Journal des débats 1987-déc-02 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Reville: Lorrie Goldstein, who gets to think in public every day in the Toronto Sun, had a really good idea this morning. He thinks the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) should get a day of rest this Sunday. She will need it to recover from being flattened by what Lorrie calls “the cabinet solidarity steamroller.” He is right, you know; I was there.

Before her elevation, the Solicitor General trudged from town to town across Ontario where she and 10 other members of the 33rd Parliament listened patiently to individuals and groups plead for a common pause day. She went on the bus to Barrie. A few days later, she went on the bus to Cambridge and then to London, where she endured with award-winning patience the local crypto-Conservatives, one of whom had run against her as head of a party whose sole plank was wide-open Sundays. The Solicitor General explained that restricted holiday shopping was not, after all, undemocratic.

Alas, a private member has freedom that a cabinet minister clearly does not; so let us give that cabinet minister a bit of freedom. Let us give her this Sunday off. She can soak her feet or perhaps her head and think about how strange life is.

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Cousens: The Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) has indicated how proud she is of the work she is doing as minister and how confident she is of her ministry to serve the public and resolve the housing crisis of the province. I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, our caucus is not that pleased or that confident. The people of Ontario who have a housing crisis are not that pleased or that confident. In fact, when one starts to ask some questions, as we did yesterday, about the rent registry, it really comes as a shock that the minister attributes it as still working, starting to come into effect, when maybe less than five per cent of the tenants are registered. Is there any wonder there is a backlog of 23,000 people trying to have their rents addressed and resolved?

We have a problem in this province. We have a problem of confidence that this government is going to do something to solve the housing crisis. There is a confidence factor in the fact that government promised it would build 102,000 affordable rental units by 1989. It has not even announced where they are going to go and when they are going to go up.

I wish the press would start coming out with the fact that this is another example of this government failing to meet the needs of legislation and of the people of this province. It is a situation where I have no confidence in them.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG ADDICTION

Mr. McClelland: I would like to draw to the attention of this House that Peel region’s first comprehensive alcohol and drug assessment program will begin operating in Brampton and in Peel in January of this coming year.

This program, which received its funding from the Ministry of Health, will conduct a comprehensive assessment and develop a total treatment package for individuals in our community, directing them to the most suitable services offered in the community and working towards developing appropriate services for them.

In addition, I wish to draw to the attention of this House that last week at Peel’s annual conference on addiction, the organization MAP, Managing Addiction Programs in Peel, announced a plan to co-ordinate an integrated and holistic program to assist drug and alcohol addicts in Peel. Included in the plan is a proposal for a 26-bed detoxification centre linked to Peel Memorial Hospital. Currently, in Brampton and throughout Peel, alcoholics and drug addicts must go to Hamilton or Toronto or, unhappily, be admitted to jail.

This proposal to deal with addicts in a holistic manner involving as many as 500 community volunteers is to be commended for its vision and its thrust and the fact that it comes from the grass-roots involvement of the community. I look forward to working with health care officials, my colleagues in this House and the members of our community in advancing this worthwhile proposal to realization.

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Over the past week or two, I have raised the matter of a lack of resources and an overcrowding problem at our universities.

Today I would like to bring to the attention of the Legislature that 3,000 students and faculty at Trent University are going to boycott classes tomorrow to protest the gross underfunding of their library facility, the terrible overcrowding, where offices have been crammed into what should be library space, where the lack of funds for staff has meant it is open for fewer hours than at most other universities.

In fact, they are trying to receive donations from students in the university community, a $10 donation each, to try to compensate for the underfunding of this government. We know that is probably a dangerous kind of initiative for them to take. Perhaps it even runs counter to certain proposals that have been put forward by this Legislature in terms of not wanting to place an extra burden on students for the cost of their university education.

I think it is appropriate that the minister is here today. I hope she has a statement to make in terms of redressing the needs of that university, which has waited over 10 years for any major capital assistance and which has been complaining about this overcrowding situation through the faculty council and through the president, who has, I know, spoken personally with the minister recently. The university is in dire need of redress of this most significant problem.

GOVERNMENT POLICIES

Mr. Harris: During the last campaign, the Liberal Party promised leadership that works. In office, they have provided leadership that wimps out. If this government were a car, its performance would warrant a recall.

On Sunday shopping, Liberal leadership consists of passing the buck to the municipalities. In trade policy, Liberal leadership means the Premier (Mr. Peterson) finally gets off the fence to go and sit on the bench. In education, the Liberal idea of leadership is to deliver one fifth of what they promised and then ask the property taxpayer to pick up the bill for everything else. On child care, the Liberals issue a New Directions paper which keeps them going in the same old circle while they wait for the federal government to come up with a policy for them.

Liberal leadership in tax reform means hiking the personal income tax, land transfer tax and every tax they can get their mitts on. Liberal leadership in housing means creating a system that can barely process a rent increase application and taking comfort in the fact that the vacancy rate has not got any worse.

Every time a fight starts, an issue or a problem comes up, this government leaves the room or strikes yet another committee or commission. It is not a government that leads; it is a government that appears afraid of its own mandate. It is a government paralysed by the responsibilities of leadership, to the point where it deals with issues by making them someone else’s problem and by waiting for others to come up with solutions.

That approach is rapidly making this government a problem for the people of Ontario, who are beginning to see that the Liberal idea of leadership begins and ends with a slogan.

1340

ROBERT BECHARD

Mr. Elliot: I would like to make a statement about Robert L. Bechard, president and founder of ACTION International, a private relief organization founded to help orphans of Mexican descent. The initials of ACTION stand for a call to improve orphans’ needs. Initially, Bob Bechard began helping Hilda and Raefel Gomez in Mexico to support 50 children in their orphanage. The success of his charity has increased this number to 84. ACTION at this time is attempting to build an orphanage in Mexico which will house 100 boys and 100 girls.

Several months ago, we recommended that Bob Bechard receive the Order of Canada award because of his work as a gregarious missionary. We have done this because Bob Bechard directed his life to the things that count. He took opportunities to serve that came his way. He looked forward, in a spirit of adventure, towards new horizons of achievement. He brought into the lives of others all those major blessings that make for happy, creative, triumphant living.

Robert L. Bechard, at the young age of 64, died on Saturday, November 14, 1987, in Milton of a massive heart attack. I wish to honour Bob Bechard of Halton North by making this statement part of the official record of the Legislature of Ontario.

MCLAUGHLIN GALLERY

Mr. Breaugh: Members will know that Oshawa is the cultural centre of Canada.

An hon. member: True.

Mr. Breaugh: It is true.

Mr. Brandt: As of what date?

Mr. Breaugh: Don’t show your ignorance here.

Saturday afternoon at 3:30, all members are invited to the brand-new Robert McLaughlin Gallery, opening with a little bit of provincial money and a whole lot of Oshawa money. When members get there, they will see Joan Murray, the most dynamic person in all of art in Canada; they will have an opportunity to see an architectural wonder; and, best of all, they will get a chance just to be in Oshawa for an afternoon. All members are invited.

Miss Nicholas: I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to recognize the recent death of a former constituent of mine.

Agreed to.

PUNCH IMLACH

Miss Nicholas: I would like to recognize today in the House the loss of a legend. The city, the province and the country acknowledge today the passing of George “Punch” Imlach. The media have reported extensively on the accomplishments and controversies of his career life. Some people did not always agree with Punch Imlach, but he earned the respect of all people because, whatever he did, he made sure he did it his way.

I remember the first time I met Punch Imlach. It was in 1974 in St. Catharines and we were attending a banquet for charity. He continued to work on behalf of charities for the remainder of his life. More recently, I had the pleasure of meeting him on his doorstep in my constituency. We are told that his greatest joy was when he sat behind the bench, and that is where we recognize and remember him most, in particular leading the Toronto Maple Leafs to four Stanley Cup wins in the 1960s.

I am sure it is the unanimous wish of this House that we express the condolences of the people of Ontario, who enjoyed the benefits of his enthusiasm for the game of hockey, to his wife, Dorothy, his son, Brent, and his daughter, Marlene. Punch Imlach will be missed by all.

Mr. Breaugh: I want to join in this recognition of Punch Imlach. Most of us who grew up in Canada will know this man. We will know him probably for two reasons: one, the fedoras, the hats that were so great and that you saw when you first went into the rink; and, secondly, because he made hockey into something that we will all remember in this country. Strange though it may seem, hockey players and people who are involved in hockey play a great role in the development of our culture. Punch Imlach kind of signifies that era when hockey was really hockey, when there were six great hockey teams and great legends at work. He carried it over into a new era and kind of expanded that into a franchise in Buffalo.

He was controversial, but there is nothing wrong with being controversial. He was sometimes wrong, but more often right. He inspired people to do great things. He inspired a great many memories all across Canada.

There is, I suppose, a number of cities that could be connected with him, but in truth, there was really only one, Toronto, and only one hockey team, the Toronto Maple Leafs, which as everybody who was born anywhere in this country knows is one of the world’s great hockey organizations. Part of that really belongs to Punch Imlach, who sometimes took some rather older hockey players, who others said were washed up and who had given up on them, and made them into Stanley Cup champions. For those of us who are getting a little older and a little washed up, we look up to people like that who have the magic to make greatness out of people who have worked all their lives in professional sport. It is one of the toughest, roughest businesses around and we recognize the greatness that is Punch Imlach and we extend our condolences to his family.

Mr. McLean: I would like to join with my colleagues in paying tribute to the late Punch Imlach. I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of my party, to pay tribute to George “Punch” Imlach, who passed away yesterday after a lengthy battle with heart ailments.

Punch’s first season ended with a Stanley Cup defeat in 1959, when the Toronto Maple Leafs lost out to their perennial rivals, the Montreal Canadiens. He had dragged the Leafs by their skate laces from the bottom of the league to the cup final that year. He then went on to build what many consider to be a hockey dynasty. Those same Leafs captured four Stanley Cups.

After falling out of favour in Toronto, Punch went on to build the fledgling Buffalo Sabres into a respectable team that, five years later, made it all the way to the finals. Punch was notorious for battling with the league president, the club owners and with anybody he felt he could take on, and he was usually always right. These battles often took place on behalf of his players. He was truly a team man and a team player who displayed an immense amount of loyalty to his players, who often went on to become close friends over the years. I often thought if he had noticed my talents in my hockey days he may have won five Stanley Cups.

During recent years, after leaving the hockey wars behind him, Punch was quoted as saying: “I wish I could be behind the bench. That is where the fun is. It is the best thing in the world. “ Punch is no longer with us in this world, but I am certain that wherever he is, someone will have the smarts to have him back behind the bench where he truly belongs. On behalf of my party, I would like to offer my condolences to Punch’s wife, Dorothy, and his family.

Mr. Speaker: When the official record of this assembly is printed, I will make certain that the Imlach family receives a copy of Hansard so that they are aware of your words of sympathy.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Later today I will be introducing an amendment to the Employment Standards Act to provide protection to workers who refuse to contravene the Retail Business Holidays Act by working on Sunday. This amendment is an interim measure that addresses the concerns of members of this House about the situation of the majority of workers in retail operations.

Yesterday the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) indicated that the current law will be in force until the legislation she announced is passed by this Legislature. Until new legislation is passed, it will remain illegal for most retail stores to be open on Sunday.

The purpose of the bill I am introducing today, therefore, will be to protect a worker’s right to decline to work on a Sunday, if by doing so he or she would be contravening the Retail Business Holidays Act.

The amendment will enable an employment standards officer to order an employee to be reinstated and/or compensated if he or she is dismissed for refusing to break the law by working.

In his statement yesterday the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) explained the special circumstances giving rise to his decision not to prosecute large retail stores that stay open on the Sunday after Boxing Day. As a result of that announcement, there will be three categories of stores on December 27:

1. Those that are permitted to remain open on Sundays under the Retail Business Holidays Act, including pharmacies and convenience stores.

2. Those that qualify for the Sabbatarian exemption described by the Attorney General, that is, stores that employ fewer than eight persons and occupy less than 5,000 square feet that are permitted to open on Sunday because they are closed on Saturday.

3. Those large stores that the Attorney General announced would not be prosecuted if they remain open on Sunday, December 27.

1350

Today’s legislation will ensure that the employees of this third category of store, the large retailer, can elect not to work on Sunday, December 27. The bill will have no effect on the employees of the other two categories.

This amendment will come into force as of today. I am sure all members of this House -- I ask them and I urge them -- will lend their support to its speedy passage so that workers are assured that their rights are fully protected.

As I have indicated, this amendment is an interim measure. When the Sunday opening policy announced yesterday is introduced, the government will bring forth the necessary protections for the affected workers.

Comme je l’ai déjà indiqué, il s’agit d’un amendement temporaire. Quand la politique en ce qui concerne l’ouverture des magasins le dimanche sera présentée, le gouvernement proposera les mesures nécessaires à la protection des travailleurs.

RECYCLING

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Disposal of the vast amounts of garbage produced in Ontario is a vexing problem. Proposals to bury or burn it inevitably prompt fears of environmental damage and lead to lengthy, costly and often protracted political battles.

While there is no magic wand to wave and make the problem disappear, we have a waste management tool -- recycling -- which can reduce our garbage disposal problem in an environmentally sound manner.

Our government’s commitment to recycling is beginning to show results. The number of municipal multimaterial curbside recycling programs has increased from seven early in 1985 to 45 currently, with more planned. Waste diverted from disposal has increased from 51,000 tonnes in fiscal year 1984-85 to an estimated 100,000 tonnes in the current year. This is an increase from 1.6 per cent to three per cent of the total municipal waste stream.

Provincial funding for municipal recycling programs has been increased from $750,000 in 1985 to $3.7 million this year. Provincial support to help municipalities start up their programs is now available for five years, compared to three years previously.

In addition, the beverage container regulation we adopted shortly after taking office in 1985 was designed to drive municipal multimaterial curbside recycling programs. The regulation requires soft drink producers to recycle at least 50 per cent of their containers. The regulation and my ministry’s no-nonsense approach to its enforcement have prompted the industry to set up Ontario Multi-Material Recycling Inc. or, as it is known, OMMRI. OMMRI is distributing $20 million over four years to help municipalities pay the capital costs of establishing recycling programs. This private sector initiative has been helpful in getting recycling going province-wide.

While we are making a good start, we must find ways to expand the scope of current recycling programs by including corrugated cardboard and organic waste for composting and by serving high-rise apartment residents. Initiatives in these areas are under way, and new techniques applied province-wide could help us to recycle 25 per cent or more of our municipal waste in years to come.

Today I am pleased to announce that our government has allocated an additional $2 million to support municipal curbside recycling programs. This is a 54 per cent in-year funding increase and brings provincial support to $5.7 million this year alone. The response to recycling around the province is snowballing, and these additional moneys will ensure that all the good proposals brought forward get all the provincial help they deserve.

RESPONSES

RECYCLING

Mrs. Grier: We certainly welcome the minister’s announcement today and are very glad that his recycling programs are proving so successful. In fact, we hope they will be so successful that he can close down the Commissioners Street incinerator immediately and save the people of Metropolitan Toronto from the pollutants it is pouring out.

I think I want to say, though, that the minister has to begin to move beyond the kind of voluntary response that has proven so successful and take a look at those municipalities that are not yet into recycling. Obviously, Metropolitan Toronto is the prime example.

He also has to think about moving into the commercial field and what can be recycled commercially. Here in Metro, as I understand it, we could extend the life of each of the two landfill sites by two years if we do as the minister says he hopes to do and move into recycling commercial cardboard.

We also have to move towards reducing the garbage at source and move beyond recycling and produce less garbage to begin with. Only when we have gone all the way, can we begin to really come to grips with the environmental problems that we ourselves are creating.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. B. Rae: I almost felt sorry for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) when he stood up in his place today and read the statement, which I had seen in advance. It is truly an astonishing example of government by the seat of its pants.

We have a Minister of Labour who, according to my information, has not consulted with representatives of the workers who are affected by this legislation prior to any announcements he has made in this House with regard to this matter, claiming to represent working people. They are the ones who are being inconvenienced, not he. They have not been spoken to.

He announced that there are now going to be three categories of workers on Sunday, December 27, and he expects, on the basis of this announcement, those people to be able to exercise in a serious way their right to refuse, knowing full well that the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) just stood up two days before and said there are a whole category of workers who might think they are part of an exclusion, but they are not. Why? Because the Attorney General, on his own, has decided he is not going to enforce the law.

So we have workers who could be included, but they are not included, because the Attorney General says, “I have decided the law will not apply to these people in this particular circumstance on this particular day.” The government is asking the House and the working people in the province to take seriously an announcement which is operative for one day for one group of workers and not for two other groups of workers who are also going to be working in retail stores, because the Attorney General has decided that, depending on the size of the store, depending on which side of the store they are working on, they are either included or excluded.

The Liberal Party has managed to turn around a situation that was considered by an all-party committee that came up with recommendations and said to the government, “This is the way we think it should be and we think that once we have decided this is the way it should be, the law should be enforced.” For reasons that have not been explained in this House, for reasons that have not been adequately brought forward, the government of the day has panicked and brought forward a panic result that is laughable.

This is not enforceable. Working people cannot rely on it. It is not enforceable and not functional, and the Minister of Labour knows it. The Attorney General knows it. They have created a situation which makes them and their government the laughingstock of Ontario with regard to this legislation.

The municipalities do not want it because they know the government has chickened out. Working people are looking at the government and saying it has chickened out. It is quite clear that the law it has created in the province is an ass. All I can say is I hope they are proud of themselves.

RECYCLING

Mrs. Marland: I am somewhat interested in the statement of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) today.

First, as a former member of the Mississauga city council, which during my term of office introduced the second recycling program in a municipality in Ontario, a program which is excellent and is working, I certainly am an advocate of those programs in municipalities across Ontario through firsthand, personal experience.

I am very interested in the figures in this statement. It is very interesting, but I wonder whether the minister’s staff people have made an error. They say the tonnage has increased from 51,000 tonnes to 100,000 tonnes, an increase to three per cent of the total municipal waste stream. If one looks at the figures, they really do not make any sense, because the minister says that at 51,000 tonnes, the cost was $750,000 for provincial funding. He now says the cost is up to $3.7 million, but the tonnage has only doubled. The cost actually has multiplied five times; the tonnage achievement is only twice as much.

I think those are very interesting figures. They are figures the minister should look at very closely, because if we are now, in 1987, spending five times as much but the achievement in tonnage recycled is only twice as much, I think there has to be some question about how the program is being achieved. We certainly look forward to having more money’s worth in terms of provincial support for a much-needed program.

1400

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Harris: We will support the amendment that was announced today by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) when he introduces it later today, but I want to tell the House it is a disgrace the way this government has handled the whole situation. I do not feel we have any choice but to support the amendment, because in some small way it will help the botch-up that has been created by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) and, presumably, the fence-sitting Premier (Mr. Peterson).

I want to agree with the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae) in the comments he made and add our support to those remarks, but I also want to take just a second to point out something in this statement today and in the statement yesterday as well. In the statement yesterday, the Attorney General explained the special circumstances giving rise to his decision -- the Attorney General’s -- not to prosecute large retail stores that stay open on the Sunday after Boxing Day.

What we have here is the Attorney General saying he has the power and the right to decide what laws will be enforced and what laws will not be enforced in this land and in this province. I did not have the opportunity to bring back all the quotes that the Attorney General gave, but I know members of the House will recall that when he was asked, for example, about Morgentaler and about Scott, he was very clear in saying: “Oh, you can’t expect the Attorney General to tell the police what to do. I can’t interfere with what the Solicitor General has to do or what the police have to do.”

When it came to the matter of charges, he said: “Oh, you can’t expect that of the Attorney General. The Attorney General can’t involve himself in that. That is not my role.”

Here he is clearly on the record as saying not only it is his role, his prerogative and his right to direct the police, to interpret the law and then direct them, but in fact he even has the power to direct them to not enforce existing laws.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I didn’t mention the police.

Mr. Harris: Well, it says here “not to prosecute.”

Hon. Mr. Scott: It says I wouldn’t prosecute them. They can lay what charges they want.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: I point this out, because the next time the Attorney General gets on his feet and says, “Oh no, we can’t be involved there, I want to sit on the fence on this one,” let it be clear that he has said he has the power to determine who will be prosecuted when, what the police will do when, and he cannot back out of that in the future.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That completes the allotted time for ministerial statements and responses.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There will be time for further exchanges during the question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. B. Rae: My question is for the Minister of Labour. I heard the minister this morning at 8:30 while I was having my breakfast --

Hon. Mr. Scott: A poor working man’s breakfast at 8:30.

Mr. B. Rae: It is the only chance I have to see my kids.

The question I have for the --

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It is just like the old days in the embassy.

Mr. B. Rae: That’s right. Eat your heart out, I say to my friend.

I heard the minister say that Sunday is a public holiday under the Employment Standards Act. Would he care to clarify that? Was he serious when he said that under the Employment Standards Act Sunday is a public holiday?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: My light is not on, so I do not know if my friend the member for York South can hear me.

An hon. member: Your lights are on.

An hon. member: We know you’re home.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The lights are on, Minister.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I hope so.

The first thing I want to say is that I hope I somehow enhanced the member for York South’s breakfast at 8:30. I wish I could have been listening to him while I had my breakfast at 6:30, but he was not on. I hope I did not ruin his breakfast.

In response to the question my friend the member for York South asked, I want to say that yesterday I received a note from my ministry which I misinterpreted. As a result of that note, I made a comment that I am afraid was incorrect in that It suggested inadvertently that Sunday was a public holiday. I want to say here during this question period, first off, that information is unfortunately incorrect and it is unfortunate that I made that statement yesterday.

Mr. B. Rae: I am glad the minister has more than 10 watts. I was up all night thinking about the question.

The minister has admitted that yesterday, when he participated in the cabinet discussions --

Hon. Mr. Scott: You worked all morning on this.

Mr. B. Rae: -- if I can talk over the chatter of the Attorney General for a moment -- when he participated in the cabinet discussions concerning this matter, obviously the Minister of Labour, the minister representing working people at the cabinet table, did not know what the law was with respect to whether or not Sunday was a public holiday, which I think characterizes this whole flying by the seat of its pants, which is what this decision appears to be all about.

Does the minister think it is fair that some retail workers will, under the legislation he is proposing, be able to refuse work on one Sunday only but that all the other workers working in the retail sector will not be able to exercise a right to refuse on that Sunday or any other Sunday? Does he think that is fair in terms of the administration of Justice -- for somebody looking at the issue from the outside, not understanding all the ins and outs of the law? Does he think that is a fair way to proceed?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: If my friend the member for York South is talking about proper representations of bills, I think the first thing he ought to do is properly represent the bill I am about to introduce this afternoon.

This bill represents interim protection for workers who may be asked to work in stores which cannot legally open. The bill simply says that if an employer asks you to work in a store that cannot legally be opened, then you have the right to the protection that is provided under this bill, and that protection is, as I said in my statement, both reimbursement and reinstatement in the job.

Mr. B. Rae: I can understand the minister correctly. What he is saying is that the government has now created a scofflaw situation. It has created so much uncertainly out there that I would venture to predict there is going to be chaos for the period of time until the government makes up its mind on the legislation and the municipalities decide what they are going to do, which they do not want to have to do.

The government has created, frankly, a situation of complete chaos. What the minister is saying is that some workers -- we are not quite sure who they are, because they themselves will be uncertain as to whether they are covered or not, and they themselves will be uncertain because the law is only going to be enforced in some areas and not in others. The Attorney General has already said that on one day, which he decides, he is not going to enforce the law on that day, so there may be other days on which the law will or will not be enforced and nobody is going to know.

The question I want to ask is, are workers in the retail sector going to be protected on Sunday or not? Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: If my friend the member for York South would simply read this piece of legislation, he would know that it does one thing and one thing only. The fact is that the Retail Business Holidays Act is in force in this province now and it will continue to be in force until it is repealed or amended. This amendment to the Employment Standards Act simply offers the protection to workers to refuse to work in those businesses which are not allowed to open anyway. That is what it does. He knows that, and it is statements like the ones he has made that create the confusion, not a simple bill that offers workers the protection they deserve under the Retail Business Holidays Act.

Mr. B. Rae: It is that big, bad opposition passing all those terrible laws again. I wish we could do something about it.

Mr. Speaker: New question and to which minister?

1410

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. B. Rae: I have a new question for a new minister, the Minister of Financial Institutions. Later on today, the minister is going to be presenting Bill 2, An Act to establish the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board and to provide for the Review of Automobile Insurance Rates.

During previous discussions on earlier proposals, the then Minister of Financial Institutions stated in this House his view that that review board would have the power -- indeed, the responsibility -- to review not only automobile insurance rates but also rates affecting fire insurance, home insurance, other forms of casualty insurance and so on, that the entire insurance sector would necessarily come under the purview of this review board. Is that in fact the case?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: We will have the power, if the House approves the bill, to empower the board to review the transferences of profits from the automobile insurance sector of the business to any other sector.

Mr. B. Rae: Having said that, I wonder if the minister can then explain to me precisely what he anticipates is going to happen. Subsection 20(4) says, “In setting a rate or range of rates, the board shall set a rate or range of rates that in the opinion of the board is just and reasonable and not excessive or inadequate.”

The insurance industry has told Ontario that in the past year it lost some $330 million. We are not quite sure how it calculates that or what exactly it means by it or where and how it made it up, but it says it lost that much money. Can the minister confirm that the board, if it considers that the rates are inadequate, will have the power to increase rates in order to ensure that the automobile insurance side of the business makes a healthy profit for the insurance companies? Is that what the board is going to be doing?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I believe the profit aspect will have to be considered, but the honourable member is concerned about the word “inadequate.” That is to safeguard against the possibility of a company coming in with a loss-leader rate which cannot be supported by the statistics associated with the costs of the claims; therefore, it is going to maintain the competitive aspect in that regard. The board has the responsibility, if this bill is proclaimed into law, of controlling the rates as being either inadequate or too large, and this will be done on the basis of public hearings, as the honourable member knows.

Mr. B. Rae: In questions of adequacy or inadequacy, will the board be taking into account the fact that in Ontario the private insurance industry’s commission fees, overhead costs, claims adjustment costs, loss reserves and taxes make up some 42.5 per cent of its operations, whereas in Manitoba and British Columbia, the figure is around 20 per cent? Are those the kinds of figures the board will be taking into account? Can the minister confirm, just one more time, if he is saying it is the purpose of this bill to ensure that in the car insurance sector, the insurance companies will be permitted a healthy rate of return on the automotive business?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I do not accept any of the adjectives the honourable member is attempting to put in my mouth. I will simply tell him that the insurance industry is here to serve, in a fair and equitable way, the automobile owners and the people who are to be insured in this province. We believe the answer is not to follow the lead of the other jurisdictions the honourable member is so much committed to, but to establish a fair and equitable rate review board, which action is going to be placed before the Legislature this afternoon for useful debate that might very well encompass the views the honourable member is expressing.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sarnia.

[Applause]

Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I want to note for the record there was applause, even on the other side. I have their names and I have recorded them.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Solicitor General. I would like to quote the Solicitor General from a statement she made on December 1: “The Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) will shortly be addressing the issue of protections for workers which may be required.” Of course, he introduced that amendment in the House today.

On December 2, that minister said, “Sunday continues to be a public holiday.” This was a quote taken from the 6:30 a.m. news broadcast. I was up having breakfast at five o’clock. I phoned around to see if there was a radio program that would like me to straighten up the government’s policy relevant to this question and I will undoubtedly be on the air tomorrow very early.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Brandt: I suggest all members get up early to listen to that broadcast. In any event, the Minister of Labour said: “Sunday continues to be a public holiday. The Employment Standards Act provides now that a worker, except in certain sectors like hospitals, can refuse to work on Sunday and without retaliation, of course.” If he was admitting he was wrong in making that statement, I accept that correction.

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Brandt: I would like to address my question, which I know you, Mr. Speaker, want me to raise at this time, to the Solicitor General, with respect to this confusing matter that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) has been trying to clarify and on which I join with him in trying to get some clarification.

Will the minister give the House the assurance that a worker who refuses to work on a Sunday will, in fact, receive the protection of this government?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: We are dealing with two separate issues here. The first is Sunday, December 27. The second is the issue of Sunday that may be addressed in a new bill.

As for December 27, the member has the bill in front of him. I can only guarantee it will be helpful to the employees if we get the cooperation of the opposition in passing that bill very speedily before December 27. I trust we will have that co-operation.

With regard to other Sundays, we will be addressing that matter before we introduce the legislation. I cannot answer those questions at this point as we have not yet put together that bill.

Mr. Brandt: I do have a supplementary and it is with respect to a quote from the Solicitor General when she was a private member and before she joined cabinet. It is in regard to the very law we are talking about. On April 23, 1987, the Solicitor General -- l know she wants to make a notation of that date so she can look up my quote, but I will share it with her, in fact pass it over to her if she likes -- said: “Yes, if the law says you cannot force someone to work on Sunday, the merchants we have talked to would tend to say such a law is meaningless except for a person who is not dependent on the job and is willing to risk going to court. If he is working his way up, hoping for promotion, having the law on the books would really mean nothing.”

Will the Solicitor General indicate to this House whether this quote is a reflection of her views as it relates to the law which she is now proposing to pass, or is she in support of the Minister of Labour’s view that this law will clear up the whole question of whether or not workers will be forced to work on a Sunday?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: It will vary from case to case, I assume. I mentioned, in reference, people with whom I had spoken who work in Vancouver. They seem to have managed to work it out in most stores there, where they work it out among the employees who get off either Saturday or Sunday according to their own choice, and it works rather well. That is what I have been told.

As for the question of promotion, as the member says, this was something that merchants often said to us in the committee, which is what I reported and which they often did say.

Mr. Brandt: I recall some time ago that the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) had indicated that if anyone was forced to work on Sunday all one had to do was call his number. I want to indicate to the members and for the viewers at home what his number is. The number is 965-1664, if they are forced to work on a Sunday.

1420

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Scott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the number is changed.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

If you have no further information, maybe you would place your supplementary.

Mr. Brandt: Yes, I do have a supplementary. I can appreciate the fact that the Attorney General may want to change that number.

Further to quotes that the Solicitor General has made in the past with respect to this issue, does she still concur with the point of view she expressed on April 23, 1987? That must have been a good day for her in committee. I think she would find a lot of older women, mothers, mother-led families and that sort of thing, for whom, as she has already indicated: “The pressure to be able to take off the day the kids have off might be great. I see this as an unprotected group, this particular group of women who may very much need that day with their families.” I agree with that. I think that is a point of view I share with the minister, and I want to say that publicly. My question is, does the minister agree with what she said?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: It should come as no surprise to the member for Sarnia, as it comes as no surprise to me that he has been sifting through the committee reports. It was an idealistic report, and I completely agreed with it. I would still like to be able to say we could do those things we hoped we could do.

The problem we have is that we have been unable to find a way to define tourism in a meaningful way so it could be applied across the whole province. The abuses of this definition one sees around the whole province are the very things that have made it impossible to define. It is still my hope that it may be able to be defined and used at the municipal level where it can be dealt with in a smaller context. The municipalities may be able to come up with a definition of tourism and a tourist plan that will allow them to keep their stores closed in various parts of the province and thus protect the people I was referring to.

Mr. Brandt: I have another quote. My question again is to the Solicitor General. This is February 18, 1987, with respect to another dimension of the problem as it relates to the whole issue of Sunday openings. I have to say the minister at that time had an extremely open and progressive mind on this issue.

I want to quote to her what she said about municipalities and the options that she has placed before them as they relate to this new proposed law: “I have to make one final comment. From what we have heard, I gather that the municipal option eventually becomes total opening.”

Would the minister agree that there really is no municipal option and that all she has done is shifted the problem to the municipalities, virtually all 800 of which have said they do not want to have the controversial issue shoved over?

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

Hon. Mrs. Smith: This problem arises before this law comes into effect, because municipalities already are in that position if they choose to be. They simply declare themselves a tourist area. We have, I believe, fruit stands that have been declared tourist areas. We have St. George where our eminent Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) comes from, a great tourist attraction in this province. We were about to find the city of North York declare itself a tourist attraction. So this problem was upon us anyway; we are simply recognizing it.

Mr. Runciman: It is obvious from the minister’s remarks in the past and today that the government is trying to push totally open shopping through the municipal back door. It is equally obvious when we have the Premier (Mr. Peterson) stating that the new law will not be in place before the next municipal election, even not until 1989, that through the government’s cowardly avoidance what we are facing is a year and a half of chaos for municipalities and retailers.

We all know the government is trying to get municipal councils and politicians to take the heat for this and we all know it will not work. If the government wants wide-open Sunday shopping, and it is obvious it does, it has 95 members. Why do they not take the responsibility for it and bring it in now instead of delaying for a year and a half to protect their own skins?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I did not hear any statements about it not coming in until 1989 and so I do not know that has occurred.

As far as I am concerned, the interesting thing which I had not considered was that if we took the opportunity off the province and said, as we have, that it is impossible to define tourism which, according to the select committee, was to be the guidance, the municipalities would then still have had to decide how to define their own tourism in keeping with the provincial definition. They still had that responsibility. Now that we say it cannot be defined on a provincial level, it either goes to the municipalities or you take from them the right to have any choice in it at all. You force them to open on Sunday. We did not want to force them, and the member will see in today’s paper that many of them are grateful for that.

Mr. Runciman: I suspect the majority are not too grateful.

As we heard earlier, the Solicitor General was a signatory of the final report of the idealistic select committee on retail store hours. Among the recommendations of the committee was that the primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act should remain that of the provincial government. The minister signed that.

The minister has made obvious her opposition, in the past and yesterday, to wide-open Sunday shopping. She is aware of the effect it will have on workers and single-parent families. Unless the Solicitor General is prepared to totally renounce her previous stands on this issue, will she now in all conscience admit that she does not agree with the announcement she made yesterday and will she either ask the Premier to give her new responsibilities or, failing that, step down as Solicitor General of this province?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: As the other members of the committee would agree, we were very idealistic, but we were not idle. We were an idealistic committee, which unfortunately put on the government the charge to define something that proved not able to be defined in a useful way. Unfortunately, the whole recommendation was based on that. We did say in the recommendation that the government would have to do this. We did not tell them how. We hoped they could do it. It has turned out a worse task than we thought and it cannot be defined in a way that covers the province. I still wish it could, as I did when I signed that report.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, as a point of order before I actually raise my question: I really regret it when a minister makes the kind of statement, which seems on the face of it not to be an offence to the House, but which is actually a great putdown of the committee system. To make it sound as if committees do their work and are somehow idealistic and not looking at practical realities and that governments that change their policies are somehow realistic is an offence --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order; it is a point of view.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: That was one I felt I had to get off my chest, as somebody who takes committees seriously.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Before I call for the next question, I would like to inform the members that we have the former member for Middlesex, Bob Eaton, in the lower west gallery. Would you welcome him.

1430

PUPIL-TEACHER RATIO

Mr. K. F. Johnston: My question is for the Minister of Education. Given that the nasty reality of tape machines and tape recordings has proven that the minister has directly contravened his election promise to give almost $300 million in this year to the elementary system -- and even the Premier (Mr. Peterson) reluctantly admits, “If a tape says it, maybe I did say it too” -- will the minister now perhaps deal a little bit with the substance of what class size reduction is all about?

Can the minister tell us, given that the boards are going to have to make decisions about hiring late in this winter, when the boards will be informed? What methodology is he using to choose which boards are going to get the advantage of the class size system? What goals has he set for this first year in terms of what the class size should be next year? Can he tell us which boards will receive the money?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I am happy to indicate to the member for Scarborough West that we are indeed consulting extensively with the boards of education and with representatives of teachers’ federations, gathering their input as we work towards developing an implementation policy on the 20-to-one option.

As I indicated when I made the statement last Thursday, in terms of the general legislative grant, it is our intent to phase in a reduction in classroom size over the course of the next three school years. We have provided funds to place an additional 1,130 teachers in the coming year.

I will be happy to bring to the attention of the member and this House the details of that implementation policy when they are available.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: That is the third figure we have seen for the number of teachers: 1,000, 1,100; 1,130 now. I hope it changes upward again.

I am wondering if this does not prove that a senior bureaucrat in the Ministry of Education was correct in that this was a hasty promise made in the election which was totally impractical and that the minister does not have any idea where he is going this year.

Can the minister tell us whether boards that have already accomplished the levels he is seeking will not receive any money and therefore will be penalized for being progressive on this issue, which this government has been pushing them to move on for the last number of years? How will the money be divided between the Catholic system and the public system? As most of us know, the present ratios are, generally speaking, higher in the Catholic system. Is the minister doing a survey to determine what the present class sizes are, or how is he determining that?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I am very sorry to hear the member for Scarborough West does not support this particular initiative in the reduction of the pupil-teacher ratio in the elementary schools.

I do want to assure the member, as I indicated in my initial response, that we are in the process of developing those implementation policies. We are working towards having that information available so that boards will be in a position, when they do their hiring in February and March of the coming year, to know what the expectations are.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I have a question of the Solicitor General, who has abdicated her responsibility to make any decision on Sunday shopping.

I have 21 municipal councils in my riding. I wonder if the minister is aware of the untenable position in which these municipal councils will be placed in attempting to deal with this responsibility. The government cannot handle it, so it gives it to the local councils. Is this power-hungry majority Liberal government so easily intimidated by what it perceives as a political hot potato that it feels compelled to run for cover under the aprons of municipal councils? Is this the type of leadership the citizens of Ontario can expect from this government?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: As I have already stated, the choice we had was not so simple. Having decided we could not put on the provincial definition that was needed to stop this wave using the tourist escape clause, we therefore had to look at a more open situation being possible. In other words, the open situation was there by abuse, by calling something tourism. We recognized that fact.

However, we also recognized that some municipalities may be able to define tourism within their municipality and take advantage of the ability to do so. If so, I wish them well. If not, if they find the whole thing too difficult and do not want the politicking of it, then it will be available to them to have a referendum at the time of the next election and let the people in their own communities decide.

Mr. Villeneuve: The 23 rural municipalities that are in my riding have populations from 3,000 to 5,000, and some of those are very much smaller than 3,000. We have a legislative committee report that says the committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario and that it is the provincial government’s responsibility. How do we explain this to these people, with family-owned businesses, who do not want to be open on Sunday?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I would point out that the various councils can feel free to vote it down. I would point out on the other hand that some municipalities have opened up that are probably smaller than the member’s. I would say that St. George is probably as small as the communities the member refers to, and it took advantage of the tourist loophole. It is being done even by small communities. As bigger communities did it more, the smaller communities would have come into the same position they are in right now.

ONTARIO HOME RENEWAL PROGRAM FOR DISABLED PERSONS

Mr. Neumann: My question is for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons. In recent years we have made great strides in improving the accessibility to public places for disabled persons. The Ministry of Housing is presently offering the Ontario home renewal program for disabled persons, which provides ramps and other conveniences to assist disabled persons in having easier access to and from their own homes.

However, the demand for this program has been considerably greater than the funds have allowed it to meet. In our community, 10 disabled persons from Brantford have applied to the program. To date, only one application has been accepted.

I would ask the minister responsible for disabled persons, what is his ministry doing to review the success of this program and perhaps to provide supplementary programs to allow disabled persons to enter and leave their own homes ?

Hon. Mr. Mancini: I know from personal experience that the honourable member is very concerned about issues which affect disabled persons.

I want to inform the honourable member that over the past year we have given a substantial sum of money to the Easter Seal Society for families with disabled children so they could use this money to make their homes accessible. At the present time we are reviewing the situation, which will hopefully allow us to give even further moneys to the Easter Seal groups. As I say, this is being reviewed at the present time.

I also want to inform the honourable member that the Ontario home renewal program for disabled persons, which is operated very ably by my colleague the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek), has been enhanced twice in this past year. I have been in further communications with my colleague, and we are discussing the merits of enhancing the program again. We hope to have something to say to the honourable member and to the members of the House in the near future.

Mr. Neumann: I am very pleased with the minister’s response that he is going to be following up on this. I would like to point out that the program is in place to provide accessibility for disabled persons to and from their own homes, and I would urge the minister to do what he can to increase the accessibility to this program.

I am wondering about the supplementary program he mentioned. Will he be doing some publicity to make sure that the people who are in need are aware that this other option is available?

Hon. Mr. Mancini: The honourable member knows from his personal experience and from his involvement with disabled issues that approximately one out of every eight persons in our province is disabled. These disabilities cover a wide range of disabilities that affect people.

I want to tell the member that we are reviewing all programs that affect disabled persons, and I say to the member that housing is one of the most important issues which face disabled persons. That is why the Minister of Housing has in fact a number of programs, such as the low-rise rehabilitation program, Project 3000 and the ones I mentioned in my first answer to the member. These matters are of great importance to the disabled community.

1440

WATER PIPELINE

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. One of the most basic concerns that people have about their environment is the condition of their drinking water, particularly if that drinking water comes from known contaminated areas like the St. Clair River, which is one of the reasons I have urged the government to pass the Ontario Safe Drinking Water Act in this province.

Fifteen months ago the minister went to Wallaceburg and announced with some fanfare that the province would pay 75 per cent of the cost of a pipeline to bring Lake Huron water to Wallaceburg. He went on to say, “My staff will work with you to iron out the details of the proposal and expedite construction.”

When I have raised this problem in the House the minister has passed the blame to his federal counterpart, but it is very clear that the project does in fact qualify for federal funding and I would like the minister to explain why the project has not yet been fully approved and why he has not even applied for federal funding.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I want to indicate first of all that the Ministry of the Environment’s money, the 75 per cent, is on the table; it is up front and it is there for this particular project. Now in relation to Wallaceburg, that is even though all of the testing we have done at Wallaceburg has indicated that the drinking water in Wallaceburg meets the provincial guidelines. We have still put our 75 per cent on the table. What I announced is there. Our people are working with them.

I think the member would be better to go to her federal counterpart in the House of Commons to ask where the federal money is. I have control over the provincial money; I do not have control over the federal money. They will play a little game by saying, “Well, of course, it’s there with economic regional development agreement grants or something,” but they do not really mean new money. They mean they will take it away from something else that the member’s party wants to see it spent on in this province and spend it on this particular project. If it were genuinely new money, that would be a different case; but the feds, as soon as you mention money in Ontario for a project of that kind, say, “Oh, there’s a freeze on ERDA money.”

Our money is there. It is up front; it is on the table. It is time for the feds to put their money on the table if they are interested.

Mrs. Grier: I could not agree more that there needs to be more federal money into municipal infrastructure. The point is that the Minister of the Environment realized the predicament in which the community of Wallaceburg found itself and made a special announcement of provincial funding to meet that pipeline cost.

The municipality put up its money, and I pointed out to the minister last July that the gap was only $2 million and that surely for $2 million he could ante up and get on with it. But in fact I now discover that there is the ERDA program, that the ERDA program very clearly covers the criteria of this pipeline, that the federal government has funds in the ERDA program and that there has been no application from Ontario.

Before the minister tells me that is because there are socioeconomic criteria for ERDA, I am going to send to the minister a copy of real estate ads from Wallaceburg that show that homes in that area are being advertised, if they have Lake Huron water.

Does the minister not recognize the very severe economic and socioeconomic hardship that he is placing on communities by not guaranteeing them pure drinking water? What is he going to do to live up to the commitment he made to Wallaceburg?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: If the member is talking about Wallaceburg, there is a very clear indication in all the testing we have done that it meets the requirements of the province as they relate to drinking water.

The second thing I want to say is that they can talk all they want about ERDA money being available. The member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Bossy) has, on a consistent basis, been working on this problem, has brought it to my attention and has investigated, as my ministry has. The feds know this; they are simply holding back their money.

I think the member and I are on the same wavelength. I know she would like me to be doing something different in this particular instance, but I am going to tell her that to try to get money out of the federal government for a project of this kind is like getting blood out of a turnip.

The federal government knows there is a need there. It will not even pay for the pipeline to Walpole Island. Native reserves in this country are clearly the responsibility of the government of Canada, and it will not even pay for that. It is time the federal government got off its backside and put its money on the line, as our government has.

An hon. member: There is the new leadership candidate: “Bradley for Leader.”

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: The minister must be in favour of an elected Senate; then he could blame them for not doing something as well as the House of Commons.

Before I get into my question, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), on a point of order, tried to divert public attention from his number by saying it is no longer valid. It is indeed the Attorney General’s number, 965-1664, and in spite of his efforts that is how they get hold of him. I want him to know that.

Mr. Speaker: And the question is?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It has been an interesting question period. We have learned about times for breakfast, telephone numbers and what not. The member for Nipissing with a new question.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Harris: l have a question for the Solicitor General with regard to this municipal option. The major part of northern Ontario is not organized into municipalities. Could the minister tell us who will make the decision, in all of the unorganized areas of northern Ontario, whether stores will be allowed to open?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: There must be somebody there now who is making decisions on store hours. They can continue to do it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the member for Nipissing would like to ask a supplementary. Thank you.

Mr. Harris: This is one occasion where you might have said, “Surely there cannot be a supplementary to that,” but in spite of that, there is.

An hon. member: There wasn’t yesterday.

Mr. Harris: No. The member is right; there was not yesterday.

Clearly, once again we have this government making a major policy decision without any understanding of northern Ontario, without any recognition of how life in northern Ontario operates, without any recognition that right beside North Bay, two miles from downtown, there is an unorganized area.

Maybe I should ask the minister, because it is obvious she does not know, if there was any input, other than just now, from the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine), who is supposed to know something about northern Ontario. Did the minister ask for any input, or did she ask for any input to inform her about the implications this will have in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: This was discussed at great length in cabinet and the minister was there. I would like to help the member for Nipissing simply by saying that I do believe district boards in those territories now set the times for shops and the regulations. The government has simply said that the district boards and the local boards will continue to define the hours of traffic for Sunday as they do for any other day.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the members wish to waste the time, that is up to them. There are other members who would like to ask questions.

MULTICULTURALISM

Mr. Daigeler: My question is to the Minister of Citizenship. As the minister knows, yesterday the federal Secretary of State introduced legislation that will enshrine in law general principles about multiculturalism. The presence of different ethnic groups in Ontario has become an important characteristic of this province. I am very pleased and proud to know that the Liberal Party and this government have long recognized and responded to this new development.

Could the minister share with us his global reaction to the federal bill and what concerns he may have with specific aspects of this initiative? 1450

Hon. Mr. Phillips: The start of the evaluation of this really revolves around the policy that we announced in June, which is a very comprehensive program around multiculturalism that I think really is at the root of what this province is all about. My evaluation of the Ottawa bill is very much equated to our proposals and our program that we announced in June.

The essence of that for all of us is that we celebrate in this province the diversity of cultures, that we believe the diversity of cultures in this province is a source of strength and a source of enrichment, that we believe as a province in the retention of culture as a source of strength, that we believe our government and our government policy should reflect the many cultures here in Ontario and that as we look at the appointments and the people who reflect our province, they should reflect the many cultures.

As I look at the federal bill, it is a step in the right direction. I believe our policy announced in June is a more progressive and more far-reaching policy. The bill, as I say, is a step forward. I believe it strengthens multiculturalism in this country and therefore we welcome it. I think there are now issues around implementation.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Wildman: I have a question to the Solicitor General. First, I want to point out to her that there is a difference between “unorganized” as it applies to the townships in northern Ontario and “disorganized” as it applies to her government.

Now that the minister has had a chance to confer with her colleagues, could she accept that in unorganized communities local services boards do not have any control whatever over retail stores and shopping hours? The legislation that governs local services boards does not give them that power, even though the member for Essex-Kent (Mr. McGuigan) would like to give them that power. If that is the case, could she explain how store hour openings and closings will be controlled in unorganized communities which are adjacent to the cities in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I am glad to look into this unfortunate state of them having nobody there to make store hour rulings for them. We would be glad to look into that and arrange some manner by which these people may make regulations and then they will be able to apply these.

As a matter of interest, I would tell the member that when I was in Terrace Bay recently, the wish was spoken to me by many people there that Thunder Bay and Sault Ste. Marie should be allowed to be open on Sunday because the people who travel long distances to go there on weekend outings with their families would like to be able to shop there on Sunday. This was what was spoken to me in Terrace Bay.

Mr. Pouliot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: A point of order under which standing order?

Mr. Pouliot: I am really confused. I need your help. Maybe we can do this together. It is a bona fide point with respect to the minister. She mentioned the township of Terrace Bay in the same breath as being “unorganized.” It happens to be in the riding of Lake Nipigon and is indeed a fully fledged municipality. It does not need the help of Sault Ste. Marie or Thunder Bay but it needs her help --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a good point of information.

Mr. Wildman: The minister said earlier that there had been extensive discussion in cabinet over this problem, and yet her answers indicate that she does not understand the problem and that there has been no discussion in cabinet. Can she tell us now what will be done to ensure that retail stores are not opened in unorganized areas adjacent to municipalities that may have decided not to open on Sunday? What is she going to do to control that? Is she going to allow retailers simply to move beyond the boundaries of organized municipalities to avoid having to deal with the local option that her government has now conferred upon the municipalities?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: At the present time, in these areas, stores are open. Indeed, the member is referring to one of the other types of abuses that have created the problem, where people in one area are taking advantage of loopholes and people in another are not. Therefore, we are trying to make it more even. If in fact the member has an area that has no group that can say that stores must be closed we will be glad to look at that, if that is the state it was already in before we spoke yesterday.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ONTARIO STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr. Jackson: My question is to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. This morning my staff called the Transitions hotline of the Ministry of Skills Development. The person who responded on the phone confirmed that the statements made by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) on August 4 about older unemployed workers’ eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits extension was in fact at variance with the truth. We were also told that eligible workers on Transitions whose unemployment insurance benefits had expired would be terminated and that they had been advised that they should in turn apply to the Ontario student assistance program, under the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, for assistance. Has the minister been advised that older laid-off workers are being directed to apply to her ministry and that program; and if so, how many have applied?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, there are now two ministers responsible for areas of delivering programs in applied skills development. This question has been referred in the past to the Ministry of Skills Development. We will be working in very close co-ordination in delivering skills programs that are required through the colleges, and certainly students who are going to be provided programs through the colleges will be eligible for OSAP funding.

Mr. Jackson: My question to the minister is not about the Ministry of Skills Development’s involvement. They have no involvement with OSAP. This is entirely her program. I asked her specifically if in fact she has been advised of the number of applicants. In fact, when we checked with the manager of client service at the student awards branch of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities this morning, he indicated in a telephone conversation that the first eligible OSAP application grant for Transitions -- one; that is all that has been processed -- has in fact been paid.

The minister’s colleague, the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling), has confirmed in this House that there could be upwards of 6,500 older unemployed workers applying for this program and therefore applying to OSAP. With thousands of unemployed workers coming, will the minister significantly expand the base for OSAP support assistance in this province so students and unemployed workers are not fighting over limited dollars that are provided under that program?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: Over the past two years, we have greatly increased the funding for student assistance because of our commitment to providing funding for students. There are specific criteria under which students apply. Those criteria will continue to be applied as there are new programs added. If those programs in fact increase the demands under OSAP, we will certainly look at that as a future consideration.

1500

Mr. Speaker: The member for Oshawa.

Mr. Breaugh: l have a question today for the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. I missed the member for Ottawa West.

Mr. Harris: You gave him a note. He was not on his feet. If he can’t stand up after you look at him he can’t do that. He is supposed to stand up when you look at him.

Mr. Villeneuve: He should be embarrassed.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There was no note. The member for Ottawa West.

POLLUTION CONTROL

Mr. Chiarelli: During the recent election campaign, the government announced that it would double its annual spending on beaches cleanup. Of this amount, it was also announced that $30 million will be spent outside Metro Toronto and will include Ottawa area beaches. My question to the minister is, having two major beaches in Ottawa West, both of which are all too frequently closed due to excessive pollution counts, can the minister inform me how these funds will be distributed to the Ottawa-Carleton area?

An hon. member: Good question.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is a very good question.

Mr. Brandt: It’s funny how all the good questions come from that side.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Some excellent questions come from the other side as well. There are some excellent questions from all sides.

We have a number of programs that can be devoted to the improvement of beaches cleanup. One of them, which I announced and which the Premier (Mr. Peterson) announced some lucrative funding for, was the LifeLines program. This is for infrastructure renewal where you have older pipes and facilities which require rehabilitation. In addition to that --

Mr. Sterling: How much? What are you going to give us?

Mr. Speaker: Response.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member is interrupting. I am trying to answer.

Mr. Speaker: Interjections are out of order. Please disregard them.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I will try to continue, Mr. Speaker.

We believe the LifeLines program, which has funding where we put up one half of the cost of the study that identifies the specific problems and 33 per cent of the cost of the infrastructure renewal, is going to be of immense benefit to places such as Ottawa-Carleton where the beaches are impacted in some cases by the fact that there is an inadequate storm or sanitary sewage system. By rehabilitating these systems, I think we will find less of the bacteria will be making its way into the waterways.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. We know his position on direct election in Metro. We would also like to hear his position on election expenses proposals that have been discussed for some time now for municipal elections. Is it his intention to tie those two proposals together and to provide for direct election and for some kind of election expenses act for municipal elections as well?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Two of my priorities, of course, have been the reform of the Metro elections and certainly to deal with the need for some reform in municipal elections. We are looking at that right now. We are consulting with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, with the municipal associations and with my colleagues, and I hope to deal with that at the very earliest opportunity.

Mr. Breaugh: If the minister is intending to move towards direct elections, and that is now clear, will he then agree that it is imperative, for example in Metropolitan Toronto, that he do so in conjunction with some election expenses reform at that level and that it would be untenable to proceed with direct elections without some kind of election expenses act municipally as we now have federally and provincially?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I am very concerned about this particular area also. I will simply say that the total package of municipal elections is being looked into, and I hope to have something to report on that very soon.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Harris: The Solicitor General indicated in her answer that the implications on northern Ontario have been extensively discussed in cabinet, which I have to tell the minister we doubt given the fact she knows nothing about the implications for northern Ontario. The minister indicated that presumably somebody makes the decision. That is why they are unorganized. There is no organization.

I will also explain to the minister, so she might understand, that in certain areas there are service boards or local roads boards that are mandated to deal just with those issues. Clearly, the one that makes the decision is the government of Ontario. That is the only organization they rely on.

My question is this. The minister said they are wide open now. They are not. They obey the law of Ontario now. I want to know from her who is going to make the decision and what is it going to be for the unorganized areas of the province.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I have said and I continue to say, as the member has pointed out, that there are many different situations here. We are happy to meet with them and work out what is satisfactory to them in this regard.

PETITION

TRANSIT SERVICES

Ms. Bryden: I have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by 38 riders on the GO Transit bus service from Oshawa to downtown Toronto, mornings and evenings, Monday to Friday.

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 GO Transit provides bus service between Oshawa and the downtown Toronto corridor, mornings and evenings, Monday to Friday; and

“Whereas the present bus service uses older, inadequate, uncomfortable vehicles which cause undue stress, backache, fatigue and many other discomforts to patrons,

“That equipment be updated in the interests of the wellbeing of those citizens who travel approximately one and one half to two hours per trip daily.”

It is signed by 38 persons. I support the petition.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Fleet from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr12, An Act to revive the Centre for Educative Growth;

Bill Pr13, An Act respecting Special Ability Riding Institute.

Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill Pr69, An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Your committee would further recommend that the fees, less the actual cost of printing, be remitted on;

Bill Pr12, An Act to revive the Centre for Educative Growth,

Bill Pr13, An Act respecting Special Ability Riding Institute.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Conway moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Sorbara, first reading of Bill 51, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The purpose of the bill is to protect employees who refuse to contravene subsection 2(2) of the Retail Business Holidays Act.

1510

CONSUMER REPORTING AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved first reading of Bill 52, An Act to amend the Consumer Reporting Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am pleased to reintroduce for first reading today, An Act to amend the Consumer Reporting Act. The purpose of these amendments is to prevent any access to a consumer’s credit file without his or her knowledge. The new provisions would require that the prescreening of credit files or any information taken from them be treated as a consumer report and that the affected consumers be notified before any unsolicited search could be conducted. The amendments are necessary to ensure the integrity of consumers’ credit files.

CROWN WITNESS PROTECTION ACT

Mr Runciman moved first reading of Bill 53, An Act to provide for the Safety and Welfare of Crown Witnesses in certain Criminal Proceedings.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Runciman: This is the third time I have introduced this bill which is designed to allow the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) to offer protection, including relocation and a new identity, to crown witnesses whose lives or safety is jeopardized by their willingness to testify at certain criminal proceedings.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MEMBERS’ CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT (CONTINUED) / LOI SUR LES CONFLITS D’INTÉRÊTS DES MEMBRES DE L’ASSEMBLÉE (SUITE)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 1, An Act to provide for greater Certainty in the Reconciliation of the Personal Interests of Members of the Assembly and the Executive Council with their Duties of Office.

Suite du débat ajourné sur la motion de deuxième lecture du projet de loi 1, Loi assurant une plus grande certitude quant au rapprochement des intérêts personnels des membres de l’Assemblée et du Conseil des ministres avec les devoirs de leurs fonctions.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) adjourned the debate. The member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson) wishes to participate.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I would like to start by saying I agree with --

Mr. Fleet: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am not sure if the member for Wellington is being allowed a two-minute reply. Under the rules, I understand that we are entitled to reply to the member for Cochrane South.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I suppose you can reply. There is no one to respond to, but you can if you wish.

Mr. Fleet: I do wish to reply.

Mr. Sterling: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: We have another point of order here.

Mr. Sterling: I understand that particular rule in the standing orders was made for the cut and thrust of debate. I think this is the first time we have run into a situation where a member of the Legislature spoke to the end of the proceedings and then was not here to pick up the debate the following day. I think the idea was that there would be some interplay in the debate. The member opposite might have an opportunity to speak and we would require a comeback from the principal speaker, in this case the member for Cochrane South.

In this particular situation, if this member wished to speak in the debate he would have every right to speak in the debate on second reading if he had some redress. We have not faced this situation, and the only reason I am raising it at this time is that I do not know if there has been a reflection on the rule and whether you are setting a precedent today or whether you should consider setting a precedent, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: You may want to respond to that point of order. However, I believe this is the first time it has occurred. It is a different situation because I do not believe the member had completed his remarks. As I gathered, he just adjourned the debate. I feel I might be within my right to suggest, and I only suggest this, that because of the extreme circumstance where I am not certain whether the member had completed his remarks, if the member or any other member wishes to put on record any comments, I feel it might be in order to put them on the record so that the member for Cochrane South could read them, and then I hope that the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly will come up with some assistance for the Speaker. Would that be agreeable to the House?

Hon. Mr. Conway: May I make an observation or two since I sat through the entirety of the member for Cochrane South’s commentary yesterday?

Subject to correction, of course, I think the record will show that the member for Cochrane South adjourned the debate last evening at very nearly six of the clock. It can only be remembered as a very lively intervention calculated to excite honourable members. This is something to consider, I think, when members are making speeches in this place, particularly since the standing orders now anticipate that members will have an opportunity to respond.

It is unfortunate the member for Cochrane South could not be here today to continue a debate he was pleased to adjourn less than 24 hours ago. The members who were here yesterday will take note of the fact that it seemed on occasion that the intervention of the member for Cochrane South was so phrased as to calculate a response from at least this side of the aisle. I recognize that these are early days, but I would certainly hope that when we reflect upon this precedent or this situation, we would take into account that the rules seem to state that members have the opportunity to respond to an honourable member.

An honourable member went on here at great length yesterday saying some very interesting and excitable things. One of the members who was here yesterday who was drawn into that debate would now like to respond, as he is entitled to do under the rules. The member for Cochrane South is not here to carry on the debate he adjourned less than 24 hours ago, and so, Mr. Speaker, you can appreciate the difficulty of members who read these rules and try to understand their spirit and intent and you can appreciate the situation in which they find themselves.

Mr. Speaker: After reading again the standing order set out in 20(b), it certainly allows any member up to two minutes, up to a total of 10 minutes. If every member used the two minutes it would be a total of four members and then the last two minutes should be reserved for a response, but not necessarily a response. If the members would be agreeable, I think it would be in order to allow the member to have up to two minutes and any other member who wishes up to two minutes. Again, I request that some time in the future the Legislative Assembly committee review it and assist the Speaker. I will recognize --

Mr. Sterling: I would just request that an opportunity be given to the member for Cochrane South, after reading this particular reply, to put on record his reply to this member’s concerns.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the member’s request very much. However, just again reading this, up to two minutes should be reserved out of the 10-minute period; and the 10-minute period, I believe, has to be taken following the member’s speech. The member for High Park-Swansea.

Mr. Fleet: The speech by the member for Cochrane South yesterday was interesting and in fact it was excitable, as the House leader has described it, for a number of reasons.

It would appear that the member for Cochrane South is at odds with his party. The member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves) indicated to this House that there was support in principle from his party and it appears that the member for Cochrane South lacks any appreciation for what is in Bill 1. In fact, in his whole speech, and I went through the Instant Hansard to double-check this, he never once referred to Bill I or any line in it. He seems to have a problem understanding it. He seems to think that somehow there is a dodging of responsibility, when in fact quite the contrary is true and this government and this Premier (Mr. Peterson) should be congratulated for taking as serious a matter that affects every member of this place and that, with the will of this House, is now going to implement into law a solution that has the force of law. It goes farther, I believe, than guidelines that exist anywhere in Canada and this government should be applauded for taking this step.

1520

I will also add that in some respects the tone of the dissertation by the member for Cochrane South was not helpful. I commend to him, and I hope that members of his party will pass on to him, the words spoken by the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) in a recent speech, that the object here ought to be to raise the level of debate, not to root around in the gutter. I strongly urge that the member for Cochrane South use his significant skills in a more useful way to assist all members and in fact the public interest.

Mr. Tatham: I would just like to make this comment: this Legislature has already agreed upon the imperfectability of people who produce statutes on conflict of interest. The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, 1983, applies to the many thousands of elected municipal officials in our province. Why should we not have the same type of law on the provincial scene?

Mr. Sterling: While I did not have the opportunity to be in the legislative chambers, I did hear the member for Cochrane South’s speech with regard to this matter. l can tell the rather new member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Fleet) that maybe the member for Cochrane South has been accused over this period of time, or a period of time since he has been a member, since 1977, of various different kinds of things or indiscretions, but one thing he has never been accused of is a lack of understanding of issues that were in front of this Legislature.

As the member for High Park-Swansea may know, the member for Cochrane South has been a minister of the crown, as Minister of Natural Resources and as Attorney General for this province, and he has a full understanding of the whole ambit of this conflict-of-interest act.

The frustration of the member for Cochrane South and many of the members of this caucus is that if you read the fine print, you will find that Bill I is in fact what the member for Cochrane South was saying: it is a copout by the Premier from accountability, a copout of this government from accounting to the people of Ontario for the indiscretions of that cabinet over the past two years.

Mr. Callahan: I listened attentively to the member for Cochrane South as he read to us from transcripts and it relived for me the trying experience that any member of this House would have to face under the previous rules. I think what Bill I does is to set out in a specific way how each member can meet his or her responsibilities and avoid the necessity of ever having to appear before a Star Chamber, and I suggest that the procedure used in the past was exactly that. I would not want to see any honourable member of this Legislature faced with that again.

There is an old adage in the common law that laws should be specific and should be clear in order to avoid the possibility of the decision being made on the basis of the length of the chancellor’s foot. I am sure my friend from Cochrane South, being a member of the legal profession, would understand that.

Instead, what he does is to try to relive what I suggest was a tragic situation in terms of dealing with any member of this Legislature, and it was a process that could not be repeated again. We had the supposed rules of the previous 42 years which were so clear that l can remember specifically sitting on that committee and asking a question of one of the witnesses where I got three different answers and that person was supposed to be clarifying for me the rules that had to be abided by. Now, certainly if we got three different answers to those questions, how could any minister possibly understand what those rules were?

So I applaud the introduction of Bill I because what it will do is set the record straight and allow us an opportunity, each and every one of us, to get on with the work and the task at hand.

Mr. Speaker: Any other comments or questions? If not, further debate. Because we go in rotation, I recognize the member for Halton North.’

Mr. Elliot: Mr. Speaker, I was not rising to enter the debate. I wanted to make a comment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will have to ask if the time -- there is still time. I am sorry; OK.

Mr. Elliot: As a new member of this House, I listened attentively yesterday to the speech of the member for Cochrane South. I would just like to note that I think it would be regrettable if the member for Cochrane South did not have the opportunity for two minutes to stand up and say something about the comments made about his speech yesterday. I think he should be facing the House on this matter with respect to these comments.

Mr. Speaker: There is still one minute and 16 seconds left.

Mr. Harris: I was going to ask if I could respond for the member for Cochrane South but that probably is not in order so I will take the minute to comment on the speech of the member for Cochrane South and the reaction it has evoked.

Some have said they would not want to see a member go through what two members from this Legislature went through. We would not want to see members go through that either. We were not in favour of those two members having to go through what they went through in the committees. They went through it because the Premier abdicated his responsibility. There was no problem with far more rigid guidelines, according to our interpretation, for 15 years under the Davis guidelines since they came in in 1970. There was no problem in interpreting those guidelines. Some ministers lost their jobs. Some did the honourable thing and resigned. Some were asked to resign.

What happened was that this Premier abdicated his responsibility. We are talking about cabinet ministers and we are talking about parliamentary assistants. The public has no say in who they are and this chamber has no say in who they are. They are left solely to the discretion of the Premier and he should be solely responsible for them.

Mr. Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I guess this bill is even more important than I had thought because we must have touched a raw nerve someplace with the member for High Park-Swansea and the member for Brampton South (Mr. Callahan). I do not think there is any concern in my mind that the member for Cochrane South will make the appropriate comments when he has the opportunity. I think he could well lay out more information pertaining to this issue if he so wished.

I would like to suggest that this bill is extremely important. It is the number one bill the government has decided to go with in the first session of the 34th Legislature, An Act to provide for greater Certainty in the Reconciliation of the Personal Interests of Members of the Assembly and the Executive Council with their Duties of Office.

In plain language, it is an act to control conflict of interest by the members of the assembly and cabinet. The government should consider this a number one priority in view of the problems it had in the last parliament. Two members of cabinet were forced to resign because of conflict of interest. For that reason, the government should consider it an extremely important bill and proceed with it as soon as possible.

Mention has been made many times of the former government’s 42 years in office. I can tell the members that we always had a Premier with the intestinal fortitude to handle conflict of interest in a very expeditious manner and not have the problems this present Premier has.

1530

In the speech from the throne, the government states that the people of Ontario must have full confidence in their representatives, and so they should. I strongly support any legislation that will enhance that situation, but l wonder if Bill I will really achieve that goal.

I would like to point out some flaws in this legislation that I think might make the public very sceptical of the intent of Bill 1. I will read section 2:

“For the purposes of this act, a member has a conflict of interest when the member makes a decision or participates in making a decision in the execution of his or her office and at the same time knows that in the making of the decision there is the opportunity to further his or her private interest.”

To me, that means a member of this Legislature should not be involved in making a decision on anything that would be a benefit to that individual. I have a few examples that I need clarification on.

Would it mean that no farmer could be Minister of Agriculture and Food? How could the minister bring in any policy that would help the agricultural community if he were a farmer? I understand that the present Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) owns a 200-acre farm. If we bring in legislation that says the property tax rebate should be increased, and that minister introduces the legislation, does that not involve him in a conflict? Is he not enhancing his own worth?

That section gives us a real problem. Would it also mean that no doctor could be Minister of Health? Would it mean that no lawyer could take part in passing legislation? At some point as he pursues his career in law, he is going to be working with that legislation and benefiting from this Legislature’s passing it. Who could be Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and not be in conflict with some part of that vast ministry? These are just a few of the examples that make this bill unacceptable as drafted.

I might mention a personal experience I had several years ago -- I think it was in 1980 -- when we were dealing with rent control legislation. At that time, I happened to own an apartment building that had five apartments. The issue we were dealing with was the threshold, the number of units in an apartment building that would be affected by the rent control legislation. We were talking about four, five, six, even eight in number or maybe 10. I sat on the committee for a short while and it finally dawned on me that I was in conflict by being a part of that committee. I had no right to make a decision that the number should be six, eight or 10, when indeed I had an apartment building of my own and the number of units was in that neighbourhood.

I do know there were certain people on the committee who also owned apartment buildings. I declared my conflict to the chairman and resigned from the committee. I would think most members, if not all members, would do the same.

I think if there is one place where we, as members, are in conflict of interest, it is in setting our own indemnities and salaries. How can we say to the people of this province that we are so concerned about conflict situations when we decide the amount of salaries we should earn as members? Surely that puts us in complete conflict. I have not heard any member suggest that we should cut our salaries back; it seems that we always ask for an increase.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Is that the suggestion?

Mr. J. M. Johnson: To the former Minister of Everything, the current Minister of Mines and member for Renfrew North I say that it creates a problem. The committee that I used to chair, the standing committee on members’ services, made a recommendation to this Legislature a couple of years ago that the members should not have a say in setting their salaries and that the Commission on Election Finances should be empowered with the opportunity to set our salaries without bringing it to the Legislature. We could simply approve it, but we would have no choice in setting the salaries. I feel that the government should follow through in this process, that some outside body should be setting our salaries, not the members themselves.

I would like to refer to clause 11 (2)(a), and that is the disclosure statement. It says that “a statement of the assets and liabilities…of the member and the member’s spouse” should be disclosed. Well, possibly it could apply to the member, but even then I am not sure that it would not create a problem. Would it not be extremely embarrassing to a member, and certainly to his family, if it were disclosed that he did not have any assets, that indeed he was deeply in debt? That, I would think, would be fairly embarrassing. I am not sure that what we want to do with this legislation is to put someone in that position.

I also am not quite sure what difference it makes what assets the member has. Maybe he was fortunate enough to inherit some money, or maybe he worked extremely hard and set some money aside. What business is that of this Legislature or the public? Even more important are the spouse’s assets and liabilities. I guess on the odd occasion you might find a spouse who would not tell her husband what her assets were, or maybe her liabilities. In that case, would that member then be disqualified from sitting in the House? Maybe the spouse would do it deliberately, wanting to get the member out of the House. I wonder how the commissioner would deal with that possibility.

On the same point, I wonder if we create a very unfair position for an incumbent during an election. Incumbents’ financial affairs become public knowledge, but the other candidates’ financial affairs are their own business; they are confidential. So the one candidate runs with everyone knowing his financial affairs, his liabilities or his assets -- and he could be penalized either way -- and yet the other candidates in the same election are not treated the same way. If we are going to do this, then would it not seem to make sense that the candidates in an election would also have to declare their assets and liabilities? Well, the member shakes his head, but I am not sure why.

Section 17 deals with the executive council: “(1) A former member of the executive council shall not, unless 12 months have expired after the date when he or she ceased to hold office,” and then it lists several things they cannot do. If they contravene it, subsection 17(3) says, “A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and liable, on conviction, to a fine of not more than $5,000.”

What if a former cabinet minister defies section 17 and does in some way benefit from an extremely lucrative deal by many, many times more than the $5,000 offence? Would he not simply pocket the rest of the money, pay the $5,000 fine and be home free? If it is going to be meaningful, the fine should be in proportion to the offence and certainly exceed any monetary gain to that individual.

These are only some of the concerns that I have with this legislation. However, I want to make it very clear that I do support conflict-of-interest legislation and look forward to the committee hearings. I understand that this legislation will be sent to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. I am pleased to be a member of that committee. Hopefully, a much better amended bill will be reported back from the committee. I will try to do my part to see that happens.

1540

Mr. Villeneuve: I too will participate for a short time in the debate on Bill 1, on conflict of interest. I was one of the members who subbed on the standing committee of the Legislative Assembly last year pertaining to a conflict by one of our peers, a member of cabinet. I want to just quote what was quoted by this member, the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine) at the outset. I think it is a résumé of what most of us try to do.

“My sole purpose from the day I was elected an MPP, was to serve the people of my riding, and in my capacity as Minister of Northern Development and Mines, to serve the people of this province....My motives were honourable but I see now that my actions could have been interpreted differently by some.”

That was the problem. It was a lengthy committee hearing, very stressful on the member and his family, and one that I would not look forward to participating in again. However, the Premier in his wisdom saw fit to appoint this particular member to a portfolio that would obviously create problems, in that he was a businessman of some renown in his area and looking towards the government of Ontario for certain rulings, certain conditions that would create problems for him almost at the outset, because one of his election promises was to provide a forest management agreement to his area. The Premier totally abdicated his responsibility by putting this member in cabinet, in a particular portfolio that inevitably would create problems; and it did.

I have some problems with certain areas of Bill 1. For instance, right at the outset of Bill 1, section 1, is the definition of “spouse.” “‘Spouse’ means a person of the opposite sex to whom the member is married....”

I recall this Legislature last year dealing with Bill 7, section 18. There was a great debate as to sexual orientation. It was this Premier’s, this Attorney General’s (Mr. Scott) and this government’s response that sexual orientation should be protected, regardless of what a person’s sexual orientation was. We have in Bill 1, on page 2 of this very first bill of this Legislature, the words, “‘spouse’ means a person of the opposite sex.” I think there is a dichotomy here and I would like to see this particular area addressed.

The definition of member is a “‘member’ means a member of the Legislative Assembly or of the executive council, or both.” So when we speak of a member we speak of the 130 members who form this Legislative Assembly.

Section 4 states, “A member shall not use his or her office to seek to influence a decision made by another person to further the member’s private interest.” I have some problems in this area -- and they were alluded to by my colleague, the previous speaker -- particularly when it involves people who may be involved with agriculture, farmers.

Does this mean that a farmer could not sit on a committee of the Legislature which would be bringing forward or formulating legislation that would affect his own business? If indeed that is what section 4 means, we will have the downtown Toronto folk creating legislation for the agricultural community of Ontario, we will have possibly those of us who are of an agricultural or farming background creating and working on legislation that affects the downtown Toronto folk, and I think it could wind up being a total catastrophe.

I believe that conflict-of-interest guidelines must exist; inevitably, they must exist. However, I believe the commonsense approach would be to somehow arrange particular guidelines that would not exclude those people who know something about the legislation that is being brought forth. I think common sense has to come to the fore.

We talk about committees and, of course, a lot of legislation goes to committees, is amended, brought back to this Legislature, debated and finally passed. I referred to a select committee report today in question period. It is a report that was very carefully prepared by a group of very dedicated members of this assembly and it explains why Sunday openings, Sunday closings, Sunday law, the Lord’s Day Act, should be changed but the day should be retained as a special day.

The announcement of this government yesterday totally overlooked and overruled this particular committee of the Legislature. I just wonder now why we have committees, if we are going to spend several months receiving delegations, listening to input from concerned people, citizens who do have concerns enough to come and express them to a committee, and then we totally disregard them. Here we wind up with legislation, conflict-of-interest guidelines, that will eliminate those people who may know and have vested interests in certain areas. As members of this assembly, they will be excluded.

I think this bill has to go to committee and be looked at very closely. I believe the executive council or the cabinet must be treated in a considerably different fashion than private members are. If we leave the likes of item 4 as part of this bill, we will be defeating the very purpose that most of us have been elected for.

I could go on at some length but I know there are a number of my colleagues who want to address other areas. These are but a few of the concerns that I have as a private member, especially the exclusion of people, if this particular bill is put forth in the fashion in which it is presented.

Mr. Cousens: I would like to compliment the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) on his presentation. I think he has touched on a number of very important issues with a sincerity and a depth of passion that l am very impressed by. I listened to the member for Wellington and other members who are concerned with this issue and I would like to share in the intent that they are presenting to this House and to the people of Ontario.

I think underlying their concern is that we all know it is imperative there be guidelines so that there cannot even be the appearance of conflict of interest for any who are serving the public. There should not be any misunderstanding at all that members from this side, from this party, believe in the importance of having a well stated, clearly defined guideline that can assist all members in fulfilling their responsibilities to their constituents, that will allow them to be above and beyond any suspicion, so there can be no doubt that their interests are indeed to the very heart of the needs of the people of our province.

1550

Politicians already do not have a very good reputation. Every one of us who is here has suffered the abuse that comes from the understanding that pollsters have found out that it is not one of those professions that has a lot of honour associated with it. Yet in my dealings with most of the members from all parties in this House, I have never had any doubt about the integrity of other members.

It has been a tragic occurrence that within the last few years there have in fact been circumstances for at least two members of this House where it was necessary for them to resign. There was an investigation. It meant that everything had to be looked at again and it meant that the Premier in his own wisdom had to bring in some new legislation that could get him off the hook.

I am concerned about it. I am concerned that what we have now done is to react in such a way that we are taking the responsibility away from the Premier who is primarily responsible for the selection of his cabinet and his parliamentary assistants and that we are putting the onus on some commissioner who will have responsibility.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, when we are debating important legislation like this, is the minister not supposed to be on hand to be party to it, to hear what is going on and to be cognizant of the feelings of this House? The parliamentary assistant is --

Mr. Offer: As the parliamentary assistant, I believe that pursuant to the standing orders I am able to carry the bill. The Attorney General will be back. He is at a very important meeting right now. He is very interested in hearing all the comments. He was here for the totality of the debate yesterday and, apart from the very important meeting he is currently at, he will be back.

Mr. Cousens: I wish he were here because certainly he is closer to the drafting of this. Hopefully, as this bill is considered further in committee, there can be amendments to it. It can be improved. It is a flawed document as it now stands, flawed in many serious ways.

I do not want to take away from the importance of this House considering the importance of having all of us accountable to the public and not in any way have the appearance of a conflict of interest.

It goes to a couple of questions I would like to ask. I do not think anyone at this point has the answer. Maybe one question that needs to be explored is, who wants to have all his personal affairs made public? l think there are a lot of sacrifices that one makes when one goes into politics. Certainly, in wanting to attract high quality people to public office, it is important that we say: “Here is an opportunity to serve and an opportunity to do something for your community. But at the same time there are other things you are going to have to do.”

I do not know other people’s incomes and resources, but I think a large number of the members of this House have gone into office and taken a salary cut. The Speaker is nodding his own head and I can believe that. He has a new suit on anyway. The fact is that a great number of people in this House -- I do not know of anyone who is here because of the money. The great number of people are here to do a job and to serve the people of Ontario. That really goes to the underlying reason we are here. Members of all parties come with that passion and that desire.

At the same time as one makes that commitment to run for politics, there are certain things that cease to be one’s own. One’s life becomes public; people begin to know who one is. That is part of the public acceptance and people enjoy that, at least a majority of us do. But how much of us is to become public? Does our family also participate in that? To some degree, some families are more involved in politics than others. Some families continue to have a very private life and what they do in their own home, in their own community, at their cottage and at their camp, whatever it might be, is theirs. It is not something they have to give up.

In declaring all the assets that all the members will have within 60 days of being elected is going to take away an element of privacy that each member of this House has cherished and guarded. The secrets they kept from their own brothers and sisters, from the other members of the family, could now be on the front page of the local paper.

Their friends are going to say: “Look, I didn’t know that you had all that. Gracious sakes, when I went to you for that loan and when I was asking you for this, you said you didn’t have it.” Or on a more serious note, they are going to say, with jealousy in their hearts: “My goodness, you’ve done well. Where have you done that well? How did you do it?”

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Either that or they’ll understand why you didn’t loan them money.

Mr. Cousens: That is true when they look at the declaration of the member for Windsor-Riverside, and when they look at mine they will know the same.

Then they are going to come along and say, “Look at your wife, we can see now how much she’s got,” or your spouse or your live-in, whatever it is that this legislation will define. “Isn’t that interesting? l didn’t know that you inherited that much.”

If we want to attract quality, competent people to this Legislature, let us not put up barriers in front of them. Let us at least offer them the challenge to serve the province, offer them the opportunity to commit themselves to the people of their communities, offer them that chance to come and give, but let us not have them give everything away so that some of those things that are personal and cherished by themselves, that are a part of the secrets of life -- we share with the tax man, our accountant and our lawyer, but do we want everything to be just laid out in public?

I think this legislation could be modified so that those who are in cabinet, those who are parliamentary assistants -- it could be broadened to include senior civil servants, it could be broadened to include advisers and counsellors and comforters to the Premier and senior staff, but may it exclude for public record the detailed background of all the other members.

May these members, none the less, submit themselves to the commissioner, where they can then say, “All right, here are the facts and these are the sheets.” The other part of the legislation could still stand that if someone had some concern about another member it could go to the commissioner where there could be a reckoning of it and, if necessary, there could be a public discussion of it.

But if it is for the sake of being able to say, “Oh, this Legislature is so clean, we’re going to have all the laundry out of all the members;” that does not solve the problem of conflict of interest, and I think it creates another problem. It will create conflict in the minds and hearts of people who would otherwise want to commit themselves to public life.

The sacrifice will not be worth it for many. If they have the opportunity to serve in the executive council, then that can give them extra reasons to say, “Well, I think I have a good chance of serving there, and when that happens I will be prepared to make it public.” Until then, let there be some personal holding on to those parts of one’s self and one’s background that should not necessarily become everybody’s property.

I am concerned with what this could do when we are trying to attract capable, competent, caring people into politics. We have them. I am convinced there are very, very many people in this House, and many in the past, who have served out of a sense of great dedication. Will we be able to continue to attract those people when this legislation is passed?

I hope this question is addressed. I know the Attorney General has brought in legislation very similar to Bill 23. I do not see any changes in it. This question was addressed before and he has not recognized it now. I have a fear that when it goes to committee, there will not be any opportunity for a legitimate, honest change to be made unless there is a rebellion in the back benches of the Liberal Party and these members begin to say, “Look, maybe Cousens is making some sense and possibly we can make some sincere amendments.”

I would like to know what is going to happen with this legislation as it affects nominated candidates. What will happen is that for anyone who is coming up for re-election, his assets and his own personal finances are going to be public. What about newly nominated candidates? They will be able to hold that up for public information during election campaigns. What is going to happen to their public information? When they win the election, or if they win it will they ever have to make theirs public beforehand? Maybe it could influence the thinking of the electorate prior to the election if in fact they had to make public their assets prior to being officially nominated candidates.

I honestly would not like that, but I am telling members it gives an advantage or a disadvantage. In some cases, it will be an advantage and in some cases a disadvantage when previously nominated candidates’ assets, especially if they have been elected, will have been public and those other people who are trying to get into public life do not have to make that public until afterwards.

For some it will be helpful; for some it will not. But why should that even be a consideration if we are looking at the worth of a person when it comes to the contribution he can make in this House, when it comes to the knowledge and wisdom he can bring, his ability to make decisions, his ability to serve his community?

1600

I am concerned that this legislation does not do anything to touch upon those people who have the information. As a member of the Progressive Conservative Party, l am aware of many things that are going on in government and I am able to deal with them, I hope, with integrity. I am convinced that the majority of the people around this House and in the senior civil service do it in the same way.

But what of the opportunity? Does it not apply as well to those senior civil servants, assistant deputy ministers and the people in the Office of the Premier that they could prosper from the information they have? Why are they not included in this legislation? Why are they exempted? I suggest that they should not be exempted, that they should be part and parcel of it. So it should be expanded to include certain other people.

Why does this bill remove the responsibility from the Premier to be totally responsible for the people who have been selected by him or her? Our next Premier might be a female, who knows? But when he or she is choosing people within the cabinet and as parliamentary assistants, the onus should fall back on the Premier, not on some commission. I know that was the case for previous premiers. Why should it not apply to this one? The words used by the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry were that it was an abdication of responsibility, and I believe it is.

There are a number of problems with this legislation. The definition of “spouse,” l think has to be analysed and assessed. That indeed is something that, when the committee has a chance to look at this, it can do something about. I am concerned that today alone we saw an example where the Attorney General was able to say, “We will not press charges on this one; because we do not believe, we are going to do something with Sunday laws.” Are we going to have the Attorney General sticking his nose into this and changing guidelines along the way with excuses?

I mean, he has done it today. There was a historic precedent earlier in this House today when we saw the Attorney General of our province admit, “The law stands, but I have told the police we will not press charges.” Well, is that going to happen when he comes along and says to the commissioner or to someone else, “I do not want to see us press certain charges against certain people”? I wonder about the insidious influence that someone can have. It can be for good or for bad, but it would be for bad if that same person were to try to influence things and hide them, cover them up.

I am in favour of our having conflict-of-interest guidelines. I am in favour of having a clear statement of what it is we expect from politicians. I am also in favour of that extending to include senior civil servants. I am in favour of seeing that responsibility be to a commissioner -- I think the commissioner will work -- but I think it should also involve the Premier when he has selected and appointed people to office and high office.

I am concerned with some of the details of the legislation. The penalties are harsh. If a member fails to submit to the commissioner, then that member can lose his seat. What happens in this world where individual rights and freedoms stand when a member’s spouse refuses to make public his or her assets ? What happens then? The penalty is not all that clear in the legislation.

Maybe the parliamentary assistant has some good answers on that. What if that parliamentary assistant makes public his assets -- and I hope it is just to the commissioner -- and his spouse says: “I do not want to, because there are certain things that I do not think anyone should have to know. You are the boy who ran for politics. Why should I come along and make everything public that I have?”

What happens if his spouse refuses to make that public? How does it impact on her own rights and privileges under the Canadian Constitution? Does she have to? If these are certain freedoms she has and she says, “I do not want to,” are we going to make her? Or is the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer) going to lose his seat? I would hate to lose such an honourable member, The fact of the matter is, what jeopardy is he in and what freedoms and rights does she have, assuming it is his spouse? It could be mine; it could be anyone else’s.

This is flawed legislation that leaves large loopholes. They are not covered. Yet the papers and the media say -- l look at the headlines and they make it sound as if this government is the cleanest bunch we have ever seen. It ain’t, ladies and gentlemen. It is not, but it has won the battle with the media.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It is all relative.

Mr. Cousens: It is all relative, but they are not relatives of mine.

Some of the headlines are: “Newcomer Joan Smith Warily Eyes Conflict Law,” “Premier to Name Conflict of Interest Watchdog,” “Interim Move to go Into Effect Until Legislation Can be Passed;” “Cabinet Rule on Disclosure Extended to Spouses;” “Liberals’ Conflict Bill Should be Passed” says the Ottawa Citizen; “Peterson Cabinet to Face Tough New Conflict Law.” Here is the kind of thing that happens. It then says, “A conflict-free cabinet,” the Toronto Star of September 16.

What happens now is that the public is getting that message across: “They are clean. We have new politicians who are really clean.” All this conflict of interest is gone through and suddenly they are whitewash clean.

Mr. Runciman: Consider the source of that last one.

Mr. Cousens: That is right. I realize it is the Toronto Star. They like to think that everything is just perfect with the Liberals.

I wish there could be a sense in which there was a commitment in the hearts and minds of people to say, “What we are really trying to do is to address this problem of conflict of interest,” and that the people of this province could trust us for the job we are doing and why we are doing it. It is a shame that we have had the problems in the federal House and this House with members who have gone astray, cabinet ministers especially.

But we should not overreact with the kind of bill we are coming in with now, because the public says: “Hey, they have a new bill in there. It is going to solve it all.” It is going to create problems as well as solve some. If it is not going to be complete and whole and understand the whole fabric of what democracy is all about, then we are going to end up with something worse, not something better.

Before we know it, we might be coming out with another bill that says members not only must make all their financial information available, but also maybe they should have their medical information made public. So if some of us have other problems, they too will become public. Also, any mental report on us. Maybe we should have a test from some psychiatrist before we even run here. I will not suggest it. They might just put it in and I might be the first to fail. Who knows?

I think the sensitivity of personal and private information is an area that the government is trespassing on. We are willing to give ourselves to the public. They are the ones who need to test to see whether we are worthy of their trust. But the fact that we earned it on September 10 and hope to in the next election is something that we work towards and something that we base upon high ideals and high expectations. Let it not just be in words; let it be in the way we go about fulfilling our responsibilities.

I sincerely hope, now that the parliamentary assistant is gone and the Attorney General is not here -- no, he is coming back

Mr. Fleet: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: The reference by the honourable member, perhaps inadvertently, to the presence or absence of other members of this House is not appropriate. There has been a ruling, I believe last Thursday, to that effect. As a matter of fact, it was raised by the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) on this very issue. It is also in Beauchesne, on page 103, section 316.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Thank you very much. I am sure you are going to continue with your comments.

1610

Mr. Cousens: Well, you had better realize that does not apply at all, Madam Speaker, when you have got legislation in the House and the cabinet minister responsible for it is to be here, or his parliamentary assistant. He is here now but I did not see him in his seat at the time. That is not applicable at all. It does not apply as a point of order and I think the member is out of order to make that kind of statement.

Mr. Fleet: I am not sure if the honourable member now is telling me he is the Speaker, but I would have thought there would be a ruling from the chair as opposed to from the member for Markham.

The Acting Speaker: Member for High Park-Swansea, I rule that indeed you are out of order and I would like the member for Markham to continue, please.

Mr. Cousens: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am glad the member for High Park-Swansea is here and listening anyway. That is more than most of the other members are doing in the House.

I think I have made my points. Bill I should not have been the first bill tabled in the Legislature. It is usually and customarily a bill that is not controversial. It has traditionally been a bill that the House would normally agree upon as the first bill that begins to set the tone for a new House. Bill 1, as presented by this government, is a very controversial piece of legislation.

In presenting it first, it comes out and it says to the public: “We are clean. Look at what we are doing.” I do not agree with it. I do not agree with the way it has been cast. I do not believe the way it is presented. I do not think it is complete at all at present, and I think a hoax has been perpetrated on the people of Ontario if they think this is going to solve all their problems.

It is going to create them. It is going to make it more difficult to attract good people into this House. I do not think any of us like many of the aspects to it. I sincerely hope that when this goes to committee -- and indeed, certainly our party will be pressing that it do go to committee -- there will be a full discussion. I hope amendments can be suggested, tabled and approved that the government will accept, that will improve this and allow it to become a model piece for other houses in this country.

I repeat my fundamental point: I agree that all of us have to be above any appearance of having conflict of interest. May this bill lead in that direction. May it not cause greater problems than it is trying to solve.

The Acting Speaker: Would any honourable member wish to ask questions or comment on the remarks of the member for Markham.

Mr. Henderson: The member for Markham makes the suggestion that all members of this House should be subjected to psychiatric examination as a requirement of their holding office. I just feel I have to rise to say a word or two about that because I can say, as a recent practicing psychiatrist, that I would see it creating real problems, if not posing us, indeed, with an impossible task.

It invites one to consider the partisan aspects of that kind of undertaking. Would one seek a Liberal psychiatrist to examine Tory members? Would one seek a Tory psychiatrist to examine Liberal members? I know one would have to find a New Democratic Party psychiatrist to examine NDP members because nobody else could possibly understand them. An NDP psychiatrist not too long ago was indeed a sitting member for that party and he may well be looking for some way of maintaining his engagement with the profession at this time.

I think psychiatrists are wont to observe that mental health has very little to do with competence in certain fields of endeavour and only casual observation would establish the validity of that in so far as legislators are concerned. I do not think it would be useful to have a psychiatrist examine members of the Legislature as a part of the conflict-of-interest provisions.

Mr. Cousens: I am indeed guided by the comments of the honourable member and I believe he is right. It would be hard to find an honest Liberal psychiatrist.

Mr. Runciman: He is the exception.

Mr. Cousens: We might find one, with difficulty. It is a frivolous point.

How far does one go in trying to determine eligibility for office? That is the fundamental question. I think most of us would fail any real test that was put because if we really look at the sacrifice each of us makes in trying to be a good MPP, of our families, our private time, our business, of financial and other things, at the stress it creates on members -- we have a number of great friends and friendships we develop within the House, but there is also an element of loneliness for everyone here because when you get down to the office and are responding to the letters, there is a real grind that has to go on. There has got to be support for each one of us. We find that through our community and through our home, there is a family life here.

I want to see us build, I hope, an opportunity in this province to find areas where we can get away from partisan approaches to great subjects and great issues and raise it to a high level. Maybe that is something we can move towards. I just fear there is an insidious, underlying thing that is going to cut away on individuals. That is why I suggested that maybe some day they will try to put us through another, further type of examination. God forbid they do it, because then who would be eligible? That would create a new set of problems.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any other honourable members who wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. Sterling: I would like to begin my remarks by indicating to members of the Legislative Assembly that I participated as a member of the committee which considered the conflict allegations against the member for Cochrane North in 1986. As one of my colleagues stated earlier, it was not a very pleasant procedure.

I would first like to indicate that until now and currently, until any law relating to conflict is passed, the Legislative Assembly Act has some provisions which guide each and every member of this Legislature in what he or she is or is not permitted to do. One of those provisions says you cannot contract with the provincial government in a direct sense and there is a sort of fuzzy clause which deals with companies.

The second kind of instrument some members of the Legislature have to work with are conflict guidelines that heretofore have been set down by premiers of the province for members of their cabinet to comply with. During the 15 years of the Davis administration, and these conflict-of-interest guidelines were brought into force by Mr. Davis in the early 1970s, there was one case where a conflict of interest arose. That related to Darcy McKeough who had a plan of subdivision stamped by one of the officials in his ministry. Mr. McKeough owned a portion of the family company that was involved with the land. Mr. McKeough saw the problem and resigned.

From that date forward to 1985, when Mr. Davis was no longer the Premier, there seemed to be no problem in complying with cabinet guidelines. I might add that during the time Mr. Davis was the Premier in this province, there was a period of six years when we had a minority parliament, from 1975 to 1981, when the business of the House to some degree was not controlled by the government side. Even during that period there was no allegation of conflict of interest against any minister in the Davis government.

Until the present government took office, there did not seem to be a problem with the method of controlling members’ conduct. There was no problem that was brought to light either by the media or by members of the opposition bench.

1620

When the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) became the Premier of this province, he did two things. Number one, he altered the guidelines, and I will refer to that in a few moments. I guess the general overall problem with the Premier’s attitude towards conflict of interest was summed up in the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly when dealing with the conflict concerning the member for Cochrane North.

In the words of that committee in its conclusions, “Notwithstanding the Premier’s repeated assurances that he had enforced the guidelines” -- that is, the cabinet guidelines -- ”it is evident that there was little, or no, effort to monitor compliance.”

That report, incidentally, was agreed to by four Liberals who sat on that committee. Their finding, along with that of the other six members of the committee, was that the Premier had little concern over conflict of interest in his own cabinet. That report, which was drafted after long hours and much consideration by that committee, has in effect been ignored by the Premier by reappointing the member for Cochrane North to the cabinet.

While I have an affection for the member for Cochrane North, the Legislative Assembly committee was given the mandate to find out whether there was conflict of interest. There was a clear finding that there was a conflict of interest in three major ways and many minor ways. Now we have a Premier who, upon being re-elected with a massive majority, has decided again to disregard what the Legislative Assembly committee found. What we are going to do is send out this particular bill to a committee and I wonder whether the Premier of this province will pay any attention to what that committee finds. It does not bode well for that committee.

I mentioned that one of the things the Premier did when he gained office was to water down or change the conflict-of-interest guidelines that Mr. Davis had set down in 1971. Under Mr. Davis’s guidelines as they read, no private company in which a minister or his or her family has an interest may become contractually involved with the government of Ontario, period. In other words, if you were a minister in Mr. Davis’s government, you did not do business with the government.

When the Premier came in, he added some fudge words. Those fudge words were “unless the interest of the minister or family has been placed in a ‘blind trust’ set up in accordance with these guidelines.” So the Premier said, “When you become a minister in this government and you have a private company, you can still do business with the government,” and that is where we got into the problems with the member for Cochrane North in particular, and that is the one I have best knowledge of.

When this whole thing blew up in June 1986, the Premier asked Mr. Aird to go back over what all the cabinet ministers in the Liberal government had filed in the Legislative Assembly to see if in fact they had complied with these watered-down guidelines. Mr. Aird, after going through each of the cabinet ministers’ portfolios with a fine-tooth comb, found out that the then Minister of Education (Mr. Conway), the then Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling), the then Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton), the then Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître), the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio), the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), the then Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O’Neil), the then Minister without Portfolio responsible for citizenship and culture (Mr. Ruprecht), the Attorney General, the then Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Sorbara) and in fact the Premier all had not complied with the Premier’s own guidelines.

What kind of credibility is there now behind an act which tries to allay the fears of the public that this government is concerned over the business cabinet ministers do with their own government?

This bill is a weaker guideline, a weaker document, than the Davis guidelines from 1971 to 1985, under which Progressive Conservatives were willing to live because we saw the task and the honour of being a member of the government bench as being enough to sacrifice, in some ways, our own personal interests in order to have that high privilege.

John Black Aird goes on to say in his report: “It is not enough to ensure that private interests have not been preferred to the public interest....The public must be satisfied that every minister has acted with the utmost honesty and integrity.” That was certainly called into question in the most recent past.

Under those guidelines, and these are the watered-down guidelines that the Premier set forward when he became Premier, one could set up a blind trust. For those people who do not understand what a trust is, a trust is placing your assets, your businesses, in the hands of somebody else to run on your behalf, and a blind trust is supposed to mean that when you hand those business affairs over to that trustee you will give no direction to that trustee. You do not go through a third person in order to tell the trustee how to run your business.

The blind trust vehicle as set up waters down the guidelines. Then when we get into the Aird report and when we get to one of the Premier’s cabinet ministers -- l refer to the then Minister of Skills Development -- whom do we find the minister has set up as his blind trustee? He set up his brother as his blind trustee. In my view that reflects the whole attitude of the government towards this whole area of conflict of interest. Sure, we are going to have a new act; they have 95 members in order to pass this new act. But will they live up to the intent of the act? Will they be honourable in living up to the intent of the act? I think their past record is extremely questionable.

In fact, even after all the problems that were faced by the then Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) with regard to his conflict of interest -- one of the major concerns was the forest management agreement in which he is a 16 per cent owner of Hearst Forest Management Inc., which eventually signed the agreement with the province. His sister owns about 33 per cent of Hearst Forest Management Inc. Even after all that, the government signed an agreement with Hearst Forest Management Inc. about October 1986, about six or seven months after the member for Cochrane North had been a minister in the Ontario government.

1630

An hon. member: Was it Mr. Spooner who was involved in that decision?

Mr. Sterling: For the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio), Mr. Spooner was not involved in any cabinet decision. He is not a member of the Liberal cabinet. The Liberal cabinet signed a contract with the member for Cochrane North to give the forest management company --

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: They made the recommendation that it should be signed. Put it on the record.

Mr. Sterling: Sure, I will put it on the record.

In October 1986, this government signed a contract with Hearst Forest Management Inc., and the member for Cochrane North is a part-owner of that company. He was only an ordinary member at that time, he was not a member of cabinet, but he was a member of cabinet six months prior.

Now the conflict-of-interest act says under clause 6(1)(b) that the executive council or a member of the executive council shall not knowingly award a contract to a former member of the executive council who has, during the 12 months after the date when he or she ceased to hold office, made representations in respect of the contract or benefit.

It was proven in the committee. It was proven when the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly sat and the member for Cochrane North appeared in that committee. In his second appearance he agreed he had talked to the Ministry of Natural Resources on either three or four occasions with regard to the forest management agreement.

All of the elements are there whereby this executive council, in the face of evidence given under oath, awarded a contract to a former member of cabinet within a six-month period and the act calls for 12 months. You have to wait 12 months before you can give a contract to a former cabinet minister. So we now have a piece of legislation introduced by this government which it has not even lived up to after it had a problem with this particular individual in dealing with it.

I would like to talk now about the remedies associated with this particular act. They are located under section 16 of this act. Under that section, it requires the commissioner to come forward with a report and that report can do a number of things. It can say that the member be reprimanded. It can say that the member pay a fine, that he pay compensation, that the member’s seat be declared vacant. That is what the commissioner can do. But let us not trick the public, because the commissioner cannot do it on his own. He cannot declare a seat in this Legislature vacant. What the act says is that this House must approve what the commissioner says.

I have just gone through a litany of the lack of concern of this Premier with regard to his concern over cabinet guidelines, which was found by the Legislative Assembly committee. It was found that, in spite of what the Premier had said over a period of time, he had made little or no effort to monitor compliance.

What happens if the commissioner comes back and he says, “Mr. Peterson, one of your cabinet ministers has not lived up to the guidelines and we expect you to declare his seat vacant”? He has 94 seals over there who are all going to stand up and do whatever he says. They are always going to stand up and do what he says. They are going to stand up and clap if that is what he wants them to do. We all know that. We are not naïve. They are all going to stand up.

Interjections.

Mr. Sterling: Listen to them now. I have the seals going right now.

With the disastrous record of the Peterson government with regard to its responsibility toward cabinet guidelines, this is nothing but a copout by this government. In terms of its past record, I do not expect to see anything but a further copout in the future, even if this act is passed.

Mr. Offer: I would like to wrap up the debate on this matter, pursuant to the standing order.

I have had the opportunity to hear all of the debate in this very important matter. I would first like to thank the members who have participated in this debate.

There is no question that this legislation is viewed by the Premier and the government as of paramount importance. It is going to be a cornerstone by which all members will be measured. I believe this legislation draws a clear distinction between disclosure and conflict; that disclosure does not necessarily mean conflict; and that if one does not disclose, it does not mean there will be conflict.

I think that it results in a clarity of responsibility for the members with respect to their office, as well as giving the public the extent of accountability it should hold its members to.

I have heard the comments of the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves), the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean), the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), the member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson), the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, the member for Markham and the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling).

They raise matters of concern to them. I am and, as members know, we are in support of sending this bill out to committee for public input. I think that during that process we will address the concerns the members opposite raised, not only today but yesterday. We will be able to deal with the whole question of public perception of the integrity of members in this Legislature.

I believe the final result with the passage of this bill -- and in that I do not pre-empt the role of the committee, with respect to its input -- will be an elevating of the public’s perception of the integrity of all members; that the members of this House are willing and able to conduct their own matters; that they are ready to enforce a code of ethics, a standard, by which they themselves will abide, clear to the members, clear to the public at large.

I think the final result of that will be an elevation of the perception of integrity on the part of the public. I hope the public’s perception of integrity concerning all members will be raised to that which it probably is about most, because that is certainly of concern to all members of this honourable House.

We will be discussing, during the committee hearings, different concerns that have been raised by the members today with respect to their concerns with the bill. I believe that the committee process itself will be beneficial in dealing with the bill, that when the bill is discussed we will have the best possible bill that we can have.

1640

I am concerned, as all members are, with respect to public perception. I think that this bill will become a cornerstone of measurement, as I have indicated earlier; that we, as members, will have a greater clarity of our responsibility, first, to disclosure and, second, as to our procedure with respect to conflict of interest.

I think it is important that it applies to all members of the House. I think the public demands no less.

With that, I close this debate and ask that this matter be referred to committee.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cousens: Why do we waste our breath?

The Deputy Speaker: As only the minister can close the debate, I have to ask questions. Any questions or comments pertaining to the member’s statement?

Mr. Cousens: Is there any willingness on its part, as a government -- the Attorney General is back, and welcome back to the House, because indeed he has an important responsibility for all members to reflect honestly and accurately the intentions behind this bill.

Is there any willingness on the part of the Attorney General to make changes in this bill for honest and real amendments that can come forward through discussion in committee, and can some of those amendments reflect on some of the discussion that this House has had to date, not only now but when it was Bill 23?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I heard part of the debate, and certainly the honourable member for Oshawa, speaking for the official opposition, made a number of suggestions for changes that I thought have much to recommend them. One wants, as he expected, to consider them very thoroughly and to measure their impact on the policy of the law, but almost my opening words, for which the honourable member for Markham was not present, were that we were submitting this bill in the expectation that it would go to committee, in the expectation that the committee members representing their parties, would have suggestions for change and improvement. Unlike the previous majority government, we are perfectly entitled to follow through on that obligation.

I was not here, unfortunately, to hear the honourable member for Carleton, whose views are usually very sound and considerably in advance of his party on most issues, but I will look with very considerable care at what he has said, as the parliamentary assistant will, and we will be glad to consider any changes at all.

I do not know whether, after that outburst, the third party will nominate the honourable member for Markham as a member of the committee, but even if he wants to come as a visitor we will be glad to consider, from our part, any suggestion.

Hon. Mr. Conway: He could be leader by then.

Hon. Mr. Scott: As my friend the House leader points out, he may indeed be leader of the third party by the time the matter is debated, although outbursts like today’s do not make that more likely.

The Deputy Speaker: Do other members wish to comment? If not, does the member for Mississauga North wish to reply? Do other members wish to participate in the debate? If not, does the minister wish to close?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I think I have, Mr. Speaker.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Bill ordered for standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

Le projet de loi est déféré au Comité permanent de l’Assemblée législative.

ONTARIO AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE BOARD ACT

Hon. R. F. Nixon moved second reading of Bill 2, An Act to establish the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board and to provide for the Review of Automobile Insurance Rates.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The purpose of this legislation is to provide for greater fairness and accountability in automobile insurance rates by establishing an independent automobile insurance board and providing for regulations to introduce a mandatory, uniform, industry-wide classification system. The classification system will determine different categories of automobile insurance and classes of risk exposure and the procedures for assigning insureds and vehicles to these classes. This classification system will not permit rating by age, sex or marital status.

When I introduced this bill, I stated my intention to provide a draft of the uniform classification system for public consultation prior to finalization of the regulations. Officials of my ministry, with the assistance of an advisory committee, are nearing completion of the consultation draft. The advisory committee includes consumer advocates as well as representatives from the insurance industry and the legal field.

To ensure a fair and open process, the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board will operate as an independent tribunal, subject to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The board will be led by a full-time chairperson and a panel of members. It will be required to set rates or ranges of rates that are just and reasonable, neither excessive nor inadequate. When the regulation prescribing the classification system is finalized, insurers will be required to set automobile insurance premiums on the basis of this prescribed system. All rates charged by automobile insurers must be approved by the board.

The Facility Association will also have to apply for board approval of its rates, and appropriate amendments to allow for this procedure will be made to the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act. It is our intention that all the facts be out on the table in order that the public can understand the factors that go into the making of the rates they pay. Therefore, Ontario’s automobile insurance board, through the support of a secretariat, will maintain public information on rates and administer the public hearing process.

Consumer groups, individuals and companies will be able to present their cases during the public hearing process. Under the legislation before us today, the board may make its own rules of procedure as well as it may authorize inspectors to enter premises and examine documents and make relevant inquiries of insurers, insurers’ associations and the Facility Association, subject to the requirements of a warrant.

Contravention of the act and orders of the board will be an offence, and substantial fines may apply. The maximum penalty will be $25,000 in the case of an individual and $100,000 in any other case. Until the board is established and has completed its process for setting benchmark rates under the new classification system, the bill provides for rate adjustments through only two mechanisms: The first is an across-the-board adjustment by regulation; the second is a transitional increase that a specific insurer has demonstrated to the board to be justified.

In the absence of either of those adjustment mechanisms, the bill provides for maintenance of the automobile insurance rates in place on April 23, 1987, and for 10 per cent reductions from those rates for male drivers under 25 years of age and taxis in the Facility Association.

Members will recall that the initiative represented by this bill was first announced by the government this past April 23 by my colleague the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter). At that time, it was expected the automobile insurance board would be operational by January 1988. The opposition at the time, however, thought it in their best interests not to let the legislation proceed. Other events have also overtaken us, and there has been some delay in the timetable of this bill. We now expect that the rate ranges set by the board should be in effect late in 1988 if the bill is returned from the standing committee and receives approval as quickly as possible.

Despite the fact that our original legislation died in Orders and Notices, the majority of the insurance industry has voluntarily complied with our intention to cap insurance premiums. As well, information supplied to us by the industry indicates that many companies have already refunded a 10 per cent rebate to male drivers under 25 years of age and taxis insured through the Facility Association.

The industry, as well as the government, have viewed this cap as a temporary, interim measure to be effective unti1 December 31, 1987, in order to permit the passage of legislation establishing the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board.

1650

I believe it is unreasonable to require the industry to wait until the last quarter of next year before being able to adjust its rates to reflect cost pressures that have accrued since its last adjustments. Some companies have not adjusted their rates since 1986 and have held to those rates to date. To compel them under this new bill to continue without adjustment until late 1988 would be to run the risk of insurers withdrawing from the market or having them drop higher-risk business, resulting in higher costs to consumers who could be forced into the Facility Association. It is certainly not our intention to create hardships for consumers nor to drive insurers out of business.

Therefore, in view of the risks resulting from the delay in establishing the board and the new rate structure, we believe it is reasonable to implement a transitional strategy. We will allow an across-the-board adjustment to the maximum of 4.5 per cent. This will be effective January 1, 1988. We believe this is reasonable action considering the delay we have experienced and in view of much larger rate increases in other provinces, particularly those where automobile insurance is government run.

Manitoba, for example, had a nine per cent, across-the-board increase in February 1987 and it is expected that further increases, to be effective on January 1, 1988, will soon be announced. Saskatchewan has announced a 10 per cent average increase effective January 1, 1988, and British Columbia has announced a 22 per cent average increase also effective January 1, 1988. In giving its reasons for this increase, British Columbia cited a 61 per cent increase in the cost of injury-related claims and a 22 per cent increase in the cost of repairing vehicles.

For exceptional cases, the legislation also permits application to the board for individual company consideration of rates. Increases would have to be justified by the companies to the board and the hearings would be open to the public.

I remind members that the legislation before us today constitutes substantial reform for the automobile insurance industry. As such, I am sure members will agree it merits full consideration, and I am recommending, if it were to receive second reading, that it receive clause-by-clause review by a standing committee of this House, apparently the standing committee on administration of justice.

The creation of the automobile insurance board will bring public accountability and greater fairness to automobile insurance rates. I look forward to working with members of the House to put it into place in a timely way.

I also remind the members that this bill forms part of our ongoing efforts towards reform in the automobile insurance market. Further initiatives include amendments to the Insurance Act to improve consumer protection and access to information and a review of the Honourable Mr. Justice Osborne’s report on his inquiry into motor vehicle accident compensation in Ontario.

I look forward to hearing the views of all members of the House on this important piece of legislation and will do my best to be able to respond with whatever information is called for.

Mr. Swart: I want to say that this bill that is before the House and being debated today is almost a bad joke.

When it was originally tabled on June 29, it was just three hours before the House recessed. At that time I called it act II in the ongoing insurance play entitled A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to an Election. I said the play had no point and the lead actor, who was the Minister of Financial Institutions, changed his lines in every performance. Of course, we did know the plot.

It was a cynical scenario with the sole purpose of dangling some expectations of reform in front of the voters prior to the election.

Now we are in act III of that performance. The play still has no point and the new actor knows his lines less well than his predecessor. This was evidenced on the day he retabled the bill and the preceding day, November 3. It is really worth noting what he said at that time.

The headline in the Globe and Mail was “Liberals Back Away from Promise to Cap Auto Insurance Premiums,” but all the newspapers that day carried basically the same story. Quoting from the Globe and Mail:

“There will be no capping provisions, said Mr. Nixon, who is also Minister of Financial Institutions. ‘We don’t feel it is necessary because the insurance organizations have cooperated fully with the capping of last April.’” He went on to say, “‘It’s much, much better for the industry to co-operate voluntarily,’” and “‘I’ll tell you, I really appreciate the cooperation in maintaining the rates as they presently are until we get the legislation going.’”

The minister did not even know at that time that the capping provisions were in that legislation. He had not even read the bill when he brought it before this House. He had not even been briefed on it, I am sure, because normally he handles these things pretty adroitly. Certainly that was a faux pas, perhaps excelling anything that had happened to him in that way before.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: How about, “Guilty,” with an explanation?

Mr. Swart: The minister can give an explanation in the two minutes he has when I finish speaking.

Well, caps or no caps, rate review or no rate review, it is a useless, costly exercise in poor theatre that will mean nothing to the Ontario audience of six million drivers, but it will ensure the theatre’s chief patrons, the auto insurance companies, very rich dividends on their massive investment in the Liberal show that took place between August I and September 10.

I want to tell the minister that we in this party are not going to take part in this third act of his little play. We will pull all the ropes we can find to drop the curtain and replace his phoney performance with a genuine act that will reduce the cost to that great Ontario audience of drivers and give them co-operative management of the performance and the fairness and cost-cutting they deserve.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: If you couldn’t sell it before, I don’t know how you’re going to sell it now.

Mr. Swart: We will get to that before I am finished here. I think it is worth tracing briefly the bizarre convolutions that eventually brought this bill before this House. Simply, there was not the slightest bit of sincerity about doing anything real to help the motorist and there still is not. It was purely total political expediency that brought that bill here.

Rates started to escalate excessively in the spring of 1985. It was on August 26 of that year that I wrote the first letter to the then Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations; the ministries had not been divided at that time. I pointed out to him that there were increases of 50 per cent and 100 per cent in liability insurance and that the common increase people had received in automobile insurance up until that time had been 20 per cent. I suggested the time had come to have a freeze put on automobile and liability insurance rates until an investigation was done by the government to determine if those increases were justified. I do not think I have received an answer to that letter yet.

The fall session soon opened and the issue was debated every week. Questions were raised in the fall of 1985 and we had a special debate on this in the fall of 1985. That carried on into January 1986. Of course, during that time we were raising these questions in the House with the minister, saying “What is he going to do about it? At least he should be doing an investigation. “

It all was stonewalled. The news media were carrying, day after day, horror stories about what was happening in the insurance field.

1700

Finally, in January 1986, the minister at that time was bludgeoned, and l do not think that is an incorrect word, into doing something. He appointed the Slater commission, the Ontario Task Force on insurance. We did not take very kindly to it because we did not think it was a very appropriate thing to do in the way it was appointed. First, it was a one-man commission. Second, those appointed as advisers were primarily from the insurance industry. They were advisers to the minister. That commission was not empowered to travel the province, only to sit in an office here in Toronto and from there determine the problems people were facing.

The minister decided that he should state over and over again at that time, and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) did as well, that although the government was appointing the Slater commission to investigate the insurance problems and to make recommendations, it was not interested in knowing, in finding out in any detail about the alternative public auto insurance systems in the western provinces.

At the same time as they were supposed to have been appointing an independent commission to look into this matter and provide answers to the problems, they were saying publicly within this place and outside this place, “Philosophically, we are opposed to the government running these and we do not think it is a real alternative.” All they said was, “If somebody can prove to us that it is better, we will take a look at it, but we are not going to investigate it and we are not telling Mr. Slater and his commission that they should look into it.”

In spite of the fact that Saskatchewan driver-owned public insurance had been in place for 40 years at that time, that in Manitoba it had been in place for 16 years and in British Columbia in place for 14 years, in spite of the fact that all the independent investigations that had been done or those systems proved that they are far cheaper than here, that there was no discrimination out there and that rates had not increased anything like the way they were increasing in this province, they refused to authorize that investigation to be made, even though the Liberal and Conservative parties that had --

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Now he has got going. Now he has left his script. Now we are getting --

Mr. Swart: We do not mind. We can understand how the minister wants to interject on these things to try to indicate that this sort of thing did not take place, but in fact it did.

The same Liberals and Conservatives refused to investigate those plans, even though a Social Credit Party that had fought vigorously against those plans when they were introduced by the New Democratic Party, once it was in power and it did its investigations, said, “These plans are greatly beneficial to the people of this province and we must keep them.”

They have praised those plans year after year since their inception and when they have been in power, they have praised those plans. Even today when Premier Vander Zalm said he would sell off the parliament building -- he is going to privatize everything in British Columbia; he will even sell off the parliament building -- he is not going to put the public auto system up for sale because it serves the people of that province so well.

We did not think a great deal of this commission, as I have already said, because of the limitations that were placed on it, because there was an advisory group to a one-man commission that was composed of people with a vested interest in maintaining the system we have here in this province. So we decided we would appoint our committee and go out ourselves into the real world and talk to the people who were suffering these injustices from the insurance companies in this province. Many, of course, and perhaps the majority of them, are owned outside this province and outside this nation.

Dr. Slater reported in May. He made two volumes like this and I know the minister will have read them thoroughly all the way through.

Interjection.

Mr. Swart: Oh, no. He is the minister now. He must know what is in these. He will know exactly what is in them.

In fact, he had in here a lot of praise for the western plans.

An hon. member: No.

Mr. Swart: Yes, and he had a lot of condemnation for the insurance industry here. Let me just read the members what he said about the insurance industry here. I quote from page 208 of his document:

“For an industry that depends on numbers, and that does such an impressive job in assembling and analysing data for many rate-making purposes, the gaps in statistics and analysis sketched above are puzzling. For reasons which the task force was not able to fathom, statistical and analytical exercises, which are both possible and could be done economically with modern information technology, are either not done, or are done incompletely and ineffectively.”

That is that efficient auto insurance system that the member is defending and supporting here in Ontario. By contrast, Dr. Slater says these words about the public plans.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: What page?

Mr. Swart: This is page 193:

“The chairman considers the following to be a fairminded evaluation of the facts. First, when the government insurance companies in Canada have been well run and not overburdened by social missions and unreasonable restraint on their premium rates by their masters, they have been quite efficient. They have all been efficient performers in recent years. They have also managed to achieve a few social goals as well as provide good-quality insurance services.”

I am sure those public insurance companies have managed to put a little more of the revenue dollar into the claims payments than the average private insurance company has in Ontario. Of course, he had no mandate, you see, to go into detail on this and find out really how much additional money they had paid back to the insurers, but in any event, he made that comment. He then went on to say:

“Sixth, the data and analytical systems in the government insurance corporations have been impressively efficient, using state-of-the-art technology. This is especially true of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. Such systems have been a major factor in the relatively good performance of these corporations in the recent insurance cycle.”

That was his comparison of the system. Of course, he did not recommend. He said: “Not just now, anyhow. Let us give the insurance companies one more chance.” Of course, he is being paid by a government that had told him that philosophically it is opposed to the public insurance system. It is not even investigating it, let alone bringing it in here. He had to be a bit careful if he ever wants another job from the Liberals and he did not go quite as far as to say we should have that kind of system here, but anybody who reads these reports will know very well that in his mind he felt that those systems in those western provinces were far superior to the one we have here.

After the Slater report in May 1986, the government was in a state of paralysis. Nothing happened. Slater recommended no-tort, no-fault insurance in that report, but immediately, of course, the lawyers took opposition to this and said, “We cannot have this.” They put up arguments. I cannot tell members how valid they were, but they said, for instance, that a full no-fault system would cost the motorists of this province $818 million more.

1710

They also derided the fact that people would lose the right to sue the insurance companies. How, in fact, would you settle a dispute? In fact with what is proposed now under the smart no-fault, the lawyers say that 92 per cent of all court cases would be eliminated. How would those disputes be settled? They would be settled by the insurance companies -- on their own terms. Is that not great? Boy, if you think they have done a good job with rates over the last couple of years and how fair they have been, no discrimination, then of course you will understand how the people would just love to have them making the decisions on their own on the final settlement. They will be in good hands.

Of course, on that there was not really any way they could pass it back to the municipalities as with store closings. There really is not any way the minister can pass it back to the municipalities, so he had to do the other thing. He had to do nothing; nothing -- and absolutely nothing was done from May unti1 November 1986. On November 6, they took some action.

Of course, things had been getting worse and even the newspapers were coming out saying editorially: “Something has to be done about this. It’s horrendous what is happening to the people in this province on insurance. Something has to be done.”

So they did what this Liberal government is best at. They appointed another one-man commission to report on the first one-man commission. He had unti1 November 1, 1987. I kind of thought we were in December now, but it clearly states that he is to report by November 1.

In fact, I think it is worth reading from the report that the then Minister of Financial Institutions tabled in the House on November 6 when he appointed Mr. Justice Coulter Arthur Osborne. It says, “The Honourable Mr. Justice Coulter Arthur A. Osborne of the High Court of Justice for Ontario has agreed to undertake this assignment and report to the Attorney General and the Minister of Financial Institutions by November 1, 1987.”

I realize that since this whole problem started, only three years have passed and we have not yet got the report on what we are supposed to be going to do about it. The $3 billion a year that the people are now paying for their auto insurance premiums in this province -- and that is what it is, probably more this year even than $3 billion -- that is what they should be paying, eh, Minister? You could not fault this government -- after all, it has only been in power for two and a half years -- for not doing a single solitary thing about solving the Insurance costs.

Of course, the Osborne commission was primarily on one issue, and that is the place tort should play in a no-fault system of compensations. And of course, once again this commission’s terms of reference were restricted and the advisory committee was loaded again in favour of the vested interests for the status quo.

Let me read the names. There are 10 people on the advisory committee. Out of that, you have two consumers --

Hon. R. F. Nixon: They’re all consumers.

Mr. Swart: -- two people representing consumers in Ontario on that advisory committee. They have Helen Anderson of the Consumers’ Association of Canada -- l think perhaps she is probably as good as any two of those from the insurance industry -- and they have Harry Beatty, the counsel to the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped.

Then we go on from there: Clifford Fraser, vice-president, State Farm insurance; Alex Kennedy, counsel, Insurance Bureau of Canada; George McLean of McLean and Dickey, lawyers; Bert Raphael, a lawyer, a friend of Tom Millar’s for many years. Tom Millar told us that himself. Members of course know who Tom Millar is.

Mr. Runciman: Is that Frank Miller?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Is that Frank’s younger son?

Mr. Swart: The senior person in the minister’s office.

Mrs. Mary Anne Sanderson, a lawyer from London; H. L. Sutherland, vice-president, Adjusters Canada; Wendell Wigle of Hughes, Amys, lawyer; John Weir, superintendent of insurance of Ontario; and then the counsel, John Laskin and Mrs. Nancy Reason.

Here we have a commission that is supposed to be investigating no-fault insurance and even the delivery of it by a public system. Again, it was told: “We are not really in favour of that. Do not go too deeply into that one.” But it was supposed to be investigating these two things -- and the bulk of the representatives on here are lawyers more than anything else -- and the insurance industry. Do we expect to really get an objective report?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: You cannot damn lawyers for that reason alone.

Mr. Swart: I want to say to the minister that when he was in opposition, he would damn a whole organization because it had one lawyer in it. He knows he would do that, and here this is loaded with them. It is his government that puts them on now and he is responsible for this commission. My, how times do change.

Here there are two studies over a two-year period without instructions to do an in-depth, independent comparison of the efficiency, the fairness and the cost-benefit effectiveness of the western publicly operated plans with the Ontario system. Over two years, and the government has refused to even investigate, to even look at them.

Of course, that is perfectly understandable, because if the government did that kind of in-depth investigation, it would find out how superior they are. It would have to publish a report in Ontario and all of the motorists here would know. It is much better to keep them in ignorance. But the government underestimates them if it thinks they are in ignorance on this now.

The total refusal to even do that in-depth comparison of the systems was even too much for our Tory friends here on the left in the House, and on December 4, 1986, they voted in favour of my resolution.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Say it isn’t so.

Mr. Swart: Yes, back on December 4. Let me read that resolution. It is pretty significant.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) remembers this, I am sure.

Mr. Swart: I am sure he will. I do not think he voted for it. I do not want to compromise him. I think maybe he stayed out of the House and did not vote for it.

This is what that resolution said:

“That in the opinion of this House, recognizing the massive problems that exist in Ontario’s auto insurance system, namely, excessive premiums and escalating rates generally; good young male drivers paying three to five times average rates; all drivers in a household penalized for one driver’s record;...the growing number of uninsured drivers in Ontario; arbitrary cancellation of insurance or massive premium increases for frivolous reasons, and inadequate or nonexistent no-fault compensation, and, recognizing that the Slater commission has failed to propose recommendations to resolve these problems and, in particular, failed to investigate and report on the financial and other benefits of the public auto insurance plans as practised in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, and recognizing that Mr. Justice Coulter Osborne has not been instructed to make any in-depth investigation and report on those plans either, the government of Ontario should appoint immediately a respected firm of financial and accounting consultants (like Woods Gordon, who did the previous study in 1978) to make a comprehensive study and comparison of the rates and policies of the western public plans with those of Ontario so that the public of this province know the true facts concerning a major auto insurance alternative which could be made available to the people of this province.”

That was a reasonable resolution. Even the Conservatives and, I think, a few Liberals realized that, and the House passed this resolution to give these instructions to the government of this province.

What has the government done since that time? In just two days, that resolution, that direction from this House to the government will be one year old, and it has not done a single thing about implementing it, for the same old reasons that I gave before. It really does not want the people of this province to know those benefits, so the government has taken no action on that.

I was raised on a farm and I recall that they used to have horse salesmen come around then. This goes back a few years, Mr. Speaker, as you will understand.

1720

Hon. R. F. Nixon: You mean before the tractor was invented.

Mr. Swart: Yes, almost before that. I am probably about in the same age category as the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), so he will understand this story even though many others here may not.

My father needed a horse and they used to have horse salesmen go around. I guess their image was even poorer than the used car salesman’s today. I recall on this particular occasion they brought this horse, and my father looked at this horse, he felt it over. He felt the knees to see if it had arthritis. The Treasurer will recall this: He looked in the mouth to see the teeth to tell how old the horse was. Then he gave it a slap on the back and the horse took off and ran right into the side of the barn. My father said to that salesman, “You tried to beat me. That horse is blind. You tried to cheat me.” The salesman said, “That horse isn’t blind, it just doesn’t give a damn.”

Mr. Runciman: That sounds like a Liberal.

Mr. Swart: Yes, Liberal. That is the attitude of this government. I think maybe it does give a damn. The problem is it gives more of a damn about the insurance companies than it does the motorists of this province. That is the problem.

That little manoeuvre of appointing that second commission did not really solve the problem. It did not stop the criticism. It did not stop the cases being publicized in the media, the horror stories about what was happening to people, their insurance situation. This government mouthed all the insurance company slogans about: “Oh, subsidization. Those western plans are subsidized by the government.” This, of course, came out in the last election.

There has only ever been one subsidy to one of those plans. That was a subsidy by the Social Credit government, for very political reasons, to the British Columbia plan when it was first initiated. The advertising put out this summer by the insurance companies has all of them being subsidized. Saskatchewan’s auto insurance plan, according to their advertisement, was subsidized by $72 million. That $72 million never went into the auto insurance plan; it went into the general insurance section, and it went into the general insurance section to pay claims which had developed because of a horrendous storm in that province. They are operated, of course, entirely separately. All they would have had to do was phone Saskatchewan to find out that that money did not go into auto insurance at all, not one cent of it.

The Liberal government and, of course, the former minister did that in this House: talked about the subsidy of those western plans. Of course that is false.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Should we open a branch here now? Should we open a branch here in Ontario? That is the answer to the whole question.

Mr. Swart: That shows your ignorance. I hardly think that is worth answering: “Open a branch here.” The efficiency of those systems is that they have one insurance company in those provinces and they can act efficiently. We will come to that a little later. The member should listen and he will get the answer to it, I assure him.

They also said: “You can’t expect to have insurance rates as cheap in this province, with all the traffic you have and the density of cars. Out there in those western provinces, they only have a car or two a day on lots of those roads. They don’t have any accidents out there.”

I have statistics here from Transport Canada, and we used them in the election campaign, to show that the ratio of accidents per 100 cars is far greater in those western provinces than it is here, the proportion is far greater. Let me give members the figures for the last six years.

In Ontario, the average of accidents for the last six years is 3.7 accidents for each 100 automobiles registered in this province. In Manitoba, it is 4.7, almost 25 per cent higher. In Saskatchewan, it is 5.3 and in British Columbia, 5.2. Every one of those provinces has more accidents per 100 cars than they do here.

You know, somehow or other it is not the density of cars that causes claims; I am sure even the Liberals over there can understand this. It is the number of accidents that you have proportionately that causes claims, and they have more in the west than they have here in this province. But that did not stop them from carrying on saying it is the density of cars here, and it did not stop the Liberal candidates, either, from making those kinds of comments.

Of course, they also said, “Well, rates really are not any cheaper out there than they are in this province.” We have heard that occasionally, not too often. Well, of course that is ridiculous. There have been, I suppose, two dozen investigations done over the last five years by the Canadian Press, by the Toronto Star, by the Globe and Mail, by all kinds of independent organizations, and the only two groups -- no, I should say three -- that say the rates are not substantially cheaper out there are the Fraser Institute -- and I think maybe even some of the new Liberal members might know a little bit about the Fraser Institute. It is really away to the right of where the minister is and where his Liberals are.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: There is not much room to the right of me.

Mr. Swart: No. You took my next line right away from me.

Of course, there are the insurance companies. I said there was a third group and, of course, that was the Liberals in Ontario, but they only mouth what the insurance companies say, so really there are only two groups, because they are spokesmen for the insurance companies.

Quite frankly, the public did not believe either the insurance companies or this government, and they both became more and more defensive last spring on this issue. Even the Liberals’ own strategists were telling the government it had to do something more or they were in deep trouble in the coming election. Then, to make things worse, some of these critics, some of these advisers went public because the government was not listening to them.

I have here a very interesting article taken out of the Toronto Star on April 19, 1987. Note that date because it has some significance to it. This article is written by Jim Coutts. Some members will know Jim Coutts, of course.

Mr. Villeneuve: What is his political affiliation?

Mr. Swart: I am not too sure, but I think he had something to do with Trudeau when he was in Ottawa and I think the Liberal Party classes him as one of its principal advisers on almost everything. Obviously, they must have shunned him, because this article is headed, “Peterson Can’t Duck Auto Insurance Issue.”

He goes on to talk at the start of the article about the problems the Liberal Party is in, but I want to come to the recommendations. He says:

“As some of us encountered these large, potentially explosive issues” -- he is talking about auto insurance being an explosive issue -- ”in the late 1970s and early 1980s, we tried to develop some way to assess the potential force of the political blast they would create. There are seven criteria that can be used to decide if you have a summer breeze or a political hailstorm. I apply these to no-fault auto insurance and conclude that Messrs. Peterson and Kwinter had better act. This is no summer breeze.”

Then he made these proposals.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: He is talking about no-fault.

Mr. Swart: The way you sort of rejected him, well, I reject him on his knowledge on auto insurance as well.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: You are mixing up your arguments if you are going to use him as your own guru.

Mr. Swart: I tell you, on this side we sometimes have to mix our arguments because we want the members over there to understand it. They cannot understand it if it is straightforward.

1730

Let us go on with what he had to say. He says:

“1. Does the perceived problem affect a wide cross-section of middle-income taxpaying voters? Answer: Absolutely. There are 15 million Canadian car drivers, six million of them in Ontario.

“2. Does the money involved take a significant bite out of a family’s household budget? Answer: Yes, indeed, with insurance premiums in Ontario $200 to $300 higher than in other provinces and as high as $3,000, and that is a significant bite.

“3. Is there a festering sense of economic grievance and unfairness? Answer: You bet. When 19-year-old policyholders are treated much differently from 40-year-olds and women much differently from men, there is a strong sense of something being unfair and wrong.”

I want to just go back to remind all the members, in case they have forgotten the thread, that these are the criteria the Liberals have developed to tell us something is a major issue and is politically dangerous.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: That is not government-operated you are talking about. It is no-fault.

Mr. Swart: Just listen. Mr. Speaker, there is supposed to be some rule here, is there not, about interjections?

The Deputy Speaker: Yes. Ignore them.

Mr. Swart: The ignoring part could come very easily.

Let us go to number 4, if I can have the attention of the Treasurer. Incidentally, I appreciate his being in the House this afternoon. It is not always in these debates that we have the minister responsible here, but I do appreciate the fact that he is here, even though his ears may be closed on most of what I say.

Then the fourth item was: “Has there been a dramatic change over a short period of time? Answer: Yes. Just ask cab drivers how insurance rates have changed. They will tell you of increases of as much as 30 per cent a year. Others will say rates have risen 65 per cent since 1982.”

Then he says, “Does the public identify a villain?” That is the next criterion. “Of course. It is the insurance companies, and the companies in turn blame the lawyers. But these fights are irrelevant if the government does not act. It will become the villain.

“6. Are there other jurisdictions where the issue has been faced and well resolved? Answer: Yes, and you do not have to go outside Canada to find them. Rates have been significantly lower in Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec. This is perhaps the NDP’s strongest card.” Jim Coutts, the adviser.

“7. Is there a danger that the issue will develop into something wider and become more symbolic of other strains on the government? Answer: Without question. A failure to deal quickly with insurance rates will show that the government is too closely tied to big business and that it does not know how to manage the public agenda. To date, Peterson has had a good record in avoiding both pitfalls. “

Applaud, applaud. It is the only thing he said favourably about the Premier here. The members had better applaud now or they will not get the chance.

“In short, this is a big one. It is like rent controls, extra billing, separate school funding, wage and price controls. It will not go away. It is more than a big whim. The government has four options: Dismiss the issue, fight it, study the matter or take the issue over, co-opt the political territory and deal with the grievances. My recommendation on this one would be to co-opt it fast.

“To succeed in co-opting the issue, the government must make it clear that rates will come down, unfair discrimination on the basis of age and sex will stop and the totally unacceptable legal delays that victims of auto accidents face in receiving payments will end. In short, the public must be well protected.”

Then he does the classic Liberal statement. He says: “Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Quebec,” where they all have the publicly operated systems, “are the model for Canada.” He just said that, but then he took the normal Liberal move and said: “In my view, he does not have to nationalize the industry to achieve these changes. Regulation is quite an adequate tool. Delay is not.”

What he is really saying to this government is: “Put on the act that you are going to do something on this. Say you are going to regulate these rates. Say you are going to do away with discrimination. You just have to say that. You do not have to have the real thing.” That is what he was telling the Liberals in this article, which he publicized after he got no action lately.

Guess what happened? On April 23 -- that is four days after this had a huge display in the Toronto Star -- the minister responsible for auto insurance did exactly what Jim Coutts had told him four days before. Of course, what he announced had nothing to do with solving the problem; it had everything to do with political strategy for the coming election. That is what this whole thing was written about. It had nothing to do with solving the problem.

So the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology -- the then Minister of Financial Institutions -- and his government had said themselves, of course, that rate regulation would not work. They had ridiculed rate regulation. I had a private member’s bill before this House on a number of occasions about rate regulation, never as the answer but as an interim measure until we got public auto insurance. When questions were raised about it, the minister ridiculed it several times.

In fact, it is worth reading what the former minister said in the House -- and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) said this today -- when this issue was raised by myself on October 14, 1986. I said: “My question is of the Minister of Financial Institutions. I am sure he is aware that the just-published Statistics Canada figures show that casualty and property insurers of Canada had net profits of $292 million during the second quarter of 1986.” Boy, they were doing all right. This year they had $772 million, but in 1986 they had $292 million during the second quarter.

I asked, “Given that that is two and a half times last year’s figure and 12 per cent higher than ever before recorded for that quarter, will the minister admit, first, that the insurance companies are doing exceedingly well at the expense of the public of Ontario and, second, that the time has come to halt any further increases in auto and liability insurance rates?” It would seem that would be reasonable.

The minister said: “I appreciate the member’s comments, but he should know that talking about profit in isolation means nothing. He has to talk about return on investment. I am not trying to apologize for the insurance companies” -- heaven forbid; he had been doing it every day for a year -- ”but the member should know that in automobile insurance, from the latest figures available for 1985, for every dollar of premium that was taken in on automobile insurance, $1.31 was paid out in claims.”

That figure came, of course, from the insurance companies. I have documents here from the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario which compliment the minister for using the figures of the insurance companies in the House. They say -- and I will be quoting this later -- what good friends they have in the Liberal Party. Part of the commendation they gave to the Liberals was that they in fact quote the figures of the insurance companies.

I said to him: “I am not talking about profits in isolation; the $292-million figure is after they paid all their taxes. Given his intransigence in even considering the efficient and low-cost public auto insurance systems in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, and given the huge profits of the insurance companies, will the minister at least proclaim...Section 371 of the Insurance Act, which gives his ministry the power to hold or adjust rates that are excessive, discriminatory or unreasonable?”

I do not know whether the people over on that side of the House know that there is already a section in the act that authorizes the minister to adjust rates that are excessive, discriminatory or unreasonable. It has been in the act for 50 years, but the Conservatives never proclaimed it. Do you know what? The Liberals have refused to proclaim it, too.

It is already there, so I asked him if he would proclaim that. The former minister said: “That provision has been on the books for more than 50 years; not one government has seen fit to implement it.” That is right. Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals in all that time saw fit to implement it.

Then he said, “Alberta has such a plan. If that plan were in effect in Ontario” -- and these are the significant words -- ”during the past five years the people of Ontario would have paid from eight per cent to 39 per cent more than they are paying now.”

That is what he says about the government’s rate review board. If this rate review board had been in five years ago, the people would have been paying from eight to 39 per cent more. Is that ever effective for the motorists of this province. Is that not effective? That really shows bravery on behalf of those people. That shows trampling. That is trampling on those insurance companies.

That is what the minister said himself. Of course, I read you the Slater report. The Slater report recommended against this. It might be wise just to read that again, I think, because they may have missed that.

This is the conclusion of Mr. Slater, the man the government appointed to look for the solutions for auto insurance problems and insurance problems generally. He says:

“There are inherent dangers in establishing a process of regulation:

“It may tend to favour the regulated industry. Insurer interests, with their more concentrated stakes, will have greater incentives to mobilize and greater access to relevant information and will disadvantage a less informed consumer interest. This may result in rates being set too high.

“While rates of return may be set just right, they can also fail to provide incentives to increase productivity.

“Rate regulation has been tried, in various forms, in the United States with respect to insurance rates. The opinion is that the effects have been largely cosmetic, in that regulators allow deviations from established levels in rates that are, in effect, determined by competitive forces.”

Perhaps when the minister gets up, he will tell us how much the Slater commission cost the people of this province. It recommends against a board. The former minister recommended against it. But the government brings it in; it brings in the bill. That is maybe a Liberal pattern. After all, they had a committee that toured the whole province and said, “You shouldn’t have open Sundays and you shouldn’t return the authority to the municipalities.” Then they bring in the legislation to do exactly what the committee recommended against.

That group over there really operates by logic, does it not? It is the logic of a professor who was speaking to students at a university. He spoke to them for two hours on the subject of logic. He said: “I want to find out how well you understood the points I was making. I’m going to pose a question. The question is this: If Canada is bounded on the north by the Arctic, on the south by the United States, on the west by the Pacific and on the east by the Atlantic, how old am I?”

The students looked at each other and did this sort of thing, and finally one student got up and said: “I know. You’re 44.” The professor said: “That is correct. Now I want you to tell me how you arrived at that.” The student said: “Well, it’s this way. I’ve got a brother at home who’s 22 and he’s only half nuts.”

That is the kind of logic those people use. That is the kind of logic they use on the open Sundays. That is the kind of logic they use on auto insurance. This bill we have before us is contrary --

Interjections.

Mr. Swart: I always listen to what the member for Essex-Kent (Mr. McGuigan) says because he speaks so seldom.

Mr. McGuigan: The student was correct.

Mr. Swart: Yes, he was. I am correct, too, I tell you; that is the kind of logic they use over on that side.

Mr. South: Are you 44, Mel?

Mr. Swart: Even though the member puts that as an insult, at my age I consider it a compliment.

The Liberals bring in a bill that they have fought against in this House for years. They bring in a bill that the commission they hired and paid for -- I do not know how much it cost; I bet it cost $1 million -- recommended against and they bring in a bill that is contrary to their own philosophy.

I have heard the Treasurer rise in the last two years and say such things as, “We should control the price of gasoline,” and the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Kwinter) when he was Minister of Consumer and Corporate Relations said: “We should put some controls on the price of milk.” Since there are hardly any dairies left to process milk any more, there is no competition.” But it is: “Oh, no, let the competitive system work. Yes, let’s let the marketplace work.”

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Milk. You have to be wrong. We have total control of the price of milk.

Mr. Swart: The minister has to be wrong. He cannot even keep a straight face when he says that. He knows the arguments that were put forward.

We have this bill before us now which is contrary to the philosophy and contrary to all the recommendations.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: That is why it is here.

Mr. Swart: That is why it is here. The member is exactly right.

I want to say, and say very seriously, that there was no sincerity and there is no sincerity in this rate review bill about doing anything to solve the auto insurance problems for the motorists of this province.

The Liberals do not believe it themselves. All of them could not have been so wrong for so long. It is possible for Liberals to be, but it is not likely that they were wrong that long. They do not believe this is the answer. They do not believe in this, but of course it was a political decision. The April 23 statement was election posturing and nothing more. I have to admit that it really was well done, in fact exactly as Coutts had recommended just four days before it was released by the minister as though it was something original. It was original in terms of what they have been saying over the years, that is for sure.

Let us realize that this is just a political document and nothing to do with the real world. They divided it into two bills. The first bill was a capping bill and they introduced that early -- l say early, but it was the middle of May -- to provide caps as of April 23. Nobody understood it. The first news reports that came out on it said they were freezing rates. Then two or three days later the news media found out that the rates were going to increase because they were allowed to put on any increases they felt had been warranted up unti1 April 23.

They brought in that bill separately because it provided that there would be rebates to about 300,000 motorists in this province, including the taxis, and if they could get that through and pay out that money, that would be a pretty good bribe, a pretty smart move. Some of them would tell their friends and so on. They could get that money back out to them when they had paid too much.

They brought in that bill first, then this next bill, the one they have now retabled, and they have incorporated the other one into it. Even if they did not know at the time they introduced it, the capping bill is incorporated into this one. They could bring that in the last day of the session -- pretty coincidentally, of course -- with a great statement saying, “We are going to cap the rates for the people of this province.” Boy, oh boy, what nice political manoeuvres. It was really well done.

Of course, those rebates did not really amount to very much. We checked the three main companies just recently and the average rebate to good young male drivers and to the taxis amounted to $52. The whole manoeuvre is pretty good; pretty cheap though, I think. They must think the people of this province are pretty cheap if they will sell their vote for $52.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: That’s a pretty significant rebate. Only a socialist would sniff at $52.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Tell him about the rates.

Mr. Swart: That might be wise. I thought since the first day the minister tabled the bill he would have done some studying about auto insurance but maybe that is too much to assume. I should tell him that the average rate for those young drivers who got the rebate was between $2,000 and $3,000 and the average rate for the taxis was between $5,000 and $9,000, so they got a $52 rebate. But it was a good election plan.

1750

An hon. member: A buck a week.

Mr. Swart: Yes, a buck a week. It was really good election planning to put a little bit of money in the pockets of 300,000 people.

Now, we did not go along with that, as the minister stated. We did not go along with that in May. We said: “Look, if you are going to put a cap on, let us make it real. With the profits the insurance companies had -- which, by the time we dealt with this bill, were up 52 per cent in the first three months over what they had been last year; insurance companies that are going to make this year $1.5 billion -- by God, we are going to have a cap that is meaningful.” We said that is going to go out to committee, where we are going to move that it be a real freeze, that in fact nobody will pay more than he did last year for his insurance.

Of course, there was no time, so it died in Orders and Notices. But of course, this nice cosy relationship with the insurance companies and both they and the Liberals having so much at stake in this election, they gave most of those rebates anyhow. So they have got it and they do not need to feel too bad about that strategy that we did not go along with it. Those people got the rebates, and theoretically, perhaps, the members opposite got some of the benefits. Of course, the collusion and the joint campaign of the Liberals and the insurance companies went much further than that during this last election campaign.

An hon. member: Did you say “collusion”?

Mr. Swart: That is what I said.

I have here the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario bulletin, in which they tell us what they are doing. It says:

“IBAO hosted caucus dinners for the Ontario Liberals and the Ontario Progressive Conservatives. The insurance industry established an election campaign organization in which a representative will provide...information to all candidates in each riding.” I do not think we really got any of it; I do not recall that.

“Constant communications have been established between IBAO and all Ontario MPPs, Liberal and Conservative, whereby press clippings, press releases and other information are passed along.” Of course, I would remind members again of their complimentary remarks that in fact members used all of this and even mentioned it here in the House.

Then this: “IBC has started a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign using television and the printed media....”

An hon. member: Who paid for that?

Mr. Swart: Yes, who paid for that? We know who paid for that. The motorists of this province paid for that.

And then: “IBAO” -- that is the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario -- ”is conducting a second annual fund-raising drive, a political action fund. “ That is what they are doing.

It is rather interesting, too, that in their next newsletter they made these comments last spring: “To a great degree, both the Liberals and Conservatives have been defenders of the industry. They often cited that for every dollar that the companies collected in premiums, $1.39 was paid out in claims costs.”

It seems to me I read that in here a bit earlier. It seems to me that came from the minister’s statement in the House. I kind of remember that.

“The industry adopted some strategies to counteract the New Democratic Party attack. Brokers accepted commission caps on Facility Association business, and the companies agreed to relax their underwriting rules” until the election was over -- no, those last four words are not there, but they are implied -- ”to accommodate greater numbers of drivers in the regular market.

“In fact, everything was working well, and many observers felt that the industry could withstand the NDP pressure. Then the roof caved in. Stats Canada reported that the property casualty insurance industry as a whole recorded a $1-billion profit in 1986 and that this profit was significantly greater than the profit that had been recorded for 1985. Why, asked the NDP, should consumers pay higher auto insurance premiums in Ontario when insurance companies had made such a huge profit? The explanation of the Ontario automobile results, and the government’s defence thereof, was beginning to fall on deaf ears.”

Of course, then they stepped up their campaign and got all those pig ads in there and all that sort of thing. I want to read two documents, though, because they are even more indicative of this nice, close, cosy relationship. After I read them, it will probably be time to adjourn the debate.

This is a letter which was sent out on August 14 -- and I ask the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) to listen to it -- to all Ontario region members of the Canadian Independent Adjusters’ Association. This is what they say. I am reading practically all except the introductory sentence and the final sentence.

“You are strongly urged to consider supporting the candidate running against the NDP candidate who has the best possibility of defeating the NDP candidate. The Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario, IBAO has formed a network of their members to work in the various ridings throughout the province. You are urged to contact a broker in your area to obtain the name of the captain, if you do not know this already, and work in conjunction with this captain.

“Assistance could be given to any press releases which may be made and also to attend any all-candidates meeting to illustrate the inequities of a government-run insurance system. Information to support your position can be obtained from Mr. Ken Martin at IBAO” -- independent information, of course; neutral information -- ”on Eglinton Avenue in Toronto. You are urged to request this information to support your case. This information should also be delivered to the local Liberal and Tory riding offices in order that they have ammunition to combat the NDP allegations.”

And boy, was it ever done. When I went around this province, I heard exactly the same lies from the Liberal candidates in every riding that I went into; exactly the same lies. Get this one too: “The consensus has been that if the insurance is not being discussed in your riding, don’t stir the pot. Have the information which is available ready in event it does become an issue and at that point the issue can be debated.”

Then I have this great document here, which was sent out to every insurance broker in Ontario:

“Insurance Political Action Campaign:

“This is a critical time for auto insurance in Ontario. One party, the New Democrats, has made abundantly clear that, if elected, it would introduce a government monopoly program for automobile insurance. The insurance political action committee is organizing action groups for each of the ridings across the province.”

Some of those insurance people -- yes, in fact, some of the government’s own members, Liberal members -- think there is a matter of decency and some of this stuff has been a bit underhanded, so we get copies of everything that goes out. It is no secret what they are doing.

“Riding captains have been selected and are setting up their organization for an election and beyond. You are invited to be a part of the industry’s positive action program. Complete the questionnaire and send it to your co-ordinator.”

Here is what they may sign and fill in. It says, “I would like to become involved in the industry campaign by:

“Working on a telephone bank;

“Canvassing my area door to door;

“Acting as an area canvass organizer;

“I would like to help any way I can and I can contribute a fair amount of time.”

I wonder if anybody in this province still really believes that this Liberal government is not in the pocket of the insurance companies. I do not think there is anybody.

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

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

2 décembre 1987