalments of $100 after 16 weeks, $200 after 32 weeks and $200 after delivery. You can choose to pay for uninsured services as they occur. These services include: a fee of $10 per visit; a fee of $15 per page for each form or letter; $15 for a phone call reordering prescriptions; a fee of $30 for 10 minutes or part thereof for telephone counselling; a standby fee of $100 for first trimester, $200 for second trimester and $200 for a third trimester."

Does the Ontario health insurance plan pay for any of this service?

Hon. Mr. Elston: We had extended discussions yesterday with the members of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. There is a concern with respect to people asking for payments in advance of delivery of service. I would like to receive a copy of that letter and advance it to the members of the college, so we can investigate further what is inappropriate in that.

I have some concern, for instance, when I hear of physicians charging for standby before services are delivered. In fact, on a logical basis, if a physician were to take on a patient who was expecting a child, one would expect to have insured services include the availability of the physician to deliver that child.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Dr. Dixon, the registrar of the college, is quoted in today's paper as saying they cannot do very much until the Minister of Health clarifies this matter. When is the minister going to clarify this problem, and when is he going to eliminate the practice?

Hon. Mr. Elston: It is fair to say that Dr. Dixon has indicated he would like the rules surrounding the operation of OHIP to be clarified, and I do not disagree with the registrar of the college. If people look at the history of the OHIP system, they will realize we have adopted a fee guide that has focused more attention on the money side of it than on defining what services are delivered.

I certainly take interest in Dr. Dixon's suggestions; in fact, he made them to me yesterday in the meeting. Not only is Dr. Dixon interested in a better definition of what is provided as services; so am I and so, I understand, are the members of the medical association of this province.

USE OF LOTTERY FUNDS

Mr. Mitchell: I have a question for the Premier. I am sure he is well aware of the great concern he has raised in the province, particularly among most sporting groups, as to the intent of Bill 38. They see the commitment of this government being tremendously reduced. A program that was well founded is going to be irreparably damaged. In an attempt to override the fear that exists out there, the Premier said in reply to one of the constituent groups: "Please be assured that this change does not reflect any lessening of the government's commitment to recreational and cultural activities. Thank you for writing. This government will continue to support the cultural and recreational life of the province in a way which fully recognizes their major role and contribution." Does the Premier stand by those comments?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I stand by every nice comment the honourable member made just now.

Mr. Mitchell: I find it very strange that the Premier can say he stands by that when the premier figure skating event is being held in Ottawa-Carleton in February 1987 and the Premier and his government have offered the Canadian Figure Skating Association the munificent sum of $5,000 to assist it. Is he planning on assisting them more?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I want the member to know I am always happy to assist him with his constituency problems. I am not familiar with the request, with how much it is for or with what is involved in the situation. I will discuss it with the minister, who is sensitive to all these requests.

My friend is somewhat exercised about a bill the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) has brought in to regularize some transactions that have gone on for some time. As the member knows, it was his government that froze the capital grants and that played grants to cultural and sporting activities like a violin. It would turn them down between elections and turn them up at election time and pay for the province with a cheque.

This government has done more to support culture and recreation and the arts. If my friend does not believe me, he should go and ask the communities that are seeing a new responsiveness by this government in support of an extremely important part of this great province.

SUNDAY RACING

Ms. Bryden: My question is for the popular minister today, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. On Monday the minister told me that when the Ontario Racing Commission made its decision on Sunday racing at Greenwood, he would be prepared to play a role if the decision did not resolve the residents' problems of inadequate public input and no consideration for the impact on the community.

Since the decision has come down and is in favour of Sunday racing, but completely ignores these two problems, in the interests of fairness and open government, will the minister immediately bring in amendments to the Racing Commission Act to guarantee to residents their democratic right to have their concerns considered before any approval of Sunday racing for Greenwood can be implemented?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member will know the matter is before the courts. The residents have gone to court, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that specific aspect of it. What I should point out is that the residents had an opportunity to be heard by the racing commission. The racing commission allowed them to come in and was prepared to accommodate them. What had happened was that there was a question as to whether the racing commission had jurisdiction, not to hear the residents -- it was prepared to do that -- but to hear the matter they were bringing up and which is now being determined in the courts.

Ms. Bryden: Is the minister aware that in the explanatory notes to its decision the Ontario Racing Commission justifies Sunday racing at Greenwood because it is "overwhelmingly in the best interests of the Ontario racing industry and its 46,000 employees"? Because this statement clearly demonstrates that the present commission is interested only in the welfare of the industry and not in the welfare of the residents, will the minister also amend the Racing Commission Act to replace the present one-sided Ontario Racing Commission with a more representative body to ensure that residents' concerns will have equal consideration?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: If I may, I will give an analysis. If the Stanley Cup playoffs were being held at Maple Leaf Gardens in Toronto and there was a problem outside with the street, the traffic, the parking and the noise, we would not go to the National Hockey League and ask it to resolve the problem. If we had a problem at Exhibition Stadium because there was a championship game with the Blue Jays, we would not go to the American League to resolve the problem.

The people who run the racing commission are involved with racing. The people who have jurisdiction over the traffic, the streets and the noise are the municipal politicians.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: I would like to advise all members that there is a gentleman leaving the gallery, Murray Gaunt, who is a former member for Huron-Bruce. Please welcome him.

PETITIONS

DRUG PRICING

Ms. Gigantes: I would like to place on the record of the Legislature a petition that has been addressed to the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) from the committee on social responsibility of the First Unitarian Congregation of Ottawa. It concerns the health of the elderly. The petition reads:

"We, the undersigned, object to the proposed changes in the Patent Act relating to the compulsory licensing of new medicines, which would result in unnecessary increased costs for medicine for health care of the elderly. This load would be thrown upon national and provincial treasuries, private drug insurance plans and private, uninsured individuals if all new medicines are permitted exclusive marketing privileges for the lengthy periods of time suggested in the proposed legislation without the possibility of the early licensing of generic, more reasonably priced versions.

"These extra costs will fall not only on Canadian taxpayers as a whole but will be unevenly distributed over family groups, hitting in particular those afflicted with a disease requiring extensive new drugs, often for the treatment of terminal illness, for example, new chemotherapeutic agents for cancer or acquired immune deficiency syndrome."

This petition is signed by 31 members of the committee.

SUNDAY RACING

Ms. Bryden: I have a petition opposing Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track. It is signed by 98 persons from the Toronto Mennonite United Church.

Mr. Speaker: There are a number of members having private conversations. It is impossible to hear what is being said. I remind the members again that a number are having private conversations; I wish they would refrain.

Ms. Bryden: The petition I am presenting is signed by 98 persons from the Toronto Mennonite United Church, which is opposite Greenwood Race Track on Queen Street East. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario: "We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the Ontario Racing Commission in its hearing into the Ontario Jockey Club application for Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track has ruled that it does not have the jurisdiction to hear the concerns of residents surrounding the aforesaid racetrack;

"And whereas many residents have shown their concern with the impact of Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track on their neighbourhood and have indicated their wish to voice that concern;

"We petition that the government amend the Racing Commission Act to ensure that the rights and concerns of residents in the neighbourhood of the racetrack and in the surrounding community be considered and protected by the Ontario Racing Commission in setting racing dates, times and schedules;

"Further, that the legislation provides that the long tradition of no Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track be maintained." I support this petition.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr. D. R. Cooke from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs presented the committee's interim report as follows:

On July 10, 1986, the standing committee on finance and economic affairs was given its terms of reference by the House, which included the mandate to consider the issue of corporate concentration and takeover activity as it relates to Ontario and to report its recommendations for an appropriate Ontario response to the Legislature by October 31, 1986.

The committee has decided that, given its broad mandate, it would begin by looking at the question of concentration in the financial services sector. To date, the committee has had approximately four weeks of hearings, has heard from numerous witnesses, both from the public and private sectors, and has reviewed the material presented.

The committee has not had sufficient time to hear from all the concerned groups, institutions and individuals who have expressed a desire to appear before us and requires further study of numerous problems and questions related to concentration in the financial services sector, including the following: (1) ownership restrictions for deposit-taking institutions; (2) integration of the "four pillars" of the financial services; (3) solvency of financial institutions; (4) self-dealing; (5) conflicts of interest; (6) recruitment, appointment and role of directors; (7) industrial-financial commingling; (8) reform of financial services legislation; and (9) Ontario Loan and Trust Corporations Act.

The standing committee on finance and economic affairs is not prepared to make definitive recommendations at this early stage. The committee feels that concentration in the financial services industry is a very important matter that requires additional time. We wish to ensure a comprehensive review of the subject that will satisfy the Legislature, the Treasurer, who initially suggested the committee's terms of reference, and the committee itself.

The committee will be requesting permission to sit in the intersessional period to accommodate further hearings in order that the committee may present its report to the House by early spring of 1987.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Scott moved that the order of precedence for private members' public business be amended as follows: ballot item 29, Mr. Mackenzie in place of ballot item 71, Mr. Ramsay.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSES TO PETITIONS

Hon. Mr. Scott: I wish to table the answer to questions 299, 339, 374, 381, the interim answers to questions 396, 399 and 400, the response to petition presented to the House, sessional paper 183, the interim response to petition presented to the House, sessional paper 177, in Orders and Notices [see Hansard for Monday, November 3].

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the members can discuss that at a later time.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LEGAL AID AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Scott moved second reading of Bill 107, An Act to amend the Legal Aid Act.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any opening remarks?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Briefly. When I introduced this bill some time ago, I indicated to the House that its importance was a reflection of the fact that people who cannot afford the services of a lawyer, whether they are involved in a civil or family matter or in a criminal matter, have recourse to the Ontario legal aid plan to protect the rights the law gives to all of us, regardless of our economic circumstances. I made the point that if the plan does not provide full, effective and meaningful access to legal aid services, a substantial and important segment of our population is denied its fundamental and basic rights.

For years, as all honourable members know and as at least the members represented in the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party know and admit, the legal aid plan has been chronically underfunded. That situation has existed for almost a decade.

The report of a fact-finder appointed by the previous administration, led by the now Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman), demonstrated in 1985, when the report was made, fees paid to lawyers under the plan were in constant dollars less than half the level established when the plan started in 1967.

Not surprisingly in those circumstances, even lawyers dedicated to the operation of the plan, as most of them were, were forced to desert the plan and freedom of choice of counsel became seriously eroded. Some persons, particularly those in shelters for battered women and persons who were, for one reason or another, difficult to serve, were finding it extraordinarily difficult to obtain needed legal services, which are of course the promise of this plan.

From the very moment we assumed office, I made the resolution of this long-standing dispute between the plan and the government of Ontario one of our highest priorities. In December I announced an interim 20 per cent increase in the tariff. This legislation completes the first part of the interim report's requirement to fund the plan fully and appropriately.

The change the bill proposes is a significant one for a number of reasons. Primarily, it represents our part of an agreement with the Law Society of Upper Canada, pursuant to which, for the first time in its history, the legal profession as a whole will begin to contribute to the cost of the legal aid plan itself.

Under the legislation as it now stands, lawyers who actually provide legal aid services are required to reduce their legal fees by 25 per cent as a professional contribution to legal aid. No financial contribution is made by the substantial majority of the profession, which is either unable to provide, or chooses not to provide, legal aid services.

After considerable discussion with the law society, it has now been established and agreed between the government and the society that the profession as a whole has an obligation to contribute to the cost of legal aid in Ontario. Under the arrangement I have negotiated with the society, the profession as a whole will undertake the responsibility of paying 50 per cent of the administrative costs of the plan, after the deduction of clinic costs.

The obligation will be phased in during the next short period. This is an important recognition by a distinguished profession that it has a financial as well as a moral obligation to support the provision of legal services to all our people in whatever economic circumstance they find themselves. It is an appropriate time to congratulate the law society, which discussed these matters with me and effectively achieved this important and signal agreement, and to congratulate above all the members of the bar who are actually making the financial contribution towards a proportion of the cost of this plan.

I am proud to say it is a model of the co-operation that can exist between a government and a profession in meeting the real and important needs of our less fortunate citizens.

Mr. O'Connor: I welcome this opportunity to provide a few comments in respect of Bill 107, An Act to amend the Legal Aid Act. Very briefly, I noted the remarks of the Attorney General a few minutes ago, wherein he very well and very succinctly set out the problem that has been the increasing and exacerbating difficulty within the legal aid plan over the past six, seven or eight years. That problem is the continual falling behind inflation of the payments under the plan to participating lawyers, which has resulted in many lawyers abandoning the plan, as the Attorney General noted. The number available to serve the public has decreased.

15:10

Not only has the number decreased but, perhaps more important, the relative experience and the quality of those participating have decreased. With the payments decreasing in that period, more and more experienced lawyers have dropped out, leaving the burden of carrying the plan to younger lawyers who might have no alternative but to take on legal aid that was available, not only for the experience but also because they needed the money, as little as it was.

Mr. Martel: They wanted to eat.

Mr. O'Connor: They wanted to eat, as my friend the member for Sudbury East says.

As the Attorney General has pointed out, the legal aid plan properly administered is a necessary social tool in a western democracy. The plan is now established in most states in the United States and in all provinces of Canada, and it plays a very valuable role in the delivery of legal services to the general public. In Ontario, the plan is administered by the Law Society of Upper Canada, our governing body of lawyers, and it provides legal advice and assistance in an array of legal matters for those who are unable to afford such services on their own.

Legal aid assistance is provided by four categories of lawyers in Ontario, the first group being private lawyers who accept legal aid certificates on a fee-for-service basis. They are the ones I just mentioned who have been decreasing in number rapidly over the past several years.

The second category is duty counsel, a group of lawyers provided to staff the criminal and family court systems in the province. They are there on a daily basis and are available for consultation, advice and representation in court on simple matters, such as adjournments and pleas of guilty in the criminal court system.

For any person who happens to be before the court on any particular day, there is usually no or very little prior consultation between the lawyer and the duty counsel at the time of dealing with the matter. However, that system has largely worked very well, they say, in circumstances of simple cases that can be easily grasped, the facts of which are simple to absorb in a very short period of time, or simply in assisting with adjournments or other routine proceedings before the lower court systems.

The third category of legal aid services has been provided by community legal clinics staffed by full-time lawyers and, on an increasing basis, by paralegal staff; that is, nonlawyers who are trained and supervised by lawyers in the legal aid clinics. We are fortunate in Ontario to have available to our citizens some 53 community legal clinics across the province. This system was developed originally by and was a pet project of a former Attorney General, the Hon. Roy McMurtry. He was keenly interested in this aspect of the delivery system of legal aid, and he saw to it that the legal aid clinic system was nourished and prospered across Ontario.

Within the legal aid clinic system are special clinics that provide services to specific segments of our society, such as natives in some of the northern areas. These clinics deal with a wide range of programs and problems from workers' compensation through unemployment insurance, welfare, pensions, immigration, employment rights, etc. Landlord and tenant matters are a particularly large segment of their work load, especially in the larger cities and in the Toronto area.

The fourth category of lawyers and paralegals who deliver services to the people of Ontario under the legal aid plan is the student legal aid societies, of which there are six across the province associated with universities. They provide legal services and advice through students who are in the law classes at a particular university and generally under the supervision of faculty with that law school.

The system works; it does what it was intended to do initially, which is to provide a quality legal service, generally by and from the private bar in Ontario but through funding and payment by the government. That is, public funds are the source of funding, coupled with -- and this has been a primary principle of the legal aid plan -- a contribution from the lawyers participating in the plan. That is particularly noteworthy in that it is a concept or principle that the Attorney General, through the amendments he has placed before the House under Bill 107, proposes substantially to alter or amend.

Those amendments, about which I will speak more later, are ones I have considerable concerns and reservations about, as do a significant number of lawyers around this province who have seen fit to contact me individually and through their local bar association. I am of course speaking of the individual levy that is being assessed on all lawyers around the province, regardless of whether they are participants in the legal aid plan and regardless of whether they are even practising law in Ontario. I suggest, and I will argue, that there is a basic unfairness in that kind of approach to taxation.

I will go back to a general description of the legal aid plan for a few moments, because the Attorney General, who is in his seat, is listening intently to every word I say -- perhaps he is hanging over the back of his chair, but he is literally hanging on every word I say -- since this is very instructional for him, I am sure, as it is for the people of Ontario, to whom we are all speaking when we stand in our places in this House.

Who can get legal aid? Any resident of Ontario can apply for legal aid through the Ontario legal aid plan. Of course, there are requirements to complete financial information forms to determine one's eligibility. The rules and regulations in that regard are quite generous, I suggest, to the point that virtually no citizen of this province needs to go without legal services.

Services may be obtained through the legal aid plan in one of the four methods of distributing its services, as I have just described. Alternatively, if someone is turned down, it is inevitably for one of two reasons. First, one can be turned down if the matter being dealt with is of such insignificance, or of less significance, that a lawyer is really not required, or the consequences of attending in court or the consequences of a failure with regard to the matter being dealt with are insignificant or inconsequential.

The second reason one is turned down, of course, is that it is assessed that the person is well able financially to afford the services of a lawyer and therefore need not avail himself of the public purse.

As I said previously, the act has largely performed the service for which it was intended over the past decade or so, in that in Ontario it annually assists about 460,000 people -- at least that was the figure during the past fiscal year -- which is a considerable, significant increase over the years since its inception in 1967, when it assisted fewer than 50,000 people in its first year. Thus, the plan has caught on; it has worked to the great benefit of many of our citizens.

Similarly, the funding of the plan has increased quite dramatically over the years. As I recall, in 1967, the original funding was set at approximately $11 million. Last year, the cost of running the plan was nearly $70 million. The vast majority of that comes from the Ontario government; it funds the plan, which is operated through the Law Society of Upper Canada.

15:20

It is also funded in part by the Law Foundation of Ontario and, unfortunately to a very small extent, by those who are assessed as being marginal in terms of their ability to pay. There is a category of citizens who may be entitled to a certificate but, because they have some ability to contribute towards their own legal services, will be required, over a period of time following the conclusion of the services provided, to pay back the plan some or all of the cost that was paid to their Lawyer on their behalf. I will have more remarks and recommendations to make in that regard, but unfortunately that amount is very small. Approximately two to three per cent of the total cost of funding the plan comes from contributions of those who are assisted. With some amendments and revamping of the plan, that amount could be increased significantly.

That is a general overview of how the plan operates and who is assisted. As my learned friend -- I may still call him learned, because he still holds his QC, in that the title has not been abolished in Ontario. Contrary to the opinion of a number of people out there who have erroneously determined that was a step taken by the government some time in the past, we all know that is simply not correct. That is another example of this government governing. It is wont to make announcements in numbers of areas and lead people to assume that when an announcement has been made some kind of law has been passed. That is not the case. You, Mr. Speaker, myself and the Attorney General are all still Her Majesty's counsel, and we are proud to be so.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Not for long.

Mr. O'Connor: "Not for long," the Attorney General says. We will see about that.

As my friend indicated in his remarks, the amount paid to lawyers participating in the plan has decreased radically over the past years in terms of constant dollars to the point where, prior to the suggested increases being implemented, I understand we were down to about 47 per cent of what a client of average means would be billed by a lawyer he had retained privately. The legal aid plan was paying less than half the going rate, and in those circumstances there was a requirement to bring about pretty substantive changes in the plan to redress that difficulty, which all lawyers were facing.

It is not necessary to advocate the holding of a tag day for lawyers generally, but nevertheless this is, for the sake of the viability of the plan and for the sake of the public, because the plan will not work if lawyers will not participate, and they will not participate if there is not sufficient funding to induce them to do so.

However, I commend the Attorney General for the work involved in the negotiations and for bringing about an agreement with the law society in terms of the amount of increases. Over the staged period that is anticipated, the increases will be approximately 55 per cent over what had been the previous payout levels. That is substantial, it is significant and it is quite to the satisfaction of most of the participating lawyers in the legal aid plan.

Notwithstanding the fact-finder's report that increases should be in the neighbourhood of 111 per cent, I think most lawyers around the province will agree that a 55 per cent increase in several stages is quite adequate and that they are therefore prepared to recommence being involved in the plan, coming back into the plan and providing their services as they had in the past but had dropped out.

In that regard, I can state -- I hope without indicating any kind of conflict in this regard -- that I had been an active participant in the legal aid plan for some eight or nine years, until approximately three years ago, when I found I was unable to provide services because the amount of contributions by the government was simply not sufficient to cover even the cost of overhead in my office.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am not practising law. Is the member practising law, earning money on this bill that will increase his profits?

Mr. O'Connor: No. I am not. The Attorney General well knows that. How many legal aid cases did the Attorney General take in the several years prior to his being elected to office? Not very many, I will bet.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I have stopped practising. Is the member going to take money from this bill?

Mr. O'Connor: No. I am not. I stopped practising general law. The Attorney General well knows that.

Hon. Mr. Scott: He has stopped practising private law?

Mr. O'Connor: Yes. I have.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Then maybe he can come to the committee meetings from now on.

Mr. O'Connor: For the sake of the tapes and the cameras that cannot pick up the remarks being thrown across the floor, the Attorney General is indicating that I have not attended the standing committee on administration of justice recently. That is correct.

I was asked if I would substitute myself to our critic on Bill 105, the pay equity bill. The member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) is replacing me there. I will be glad to resume my seat on the committee as soon as and when we get to our senses and schedule hearings for Bill 42, which is the next order of business. Bill 42 is An Act to regulate the Activities of Paralegal Agents, which is the next order of business for the justice committee. I will be happy to return to that forum.

As I said, I congratulate the Attorney General for the level of increases he has been able to negotiate with the Law Society of Upper Canada. However, as I indicated previously, one area of serious concern I have is with regard to the proposal to assess each and every lawyer in this province a sum, set at $175 this year initially, as a contribution towards the 50 per cent cost of operating the plan by the law society.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Which section is that?

Mr. O'Connor: The Attorney General asked me which section that is. It is not a section that is in the bill, but it is an element of the agreement with the Law Society of Upper Canada, the key element to that agreement. He would never have obtained agreement on any of the other concepts that are in the bill -- that is, a five per cent contribution by every lawyer involved in providing services and the fee increases of 55 per cent -- if it were not for the inclusion of the $175 assessment by the law society.

That approach is wrong philosophically. It is a bad precedent for this government to be setting in that what it is doing is levying a special tax on a small segment of citizens in this province to assist with the funding and operation of a general government program.

I defy the Attorney General to show us another program of the Ontario government where the same type of approach has been taken. He cannot point to a situation where a small group of taxpayers is being levied and assessed above and over all the rest of us for general government programs. Do we ask the social workers in this province to pay a special tax to fund the day care system? No. We do not.

We cannot even make a parallel with the medical system whereby the doctors will argue that they receive only 90 per cent of the OMA fee schedule in that every doctor is involved in the Ontario health insurance plan.

Here we have a situation where we have 16,000 lawyers in this province, each and every one of whom, whether or not he is practising law and whether or not he uses the legal aid plan, is being assessed and levied a special tax. That is wrong. It is a bad precedent which, if allowed to go unchecked, can be used as a precedent and expanded to other areas of concern and other ministries of this government. The minister should think seriously about that concept and about going ahead with it at this time.

15:30

Mr. Martel: That concept is make the rich pay, is it not?

Mr. O'Connor: I know the minister in reply, argument and answer to that charge I have just made will argue as he has in the past. I want to read from something he said in a speech to the Queen's University Law School in September 1985, when dealing with this very argument.

He said: "I read the Ottawa Citizen editorial attacking this proposal" -- meaning the $175 levy -- "and frankly the editorial amazes me. It said that since doctors do not have to make a contribution to medicare, the legal profession should not be responsible for contributing to legal aid.

"The fallacy in that argument is, of course, the fact that it overlooks the extraordinary degree of autonomy that the legal profession enjoys, certainly in comparison to the medical profession."

From that, I take it the reason the Attorney General is using for levying a special assessment against lawyers is that they enjoy "an extraordinary degree of autonomy" not enjoyed --

Hon. Mr. Scott: Why does the member not read the rest of the speech?

Mr. O'Connor: The minister asks me why I do not read the rest of it. I have read the whole speech. This is the only area where he discusses and defends the $175 levy.

That is a remarkable statement. It is a remarkable defence of the use of this kind of levy. Is he suggesting that lawyers must pay for their autonomy, that if they do not pay this $175, they are not entitled to their autonomy as a profession? What kind of proposition is that? Is it that in Ontario, if one wishes to be free of the restraints or constraints of the government, one is going to have to pay it some kind of fee or levy; otherwise, one will not be free to practise law in the manner in which we have been taught in law schools and have been disciplined by the Law Society of Upper Canada?

In other words, the Attorney General is asking us to buy our freedom from the government. If we pay our $175, we will be free to run the legal aid plan as we see fit. If we do not pay the $175 -- and more in subsequent years -- we are going to lose our autonomy, as have the doctors, as the government has done with Bill 94 to the final degree with the doctors just recently. Is that the proposition? Is that the argument for levying a tax against an individual group of citizens in this province?

I hope the Attorney General in his reply to us will come up with a better argument for the levy than that. It is a bad precedent and should be eliminated from the concept.

The Attorney General made much in his remarks of the fact that he was able to reach an agreement with the law society. He commends the law society for co-operation and the way in which they reached that agreement, including the $175 levy. That may have been so at the time. I was not party to the negotiations and very few people were. I wonder how much of a lever, how much of a threat was made for them to reach agreement with respect to their autonomy.

The real motives of the Attorney General are expressed again in that speech, where he says their autonomy is at stake. If one does not agree, then one is in trouble in that regard. Was that agreement reached as easily as he indicates to us now and as he indicated in his statements when this bill was first introduced?

Although the law society might ultimately have reached agreement in these matters with the Attorney General, the lawyers in general, the guys out there who provide the services and work in the towns, cities and counties of this province, are not at all happy and do not agree with the levy of $175. I have received a considerable volume of mail, not only from individual lawyers, but from their representative groups and organizations, their bar associations from around the province. I will not take the time to read much of that.

However, I do want to read from one letter I received. It is from the County of York Law Association, which the Attorney General recognizes as the largest in the province, representing in excess of 4,000 members -- I believe there are 4,500 lawyers now. They write quite strongly on this point. The letter is dated October 6, 1986, and is signed by Brian Brock, who is the chairman of the legal aid committee.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Will the honourable member table the letter?

Mr. O'Connor: I will be glad to when I finish reading it. May I read it first? He says in part:

"I should tell you at the outset that this association opposed the law society's levy on individual practitioners and wrote to the Treasurer accordingly. It did not make sense to us that those who provide a community service should be singled out to pay a substantial portion of its costs. We did agree that members of the profession should continue to provide the contribution that had been made over the years, but not in this form. As a result of the agreement between the government and the law society, this is probably old history."

The reference to the contribution that had been made over the years was, of course, to the contribution made by the individual practitioner who was involved in the plan and who agreed to waive some 25 per cent of his fee on each bill. It is, I suggest, something about which there was not a lot of argument. In my circle of legal friends, there was never much discussion that this was unfair. The discussion always revolved around the level of payment. Of course, one always knew one would get 25 per cent off, but 75 per cent of a very small amount was just not satisfactory.

I think lawyers involved in the plan did not particularly object to that kind of concept. They recognized that there were some distinct advantages to the public in the delivery of services, but that there were also some distinct advantages to the legal profession. In terms of accounts receivable and payment, it was regular, assured -- that sort of thing -- and the requirement for a contribution was not a big problem or a big hangup. However, it now appears that the revamped way of going about things certainly is. I would be glad to provide my friend the Attorney General with a copy of that letter in due course.

As I say, I have received a number of letters and briefs from around the province in that regard. I would like to refer to something to which I made reference before, and that is the historically very low contribution of legal aid applicants towards the cost of the operation of the plan. I was particularly impressed and taken by a brief prepared and provided to me by the Canadian Bar Association -- Ontario, entitled, Access to Justice: An Inquiry into Legal Aid in Ontario, which it has sent me. I am sure the Attorney General has received a copy of it in the past month or so and has perhaps had a chance to peruse it.

They make the case, and I think they make it very well, for a system whereby a greater contribution would be made by those who are assisted by the plan. I will read briefly from the report:

"We recommend a periodic review of an applicant's financial situation to determine whether repayment of legal aid costs is possible; i.e., a repayment schedule appropriate to ability to pay should begin when a person is able to repay all or part of legal aid costs. Interest charges should only begin at the time that the repayment obligation begins. The repayment schedule may be modified when circumstances warrant." That is the key phrase within this report. "The obligation should be forgiven if there is still no ability to repay 10 years after the legal aid account is settled.

"Repayment requirement compares to student loan assistance repayment requirement, except that students must repay costs irrespective of financial ability. We do not believe that a change to a repay-if-you-can philosophy will discourage those with a real need for legal aid from applying. It places legal aid clients more on a par with paying clients in deciding whether to proceed with a legal matter. As well, litigation assisted by legal aid is less likely to be unreasonably prolonged by a client with a noncontributory certificate if the associated costs may eventually have to be repaid to the plan. It also places legal aid clients more on a par with those other legal aid clients who are required to pay legal aid costs right from the outset."

The point being made is that under the present system an assessment is made of an applicant at a single point in time. When he first applies for a legal aid certificate, his financial ability to pay is assessed, and thereafter not again. He is either awarded a certificate or not, or awarded a certificate whereby he must repay a part of it at that one time. There is no provision for ongoing assessment or any further assessment at other points to determine whether the ability to pay may have changed in the interim. Quite frankly, many of the applicants to legal aid are about to go into litigation which may materially affect their financial circumstances.

15:40

Granted, the majority of legal aid applicants are with respect to criminal matters and they would not likely be acquiring any funding out of their involvement in a criminal charge before the courts; but somebody who was represented in a matrimonial matter, for instance, may acquire substantial income or assets as a result of legal aid assisting him or her and the efforts of his or her lawyer.

It seems to make sense that, at that time or several regular points during the process, a further assessment should be made to see if some contribution could be made by that applicant. That recommendation by the Canadian Bar Association -- Ontario has particular merit and perhaps should be looked at quite closely by the Attorney General and his officials with a view to giving it some implementation in the future.

There is one other matter I want to refer to with regard to the legal aid bill. This has caused some concern to myself and to some lawyers who have been in communication with me. It is with regard to the manner in which the agreement that has been reached with the law society is being implemented. I use those words advisedly and would advise the House, if members are not aware, the agreement is already in effect that the $175 levy has been assessed to every lawyer in this province, over the objections of some lawyers who felt that because the plan is not yet in effect they need not be required to pay such a levy. Similarly, the increase in fees is being paid to lawyers retroactive to July 1, 1986. The bill provides for retroactivity to July 1.

The concern I have is that, notwithstanding the bill having to pass the three stages of reading in this House, so it is not yet the law; and notwithstanding the somewhat arrogant presumption of the government that it will become the law, it still is not yet the law; I wonder how the provisions of a law that has not been passed --

Hon. Mr. Scott: They have not paid a cent.

Mr. O'Connor: But they are going to pay a cent.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Only after the law is passed.

Mr. O'Connor: Then explain to me how the $175 assessment has been levied to every lawyer in this province.

Hon. Mr. Scott: That is up to the law society. It can levy its members any time it wants. I cannot stop it.

Mr. O'Connor: It is making this levy specifically -- in reply to a question from the Attorney General, who has interrupted me again -- I point out the assessment has been made by the law society specifically with reference to the new legal aid amendments. If you were to contact the law society, it would be quite prepared to tell you the Attorney General is correct. Under subsection 62(13) of the Law Society Act, the law society has a general right to levy its members whatever fees and so forth it deems appropriate from time to time. The Attorney General is quite correct in saying it is up to the law society.

However, let us face facts: it is not up to them. But for his and their agreement, and the fact he has told them this is going to go through and is going to be retroactive, "Do not worry about it, fellas," they would not be assessing this levy against lawyers. There is no other reason to be nicking us all for $175 but for the fact that they know this bill is going to go through. They are working on that assumption.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I really worry for the member. It is tough, $175 once.

Mr. O'Connor: I am not suggesting it is going to break any lawyer in this province. I am suggesting that it is setting a precedent of arrogance in this government in assuming this plan is going into effect.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The member is in a conflict of interest. He should not vote on this. He will be profiting from this bill.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There will be questions and comments after, two minutes for all members.

Mr. O'Connor: Again, there is a lot of good in this bill. It will refund the legal aid plan, which had been in dire straits. It will be of great assistance to the members of the public in this province who require legal aid services because these will be available from some of the better and more experienced lawyers.

I have expressed concerns with regard to the manner in which it is proposed to fund it. As the Attorney General points out, the proposed funding is not an element of this bill. I can tell the Attorney General, in response to his three or four questions in this regard, I will be voting for and supporting this bill, as will the other members of our party. That section is not part of the bill. I chastise the Attorney General for the fact that this was part of his agreement and was the leverage he used to get the other elements of the bill. There is not much we can do about that. I suppose we must take that issue up directly with the Law Society of Upper Canada.

I conclude my remarks with that and welcome any questions or comments other members might have.

Ms. Hart: Perhaps my colleague the member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor) has not noticed that the profession has a large number of women these days. Some of them might be a little distressed to hear the member talking about the guys practising law. I bring this to his attention because those I have spoken to, some of whom I confess are female, have said to me that $175 does not seem very much to them considering how good the profession has been to them and considering the long history of community spirit of the legal profession.

Mr. Breaugh: In the course of earlier exchanges across the floor, the Attorney General, perhaps somewhat in jest, raised what he perceived to be a conflict of interest. The member for Oakville is a lawyer and I believe now is practising part-time as a crown attorney or assistant crown attorney or in some capacity of that nature. I would like the member to address at the conclusion of these remarks whether he considers that to be a serious conflict of interest.

It has always struck me as rather odd that some of us are forced to give up our professions and attend to our duties here on a full-time basis. We are precluded from holding an outside job by the nature of the work we do. Others seem to manage something that places them at a bit of an advantage, in that they can continue their profession while we cannot. Of course, our conflict-of-interest legislation is virtually nonexistent.

I would like the member to address the very sticky problem as to whether, as a practising lawyer in some capacity, he has a conflict of interest in the passage of this legislation by speaking to it and voting on it. I would like to hear his learned comments on what I perceive to be a conflict of interest.

Mr. O'Connor: May I first comment to the member for York East (Ms. Hart) that I may have slipped in using the term "guys." If I did so, it was inadvertent. I apologize if I offended her or the women lawyers around the province in any way. I attempted on a number of occasions to use "his and her." I ran out of steam with regard to the continual reference to "his and her." I apologize if anyone was offended.

With regard to the $175, it is not the amount of money, as I think I explained. It is the precedent that is being set of taxing a small number of people with respect to a general government program. It has not been done before and sets a dangerous precedent. It may even be unconstitutional to do it in that fashion. We do not do it to any other segment or group of taxpayers in the province and I do not think we should do it here.

With regard to the remarks of the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), I suggest there is absolutely no conflict whatsoever. I do not avail myself of the legal aid plan. I do not practise private law in the province. I am the federal drug prosecutor in the judicial district of Halton for federal government statutes only. I was appointed a crown attorney for provincial purposes, but immediately upon my election I discontinued any activity whatsoever in that regard, feeling that as a critic of the Attorney General, I would have a little difficulty in being his servant on the one hand and criticizing him on the other hand. I felt there might have been a conflict there, but I have determined that my activity in that other area is quite within the rules of conflict of interest.

My friend complains that he is unable to provide services. I suggest that if he does not have any marketable skills, there is nothing I can do about that. That is simply unfortunate for him.

15:50

Ms. Gigantes: It has been an interesting little exchange with respect to matters not directly related to the bill. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will continue it for a moment.

I suggest that the mechanism our fair Attorney General has set up for the financing of the future of the legal aid society -- it was a legal aid plan, which is what we are dealing with in this legislation, Bill 107 -- is a methodology which, if we took a good close look at it, would quite conceivably put him in a conflict-of-interest situation. Let me explain my reasoning.

As we all know well, our Attorney General pursued a very well known, well-established and profitable legal practice before his election to this chamber. Were he to return to that practice at any point in the near future -- and he has said publicly that he intends staying in politics for a period of about five years, which may be too long for the public of Ontario. Leaving that aside, were he to return to practice at the same level of income from his legal practice, he would be paying only $175 as a lawyer to contribute to the legal aid plan.

I am not a lawyer, so it does not make much difference to me except in principle. While I am sure my friend the member for Oakville was a fine lawyer, I doubt he had reached the stage of eminence and pay for his services that our Attorney General had before he entered politics. That being the case, were the member for Oakville to return to law at the same level at which he left it, he would have to pay $175. Let me draw to members' attention that one gentleman, earning many times what the other gentleman earns, would be paying a lesser proportion of his income.

Therefore, for the Attorney General to be voting on this bill, if there is any question of his returning to the legal profession from which he came when he joined us here, might very well be questioned because he is proposing the mechanism. We are simply giving our advice and support, albeit reluctantly because of the nature of the mechanism he has devised; but he is the one who is putting forward this unjust mechanism.

Legal aid lawyers, such as the member for York East, may welcome this plan as an alleviation of the problems they have encountered in trying to live on legal aid work over the past several years. It will provide them some ability to continue to doing legal aid. Nevertheless, if one took a vote among the lawyers who are members of the Law Society of Upper Canada, I doubt that they would truly approve this mechanism.

That was not done. The Attorney General, with his normal and accustomed gentleness of manner, met with the leaders of the law society and cut a little deal. The deal is better than what the lawyers had before; so the lawyers are generally muted in their comments. The ones who are practising legal aid, and have over the past few years -- in diminishing numbers, as we all know -- welcome this legislation.

To move to the content of the bill, I should point out that this legislation, of which the Attorney General is so proud, sure has taken a long time to come. We had a fact-finder's report. Correct me if I am wrong -- I am sure I will be corrected -- but it seems to me that was more than a year ago. I did not look up the exact date; it is certainly close to a year in any case.

The report indicated that legal aid lawyers were getting 112 per cent less than they should be getting if their fees for legal aid were keeping up with the level of fees they were getting when the plan was first introduced and, indeed, if they were to get fees that represented fees that would be available if they were charging clients of modest means at a modest level.

All that being true, my friend the member for Oakville has to acknowledge that the way the legal aid plan has in a sense wasted away in the past several years is a mark on the record of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. I think it is near criminal, if I can put it that way in this House, that this situation was allowed to happen. It meant that people who wanted to provide service for residents of Ontario who needed service could not afford to provide that service, and that is a terrible thing.

Let us look at how the plan was financed up to and into 1985, when the Attorney General who is now presenting the bill became responsible for the legal aid plan. Most of us think of the plan as the government providing moneys to lawyers who are chosen by clients in need, but as my friend the member for Oakville has pointed out, that is only a portion of what happens through the legal aid plan of Ontario. There are also legal aid clinics and student law society clinics and their administrative costs.

Let us look at the portion of the $70 million that was spent in 1985 on the legal aid plan, clinics and all included, and separate out what would normally be thought of as the lawyers' part of that. I am talking about services of lawyers who act on legal aid certificates and about the duty counsel services that are provided to clients in courts in Ontario. Most of those services actually come from duty counsel. If we count just the number of services noted in the reports of the Law Society of Upper Canada, we get 270,000 duty counsel services provided in 1985 and 87,500 lawyers' services provided though legal aid certificates.

The cost to the plan of those two types of service was $41.2 million in a legal aid budget of $70 million. It is very important to note that last year the federal government kicked in $18 million of the cost of our legal aid plan in Ontario. Furthermore, the Law Foundation of Ontario, through interest on accounts held in trust by lawyers in Ontario and so on, provided another $7.3 million. According to the fact-finder, the lawyers providing legal aid services made a contribution through service that was worth about $46 million. If we look at all those contributions to the plan, we can almost say the plan was making a profit for the province.

That is the kind of system the Conservatives left behind and this Attorney General allowed to operate for almost a full year before getting legislation in front of this House to provide some kind of remedy for the situation.

In 1986, the estimates are that the modified financing scheme represented in Bill 107 will run in this way: The law society will contribute $3.1 million, give or take, through the levy of $175 per lawyer on all members of the law society. The lawyers who are acting on legal aid certificates will be asked to contribute, as it were, a five per cent reduction in their fees, which will be worth about another $3.1 million. That is a total contribution of about $6.2 million through those mechanisms by the lawyers of Ontario. If we assume the feds kick in another $18 million and the law foundation, as it did in 1985, kicks in more than $7 million, we are talking about contributions of $31 million beyond the provincial government contribution.

16:00

Given that in 1985 the cost of lawyers acting on certificates and duty counsel services was $41.2 million, we will suppose that in 1986 the equivalent cost will be $45 million. That means if we were to take the accounts I just enumerated and the $45 million in costs, look at them in proportion and add up those contributions, we would be looking at a contribution from the province of about $14 million. If we took the subtotal I just enumerated, $31 million in contributions, and subtracted it from my estimate of $45 million, which may be a little high, then the Attorney General, in all his kindliness, would kicking in about $14 million of provincial money.

I know the Attorney General is going to say the $18 million that comes from the feds does not come just for lawyers' services or duty counsel services, that there are administrative costs -- which of course there are -- and that there are the costs of clinic services and student law society services. All that is true, but sometimes it is wearying to think of all the speeches we have heard about the fine contribution of the province to providing a legal aid system in Ontario. When we get right down to it, we are talking about a lot of other people, besides the Attorney General and the Treasurer, who make sure there are contributions going into this plan.

When we look at the legal aid system we have in Ontario -- and we ought to do that soon in an overall sense -- we have to bear that in mind. This system is not totally the result of a generous spirit on the part of our government leadership. It never has been. Other groups are making very significant contributions.

I think the member for Oakville is absolutely correct in objecting to the kind of arrangement that has been made for contributions by lawyers across this province. One would think we had never heard of a progressive income tax. If we need to raise money in this society, we know a good way to do it. It is to find out how much income people get, and the more they get, the more, we feel, they can pay in income tax. It is called progressive income tax, and the notion has been around for decade after decade.

It galls me that in one way or another, whether one looks at sales taxes, property taxes, taxes on lawyers or whatever, government seems to delight in avoiding use of the progressive income tax system. This is an example of it which does set a precedent in program terms. I do not like it, and I think the member for Oakville is correct in objecting to it. I would like to see us be able to change that in the years to come. At this point, obviously we are going to support Bill 107. The Attorney General laughs. Why does he laugh? Does he think it is funny?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The member's party does not like the bill but is going to vote in favour of it. It is not mentioned in the accord.

Ms. Gigantes: We do not like it, but that is what we are going to get from the Attorney General. We want to see money go to legal aid lawyers. It is a very important thing to get done.

If the Attorney General wants to do it this way and has his deal all worked out with the law society, then what is the use of fussing and fuming? We will tell him what we think, but we are not going to keep him here day after day and insist he go back and rework things with the law society. It ain't worth it.

We want to see those lawyers get their money, and we want to see them able to continue doing work they care about, work that is a service to the total provincial community. It is a very important bill, and if we are going to do it, I suggest we do it quickly.

I have appreciated the chance to make a few comments on the bill, and I thank the members for their attention.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I thank the two members who made major contributions to this debate. I suppose it is something we must bear that the opposition parties will perform their statutory duty and say they do not like the bill and then, of course, will turn around and vote for it. It is too bad they act out even on a matter as minor as this, but I understand the pejoratives that are required to keep them in office a day or two longer. If they are going to oppose the bill, they should vote against it. If they are not going to oppose it, they should presumably not speak against it.

Ms. Gigantes: We will speak if we wish to, and we do not need the minister's permission.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I know the honourable member will.

Miss Stephenson: We also do not need his lecture.

Hon. Mr. Scott: That we know.

The important thing to notice about this bill is that it preserves the integrity of the legal aid plan. The major feature of our legal aid plan in Ontario that has made it the best in the world is that it is substantially funded by government and the public and yet maintains the measure of independent professional control that is required when legal rights, which often mean rights against government, are being dealt with.

The contribution by the law society to the administrative costs of the plan is not referred to in the bill, and the law society does not have to exact it from the bar if it chooses not to, but it seems to me it ensures that for some time to come the tension between the payment of substantial funds and the preservation of independence of control will remain a positive one. I think the members who are happily going to vote for the bill will look back on this as a moment when, for the time being, the integrity and quality of the plan was preserved.

My friend the member for Oakville referred quite appropriately to the signal contribution that was made in the development of legal aid by the Honourable Roy McMurtry, whose concern to develop a clinic system in Ontario is well known to all members of the bar. The tragedy of Mr. McMurtry's life is that he could never get his cabinet colleagues to support progressive measures such as family law reform, the clinic movement and the legal aid plan --

Mr. McClellan: Or equal pay in the private sector.

Hon. Mr. Scott: -- or equal pay -- measures that were so close to his vision of what Ontario society should represent. Of course, having developed the clinic system, what happened was that Mr. McMurtry found that the colleagues around him would not support him. As the member for Oakville has pointed out and as the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes) has said, this is why over 15 years, structural damage was done to this important plan by the then government of Ontario constantly underfunding it.

Legal aid is not the biggest plan the government has. The same thing was happening in health care, in education and in welfare. There was a decade of constant underfunding. That can be done for a year or two or three, but when it is done for a decade and longer, structural damage is done. One of the things that gives me great pleasure in being associated with our Treasurer is that while we cannot undo overnight the damage that was done in a decade, his budget made a significant start. This bill, which draws the support of the New Democratic and Conservative parties, makes a start and allows us to begin to repair the structural damage which, as I think the member for Oakville implied, was about to destroy the quality of this plan.

16:10

It was always easier in the government of Ontario to pave a stretch of highway, to build an Ontario Place, to advertise on television, to do something glitzy. It was always unfashionable to provide fundamental structural funding to the systems, and the members opposite know it better than anybody.

Miss Stephenson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: It would be appropriate if the honourable member were to be accurate in his recollection of at least the last 10 years of the previous government. Those of us who were not here before 1975 might have had some problems there, but if the member would like to know what it was like to struggle without the windfall he has this year in order to maintain the services, then he needs to have a history lesson, not a lesson in the kind of stuff he said.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Order, please. I would remind the member for York Mills that this is not a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I was not here until 1985; so I missed those years to which the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) refers. However, I began to subscribe to Hansard about 1978 and I read the debates. I read the honourable member speaking in those debates and I read the debates about the underfunding of these institutions.

Of course, reading them year after year, I said, "I want to be there," and so did my colleagues who are new to the House. We wanted to be here to change that. In legal aid we have started that change, and in other systems we have started this change. I invite those Conservatives in the House today to join us, as a small reparation for the past, in supporting bills of this type that will begin to repair those structures.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Scott moved second reading of Bill 12, An Act to amend the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act.

Hon. Mr. Scott: This is another effort by this government to repair damaged structures created by constant overfunding under a decade. As the members will know --

Mr. Ashe: Overfunding?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Underfunding.

Mr. Ashe: I think the record will show "overfunding."

Hon. Mr. Scott: If the record shows "overfunding," no one could be more mistaken than I, because the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is one of the most classic examples, though not large, of chronic underfunding that we have had in this province for a decade.

The tariffs of awards that were fixed when this act was passed more than a decade ago were fixed in the statute, and they are funds that are paid out upon proof of damage by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to people who are injured by criminal conduct. Those quantum amounts were fixed in the statute and never changed. If there was ever underfunding, it is represented in this bill.

This bill, while it deals with some procedural matters that are of importance to the board and that we are happy to put before the House, is an effort to improve the level of compensation for victims of crime in Ontario, a move that everybody recognizes to be long overdue.

I know there will be some members who will think -- I expect to hear from them -- that we have not advanced quickly enough, that the levels are not as high as they should be in 1986. Indeed, I expect the member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor), a Conservative, believe it or not, to tell us these amounts are not high enough. I say again that it is not possible to repair in one year the structural damage that was done over a decade when glitzy projects alone were the order of the day, but we are taking a serious step forward here. There will be more to come. Our government is committed to this kind of review. I am happy to ask honourable members to support this legislation.

Mr. O'Connor: I am happy to have the opportunity to participate in this debate on Bill 12, An Act to amend the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, and to refute some of the comments of the learned Attorney General (Mr. Scott), who attempted to provide to the House the speech he thought I might be prepared to make on this occasion.

In contradiction of what he indicated I might be saying, I am happy to say that no, I will not be arguing about the levels of compensation that are proposed in the amendments. The levels are long overdue. The Attorney General is quite correct in saying the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act has been underfunded for a number of years and it is time we provided additional funding of the level indicated in the bill.

I well understand the constraints the Attorney General was under with respect to the amounts he was able to arrive at. They are substantial. Our hope in this regard is that they will continue in the future to be assessed and increased on a regular basis.

Awards to those who have been injured or harmed in the course of a violent crime or any crime, particularly violent crimes, have been increased. The awards that can be made by the board to successful applicants have been increased from $15,000 to $25,000 by way of one lump sum and from $500 to $1,000 per month in the event that an applicant is awarded monthly or periodic payments. Further, the maximum awards for one occurrence are increased from $100,000 to $150,000 by way of a lump sum payment and from a total of $175,000 to a total of $250,000 for periodic payments in circumstances where a number of people involved in one incident are entitled to compensation as a result of a finding by the board.

As my friend indicates, there are other technical matters that are carried out in the bill at the request primarily of the board, which made representations to the Attorney General in this regard. We will be supporting this bill. As I indicated, the amounts are substantial, they are welcome and they are overdue. This act represents an attempt by this government on behalf of the people of Ontario to assume some of the responsibility for acts of violent crime in our society.

Prior to the passage of this legislation, if one were injured or harmed, particularly harmed economically, as a result of a criminal activity, that person was left to his own recourse to recoup from the perpetrator of the crime any loss he might have suffered. As we know, most people involved in crime are not particularly wealthy people and, particularly if they happened to be lodged at Her Majesty's pleasure for a time and were without any income to compensate their victims, that process was fruitless, inadequate and often led nowhere.

Thus, the passing of a statute such as this is an attempt by all of us through our government to take some responsibility for acts of crime in the community. I think we should recognize that principle and continue to do so in the future.

However, in looking at some of the statistics, some of the figures involved in this area, it is somewhat disturbing to look at the extent to which we have become involved in accepting the joint responsibility of society in this regard. I look at the figures produced by the board in its annual report for the fiscal year ending March 1985, which were the latest figures available. They indicate there were approximately 50,000 victims of violent crime in Ontario over the course of the year prior to March 1985. Approximately only 2,100 of the 50,000 made application to the board for some kind of compensation. Of the 2,100, only about 1,500 or a little fewer received any kind of an award.

16:20

Given those figures of obviously less than 1,500 of the total 50,000 people involved in violent crimes, we are compensating very few of those who do become victims of crimes in the streets and other types of crime. That number must be improved; it must be increased.

I cannot believe that the balance of 48,500 people who were affected by crime were able to gain compensation from the perpetrators of those crimes or redress through other measures and other means. I do not believe that was the case. I suspect the vast majority, if not all, of those people are left to suffer the financial circumstances and consequences on their own.

It may be necessary in part to undertake a public relations and information program to better advise people of their rights to make application to the board for compensation when a crime has been perpetrated against them. It may be required that the statute be amended in the coming years to make it more and better available to the average citizen. It is obvious from the figures I quoted that many victims of crime are not being compensated through the system of this act.

There is one other area which causes some concern. The Attorney General attempted to pre-empt, to anticipate my remarks. He was a bit off the mark. There has been an argument made -- and I made it myself very briefly when the bill was introduced in reply to the statement by the Attorney General at that time -- that although the act attempts to assist the person who is directly involved and has been injured as a result of the crime, it stops there.

We should be progressing to the point where we recognize that the victim of a violent crime may be not only the person who was shot or stabbed or somehow injured and thereafter deprived of his rights and abilities to earn an income for a period of time or whatever. It should be understood that as a result of one violent act, many other people may also become victims of that crime. I refer, of course, to the spouses, the children and close relatives of the victim of the crime.

If a crime is perpetrated against a breadwinner of a family that includes a spouse and small kids, they are going to suffer equally for the loss of that person. They will not only lose his income, but they are going to suffer traumatically by way of emotional upset and distress for a considerable period of time, perhaps not to the extent and degree that the direct victim will suffer but certainly to some extent.

That principle has been recognized in other areas of our law. For instance, the Family Law Act, previously called the Family Law Reform Act, recognizes that if a person is injured in the course of a negligence accident, and this applies to motor vehicle accidents in particular, and as a result of that injury his family suffers emotional distress, out-of-pocket expenses and a loss of income to the family, they equally have a claim against the perpetrator of that particular circumstance. In the case of a motor vehicle accident, it would be the person who is negligent in the causing of that accident.

That is a private matter, of course, but the statute, which is a statute of this Legislature, recognizes the principle that other members of a family can be affected by the actions, in the case of a negligence action, of the negligent driver and, I am suggesting, in the case of a violent crime, of the perpetrator of the crime.

That argument has been made to the Attorney General. As I say, I raised it briefly when the bill was introduced for first reading. He pushed it aside with the comment that the costs involved would be exorbitant. We are spending currently approximately $4 million a year to fund this act. The increases anticipated by this bill will enlarge that amount, but $4 million for nearly nine million people in Ontario, 50,000 of whom are affected by a violent crime every year, is not a large amount of money.

As my friend the member who was formerly Treasurer of this province pointed out in the course of the debate recently, this year the government is benefiting from a windfall income of approximately $3 billion in excess of what was anticipated would be needed for the government's programs as set out in its speech from the throne. This government has flexibility and funding available to fund some of the areas that are in particular need.

Of the $320 each of us pays through taxes annually to fund the criminal justice system -- that is all that each of us pays -- 32 cents or 0.1 per cent goes towards compensating victims of crime. That is a pretty small percentage and a pretty small amount, only 32 cents per head in this province to assist those of us who are unfortunate enough to have become victims of a violent crime, almost inevitably in all cases through no fault, act or wish of ours. It is nearly always the case of a circumstance. We happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. We happen to be in the jug-milk store when a man comes in with a gun and attempts to rob it or does rob it. It is that kind of thing.

We have recognized the principle of all of us as taxpayers bearing some responsibility for the act of such a criminal. Why then do we stop at 32 cents a head? It hardly makes sense. If we are going to bear our responsibility in this regard, let us do it responsibly and properly. Let us fund the thing in such a way that people who are injured are adequately compensated and those who are effectively injured through the crime are also covered, not just the single person who happens to be there at the time.

I do not want to speak too long on this matter, but I do want to commend the people who have communicated with me and written to me about this matter, expressing their support for the bill and their support for the concept of funding persons other than those who are directly injured. I want to read just one which I think was particularly well done by the Catholic Women's League of Canada.

In its resolutions brief for last year, this group saw fit to include, among approximately half a dozen resolutions on matters of social concern, a resolution concerning compensation for victims of crime. I commend them on that. Without reading the entire resolution, because the preambles are quite lengthy, they recommend the increase of lump sums and periodic sums well beyond those now existing. As I said before, I also commend the Attorney General for the increases, which are substantive and which are welcome.

Those are the remarks I wanted to make. I hope the Attorney General will seriously consider expanding this bill, not in its monetary amounts this year -- we have done well so far -- but in the numbers and categories of people who will be covered in the future. I can advise him I will be supporting this bill on second reading as will the members of my party.

16:30

Ms. Gigantes: I would like to make a few comments, which are very much along the lines of those that have been made by the member for Oakville. The improvement in payments available to victims of crime under Bill 12 is good. It is good that there is any improvement at all. The ability of victims of crime to make a petition to have public assistance for having been victims of crime was very limited in the past; it is improved under this bill.

Questions have been raised about aspects of the bill, in particular the ability of the commission to hold in camera sessions and the requirement that victims co-operate with the representatives of the justice system after the commission of a crime. Those two items have been raised by the Canadian Bar Association -- Ontario, which has concerns about the legislation. I would like the Attorney General to comment on them. They involve section 1 and subsection 3(1). I would appreciate his comments on these two sections and his understanding of the concerns of the bar association's Ontario branch. I also understand the minister may wish to move an amendment to subsection 5(1). Perhaps he will explain that to us.

We are prepared to support the bill. We believe it to be an improvement, and we hope the system will improve yet again, and quickly.

I will also take this opportunity to ask the Attorney General to take a look at the private member's bill standing in my name, Bill 143, the Profits from Crime Act, which if it were to be brought forward by the government might have the benefit of providing funding. The minister is always so interested in finding funding for programs for which he has responsibility. It might help find funding, not only for victims of crime but also for the relatives, friends and spouses of victims of crime. I should not say "friend"; I should say a person directly connected with a victim of crime in a family way.

It is about time we undertook some legislative reform in Ontario so that people such as Cecil Kirby do not make more money from the public of Ontario without our first ensuring that people who have suffered as a result of his crimes have some claim on the profits of the book he published. The same would hold true in cases where movie rights, television rights or broadcast rights to a story of an admitted or convicted criminal were being sold in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Scott: On the subject of Cecil Kirby, raised by the honourable member who spoke last, she and I have exchanged correspondence --

Ms. Gigantes: I have not got the minister's letter back.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I have signed it. It will be on her desk soon. It is about this question and arises out of the fact that the late Mr. Renwick introduced a bill designed to deprive criminals of all or a portion of the benefits of a publication sold in Ontario relating to a crime or an admitted illegal act. That legislation is interesting and well intentioned and exists in a number of American states.

After Mr. Renwick's bill was introduced, the matter was referred by the previous government to the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. Since hearing from the member, I have had occasion to write to them to invite them to move expeditiously to a resolution of the matter. The reason is that, leaving aside for the time being questions that may arise in connection with such legislation that have to do with civil liberties and other matters, it is undoubted that the most effective legislation in this field is either national legislation or legislation that is mirrored in each province. If one province alone enacts legislation, it will not be difficult to make a successful effort to circumvent its effect. At the member's behest, I am looking into the matter and encouraging the Uniform Law Conference of Canada to make a report on this matter as quickly as it can.

Now let me deal with the two matters that the member for Ottawa Centre raised, in particular subsection 17(2) of the present act, which deals with the power granted to the board to refuse to make an order for compensation where the applicant either has failed to report the offence or has refused reasonable co-operation with the police.

The difficulty with this provision, as I know the honourable member recognizes, is that it is all or nothing. If, in the opinion of the board, one has failed to co-operate in the way described, even though the failure is regarded in the scheme of things as a relatively modest one and is perhaps justified in part by the circumstances, one is deprived of any award at all. The gradations with which tribunals are familiar in matters of this type are simply ignored or are regarded as legally impermissible.

We have preserved the obligation to report crime and to co-operate with the police, but we have allowed the tribunal to deal with that exceptional circumstance by reducing rather than denying the award. We are removing the all-or-nothing feature of the present legislation.

I understand the honourable member's request to be that we should give consideration to removing any requirement of co-operation altogether. It is an interesting proposal, but it is not a proposal that the government is prepared to adopt at the moment. It would be very difficult to understand in all cases, although perhaps very easy to understand in some, why a failure to co-operate with the police that might cause no embarrassment, difficulty or inconvenience should at the same time be accompanied by a successful application to a fund established by the taxpayers for compensation as a result of the crime.

The honourable member makes an excellent point in saying there will undoubtedly be cases, particularly sexual assault cases perhaps, where the failure to co-operate will be comprehensible, understandable and perhaps perfectly natural. Under the proposed amendment, the board has the capacity to take into account the fact that people in that circumstance should not be significantly penalized, or perhaps should not be penalized at all; but there may be cases where the failure to co-operate should lead to a reduction in the award.

With respect to in camera sessions, it is worth noting, as I am sure the honourable member has done, that sections 12 and 13 of the present act permit confidentiality in particularly sensitive cases. The proposal that this bill represents is an amendment to section 12 to permit in camera hearings for the victims of child abuse and to section 13 to authorize the board to prohibit the publication of any of its proceedings that may tend to identify the victim until the final disposition of the trial of the person who caused the injury or death.

We believe there should be no impediment to a victim of child abuse, for example, applying to the board for compensation. Indeed, a case can be made that victims of child abuse are the victims who should particularly be within the purview of the board. They are children. We hope their lives will be relatively long. The consequences or the sequelae of the injury may be most pronounced at a most critical time in their lives.

16:40

Ms. Gigantes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I hope this is a point of order. I am sure you will tell me. Did I hear the Attorney General refer to the amendment of section 13 of the act? I cannot find any reference to an amendment to section 13; so I cannot quite follow what he is explaining to us.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The reference is actually to section 1 of the bill, which refers to clause 12(a). I thank the honourable member for that important correction, for which I am grateful.

We believe there should be no impediment involved in applying for compensation. There should be no downside. The downside is often caused by publicity. Not only should there be no potential downside to the applicant-victim, but also there should be no potential downside to the accused person, whose trial may not have been conducted or completed or the appeal from it processed.

The board is very anxious, and I share this anxiety, to encourage applications. This is a point the member for Oakville made. To encourage applications, we have to ensure they can be dealt with without the potential downside that publicity might achieve.

The board is also very anxious to ensure that applications it receives will be dealt with expeditiously. We do not want to tell victims of crime in every case that of necessity they must wait until all legal or criminal proceedings are concluded. We want them to be able to apply and have their cases disposed of, but without prejudice to any trial or appeal process in which the accused may be engaged. That is one motive for confidentiality and the kind of order that is contemplated by this section.

Ms. Gigantes: May I make a comment at this stage, following the Attorney General's statement?

Mr. Speaker: It is not the usual custom on the windup. I believe the standing orders say there are questions and comments on any member's debate other than the windup. I understand from the discussion it is going to committee. I am sure the member will have an opportunity then.

Hon. Mr. Scott: There is an amendment which I have just now put before both my critics. As I indicated to the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes), I think we will have to go to committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 12, An Act to amend the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The amendment I have is to section 5, but I understand the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes) has a question with respect to one or more sections. Perhaps we can call them until she pops up.

On section 1:

Ms. Gigantes: It has been recommended to us by the Canadian Bar Association, and I would like the comments of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) on this, that the provision we have in section 1 to allow in camera proceedings is not wide enough. We could accomplish what the Attorney General is attempting to accomplish in section 1 by duplicating language found in the Criminal Code and putting a ban on publications until the end of all proceedings against an accused.

Can I have the minister's comment on that? Currently, as far as the bar association is concerned, and I think its point has some merit, the board is limited in its right to hold in camera sessions.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am not sure I understand the concern of the Canadian Bar Association in that regard, because the proposed amendment permits the board to impose an order in the nature of confidentiality until the final disposition of the criminal proceedings. I cannot imagine in what circumstance it would be desirable to impose the order beyond the final disposition of the criminal proceedings, because the order made under that subparagraph is presumably designed to protect the accused.

The second amendment, which is in subsection 1(2) of the bill, I will deal with now. That is simply to add child abuse as one of the categories to which the order can be made.

While I am on my feet, when we were dealing with the principle of the bill, I undertook to respond to the member for Ottawa Centre about its retroactive feature but did not. As I understand the matter, anybody who is in receipt of an existing interim order, or interim monthly or other periodic payment, may at any time apply to the board, or the board may on its own motion deal with those payments, in the event there is a change in circumstance.

One of the characteristics of a change of circumstance is an increase in actual cost. If the order was made more than a year ago, I would anticipate it might not be a difficult matter to show that inflation or the cost of living has created a change in circumstances. Then the board could enter upon the matter, as I understand it, to make a new interim order, which would be an order subject to the limits imposed by the new act. I very much doubt -- indeed, I think I should be more positive and say I do not think such an application in respect of a lump sum already paid out some years before would apply.

Ms. Gigantes: I appreciate the minister's comments. First, I accept his description of how subsection 1(2) will operate, and I thank him for that. Second, on the matter of the increase in pensions, as it were, or regular payouts to people who have already received awards, is the minister telling us this will be an automatic increase in effect? I would like to hear that it will be.

Hon. Mr. Scott: It is difficult to answer that, because the board is the master of its own procedure, and its chairman, a distinguished public servant of the province well known to the member for Ottawa Centre, is in charge of the administration of the act.

The act provides that there may be a renewed application or that the board may act on its own motion. It is not for me to say how the board will confront the problems the legislation creates. It can act on its own motion, and there may be much to be said in favour of doing that, but in appropriate cases it can also require an applicant to make an application of his own.

16:50

Ms. Gigantes: I wonder whether we can get a commitment from the Attorney General that he will encourage the board to consider increases based on a percentage that could be related to the increases in this bill and encourage the board to update its regular payments.

Perhaps I can raise one other question. In commenting on subsection 3(1) of Bill 12, which amends subsection 17(2) of the act, the minister said that in some cases where there had not been co-operation with representatives of the justice system, commonly referred to as police, the board may choose not to reduce the amount at all. That is not what the amendment says. I draw it to his attention. The amendment says we are going to add, after "compensation" in the second line of subsection 17(2), the phrase "or order a reduced amount of compensation."

That leaves the board with an amended subsection 17(2), which would say that the board shall refuse compensation in cases of nonco-operation or it shall order reduced compensation. It does not leave open the option he so blithely suggested to us in which, under certain circumstances, the board would not reduce compensation at all because of the nature of the case.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I will comment on the last point first. The honourable member has read the section correctly, but it involves, first, a determination by the board that there has been nonco-operation. In the type of cases I was describing to her moments ago in which, for example, a rape victim who is frightened of the risks that may be involved in going to the police fails to do so, the board might well have ample authority to conclude that it is not a case of nonco-operation.

Nonco-operation has a mens rea component -- a knowing or willingness component to it -- and is not simply an objective question. In the types of cases the member and I were discussing, the board would hold, and would have every authority to hold, that that was not a case of nonco-operation. Even if it was, the board can reduce the consequence of that nonco-operation as low as it wants.

If I may respectfully say so, the types of cases that concern the member, if I read her correctly, are cases where a board would likely conclude that it is not nonco-operation. It may be fear, shame or a number of other things, but nonco-operation in a wilful sense it is not.

With respect to urging the board to exercise its statutory duty in a particular way, I am unable to undertake what my friend wants me to do. I am not sure I have authority to do it in the first place. Even if I could, I am not certain I would be comfortable doing it with respect to a statutory board with statutory obligations.

The statutory board answers in a public sense for the determination it makes in any given case or group of cases. I do not think a political minister of the crown should attempt to affect its judgement of what is right. As well, as the member knows, the chairman of this board needs no urging.

Ms. Gigantes: On the point of crimes in which the victim may be thought to be unco-operative, we know in sexual assaults against women it is probably true that more occur and that there are more victims than there are cases reported to the police or other members of the justice system. We also know that many cases which are not reported to representatives of the justice system do get reported to such bodies as rape crisis centres.

As we know from the Ottawa Rape Crisis Centre, it is the pattern that most of the people who come because they have been victimized come many weeks after the event. The average length of time that passes before an event is raised at the rape crisis centre is a matter of many weeks. I think that has to do with the nature of the crime.

We may be looking at a very understanding board that will reduce compensation in such a case by one cent. That is fine. I hate to think we will have cases raised in areas around Ontario where women have seriously reduced awards as victims because it is somehow decided that they did not report, they did not report quickly enough or they did not report fully enough. I put a word to the minister that this may happen.

When I inquired about whether he would encourage the board to update its monthly payments of regular awards under this legislation, I certainly did not have in mind any heavy-handed behaviour on his part. However, there may be cases where people may not know they can apply. Perhaps he could put a word in the ear of the present chairman or any other chairman who may follow in that position that there should be notice given to people who are on regular compensation that an application for an upgrading of payments would be considered, because there is now new money available in this program.

Hon. Mr. Scott: On the first point of co-operation, I think my friend and I are agreed that if a person wilfully refused to assist in the prosecution of an alleged criminal because he or she did not believe what had happened was a crime or had some objection to his or her being convicted of it, that would be a case in which there would not in a sense be a victim and there would not be a payment. There should not be a payment because, of course, the board can sue the alleged perpetrator to recover the payment.

If my honourable friend accepts that premise, I think it is a matter in which we should in all propriety allow the board to make a judgement. The question is a subtle and difficult one, depending on an examination of the facts of the case. In the example she gave, in which women victims feeling abuse or shame were unable, unwilling or not anxious to come forward until what might be thought to be late in the day, I think it would not necessarily be concluded at all that there was a lack of co-operation in those cases.

However, the variety of cases across the spectrum of co-operation and nonco-operation is so broad there is probably no definition in the statutes that can adequately take care of them all. That is what we have a tribunal for. I ask the honourable member to consider leaving it there.

With respect to the attitude of the board in respect of the new amendments, I think it is proper to bring to my honourable friend's attention that the board itself has publicly requested these amendments and has discussed them with the ministry; so it is perfectly clear the board is aware of the kind of problem the honourable member has addressed and will conduct itself as it thinks it is statutorily entitled to do under the legislation.

Mr. Shymko: I want to comment on section 1, as this is the section where I can make some general comments on concerns I have, prior to proceeding to further sections. The Act to amend the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act is very important. I congratulate the Attorney General on the introduction of this bill --

Hon. Mr. Scott: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: We are in the clause-by-clause stage and I do not get the honourable member's reference to section 1.

The Deputy Chairman: I would like to remind the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) that his comments must be related to section 1.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Should be, not must be.

17:00

Mr. Shymko: I want to refer to subsection 1(1):

"Clause 12(a) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, being chapter 82 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980, is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:

"(a) would be prejudicial to the final disposition of the crime proceedings against the person whose act or omission caused the injury or death."

An element of prejudice may at times occur in the disposition or appeal of cases by such organizations as legal aid clinics, which very often represent clients before the board. I want an assurance that there should be no prejudice in the presentation and the defence of individual cases before the board. We must be assured that individuals who are not only given the right to represent clients but also are publicly funded through legal aid clinics and who hold very important positions in legal aid clinics -- and we have just gone through a bill earlier --

The Deputy Chairman: I have to bring you to order. That has nothing to do with section 1.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, I think you will have to allow the member to establish whether there is a relationship between the remarks he wants to make and --

The Deputy Chairman: I gave him ample time to relate, and it has nothing to do with section 1.

Mr. Shymko: I was just coming to the point.

The Deputy Chairman: Order, please. Are there any questions, comments or amendments on section 1? The member for High Park-Swansea.

Mr. Shymko: An individual who is a director of a legal aid clinic has been accused of racism. That individual runs the South Etobicoke Community Legal Services and he will be representing Canadian citizens before this board. I am concerned when there are charges of racism levelled against such an important individual. We must make sure that individuals representing Canadian citizens before the board for compensation as victims of crime are sensitive and understanding and represent a fairness of judgement for citizens.

Ken Hale, a director of a legal aid clinic, has been charged with racism --

Hon. Mr. Scott: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: The member for High Park-Swansea is taking refuge in the wrong bunker. This has nothing to do with anything in section 1. He might submit to the rule.

Mr. Shymko: Under what section, Mr. Chairman, will you allow me to raise this very important case? You have always been fair and flexible. There have been many examples where members have been allowed to express certain concerns that are indirectly related to the bill in question.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I am trying to be very co-operative with you. We are now discussing the bill clause by clause, and I feel there is no relationship whatsoever with section 1. If you have anything to discuss about section 1, I will allow you to do so.

Section 1 agreed to.

Sections 2 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 5:

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Scott moves that section 5 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"5. (1) Section 26 of the said act is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

"(2a) The board may elect to limit the amount for which it is subrogated to the amount of compensation that it has paid in respect of the person whose rights were subrogated by limiting its claim to the amount so paid and where it so elects may maintain the action in the name of the minister."

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am advised by my advisers that this amendment is a more appropriate way to express the limited subrogation capacity that we are vesting in the board than the language in the bill in printed form.

Mr. O'Connor: My very simple question is, what does it mean? I have a great deal of difficulty understanding the wording of it. Is there a more simple explanation, and if so, why do we not use those words? It may be my deficiency in this regard, but I think similarly the Attorney General may be having some difficulty, from the fact that he did not provide an explanation and also further from the fact that he is now wandering off to confer with his officials to determine what it does mean.

Although she is not here now, the member for Ottawa Centre, I believe, had a similar concern.

Hon. Mr. Scott: She is not making any trouble about this point; it is the member opposite who is.

The subrogation rule, as my honourable friend will know, can be expressed to require the subrogated board either to sue in full against the accused or to sue only for the amount it has paid out. I am advised that the original amendment might require -- there is some doubt about it -- the board to sue the accused at large for the damage that was caused, even if it be beyond the amount of compensation that was paid.

That is not the intention. The purpose is to allow the board to commence an action in the name of the minister in respect only of the amount it has paid out or proposes to pay out.

Mr. O'Connor: The section refers to an election to limit. What is the election? An election to me would mean the board could elect to sue for one amount or another amount. Surely the amount it can sue for is always and only ever one amount, and that is the amount it has awarded to the victim. How is it that it has an election to limit the amount somehow?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am advised that this is not so; that the board's power to sue, absent this section, might permit it to sue the accused for the damage that was caused to the victim even if that damage be an amount fixed by a court larger than the amount of the board's award. We do not propose to give the board that elaborate power, and for certainty we propose to restrict the subrogated claim simply to the amount the board has paid or proposes to pay out.

It is an amendment for clarity. No different intention is reflected in the language I propose.

Mr. O'Connor: I understand the intent and I think the Attorney General and I are ad idem with respect to what we are trying to achieve here. I still have some difficulty with the reference to an election that the board might have. It seems to me that if the board, in common English, can elect to do one thing or another, then there is some option involved; if there is an option, then it can sue for varying amounts.

Surely it should say, "the board is subrogated to the amount of compensation that it has paid in respect of," etc. I will put that by way of a question to the Attorney General. Why should the section not simply read, "the board is subrogated to the amount," etc.? Why give it an election?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I must plead that I may have misled the honourable member in my answer, and that was because I was perhaps misled myself in understanding the section. I gather the intention is to allow the board an election to sue for a larger amount or to sue for the amount it has paid out. In other words, the board will make an election.

The practical difficulty between doing the two is that if it elects for a fuller amount, there may be a long, drawn-out lawsuit involving the victim giving evidence and so on. In those circumstances, the board wants to have the capacity to say, "We will restrict ourselves only to our claim and will not advance the larger claim, because the victim is not interested in pursuing that." It is to allow the board to make that choice in the interest of the victim.

Mr. O'Connor: In that event, presuming the board has that option or that election, there are going to be some circumstances where it can elect to sue for a larger amount than it had awarded. Perhaps the Attorney General can explain when that might occur; and if it does occur and if the board is successful, what will happen to the excess funds? Why would they not go to the victim?

17:10

Why would the board ever award less than what the victim is entitled to and has recovered from the accused or the perpetrator of the crime? What happens to the extra money?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am advised that it is precisely like the Workers' Compensation Board. If the board elects to act as subrogated and sue for the larger amount, that is, more than it has paid out, then any surpluses recovered above the amount paid out go to the victim, just as in a Workers' Compensation Board case where there is a lawsuit permitted by law.

However, when that first case goes forward, it will be necessary for the victim to give evidence, to submit to an examination for discovery, as if an ordinary trial were being pursued. The victim may not want to do that for a variety of reasons. If the victim does not want to do that, the board will want to sue for the amount it has paid out; thus, the election.

When it sues for the amount that it has paid out, there is no necessity to involve the victim, because the claim is proved by the board showing it has made the payout under the act, and the lawsuit can be a very simple, very short one.

Mr. O'Connor: I do not follow that either, with respect. If the board is involved in a civil suit, it surely has to make its case in a civil court. It requires evidence by way of the victim giving testimony and it requires witnesses. How is the board supposed to make its case in a civil suit without the assistance of the victim who will give evidence on its behalf? The standard of proof is different before the board and in a civil action, and there is that problem.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I believe the honourable member to be wrong on that. In a case in which the board is suing only for the amount it has paid out, the issue of whether the board should have paid it out is not disputed; it cannot be disputed. The claimant, in effect, is the board. Under the statute, the board has paid out X dollars on account of this crime. The board is the claimant and it is really a claim strictly between the board and the victim.

If the board sues for a larger amount, it is making its own claim and a claim on behalf of the victim and it needs the victim's co-operation by way of discovery and testimony to do that. All we are saying here is that the board should be able to make the choice.

Mr. O'Connor: I think that finally, among the Attorney General, myself and his learned staff, we have figured it all out. I accept his explanation.

Mr. McClellan: I hope I have not missed the section I want to raise some questions on. I was required to do a bit of running around as we were going through this. If we have passed the section, perhaps I could have the consent of the House to backtrack for a moment or two.

I want to get an understanding from the Attorney General of the basis of both lump sum awards and periodic payments under this statute. The Attorney General alluded to the Workers' Compensation Board. As I am intimately familiar with the working of the Workers' Compensation Board but not with this statute, can he give us an understanding of the basis of the determination of lump sum payments under this statute? Is there a schedule based on the equivalent of the Workers' Compensation Board rating schedule used for lump sum payments? Similarly, how is the determination made with respect to periodic payments?

Hon. Mr. Scott: There is no parallel to the schedule that exists in the Workers' Compensation Board Act scheme.

Section 18 of the act simply provides that "the board may order compensation to be paid in a lump sum or in periodic payments, or both, as the board thinks fit." Then section 19 provides the limits of that compensation.

Mr. McClellan: I take it then that there is no schedule attached, for example, identifying specific injuries on an insurance-model basis and attaching a monetary award?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am advised there is not.

Mr. McClellan: How then are the determinations made? Are they made on the basis of -- I do not mean this in the pejorative sense -- totally arbitrary decisions on the part of the board? How does the board arrive at an understanding of what an equitable settlement is for a particular individual, both with respect to a lump sum or for periodic payments?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Section 7, which is the compensation provision in the act, provides:

"Compensation may be awarded for," and then there are the following clauses (a) through (f):

"(a) expenses actually and reasonably incurred or to be incurred as a result of the victim's injury or death;

"(b) pecuniary loss incurred by the victim as a result of total or partial disability affecting the victim's capacity for work;

"(c) pecuniary loss incurred by dependants as a result of the victim's death;

"(d) pain and suffering;

"(e) maintenance of a child born as a result of rape;

"(f) other pecuniary loss resulting from the victim's injury and any expense that, in the opinion of the board, it is reasonable to incur."

The statute provides some six categories, the first five of which relate, with fair precision, to heads of damage such as expenses, pecuniary loss, pain and suffering, and maintenance. The last category is a more general one, which refers to other pecuniary loss that, in the opinion of the board, it is reasonable to incur.

The board takes each of those heads and the evidence in the case and attempts to assess the amount that has been proved under that head. For example, it takes the evidence on expenses and the evidence of pecuniary loss under clauses (b) and (c). Under pain and suffering, it engages in the same type of exercise that a court does when it attempts to quantify, within the general outside limits that the statute fixes, the pain and suffering that is attributable to this type of injury as opposed to perhaps another one, and so on. It is on that scheme and with that kind of flexibility that the board makes its judgements. There is no chart or schedule.

Mr. McClellan: I appreciate that explanation, but just so that I am clear, in making a determination about financial loss resulting from impairment of earning capacity -- I have forgotten the exact language of the statute; I am switching into the language of the Workers' Compensation Act rather than the language of this statute -- will the board hear evidence with respect to the actual loss and make an award which, as I understand it from what the Attorney General said, will compensate dollar for dollar for lost earning capacity, or is there a percentage?

I am trying to understand in a nutshell whether this board actually compensates for the proven loss of earning capacity or whether it is substituting its own judgement as to what is an adequate compensation for loss of earning capacity. I understand evidence is taken as to the actual impairment of earning capacity. What happens then? Is there 100 per cent compensation? There obviously is no formula. How does the board decide what to award?

17:20

Hon. Mr. Scott: As I understand the matter, the intent of this legislation is to permit the board, within the outside limits of the periodic or lump sum payments, to make an actual determination of loss. It does that by hearing evidence, or in many cases it uses written reports from persons who will say the employee was absent from work on account of the accident and persons who will say that by being absent from work, a person did not receive pay in the following amounts.

In respect of past earnings, the calculation is relatively straightforward. With respect to future loss of earnings that may occur because of the injury, it is more difficult, because the board has to project, as courts do, on the assumption that the earnings of the victim would not necessarily have been straight-lined for the rest of his life. He might have increased his earnings by promotion, or he might have lost his earnings by layoff or discharge. The board makes the kind of calculation that any court makes in assessing how that should be valued in contemporary terms. This is all, I am sorry to say, within the outside limits of the awards that the act permits. There is no discount, in other words, as far as I understand the matter, for any particular items per se.

Ms. Gigantes: This discussion really underlines the comments the member for Oakville made and which I supported, in terms of the limitations of the awards as they are set out in this bill. There was an article published in the Toronto Star of June 7, 1986, which referred to the case of woman named Dianne Purna, who was brutally beaten up five years ago. For the last five years, she has been making do on $500 a month, although totally unable to work as a result of the crime of which she was a victim.

If someone like Dianne Purna loses all ability to earn income as a result of an atrocious crime -- and we know of such cases in Ontario -- then a lump sum payment of somewhere around even $25,000 plus the maximum monthly award of $1,000 is not much solace for somebody who may have been earning a pretty good living beforehand. That is precisely the point we have tried to make with the Attorney General. We have complained about the levels of compensation available, even under his amendment to our legislation, and we hope very much that he is going to look seriously at those levels of compensation. Unfortunately, there are many cases where the levels set out in this amendment are not going to be fair, and they are not what the public of Ontario will support.

Hon. Mr. Scott: We seem to have reverted to the general considerations of second reading, but let me --

Mr. McClellan: No, we are on section 4.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I would never have allowed it had I known this was going to happen.

The Deputy Chairman: Order, please. Did the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) say we are discussing section 4?

Mr. McClellan: When I started my remarks, I had asked for unanimous consent --

The Deputy Chairman: Yes, you did. I agreed.

Mr. McClellan: -- to revert to a previous clause, and I received it.

The Deputy Chairman: I did not ask the committee.

Mr. McClellan: Has this whole interesting and useful discussion been out of order for the past 20 minutes?

The Deputy Chairman: That is not what I am saying. I will ask the committee. Is there unanimous consent that we continue discussion of section 4?

Agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Please go on.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am certainly learning my lesson quickly.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Wait until the Attorney General tries it next time.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I certainly will not.

The case the member for Ottawa Centre referred to reflects the very serious limits the 1971 act imposed. The award she referred to was obviously one that was made under the 1971 act. We have essentially doubled the awards. If that accident occurred today, the lump sum payment, which was then $15,000, would be $25,000. Perhaps more important, the periodic payment per month, instead of being $500, is raised to $1,000.

As I said in introducing the bill, this is an effort to go some distance towards rationalizing the limit of these awards. We have not gone the whole distance, but a very substantial extension has been made, consistent with our obligations to take into account the other important and pressing needs that the taxpayer of the province must meet. I am grateful, because I have the sense from all members that these limits, while not the last word, are an appropriate response to these problems in 1986.

Mr. McClellan: I will not prolong this discussion. I have intruded on the indulgence of the House and I know the minister is anxious to secure the passage of other legislation this afternoon.

I want to make the point that sooner or later we have to confront the problem of the multiplication of compensation programs under different auspices, different jurisdictions, different administrations, different criteria and different benefits.

Under the Workers' Compensation Act, which is far from my favourite statute -- I look forward to the day when it is shredded and rewritten; I hope it may even be this fall -- a worker is entitled to receive 90 per cent of gross income up to a maximum of $35,000, if my memory serves me, by way of compensation for impairment of earning capacity because of an accident suffered on the job. Somebody who suffers an accident off the job is entitled to zero, except for the welfare programs of this province. Somebody who is disabled as a result of crime is entitled to benefits as just outlined by the Attorney General under this clause up to a maximum of $1,000 a month or $12,000 a year.

It does not make sense. The overall system has no coherence or integrity. Individual citizens are at risk of disbenefit, depending on the source of the disability and the impairment of earning capacity. I hope the Attorney General will turn his forensic skills to looking at some of these anomalies before we come back with more piecemeal amendments to piecemeal statutes.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I do not regard it proper to comment on a bill that is the responsibility of another minister, but I understand my honourable friend's point. I do not think it is a point that can be addressed except in a very significant global review of a whole lot of programs. It will probably next come up for discussion when someone raises the question of the guaranteed annual wage.

Mr. Breaugh: I want to make some remarks on this. As many members know, a number of us have reviewed the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and this concept on other occasions. We have been forthright in our criticism of the levels of compensation that were set previously and the technique that was used. I want to review this section of the bill and to point out that I am supportive of what the Attorney General is proposing in the section. It is laudable to some extent that he has made major increases to the compensation under this section of the act. That is good stuff.

Let me also point out what we have pointed out on a number of other occasions. The process does not really lend itself very much towards fairness. Over the years, a number of us have raised the rather difficult proposition that to compare what we would do to the criminal in this instance as opposed to what we would do for the victim is a most unfair and unusual comparison.

17:30

If we took this section of the act, for example, applied it to the Criminal Code and said, "We will imprison someone but only to this dollar amount and we will impose statutory limits on how much money it will cost the taxpayers to incarcerate this person," if we compared those limits to what is being proposed in this section, we would find the following:

For example, under subsection 4(1), if we said to the criminal, "We think you are guilty of a crime here, so we are going to punish you by putting you in jail and that jail sentence will cost the people of Ontario no more than $25,000," most of us who have followed this process know sadly that, in most of our institutions, there would be nothing more than a six-month jail sentence imposed. We do not do that because the dollar amount is not the critical point here. The critical point is what the crime is and what is a suitable punishment. That is hardly what is being proposed in this section.

I understand -- and I do not want to be mean, nasty or critical because this review has taken a long time to get to this point -- that around here, this is the first major review of compensation paid to victims of crimes in a long while, but the principle remains the same. The dollar amounts are laid on what type of compensation can be paid to victims for crimes. I understand what the minister is trying to do. I am making the argument that I hope this will be the last time such a review takes place in quite this manner. I believe the dollar amounts are not appropriate.

From time to time, members on all sides have raised cases where, without question, a victim of a crime had his or her whole life destroyed. We know that. It is a matter of record. We have put on the record occasions when fathers of people who were victims of crimes saw their whole families disintegrate and so did the mother and others in the family. That resulted in a loss of income, house, home and future for the victims of crime and those around them.

Over the years, those of us who have followed the reports of the compensation board's awards could not fail to notice how ludicrous those awards were in dollar amounts and in the nature of how compensation could be awarded. We saw many instances where police officers put their lives at risk and for that got some compensation of $400 or $500. We saw where people in the public put their lives at risk and got an award of a really minimal amount of money from this board.

This approach and the approach taken under this section say we will increase the dollar amounts to what the minister feels are more appropriate monetary awards. There are real restrictions on it other than just the dollar amounts mentioned in this section. I want to make the case that this is fine this time around. Again, I want to say it is long overdue, but I am urging the minister to drop this approach.

I understand what he is trying to do. I understand the fiscal problems any government would have in trying to address the concerns of parents who have had their families disintegrate, which brings about not just a loss of income but a great crying need for other medical services and other support services, some of which are present in their own communities, some of which are just not there, some of which are covered under the Ontario health insurance plan and other compensation schemes and some of which are not covered at all.

I want to make the argument that this measure may be appropriate for now, but I want the minister to get on with that review of those other matters that have financial implications, that is for sure. Perhaps he may be able to put some emphasis on that, but there are also a great many other things that have to be considered.

I know the minister has met with several groups with interest in victims of crime that have had conferences from time to time, and I am sure they have made him aware in very dramatic ways. Most of these people are very angry and very frustrated and take that anger and frustration out on the whole system. The root cause of all this is the fact that their lives have been ruined by somebody who did a criminal act. The way we compensate for that has been pitiful to date.

This is a somewhat more generous attempt to provide compensation, to raise the dollar amounts to these levels, which will be fairer to some degree, but it has not really addressed the principal problem, which is that this is not meeting their financial obligations, and I do not think I heard the minister pretend this afternoon that it would. It will be a fairer compensation for the problem, but it is not a system designed to meet the financial problems they incur.

I anticipate we will see again, even with these changes, people writing to us and appearing in our offices saying: "The dollar amount that was awarded under these changes is better than what I would have got before, but the problem is that my life has been ruined. I lost my house, I lost my job and I lost my career."

That will continue to be the basic unfairness that is present. I would like the minister to respond to that -- perhaps not at great length -- because that has been my argument in here for a long time, and I know it is an argument that is shared by many members. When we attempt to meet with people who have been victimized in a criminal situation, the frustration and the anger are compounded.

It begins initially with a criminal act, with some injustice. It is compounded further by the fact that financial ruin often enters the picture and that what began as a criminal act turns into something that ruins the family's future, ruins the relationship within the family, causes medical and psychological problems that degenerate into problems at the place of work.

They are really in a terrible position, and we have never in this province or in this country begun to address their concerns. To go back to what I said initially, the irony I always find is that if we said to our judges and our courts, "You can find this guy guilty, but you can spend only $20,000 to incarcerate him;" or if we ever, God forbid, said to our courts, "We would like a court procedure here; it can be as thorough as you like, but it has to come in at under $5,000;" they would reject that proposition totally.

There are many of us who are very angry that one part of the justice process really knows no restriction in terms of cost. A police investigation can go on for years and we are not allowed to question that. An inquiry into something can go on for years and we accept that it will cost $2 million, $3 million, $4 million or $5 million to hold these inquiries. The judges would be in open revolt if we suggested they could not deliberate as long as they saw fit and come up with judgements as they saw fit. At the other end of the process, the victim walks into a system that says: "There are real limits on how much compensation we can offer you. There are real limits on how much compensation you can even aspire to get."

I hope that under these amendments they will be able to say it is a little bit fairer than it used to be, but I am anticipating -- perhaps wrongly, but I think not -- the board will continue to say, "Some of your expenses and some claims against the system are legit and we will pay them up to this limit," but I anticipate as well that it will say, "We will arbitrate and we will say to you you cannot come and talk to us about the loss of your home, the loss of your family or other family problems that you get into."

I would simply like the minister to respond to that kind of long statement, and it is long because the problem has been around for a long while and we have all dealt with a number of cases; but it is what I consider to be a very serious problem. I accept that this is an appropriate step for now, but I am reaching out for some hope that in the near future we will give the victims of crimes every bit as much attention and every bit as much financial attention as we give those who perpetrate the crimes.

Hon. Mr. Scott: May I just respond by saying I would like to leave for another day the question of the process that concerned my friend at the end of his remarks, because that is a rather different subject from the one he started out on. I understand what he said, and it makes good sense and has to be dealt with. However, I do not think it is at the heart of his concern, which is represented by his recognition that these amounts, as an outside limit, seem inappropriate in terms of the money the public spends on a vast array of other things such as incarceration, investigation and so on. There is some impropriety.

17:40

At the moment, let me accept that as a given and say that if one is going to deal with this question, as I think we all should, one has to recognize that in every case some body is going to set the outside limit. It can be a legislature, as we are doing. It can be the tribunal itself. One can give it a blank cheque and tell it to pay whatever it wants out of the Treasury, to fix what it thinks is right. It can be a court.

In each of those cases, we have found from experience that there are limits. For example, courts have decided that, including inflation, $180,000 is the maximum payout for pain and suffering. It is not found in a statute; it is in the judgements of the courts. The limit has been fixed by nine appointed judges who cannot be recalled to this Legislature or the Parliament of Canada.

We could allow the limit to be set by the members of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and thereby run the risk that they were either too conservative and niggardly or that they spent all the Treasury; or the limits can be set by the Legislature.

I have practised all my life in the courts and I have grave reservations about granting extensive powers of that type to courts and tribunals. Having heard my friend say the limits are inadequate, about which he may or may not be right, I still think it is the responsibility of the Legislature or its delegate, the executive council, to set those limits for this kind of plan.

We were talking the other day about no-fault automobile insurance, which has been introduced in other provinces. Whether no-fault automobile insurance is run by the government or the private sector, it will have limits built in. One will not be able to get more than a certain amount for pain and suffering. Every plan that exists in Canada has those limits.

I am not complaining about that. I am not giving that example to be critical of such plans. I am simply saying the limit has to be set by somebody. Would the honourable member be more comfortable if the board were able, as it is constituted from day to day, to set the limit and fix the tax rate thereby, or would he feel that should be the responsibility of the popularly elected representatives of the province?

I opt for the latter course, not only because I am afraid a tribunal may spend a lot of money, but also because I am afraid it may not spend enough. There are examples of that kind of tribunal too. However, it is a discussion we must have on another day.

Mr. Breaugh: I appreciate the points the minister has made and I believe that in the main they are legitimate points of view. I wonder how the Criminal Injuries Compensation Review Board will look at these. I guess we will simply have to wait and watch for a year or so to see whether there is a substantial change in its granting of awards.

As the minister says, there are now new limits, and perhaps it is quite legitimate that in the Canadian experience -- and this is a very Canadian way to go about things -- the legislators will draw up an act such as this and the statutory limits of amounts that may be granted will be in a section such as this.

There are other places in the world where they say, for starters, that is a difficult thing to do and it is an inappropriate thing to do. There are many other jurisdictions where they say they will hear this on a case-by-case basis and some learned person somewhere will establish, by means of precedents, what one case is worth and what another one is worth.

Hon. Mr. Scott: No such place.

Mr. Breaugh: I believe the minister will find some.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Only Ireland, I believe.

Mr. Breaugh: All good things come from Ireland. We all know that.

I want to put on notice that the track record of this board is not great. I happened to have been chairing a committee, and we reviewed this board. Their track record was not great for a lot of reasons. They said there were really tough limits placed on the amounts they could award. This bill and these amendments will go some measure towards removing that problem.

They got into the argument about shared financing of the program itself, and I am not sure we will resolve that in this instance. At the base of it was a third problem. The board saw these things in a very different perspective to what the victims did. They saw legislative limits on the kind of awards they could give, limits on the amounts they could give, and very stringent rules.

My friend the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) mentioned the Workers' Compensation Board. I am afraid that in my dealings with this board they took a similar track. They did not quite have a meat chart, but it was close to that. They did not quite impose limits on what one could claim as being some form of injury, but it was very close to it.

The best we can do for now is to accept these amendments and watch in the next year or so as the board begins a slightly wider process with slightly wider limits. We will see whether the board is able to respond in a more humane way to people who I believe have bitterness, but bitterness with reason. It seems to me that if we or members of our families had been injured during a criminal act, when we were trying to help the police or someone who was a victim of a crime or we were the victims ourselves and we had been dealt with by the board under its previous conditions, we too would be very angry and very frustrated.

It will be fascinating to watch now and see whether, with these changes and these monetary limits being increased substantially under this proposal, the board responds to them. If it does, I suppose we can say it is a little bit better than what it once was, but that remains to be seen.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I do not want to prolong this, so I am going to try to make a deal with my honourable friend the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh). It is very easy and right, and part of his duty as a member of the assembly, to criticize this or any other board for the way it makes awards when it is caught by a statutory limit of, let us say, a lump sum of $25,000.

It is very easy for all of us, from our experience, to find cases where we think people should have got more than they did. There are lots of those cases. It is also easy to say, and right to say, that there should not be a chart to which reference is had to determine the amount; but having said all that, the judging must go on.

I ask my honourable friend, indeed I challenge him, to present a scheme that will show how the variety of cases can be disposed of against an upper limit of $25,000. There are various ways. We could say that anybody who applies will get $25,000, everybody will get the maximum. We could say, absurdly, that everybody will get the minimum, because we are waiting for the cataclysmic case so severe in its consequences that only $25,000 will approach it.

We could also say that most of the cases, 99 per cent of them, are going to be between $1 and $25,000. Then we could ask where they are going to sit on the spectrum. Surely we cannot say: "Broken legs are big today. They will all get $1,000, rather than last week when they all got $500." We have to develop a scheme, a rationale or a theory which will help to decide thousands of cases against that maximum limit, all bearing some rough relationship, which means some rough justice, one to the other.

The member for Oshawa, as he returns in his car tonight to that city, can be thinking about that and he can jot down in the morning his plan to give instructions to this tribunal or any other on how this is to be done. I am confident it will be a good plan and that it will solve all the problems. More than anything, I am confident I am going to get it from him.

17:50

Mr. Breaugh: I cannot resist. I have to respond to the invitation from the Attorney General to make another deal. I want to remind him we made one deal a year or so ago and I want to wait and see how that deal works out before I engage in any more deal-making with him.

Section 4 agreed to.

On section 5:

Hon. Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, I think we have called section 5. We have had the discussion and I have nothing further to add.

Motion agreed to.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Scott, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with a certain amendment.

PROVINCIAL OFFENCES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Scott moved second reading of Bill 70, An Act to amend the Provincial Offences Act.

Hon. Mr. Scott: As the members of the House will recall when I dealt with this some time ago in introducing the bill, I pointed out that the bill contains a number of amendments which are designed to ensure the successful operation of the new procedures for the prosecution of parking infractions contained in part II of the Provincial Offences Act. The amendments are complex. I would be interested in the comments of honourable members upon them.

The importance of the new scheme is, first, to assure that everybody who wants a trial of a parking offence gets one. There is no question about that; if one wants a trial of a parking offence, one is going to get it.

Second, it introduces a streamlined procedure which it is estimated will achieve considerable savings for municipalities that bear the responsibility of serving process. That is currently estimated at about $10 million annually. I commend the amendments to honourable members and invite their response, if any, to the proposals.

Mr. McClellan: Perhaps the minister can tell us what the offsetting revenue is to balance this piffling cost?

The Deputy Speaker: Before we get the reply, are there any other questions or comments from any members? If not, a reply from the minister for two minutes.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am sorry I did not make myself clear to the protector of the exchequer. It is anticipated the savings to municipalities will be a gross figure of $10 million annually because of the streamlined service process that is contemplated under the act. It is not anticipated the revenue that will be produced to the municipalities or the consolidated revenue fund will significantly alter. What is it annually? A lot.

Mr. O'Connor: By way of very brief comment, may I indicate we agree with the Attorney General in his efforts to streamline the process with regard to parking tickets. As he indicates, the amendments are somewhat complex and they do achieve that admirable goal of cutting costs, of speeding up that process and of generally streamlining the situation.

As he points out, everyone who now wishes to have a trial with regard to a parking ticket charge can have a trial. That does not change anything. Everyone who has a parking ticket has always had a right to a trial. He was just assuring us that no one will be deprived of that right as a result of these amendments.

In his admirable and commendable efforts to streamline the process, the one mildly concerning aspect of these changes is that we are engaged in a process of perhaps necessarily detracting from some of the legal procedural rights that accused, albeit accused of an extremely minor violation, formally had under the old statute. For instance, subsection 2, as set out in the explanatory notes, permits a justice to enter a default conviction for a municipal bylaw offence without proof of the bylaw if the defendant does not want to dispute the charge.

Not having to prove the bylaw and not having to go beyond the certificate of offence on its face is now accepted as being accurate and correct. It is a deprivation, shall we say, of a legal right that formerly existed.

On balance, the benefits of the cost-saving and streamlining of the process in regard to the actual amendments that are being proposed do outweigh those deprivations I have mentioned. However, we have to be careful when we launch into this type of process where, in the interests of expediency, we deprive people of former rights. There is a very fine line that has to be watched in that process and over which we have to be very careful not to step. I do not think we have in this case, but that whole situation, that whole approach, has to be monitored carefully so that in the interests of expediting matters and processing paperwork, and in the interests of bureaucracy running smoothly, we do not infringe on anybody's rights.

Mr. Breaugh: We will support this bill. Many members will be aware that huge legal wars have been fought over who can give a parking ticket, how they have to do it and what happens afterwards. It is one of the raging issues of our time for some small group of folks.

It is purported that this particular bill will resolve, expedite and be fair; if it does that, great. I have a sneaking suspicion in the back of my mind that it will not be quite as smooth as the minister would like it to be. I grant him that this is the attempt to expedite the process at less cost so that everyone's legal rights will be upheld. As we speak, I will bet there are some lawyers out there chomping at the bit, waiting to get at this one as they have gotten at every other statute we have ever passed, and away they will go.

To be fair, and to keep them in business -- and we do not want a lot of unemployed lawyers around, just a few specific ones -- we are happy to support it and give them their day in court.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

The Deputy Speaker: Is the acting House leader going to deal with the business for next week?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Scott: On Monday afternoon, November 3, we will do Treasury estimates.

On Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday afternoon, we will complete second reading of Bill 131 and second reading of Bill 72; then committee of the whole House on Bill 8, followed by second reading of Bill 128 and Bill 116.

On Thursday morning, we will do private members' business standing in the names of the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) and the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan).

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Is it true that we have dealt with three pieces of legislation in one afternoon here? We have gone too fast.

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

30 octobre 1986