Journal des débats 1987-déc-07 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mrs. Grier: The piece of white paper which I hold in my hand may well contain very minute quantities of dioxin. With this dangerous chemical, even a minute quantity is too much. Studies have proved that dioxin is a byproduct of the chlorine bleaching process used in almost all Ontario’s pulp and paper mills. Tests in the United States have found low-level dioxins in office paper, coffee filters, disposable diapers and paper food containers.

Tomorrow evening, the CBC television program Market Place will reveal the results of tests it did to look for dioxins in Canadian paper products.

The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) has a committee of experts reviewing this problem. The minister has agreed that changes in the bleaching process used by Kraft mills might be a solution. Such changes have been made in Scandinavia. The minister’s experts are due to report early in 1988.

Under the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement, a monitoring regulation for the pulp and paper industry is due to be in place by the end of March 1988, followed by a compliance regulation by the end of the year.

This is one environmental problem that is too serious to warrant any delays in finding a solution. In a poll commissioned by the American Paper Institute, 59 per cent of those surveyed said they would reduce their use of paper products if they believed they were contaminated with dioxin. What is at stake in this issue is not only the health of the consumers and workers but also the health of the Canadian pulp and paper industry. Process changes will have to be made by industry, and we in this party demand that the minister move quickly.

GOVERNMENT POLICIES

Mr. Sterling: As we near the end of this session, I want to bring to the members’ attention one consistent factor that has been apparent to this parliament, and that is a string of broken promises by the government.

First, there was the case of the peek-a-boo veto. During the election the Premier (Mr. Peterson) had a veto on free trade: “No deal or the right deal,” he said. After the election, he somehow misplaced his veto. Instead of owning up to it, he accused Ontarians of simply misunderstanding what he had said.

Next, there was the education funding: over $270 million promised for new programs to take effect immediately. That $270 million turned out to be $60 million this year, with the rest to take effect who knows when. When the Premier was asked about this, he accused the media of misrepresenting his statement.

Most recently, we had the case of the on-again-off-again frozen insurance premiums. During the election campaign, premiums were frozen and, in fact, were going down. After the election, the Liberal thaw set in and premiums are not going down, but are most definitely going up, thanks to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon). We have two weeks left in this Legislature. The question becomes, how many more promises can this Liberal government break during that short period of time?

WHIPPER WATSON TELETHON

Mr. Beer: Together with the member for Durham-York (Mr. Ballinger), I would like to share with the House what can only be described as the most ambitious programming event ever to be broadcast across cable television in Ontario. Organizers of the Whipper Watson Telethon were able to put together a special cable network to help raise the $1.7 million necessary for York County Hospital in Newmarket to purchase a computerized axial tomography scanner, a computer-assisted X-ray device.

Where previously patients were required to wait up to three months and to travel to a Toronto hospital to benefit from the lifesaving procedure that a CAT scan offers, those living in York, Durham, Simcoe and Dufferin regions will now receive immediate and local medical attention.

We are all acquainted with the former wrestler Whipper Billy Watson, a recipient of the Ontario Medal for Good Citizenship and a member of the Order of Ontario, either through his colourful career or his great involvement in charitable fund-raising. It will, therefore, come as no surprise that Whipper was the catalyst behind this weekend’s event.

On behalf of all members I would like to congratulate Whipper Watson, his assistant, Pam McDonald, executive producer David Blackwell and the multitude of volunteers responsible for the success of this campaign. I would also like to express appreciation to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly for allowing this unique telethon access to the parliamentary channel and thereby facilitating its broadcast throughout the area served by York County Hospital.

Whipper Watson, a youthful 72, has stated that this CAT scan campaign would be his final fund-raising project before retirement. It is fitting that Whipper’s last event was an innovative one which married the benefits of technology to the community spirit necessary for the success of such a campaign.

REBELLION OF 1837

Mr. Swart: I do not class myself as an historian, except for having been around for a while, but I think we would be remiss in this House if we did not note that today is the 150th anniversary of an important event, the rebellion of Upper Canada led by William Lyon Mackenzie.

That event was, of course, the attack of the militia under Colonel James Fitzgibbon on Montgomery’s Tavern. The rebels were defeated and the tavern was burnt to the ground. As futile and lacking of success as it turned out to be, it was nevertheless the catalyst for the system of responsible government that we have now in this province.

Many of those prominent in that uprising were residents at that time of the Niagara Peninsula and their descendants still live there. Dr. John Rolph, the great-great-grandfather of Beverly Craig, who lives in Fonthill, was going to be installed as head of the contemplated republic and had to flee the country. Both the paternal and maternal great-great-grandparents of Ed Gould, currently a prominent citizen of Welland, were involved in that uprising. Joseph Gould was held in jail for one year and Charles Chapin also suffered severe retribution.

I want today to pay tribute to those involved in that fight for responsible government and recognize that we are beneficiaries of their action.

INTERVAL HOUSES

Mr. Harris: I want to point out the following facts to all the Liberal ministers who failed to meet with representatives of the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses last week. There are an estimated one million battered women in Canada. Of the 17,000 families on a three-year waiting list for subsidized housing in Ontario alone, three quarters are mother-led.

In large urban centres such as Toronto, transition houses can accept only one in 10 requests for admission due to lack of available beds. In Toronto alone, more than 10 women have been killed since June of this year by their present or estranged partners. Transition home funding in Ontario is neither adequate nor guaranteed. The North Bay transition home, for example, receives no funding for the 200 nonresidential clients it handles each and every month.

The government has clearly failed to meet the needs of battered women and children in this province. It has failed to implement the new transition-home funding formula promised since last May. It has failed to consult with association representatives, and neither the Premier (Mr. Peterson) nor his ministers would meet with representatives when they came to Queen’s Park last week. I guess that is the reality of September 10.

I call upon the government today to introduce legislation devoted to the issue of family violence to ensure that the operating costs of transition houses are adequately and securely funded. We know there is a problem. This government has an obligation to fulfil the need.

1340

BRUCE BROWN

Mr. Miller: We have a guest here today whom I would like to introduce to the honourable members. Bruce Brown is in the gallery today as the Ontario Minister of Agriculture and Food for a day.

Each year the agricultural minister for a day is selected during a public-speaking contest sponsored by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair. This contest is held during the Royal. Today Bruce Brown is accompanying the minister on his duties around the minister’s office and here in the Legislature this afternoon.

This year’s minister for a day comes well equipped for his role. He is a 25-year-old farmer from Newcastle, Ontario, where he helps run a dairy, beef and cash crop farm with his father. A graduate of the University of Guelph in agricultural economics, this year’s minister for a day has all the potential to be a future leader in agriculture.

Mr. Speaker and honourable members, please recognize this year’s minister for a day, Bruce Brown, who is in the east gallery.

COMMERCIALIZATION OF HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Morin-Strom: I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) at this time an issue of concern regarding the commercialization of health care services in this province, in particular laboratory testing.

This has been brought to my attention most recently by Fred Griffith, president and chief executive officer of the Sault Ste. Marie and District Group Health Association. He has expressed concern that these tests are being discontinued by the regional laboratories in the province and are being turned over to commercial laboratories. At a time when health care is supposedly in a crisis, Ontario continues to create bonanzas for the commercial laboratories.

Mr. Griffith, who has just been named to the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy asks: “What is the system for -- to provide care for Ontario residents or profits made at the expense of an overburdened system for absent and resident shareholders?”

I ask the minister to take a close look at this and act on this growing problem in terms of health care dollars being drained away from other important items.

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CHILD CARE

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I would like to report to the House on last week’s federal-provincial child care conference in Ottawa.

As members of the Legislature know, the focus of the conference was the federal government’s announcement of a $5.4-billion national child care plan spread over seven years. Of this, $3.1 billion will be used to cost share programs with the provinces.

The government of Ontario welcomes the federal announcement. While we still have important concerns, we are pleased that the strategy announced by the federal minister, Mr. Epp, is in line with our New Directions for Child Care paper unveiled last June.

The Ontario government’s plan will increase provincial spending on child care to $325 million by 1990. This is about four times the province’s child care budget when this government came to office in 1985. Our plan has always assumed the federal government’s willingness to be a full partner.

The New Directions document marked a significant turning point in the development of a high-quality, affordable and accessible system in Ontario, one that recognizes child care as an essential public service and not as a welfare service.

The federal plan gives us some of the tools we need to continue moving ahead with our New Directions, but our work is not complete. A thorough evaluation of the plan must await the outcome of a bilateral negotiation. Over the next few weeks and months, we will be meeting with the federal government to ensure that Ontario receives the funding it needs to move forward with its New Directions for Child Care paper. Ottawa has put in place the national policies that we in Ontario were advocating. Now we need the resources.

I want to assure the members of this Legislature and, more important, the families of Ontario that this government will speak with a strong voice to ensure that we get the funding we require.

The spending that the Ontario government is committed to, with federal government partnership, will help cover the increasing cost of our programs, to meet such things as the priority we have placed upon better salaries for child care workers. Dollars from both levels of government will allow us to pay for the thousands of new spaces that will be coming on stream over the next several years.

Another of the funding issues that has generated great interest relates to direct operating grants. These grants will begin for the nonprofit sector on January 1, 1988, as part of our stated intention to ensure growth in the nonprofit sector.

The federal plan puts no restrictions on grants to commercial operators. As of April 1, 1988, when the federal cost-sharing program begins, Ontario will be able to go ahead with the plan I previously announced to flow direct grants to existing commercial child care spaces, presently estimated to comprise a significant percentage of our system.

I would like to advise members that, as of today, only those commercial spaces whose operators are already licensed or who have applications in process in the ministry’s area offices will be eligible for direct grants from the provincial government.

Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues, the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and the minister responsible for women’s issues (Mr. Sorbara), for their help in ensuring Ontario was well represented at last week’s conference. They will also be involved in our upcoming discussions with Ottawa on the detailed funding arrangements.

We were generally pleased with the results of last week’s conference, but I repeat, we are committed to ensuring we get the federal dollars we need to pursue our long-term strategy for child care.

I am today even more confident that we can build an affordable, accessible child care system. We have taken another important step towards that goal, one which ensures women can participate fully and equally in the economic life of this province and one which ensures maximum opportunities for growth for future generations.

SCHOOL DROP-OUTS

Hon. Mr. Ward: It gives me great pleasure to inform the members today of my ministry’s newest in a series of innovations to attack Ontario’s disquieting and deep-rooted drop-out problem.

This government recognizes and is striving to curtail the tragic loss of human potential embodied in the young men and women who slip through the fingers of our educational system. To approach that dilemma on a new front, I am today awarding a total of $600,000 to fund 12 pilot projects related to our student retention and transition project. This money will allow the funding of the 12 projects which were selected from a total of 75 school board submissions.

Projects selected include those of the North York Board of Education, Lakehead District Roman Catholic Separate School Board, West Parry Sound Board of Education, Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Board of Education, Huron County Board of Education, Sault Ste. Marie Board of Education, Lakehead Board of Education, Halton Board of Education, Metropolitan Separate School Board, Durham Board of Education, Nipissing District Roman Catholic Separate School Board and the Ottawa Board of Education.

We believe the intervention strategies contained in the pilot projects will assist Ontario school boards in significantly lowering the drop-out rate across the province. Projects selected contain drop-out prevention programs for students at risk, including visible minorities and native people, re-entry programs for those who have already left school and counselling programs focusing on career planning and transition to the workplace.

The implementation of these pilots will provide my ministry with valuable information to assist us as we establish provincial policies and programs to help school boards in reaching the goal of reducing the drop-out rate by one third over five years.

This initiative, coupled with two additional broad-based undertakings already pressed into action by my ministry -- the ties to business and industry incentive fund and co-operative education -- is striving to create a varied and responsive educational system in Ontario that is equally relevant to the student pursuing a post-secondary education or the student embarking on another career path. We believe that initiatives such as these stimulate students’ interests in school by increasing their desire to complete their studies.

Some 61 school boards in Ontario are participating in the ministry’s ties to business and industry incentive fund. Since the ministry first announced its three-year, $13-million co-operative education and transition-to-employment incentive fund in January 1986, we have made significant strides in the area of co-operative education in Ontario by strengthening the bonds between teachers and students and the world of work.

1350

Approximately 35,000 students and 113 school boards in Ontario are participating in co-op education in 1987-88. That means more students than ever are experiencing first hand the kind of knowledge gained in the workplace. As a result, they are better aware of the options available to them when they finish their schooling.

Through these and other endeavours, this government is seeking to preserve and enhance Ontario’s unparalleled education opportunities for every one of our young people.

I would like to add, for the information of the members, that I am looking forward to releasing the work of George Radwanski. In March of this year, Mr. Radwanski was appointed to unearth ways of making Ontario’s education system more relevant to the needs of young people and to the realities of the labour market. His focus will be on the issue of high school drop-outs.

I am confident that the work of our student retention and transition pilot projects, coupled with our other endeavours in conjunction with Mr. Radwanski’s report, will enable us to construct solid and useful strategies to reduce the drop-out rate from our schools.

CONTAMINATED MUSSELS

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Recent shipments of contaminated mussels into Ontario have posed a serious threat to our province’s public health.

Already, at least 34 cases of food poisoning have been reported in Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island following the consumption of contaminated mussels. There are four suspected cases and one confirmed case among Ontario residents.

Persons affected show severe gastro-intestinal disorders shortly after eating mussels -- symptoms such as nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea. In some patients, these symptoms have been followed by disorientation, memory loss and even loss of consciousness.

On December 2, Health and Welfare Canada advised my ministry that at least 34 shipments of Prince Edward Island mussels contaminated with an unidentified toxin were distributed in Ontario between November 1 and November 30. The shipments had been sent to nine Ontario distributors, most of them in the Kitchener and Toronto areas.

We were told that the federal government’s health protection branch had contacted the nine distributors and asked that the mussels be removed from sale. In turn, the distributors were asked to advise their retail outlets to remove and destroy the product. In order to determine that these requests had been complied with, a verification procedure was implemented.

On December 3, my ministry issued a public warning advising Ontario consumers to return any fresh mussels purchased since November 1 to their retail outlet. The federal warning referred only to mussels from Prince Edward Island and the Magdalen Islands. Our Ontario warning was broader because fresh mussels are not usually labelled or coded and consumers might not be able to determine their source.

On that same day, all Ontario health units were notified of the recall and ordered to take the following actions:

To check all outlets in their areas where mussels are sold -- both wholesale and retail;

To remove any suspect mussels from sale and place them on hold. All mussels purchased through any one of the nine Ontario distributors who received Prince Edward Island mussels were to be considered suspect;

To inform the health protection branch of the federal government about the action that had been taken;

To advise the public health branch of my ministry about any mussels still being offered for sale.

With regard to the public health threat posed by contaminated mussels, a public advisory is being issued by my ministry today to not purchase or eat any mussels originating from any area of Atlantic Canada or the northeastern seaboard of the United States and to not purchase the product for canning or pickling since it is not known at this time whether the toxin would be destroyed through the preserving process.

I recognize that these are rather severe actions, but they are necessary until the nature and source of the mussel toxin is satisfactorily resolved.

RESPONSES

SCHOOL DROP-OUTS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The government must be feeling very sensitive about its failed promises around education in the election to come up with this preposterous announcement today instead of waiting for George Radwanski’s report to know where it would want to go with the school drop-out problem.

They trivialize it by making it seem like it is almost nothing at all, rather than the thousands and thousands of kids who are finding our school system unacceptable, because they send $50,000 per project to schools to address this enormous problem in our society.

Members in this House should know that kids in the basic level of our high school system are dropping out at rates of over 70 per cent. Over 70 per cent do not complete, and this minister wants to throw $50,000 a project at them as if that is some sort of a response.

I wonder how this is going to fit with our Futures program, which of course is dealing with the skills side of these kids. Futures, by the way, takes only about 60 per cent of its clients as drop-outs. I do not know what happens to the rest of them, but only 10 per cent of all the students who go into the Futures program even make it back into school.

If you look at this major program we have for kids in skills development in another ministry you then see that it is not dealing with the problems either, and here we have a government just throwing tiny little amounts of money at a problem which is enormous and which is structural, instead of dealing with it in a systematic fashion.

CHILD CARE

Mr. Allen: The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) has come back from the meetings in Ottawa full of pride in his comments on the announcement that has been made with respect to day care.

I would just like to observe that the Ontario Coalition for Better Childcare, which has been lobbying him for some time, wanted him to institute a program that would have the following standards: It would be high-quality, it would be directly funded, it would be fully accountable to parents as well as to government and it would be nonprofit in character and fully accessible.

He has failed that lobby group -- the professionals in the field, the biggest single coalition on the subject in the whole country -- with the plan that has been announced in Ottawa, and yet he keeps referring to it as exactly the kind of plan we wanted.

His attitude of taking the money and running from Ottawa without working and demanding in Ottawa a national standards, national objectives program that would be consistent across this country as well as in Ontario is, to me, nothing less than shameful. There is a major precedent that he has established on transfers relating to welfare payments and so on with regard to their accessibility to private businesses in this country which I think we will live long to regret. That is the first time those moneys have ever been accessible by private business.

If I can quote in another respect Laurel Rothman, for example, of the Ontario Coalition for Better Childcare, referring to the federal government, which might well be said to the minister, “I would just like to remind the federal government that I am not aware of any federal program that makes ongoing federal dollars available to business.”

On this subject, the minister has recently assured the Metro Morning inquisitors that free trade will not be a problem, but I beg to differ and I think others, including Marjorie Cohen, the specialist on this subject, certainly would disagree with him. He says that because he is only making grants available through this program to existing commercial day care centres, that in point of fact he will not be obligated under the free trade agreement in the services sector to provide moneys for competing American day care corporations that come into this province.

If he will look at the dispute settlement mechanism under the agreement such as we have seen it, he will find out that it will be absolutely impossible for him to resist paying money to those groups in order to give them equal treatment, national treatment in Canada.

That is a dangerous precedent, and I think it is a shameful thing for this minister to have saddled this province with that agreement and to be willing just to take this money and run.

SCHOOL DROP-OUTS

Mr. Jackson: It is not a good day for the unemployed youth of this province, specifically those who have experienced dropping out of our secondary schools in this province. They now know what they can expect, after waiting since 1985 for the Liberal promise two elections ago that every student would be employed in this province. That was the promise given by the then Liberal Leader of the Opposition. He promised students he would find a mechanism by which he could give them hope while attending secondary schools in this province, that they could develop training skills so they could move towards employment, which is the natural transition from school.

1400

This announcement today shows a complete lack of understanding and sensitivity to this most pressing and desperate situation in this province. The statistics have been alluded to. We now know that the Ministry of Skills Development’s highly touted Futures program has a drop-out rate of its own of over 35 per cent. Yet this government refuses to link education and skills training, which is what every other successful jurisdiction in the world has been telling provinces and countries like ours which are experiencing this difficulty.

This government unceremoniously dumped the two years’ work of Ken Dryden, Ontario’s youth commissioner, who made very clear and specific recommendations to the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Skills Development and Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. He talked about the need for a school-work continuum. In the absence of such a vehicle, we are going to continue to repeat the problems and provide no future and no hope for students who are experiencing the multitude of problems that contribute to dropping out in our schools.

Our high school technical shops are draining at an absolutely alarming rate; we are moth-balling technical equipment in our high schools across this province; the fallout from the document Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Senior Divisions, about curriculum guidelines has created a compression in the school programs for our students-all of which have created a worsening of this situation, and yet our skills needs in this province are increasing and our drop-out rate continues to increase.

The minister should bear in mind what Mr. Dryden had to state, because it was a year ago that we warned the ministry. The Ministry of Skills Development was doing apprenticeship programming and it failed to even consult with the Ministry of Education. Still, today, he comes with this kind of recommendation for a $50,000 pilot project; $50,000 will not pay a teacher’s salary at A-4 maximum in this province. So what kind of program is he going to provide for that kind of money?

Let me quote what Mr. Dryden thinks of the minister’s program announcement today. He knew, a year ago, when he wrote the report. He says:

“Futurists tell us we will move from work into education/training and back again several times in our lifetime. These changes must come quickly and easily. Two systems abutting each other are not good enough. Transitions suggest beginnings and ends and break-points that must be bridged. There needs to be something more natural and automatic. It may be useful, instead, to think of education and work as a continuum.”

That is the document the minister should be looking at, not short-circuiting Radwanski’s report, which we are all waiting for, after the minister promised he would deal with this problem a year ago. We are still waiting for Radwanski’s report and the minister is applying Band-Aids to this severe problem for the drop-outs in this province.

ABSENCE OF CRITICS

Mr. Harris: The member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland), our critic for the Ministry of Community and Social Services, is not here today. I know we have a lot of things to say on day care, I just do not know what they are. Maybe we could have time tomorrow, but I do not want our silence on the issue today to be construed -- and that is really why I rise -- as adopting the position of the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen). If I have to say anything, I would at least have to congratulate the minister for resisting some of the things the member for Hamilton West feels is the only way to proceed.

In relation to the statement of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), I might say our critic and our whip is absent today, as well. Maybe he ate mussels on the weekend, I do not know.

SPEAKER’S RULING

Mr. Speaker: Just before I call for oral questions, on Tuesday last I undertook to examine the situation regarding the use of unparliamentary language by the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) in the context of a ruling I had made in the House on December 12, 1985.

Before I go any further, I would like to thank the member for Burlington South for the way in which he quickly withdrew the offending words last Tuesday. In examining the ruling brought to my attention by the member, I have found the two situations to be very different. They both deal with words originally spoken outside the House, but in the latter case the member for Burlington South chose to repeat his words of his own volition without being prompted to do so, and that is the reason the chair called him to order.

One very important point in this procedural matter, as well as others, is that a member cannot and should not try to do indirectly what he cannot do directly. The chair must appeal to members not to approach their work with a view to trying to go as far as they can without breaching a standing order or a rule of this House. Especially as it pertains to unparliamentary language, there is no fixed list of what is parliamentary and what is unparliamentary.

In this regard, I bring to the attention of the members separate lists published in Beauchesne’s fifth edition from pages 105 to 114 which contain on the one part, words that have been found unparliamentary, and on the other, words that have been found to be parliamentary. Members will notice that a good number of those words and expressions are contained in both lists. There is no fixed rule. The Speaker, in his capacity as a member having been chosen by his peers to uphold order in the House, is the judge of what word or expression, in the given context of the day, is parliamentary or unparliamentary.

In order to explain this further, I would quote from Beauchesne’s fifth edition, pages 114 and 115:

“(1) It is impossible to lay down any specific rules in regard to injurious reflections uttered in debate against particular members, or to declare beforehand what expressions are or are not contrary to order; much depends upon the tone and manner, and intention of the person speaking.” That is from the Journals, March 19, 1976.

“(2) An expression which is deemed to be unparliamentary today does not necessarily have to be doomed unparliamentary next week.” I refer to Debates, July 23, 1955.

I would further urge all members to keep this in mind and recognize that they have a duty in the preservation of order as well. That duty is to help the chair in ensuring that free debate can take place in this chamber while preserving the basic dignity traditionally applied to the use of language in parliamentary institutions.

Oral questions, the Leader of the Opposition.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. B. Rae: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought you were going to say, “Speaking of unparliamentary language, the Leader of the Opposition.”

My question is to the Premier. I wonder if the Premier can give us the assurance, if not to say the promise, that when we finally have the text of the agreement between Canada and the United States with respect to free trade, which we hope we will have this week, at the very least at that point and on that day the Premier will announce what campaign and what program the government of Ontario intends to follow in order to stop the deal.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Just to bring my friend up to date, to the best of my knowledge -- everything we are hearing is unofficial at the moment -- ambassadors Reisman and Murphy may sign off on this tomorrow. Presumably, then it would take 48 hours or so to get that into appropriate text, printed and translated. As soon as we have a copy of that, we will be very happy to share that with all honourable members of this House and indeed the public.

1410

It is my view that we should commence immediately with the standing committee on finance and economic affairs looking at that. I think they could start right away. Obviously -- l am sure my honourable friend would agree with me -- they will not have time to do all of that prior to the January 2 date, which I do not believe is magic anyway. I think that group should look at that contract in as great detail as it so chooses in order to advise the House of its findings and indeed any hearings it would like to have.

Presumably, I will be meeting with the other first ministers on this some time -- I cannot give members a date; it may be later on this week or perhaps next week -- for further discussions. As my honourable friend knows, we are unalterably opposed to this deal. We are assessing all of it, in all of its legal as well trade implications and economic ramifications. I am happy to share that with the member and everyone else.

Mr. B. Rae: I guess what we have been trying to determine since the House resumed sitting is exactly what form this unalterable opposition is going to take. The Premier’s Liberal Party colleagues defeated a private member’s resolution which would have given some leadership to the government to indicate precisely what form this unalterable opposition was going to take. I wonder if the Premier can tell us just what other steps he intends to take, in addition to sending it to committee, to ensure that the deal does not go through.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not think I accept my honourable friend’s assessment of that situation, that the particular motion that was voted on independently by members of this House would have provided any special leadership.

As the member knows, we have declared our view that we are not going to implement the wine provisions of the free trade agreement. At the moment, that is the one area we can all fix as being within provincial jurisdiction. My honourable friend is aware as well that a number of other areas are under federal jurisdiction. As I have said to him, and as we have done already, we will take the case to the people of this country, who ultimately will pass judgement on it.

But I do not think my honourable friend would want to mislead anybody in any way -- and I will retract that word if it is unparliamentary. He would not want to create the notion that, on a trade matter under federal jurisdiction, we have the power in this House to stop that deal, with the exception of the things that are exclusively under our jurisdiction. We have declared our intention not to proceed with that.

Mr. B. Rae: If anybody gave the public the impression that a deal was going to be stopped, it was the Premier during the election campaign. That is who gave the public of Ontario the impression that a deal was going to be stopped. If the Premier wants to go over those texts again, we will go over them.

Can the Premier at least give us the assurance that in addition to moving in the area of wine, where he has indicated the fact that Ontario is going to be moving with respect to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade but not with respect to the free trade agreement -- can he tell us what he intends to do in the field of resources, can he tell us what he intends to do in the field of services and, finally, can he tell us whether he intends to officially inform the United States Congress of the position of the government of Ontario with respect to the implementation of this deal?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have already done that. I have discussed it with members of the US Congress and I have told them why we are opposed to this deal. I think they are knowledgeable of the fact that Ontario and indeed two other provinces are against this deal.

As I said to my honourable friend, we are doing a constitutional audit of what areas could potentially be affected, not only now but also in the future. I think that is going to be an interesting area for discussion. Whether in fact a limitation of powers in the future is something that can be effected today is going to be a very interesting legal question, but the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) is applying his highly trained legal mind to that question and will share that with the member in the very near future.

CHILD CARE

Mr. B. Rae: A new question, to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I wonder if the minister can tell us if it is his view that the announcement that he made today and the announcement that was made last week with respect to child care -- which announcement I can tell the minister is in stark contrast to the views of not only all the child care activists in Ontario but also indeed the Liberal Party caucus in Ottawa -- that this policy now guarantees subsidized spaces to all children in need.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Obviously, that is not the case. What we have clearly indicated by our own provincial program and what our federal counterparts have indicated by their proposal is that we are making a very significant step forward beyond where we are at the present time. From 1985 to 1989, Ontario will be quadrupling the resources it puts into child care. The federal government has announced the figures it is putting in. Those two together will provide considerably more resources in Ontario and in other parts of the country than what are there at the present time. It is a significant step forward. It is not the final answer to everyone’s needs.

Mr. B. Rae: The reason I use that particular phrase is that it was the phrase contained in the statement by the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), Ontario Liberal leader, on April 4, 1985, announcing the Liberal Party’s plans and intentions with regard to child care. It is clear that we have yet another broken promise -- as if we needed any more, but there is one more.

The minister says in his statement today that the federal policy is a reflection of the position of the Ontario government. I wonder if he can tell us, does this policy which he announced and which he is supporting contain, and does Ontario plan that it should contain, the implementation of a policy of contract compliance with companies doing business with the government, so that access to or provision of child care services for company employees will be one of a number of conditions to be weighed in awarding a contract? Is that now the policy of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The current practice in Ontario is to assist workplace day care operators with an initial grant of $55,000 to begin the program itself. There is nothing in either the Ontario program or the federal program, as I read it, that would make that a requirement. However, as I am sure the honourable member appreciates, an increasing number of employers are beginning to recognize the value to themselves and to their employees of having workplace day care, if not directly onsite then sufficiently close by to benefit their employees.

Mr. B. Rae: By way of final supplementary, the minister will no doubt be aware that the position of the Ontario Liberal Party as announced on April 4, 1985, also contained this phrase: “Negotiations to phase out the child expense tax deduction and replace it with a child expense tax credit.” The minister will know that one of the features of the federal plan which has been most heavily criticized by the child care community in Ontario, and indeed in Canada, is the fact that not only does it not phase out the child expense tax deduction but it increases dramatically the size of the child expense tax deduction. I wonder if the minister can tell us, was it the position of the Ontario government during these negotiations that the child expense tax deduction should be phased out and replaced entirely with a tax credit?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I made essentially that request of my federal colleagues last February when we were first asked to put our proposals on the table. I made the same request and recommendation just last week in Ottawa, indicating that I found it somewhat strange that the federal Minister of Finance had gone on record fairly recently indicating that credits were much fairer for all income groups than were deductions and that here the federal government was introducing a new program based upon deductions rather than credits. I did not support that. I said so very publicly, that I did not support those. I do not support them today. I remind the member, however, that is completely a federal initiative. This minister representing the province had no way of influencing the federal government in that direction and I believe the federal minister made that fairly clear.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Attorney General. It is with respect to clarification that I would like to receive in regard to the issue of Sunday openings. On December 2, 1986, the Attorney General indicated, “It is a policeman’s responsibility...to satisfy himself, with or without legal advice, that he has reasonable and probable grounds to lay a charge.” This comes on the heels of the Attorney General’s comment of last week where he indicated that the government would not proceed to prosecute any charges that were laid with respect to Sunday openings. My understanding is that the police, on the basis of his earlier statement of a year ago, not only have the responsibility but the inherent right, in their role as police officers, to lay charges when the law has been broken.

Could the Attorney General clarify for us today what his intentions are with regard to the laying of charges and subsequent prosecutions for Sunday openings?

1420

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable leader’s apprehension of my view is correct. The police have the inherent right to lay a charge and we have indicated that in the interests of fairness, we would not be proceeding with the prosecution of those charges.

Mr. Brandt: I find that passing strange, in that the Attorney General has taken it upon himself to interpret a law which has at this time not been challenged, has not been through the courts.

I would point out to him that, again on December 2, with respect to another matter entirely -- and for purposes of refreshing his memory I would remind him that the quotes I am giving him today were taken in the context of his response to both the Morgentaler case and also the Ontario Provincial Police boat incident in the Kingston area -- he said: “The point I want to make is that the Attorney General’s responsibility is quite clear. It is to prosecute charges that have been laid by the police.” Further, he said -- and both are from Hansard -- “The power of the Attorney General does not include instructing the police about charges they should or should not lay.”

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Brandt: The Attorney General has, in quite a similar fashion to the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) with regard to Sunday openings, changed his position rather dramatically from a year ago. Now he is taking an entirely different attitude. Could I ask him to further clarify whether he was right on December 2, 1986, or is he right now in connection with the interpretation of the Attorney General’s powers?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I do not regard there being any inconsistency between the two occasions. The police have the right to lay a charge, as indeed any informant has the right to go to a justice of the peace and see if a charge can be laid.

If the charge is a significant and important one, as are all of these charges to which the member has referred, the Attorney General or the crown attorneys and the staff take over the prosecution of those charges and the Attorney General and his crown attorney staff have the right to withdraw or fail to prosecute further those charges if they think it right and appropriate and in the interests of justice to do so. That was what was done in Dr. Morgentaler’s case and that is what l have indicated will be done on December 27.

Mr. Brandt: I would suggest to the Attorney General that I believe it is his responsibility to enforce the law and to stop making policy on the go, which he is doing in this particular instance. I think he has a responsibility to either amend the present act so that December 27 is legal, or leave it as it is and declare it illegal.

Can I ask the Attorney General whether he thinks it is appropriate that the police officers of this province should be subjected to the useless exercise of laying charges when he has publicly stated today that he has no intention of enforcing the law as it is now on the books in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I have made it as plain as I can where I think the responsibility lies; that is, that the police have a right, if they can persuade a justice of the peace that a charge should be accepted, to lay one, as has any other citizen. The Attorney General has to decide if the case thus laid will be prosecuted.

The reason we on the Attorney General’s staff are proposing to act on December 27 as we have indicated is that it is our view that retailers under 5,000 square feet in size have taken advantage of an exemption in the statute. The so-called Sabbatarian exemption is an exemption that was entitled to permit someone who, for religious reasons, was prepared to stay closed on a Saturday to open on a Sunday. Taking advantage of that, they have left out of consideration other retailers in excess of 5,000 square feet. They have not been able to get that group through that loophole. There is an unfairness in the application of that loophole, as I am presently advised, and I do not intend to invite my staff to prosecute in a case if I believe it is unfair to do so.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Jackson: I have a question for the Minister of Education. At one o’clock today the Ontario Public School Trustees’ Association issued a public statement on the Hamilton-Wentworth school transfers. The OPSTA president, Sharon Campbell, stated that “It is very clear that the only practical solution will be the sharing of school facilities and the construction of new pupil places to meet the needs of both the public and separate school systems.”

As cabinet begins to consider the Hamilton-Wentworth school transfers, does the minister not agree with Ontario’s public school trustees in 56 boards that the only solutions to this issue are school sharing and the construction of new schools? Does he agree with them?

Hon. Mr. Ward: As the member is no doubt aware, the Education Act sets out specific mechanisms for dealing with accommodation disputes that arise as a result of the extension of full funding. As the member is also aware, the particular dispute in question has been appealed to cabinet, and I do not feel it is appropriate for me to comment on an issue that is specifically before cabinet in an appeal stage.

Mr. Jackson: The minister felt impelled to comment on the issue before the arbitrator had ruled. In fact, in the Hamilton Spectator of October 22 there is reference to his interference in the arbitration process. Speaking on school sharing, they said, “Mr. Ward doubts an imposed solution of that kind would work here.” And they quoted the minister as saying, when speaking about new schools, “Building more schools...would be irresponsible, Mr. Ward said.”

School sharing has worked in many parts of this province, and as for building new construction, when all parties in this House passed Bill 30 we knew it was going to cost more money. My question is, in order to avoid dividing the students of this province into winners under Bill 30 and losers under Bill 30, will the minister advise cabinet to disregard his prior public statements against sharing and new construction so that cabinet may consider these options or a combination of options in order to defuse this inflammatory situation?

Hon. Mr. Ward: If the member will read the report of the tribunal, he will note that a full range of options was available to the arbitrator, that indeed each and every one of those was considered and addressed in his report.

Mr. Jackson: Tomorrow hundreds of students from Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School in Hamilton will be gathering outside of this Legislative Building to protest the loss of their school, a school which they consider to be very viable for them. The minister’s predecessor, the government House leader, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) promised on July 4, 1985, regarding Bill 30 -- I quote from Hansard -- that “in implementing this policy, the interests of students in all our schools must be first and foremost in our minds.”

By rejecting school sharing and by rejecting the construction of new schools, the minister is driving an unnecessary wedge between public school students and separate school students in this province. He knows full well that we approved this bill in this House with an understanding of the need for co-operation and --

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Jackson: -- a commitment to putting students first in sharing the educational wealth of this province. Why is he ignoring this spirit?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I can assure the member that indeed the interests of the students of this province will be first and foremost in the minds not only of the Minister of Education but indeed of the entire cabinet in dealing with this matter.

1430

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr. Allen: A question to the Minister of Labour. He may know that Lapp Insulators Inc. in Hamilton on Friday summarily closed its doors on its 47 employees. He may remember that this is the plant which, under the name of Canadian Porcelain Co., caught the imagination of our community and many across the province and country when the workers sought to purchase this plant from a failing management.

The minister may not have had contact with the company or the workers at this point in time, but he will know that this government has consistently failed, all during the last two years when we demanded it, to provide plant closure legislation that would protect workers in this situation.

Does the minister at this point in time have that legislation in hand? Will he stand and announce plant closure legislation that would help us in this kind of situation? If not, what does he propose to do to help these workers at this moment in Hamilton as their plant is walking away from them?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The member for Hamilton West will be aware that we did, indeed, during the last parliament pass a very important bill to deal with plant closures.

I am aware of the situation at Lapp Insulators and ministry officials are keeping abreast of the situation.

I should point out that in case there are layoffs that come within the purview of Bill 85, we would expect -- and the law requires, in fact -- that a form 1 be submitted in conjunction with any layoff that might arise in that situation.

Mr. Allen: Our estimation is that the circumstances of the plant, the employees and the salary bill there, really do not come within the purview of the government’s legislation, as would be the case with a great many other plants in this province. So we wonder how long it really is going to take this minister and this government to bring in adequate plant closure legislation that governs such situations.

This is a plant that in fact, in its recent acquisition of markets and its improvement in production capacity, has been demonstrating its ability to meet market needs in this country and there is no reason it should be walking away from Hamilton.

May I ask the minister whether, failing that legislation, he will in fact immediately contact people in Lapp management and request that they come to Toronto or Hamilton and meet with him and the workers to discuss the future of that plant? There is no reason that plant should be closed. They should be explaining to us why they are doing what they are doing and we should be finding ways to help that plant survive if it is having some trouble.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: In response to that suggestion, I am very glad to get suggestions from the member for Hamilton West whenever he wants to make them. I can tell him, as I did when he asked his first question, that ministry officials are meeting right now with company officials. I take his view to be one that he expresses seriously.

We, of course, are going to do everything we can to make sure that facility stays open, including insisting that any layoffs be subject to the clear terms of Bill 85.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr. Eves: I have a question of the Minister of Health. Is the minister satisfied with the quality of ambulance services throughout the province?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me respond to the question raised by my critic in the third party by saying that I believe we have excellent services provided throughout the province. Having said that, we are trying to improve the services at all times.

Mr. Eves: I think the best that can be said is that the service is inconsistent. It is totally unsatisfactory. An inquiry into emergency services by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union has found that the main problem is a lack of uniform standards of service throughout the province.

A few examples: A few months ago in Essex county a rural resident had to wait 45 minutes for an ambulance to arrive. In my own riding of Parry Sound, at the Astorville-East Ferris Community Centre, I was present while a hockey tournament was going on. We had to wait 45 minutes for an ambulance there. At the beginning of this month in Hamilton, Mr. Buzzelli died while his ambulance broke down taking him to hospital. Very recently, of course, in the case of Punch Imlach -- although I must admit the response time in Metropolitan Toronto is generally much better than it is elsewhere in the province -- the ambulance broke down twice.

The president of OPSEU, Mr. Clancy, says: “We had hoped that the Windsor inquiry which we launched would give the provincial government the kick-start it needed to investigate ambulance services itself. We were wrong. It is time to leave the days of meat wagons behind us and provide all Ontario residents with a uniformly high standard of ambulance service.”

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Eves: What is the minister going to do to improve ambulance service and provide some uniform standards throughout Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me say that concerns about ambulance services have been raised by several members, including my colleague the member for Oxford (Mr. Tatham). I would share with both my critic and the other honourable members of this House those concerns about the kind of ambulance service we can provide, that it be expeditious.

Let me suggest that there are always unfortunate circumstances that happen, and I would express my own concern and regret over the breakdowns of recent note that have occurred, which the critic has noted.

I would say in the case of Mr. Imlach that the ministry is investigating. I understand the coroner’s office is still investigating and has not made decision on whether to hold an inquest.

Regarding standards for ambulance services, let me say to the member that I will be reviewing those and would hope we will have a consistent approach across the province.

LANDFILL SITE

Mrs. Stoner: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. He will know that Metro is preparing a request to be exempted from the Environmental Assessment Act on the proposed Brock south landfill site. The constituents in my riding are very upset with Metro’s proposal to dump more garbage in our community. Metro should be responsible for its own wastes, dealing with them within its own boundaries.

It has recently been suggested that Metro Toronto’s landfill at Brock west is making a net profit and that this is the reason for the reluctance of Metro to move away from landfills. Profitable or not, Metro Toronto should not be in the landfill business making money at the expense of a community to which it is not accountable.

What steps can the minister take to wean Metro Toronto away from landfills to get it into recycling waste products, and what is the province doing to help Metro reduce its reliance on landfill?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The municipality of Metropolitan Toronto has had the opportunity for the last couple of years to become involved in a major recycling program in the province. As members of the Legislature would be aware, when I entered office some $750,000 was available for the purpose of recycling. The announcement which I made this week in the Legislature was of a 54 per cent in-year increase -- that is in this particular year, let alone what is going to happen next year -- and that brings it to almost $6 million.

The opportunity is there for Metropolitan Toronto to take advantage of it. I am pleased to say that I see some distinct signs of hope, in Etobicoke particularly, where I know the municipality is eager to get involved in a recycling program. I expect that early next year the city of Toronto will be involved in a program, and I expect that by the end of 1988 the entire municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and all of its components will be under a recycling program, because this is obviously the way they should be moving to divert wastes from landfills.

Everybody in the province is going to find out the cost and difficulty of having new sites approved, whether they be sites for incinerators or sites for landfills; that it is going to pay dividends to become involved in recycling programs; and at the same time, we are going to have the opportunity to ensure that many of the products which are being wasted at the present time are in fact reused.

Mrs. Stoner: As the minister knows, we have a serious odour problem at the Brock west landfill site, and his ministry has ordered corrective action, including gas collections for those gases coming off the top of the site. I have since been informed that, rather than reduce the methane gas that is coming off the site, Metro has been in fact taking measures to increase the generation of methane for the purpose of selling it, again for an additional income anticipated at $3,000 a day.

It is my understanding that Metro is using highly permeable sands for cover and adding sewage sludge, both of which are designed to increase the methane production in the site and the methane seepage to the surface for collection and sale. There are also concerns that Metro is using absolutely minimal amounts of cover.

Mr. Speaker: The question.

Mrs. Stoner: Metro should be taking measures to reduce, not to increase, the amounts of methane generated within the landfill in order to protect the community from odours. Will the minister please look into this matter and ensure that Metro Toronto is taking the appropriate measures to reduce, not increase, gases?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is my understanding that while there is considerable speculation on this, Metropolitan Toronto is not in a purposeful way increasing the production of methane which is generated at the Brock west landfill site. The remedial measures which I have ordered are to collect the gases and to incinerate them. The purpose of this, of course, is to reduce the odours from the site and protect the surrounding neighbourhoods, and that is the prime concern of my ministry.

1440

I know that Metropolitan Toronto is looking at the utilization of those gases -- and this is a secondary purpose -- which are produced for commercial purposes. This is in keeping with what is preached to me and I preach to others across Ontario; that is, using these materials in the most beneficial way. But it is my understanding that they are not generating more to do so.

On the last part of the question the member asked, I am informed that sand is not being used as a daily cover. The material would be described as a silt with clay-like characteristics, so it is not porous sand that one is discussing. Our ministry is always evaluating, looking at and watching that project particularly carefully. Metropolitan Toronto itself has, as a result of the pressure, hired an environmental person to look over that particular site to alleviate many of the very legitimate concerns the people of the member’s constituency have.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question to the Premier on the subject of free trade. Mr. Gasket is an American company which makes mufflers and exhaust systems. It announced last month that on January 15, 1988, it was going to be closing a plant in Rexdale with more than 200 workers and that the jobs from that plant will be transferred into the area of Mexico that is known as the Maquiladora industrial zone. Workers who are making $8.50 an hour will be replaced by workers who are making 65 cents an hour.

What does the Premier intend to do to protect Ontario workers who are affected by this kind of threat to their jobs? Immediately, what does he intend to do to protect workers in this particular industry?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not familiar with that particular case but, obviously, concern has been expressed about two things; first, the provisions under the so-called free trade agreement, which we think are very detrimental. Indeed, under the federally negotiated deal, we are probably going to see more, not less, of that.

There are, as the member knows, no protections and no safeguards for Canadian production of parts. The question my honourable friend raises with respect to transference of jobs under a trade arrangement between Mexico and the United States is a further complication of that.

I am glad my honourable friend raised that particular case. I was not familiar with it, but I think it is indicative of the kind of thing we could see more and more of in the future. That is another reason all of us have to stand and point out the problems in this trade agreement.

Mr. B. Rae: I am delighted to hear the Premier’s rhetoric. The concern we have on this side of the House is that he campaigned in the last election, saying that if the auto pact were gutted -- and he cannot doubt that this is a classic example of how that is taking place, surely he would agree with that -- there would be no free trade deal.

I recall those words very clearly. It was an election campaign which I not only participated in, I also listened very carefully to the words the Premier used across the province. There are many, many workers in those industries, obviously, who voted for him. In fact, I would suspect there are many workers at G Enterprises who voted for him, specifically because he told them there could be no free trade deal if it gutted the auto pact and if it destroyed their jobs.

I would like to ask the Premier just what he is going to tell those workers, now that they have voted for him in numbers that obviously give him a majority in this House. Just what does he intend to do now to make sure there can be no free trade deal? Does he not think they are entitled to know now, not three or four months from now but right now, what his bottom line is?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: This is the same question my honourable friend has asked me on at least six or eight or 10 other occasions, and my answer to my honourable friend is the same now as it was then.

Ontario stands unequivocally opposed to this agreement. My honourable friend, I am sure, being the constitutional scholar he is, will understand the parameters of our own influence and power in this particular deal that has been struck. This particular deal, as you know, is not a theoretical deal but a deal, indeed, that in our view does not serve this country or this province well.

I have said to my honourable friend that I believe when more and more people become enmeshed in the details of this deal they will share the view that my friend opposite and I, and our respective parties, have on this particular situation.

But he knows and I know that the resolution is at a federal level. If I had the power under this particular deal, I would say, “Absolutely not.” I would not sign in that situation and neither would the honourable member. My friend the leader of the third party probably would in those circumstances.

We have to continue to raise our voices against this deal, do what we can to prevent its implementation, and the resolution will be at a federal level. It will be at the level that the government has the right and responsibility to make federal agreements. This just happens to be a very, very bad one.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. During the election campaign, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) was making a number of promises. One of them had to do with housing, how he would use government-owned lands to construct new, affordable homes, and he had a number of about 4,000 where he could have a reduced price to buy homes.

Recently it has been announced that the Minister of Government (Mr. Patten) has sold more lots out in Malvern that could have been used for affordable housing, and certainly to solve some of the problems out there. It would seem that the Minister of Government Services is out there trying to make money selling off government-owned land. Meanwhile, there is another promise that the minister should be working hard to fulfil -- and I am sure she is -- to provide --

Mr. Breaugh: This is inventory you did not know about last week.

Mr. Cousens: Oh, I knew.

The minister should do something to meet the needs of those people who want to buy their homes. Could the minister please tell this House what provincial government owned lands in and around Metropolitan Toronto will be released to provide the campaign pledge of 4,000 affordable units on crown land?

Hon. Ms. Hosek: The reference the honourable member makes today is to some lands in Malvern, and I think he would be interested to know that there are about 10,000 housing units in Malvern now; 5,201 of them are either nonprofit or affordable housing units. So more than half of the units currently in Malvern are actually nonprofit and low-cost housing.

Mr. Cousens: Does that mean there should not be any more? But that is not my supplementary.

We have got to watch this. We are getting all these statistics and we are forgetting these promises that come from the government. Last week I found out that the education promises in the campaign really are not worth that much; we found that the insurance promises are not worth that much, and the minister has to fulfil the promise of 102,000 affordable rental units by 1989. Now, that is a promise. It stands as strong and as loud and clear in the minds of the people of Ontario as all the others. I am not going to let the minister forget it.

An hon. member: How many in Markham?

Mr. Cousens: Markham will get its share, but I am more interested in the places where the minister is going to do something.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Cousens: This minister has not answered a question in so long -- I think she has got another answer and she is saying, “I wish he would ask that question.”

Mr. Speaker: Try again.

Mr. Cousens: I want the answer to this one: What government lands are being considered --

Mr. Haggerty: Put it on the order paper.

Mr. Cousens: Oh, the order paper.

What government lands are being considered by her ministry for housing in and around Metropolitan Toronto? Will the minister give this House a listing of all crown lands being considered for housing in the Metro area, please?

Hon. Ms. Hosek: Let me assure the honourable member and the rest of the House that the commitment of this government to supply and to use government lands to increase the supply of housing which people can afford is firm. Over the past year 600 units have been assigned in the Malvern area. Four nonprofit groups in the Malvern area have been assigned 600 affordable housing units.

Let me remind the member opposite of an article in the Toronto Star that was written not very long ago:

“Municipalities such as Markham have been accused of zoning all their vacant lands for upscale single-family dwellings, enabling them to develop pristine communities that virtually lock out the less fortunate. The town of Markham encourages high-end housing. When our children leave home they cannot afford to live in the community.”

The member opposite will be well advised to be involved in the process of the solution rather than that of the problem. The government lands we have are being actively considered for the supply of affordable housing right now.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) that he asked a question. Now the member for Eglinton (Ms. Poole) would like to do so, if you will allow it.

1450

PROPERTY TAXES

Ms. Poole: I have a question for the Minister of Revenue. Two weeks ago, the special Metro council committee on reassessment recommended that a capped, phased-in version of a section 63 rate reassessment be adopted by Metro council. At that time, the minister was quoted in both the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star as reaffirming the Liberal government’s pledge not to impose the controversial reform unless all six Metro municipalities are in favour of it.

I will quote from the November 19 Toronto Star. “‘If the city of Toronto is to say no to the proposal,’ Grandmaître said, ‘no, we wouldn’t do it. We are looking for the six municipalities to say yes’ to a standard tax reform plan, he said.”

This weekend, these same two Toronto dailies carried conflicting reports as to whether this remained the intention of the government. According to the Globe and Mail on Saturday, December 5, and I quote --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Ms. Poole: Would the minister clarify whether the Globe and Mail report of Saturday, December 5, where it said, “Ontario Revenue Minister Bernard Grandmaître backtracked this week from earlier comments that appeared to kill the plan,” is in conflict with a report this morning in the Toronto Star that Metro assessment --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Poole: Would the minister confirm which of these articles is indeed accurate?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I know the member for Eglinton and, for that matter, every member representing Metro is very interested in this complex and very divisive issue of Metro tax reform. I can assure the member and every member of this House that our policy since we formed this government has been not to impose reassessment on any municipality, region or county government, and we maintain this policy.

I want to remind this House that the Richmond plan of reassessment or tax reform in Metro is a nonstandard section 63. For that reason, I want to consult my cabinet colleagues as to the possibility of working out a plan with Metro so that all municipalities will be satisfied. Until all municipalities are satisfied, it is difficult for me to add anything else. I will have to wait for that Metro vote tomorrow evening.

Ms. Poole: I realize that the matter is before Metro council tomorrow night and that the minister might understandably be reluctant to take a firm position before that vote is known. However, can the minister give me his personal commitment at this time that the residents of Toronto will be protected by the province in the event that Metro council adopts the subcommittee’s recommendations?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Again, I would like to remind the member that we have never imposed tax reform on any municipality in this province and we do not intend to do it this time around.

WOMEN’S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Reville: I have a question for the Minister of Health. The minister last week announced the establishment of a regional women’s health centre at Women’s College Hospital.

Will the minister give details on how the establishment of that centre will actually increase access to abortion services rather than simply streamlining or rerouting the referrals? Can the minister tell us, for instance, how the establishment of a central phone number that women can call will actually increase the number of abortion procedures performed?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The women’s health centre, which was recently announced at Women’s College Hospital, is far more than just a referral service for abortion services. However, since the member has raised that as a specific issue and since that is an important component of the services provided at this women’s health centre, I will be pleased to respond.

The purpose of the centre is to ensure access by women of Metropolitan Toronto to needed services, including that of therapeutic abortions. The centre, the details of which were fully announced last week, has, in conjunction with the centre, referral to Metropolitan Toronto hospitals that are presently doing and have therapeutic abortion committees and offer therapeutic abortion services. Those facilities will enhance their services to meet the needs of the women of Toronto.

Mr. Reville: The minister, towards the end of her answer, began to get close to the answer that I was after.

She will know that Toronto General Hospital performed about 2,000 abortions in 1986 and that in the two hours its phone number is open it books all the procedures that it can handle in a week. Likewise, the Wellesley outpatient clinic has a telephone number that one can call. It does only first-trimester abortions. It does three or four a week. In fact, we know precisely how many abortions each of these hospitals can perform a week.

Will the minister now tell us how she is going to ensure access, given that there are serious constraints on the number of procedures that can be performed because of the amount of operating room time that is allocated to these procedures?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me say I do not believe this issue is simply a question of numbers. I believe it is an issue that requires sensitivity and one which, as we know, raises concern from a number of sectors.

We have a commitment from those hospitals participating, along with Women’s College Hospital, to ensure that the needs of women of Metropolitan Toronto are met. I believe we will be able to accomplish that with the plan we have put in place.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Sterling: I have a question of the Attorney General. I was quite astounded at his previous answer to our leader’s question with regard to why he was not prosecuting people who are open on Sunday who have greater than 5,000 square feet in their stores. Could he tell me who made that decision? Was it he in his capacity as the Attorney General, or was it the cabinet of Ontario that made that decision?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I made that decision.

Mr. Sterling: The rule of law as defined in Black’s dictionary provides that decisions should be made by the application of known principles or laws without the intervention of discretion in their application. Does the Attorney General believe he is living within the rule of law in making this decision?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The Attorney General has those powers and those powers are part of the law. They should be carefully exercised, as I believe they were in the two cases we discussed earlier today, but sooner or later the time comes when decisions like that have to be made and one simply makes them as well and as carefully and as cautiously as one can.

NURSING HOME

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Health has a response to a question previously asked. By which member?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would like to respond to a question previously asked by the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) regarding Caressant Care St. Thomas Nursing Home in St. Thomas.

In light of the concerns which have been raised by members of the local community, I have asked a senior ministry official to visit St. Thomas and review the situation. At the same time, representatives of the Ontario Nursing Home Association will also review the proposed plan. As I said previously, the most important consideration for me is quality of care. I want to be sure that the care needs of the residents are fully met.

I would like to thank the member for Elgin (Miss Roberts) for her interest and for her efforts on behalf of the local residents.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I would like to ask the minister, since she knows her staff have been involved in this issue for quite some time and she knows there was a similar type of situation in Woodstock and Tavistock with the same owners, is she or is she not prepared to stop the forced relocation of these residents at this nursing home in St. Thomas?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I announced today, in response to the question previously asked, that I have asked a senior ministry official to visit St. Thomas to review the situation in light of the concerns raised by the member for Windsor-Riverside and as well by the member for Elgin. I will review what the senior official has to say and respond at the appropriate time. Let me also say once again that I believe quality of care for the residents must be addressed.

1500

WATER QUALITY

Mr. Pouliot: To the Minister of the Environment: What is the minister’s response or reaction to recent findings in both Manitoba and Ontario attesting that there are increased mercury levels on account of water reservoirs created by electric utilities, to a level that might jeopardize fresh water fishing, sport fishing in important watersheds such as Lake Nipigon, which is the largest body of fresh water in Ontario beyond the Great Lakes?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the member may be aware, the Ministry of the Environment, on an ongoing basis and in co-operation with other provinces, undertakes studies designed to determine the effect of any substance getting into our waterways. One of the problems we are confronted with in certain circumstances is leaching. I will not call it natural leaching; it is sometimes leaching produced by acidified rain from various sources in Canada and the United States falling and causing mercury to get into our waterways.

In terms of any projects of this kind that might have an effect, naturally, I will be happy to consult with the minister from Manitoba, a good friend and colleague of mine who, as the member knows, is one of the co-chairmen of the National Task Force on Environment and Economy, to see if, together with the other ministers, we can come up with solutions to a potential problem, which would be characteristic across Canada if people did studies in other provinces.

Mr. Pouliot: The minister talks a good line, but the fact is that he has been rather coy in dealing with Ontario Hydro. When he is talking about characteristics that are conducive to leaching, he is talking about impediment or manipulation by Ontario Hydro. What steps, what remedial action is the minister willing to take so that we will be able to keep on fishing for food and fishing for fun?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Ontario Hydro, as the member would know, would be subjected to the same rules and regulations as people in the rest of the province. The member would know, as my good friend the leader of the third party would know, that the largest fine obtained by the Ministry of the Environment is a fine of $141,000, I think, against Ontario Hydro for the improper handling of polychlorinated biphenyl waste. I think that if we were to suggest that Ontario Hydro is treated differently, there might be some who would make the case that we are harsher on one of the crown corporations of the government of Ontario as opposed to being easier. It would be equally inaccurate to suggest that, because we treat all equally in Ontario.

I want to assure the member that all rules and regulations and legislation of the Ministry of the Environment apply as equally to Ontario Hydro as they do to any other corporate entity within Ontario. I want to assure him that I know the minister from Manitoba will be supportive next year when I raise the issue of a national superfund. I am sure that we will join together in solving this problem.

PROGRAMS FOR DISABLED PERSONS

Mr. McLean: My question is for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons. Can the minister tell this Legislature what his budget is for this fiscal year.

Hon. Mr. Mancini: I believe the number the member is looking for is approximately $7.3 million.

Mr. McLean: At the 1987 Community Action Awards ceremony -- unfortunately, I could not be there -- which were held on Friday, November 27, the minister warned the audience that “as a government, we can’t fund everything. It is just not possible.” Will the minister enlighten this Legislature about the program cuts he expects to make in his ministry and where those cuts will be?

Hon. Mr. Mancini: There will be absolutely no program cuts in the ministry for the disabled. What I was indicating at the time was that the government would be keeping its promises with respect to what was enunciated during the election campaign and that at that time I could not promise anything further. I could not promise at that time the creation of any new programs, but I think if the member will hold on for a while, he will be pleased by what happens.

WOMEN’S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Callahan: My question is to the Minister of Health. The member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) in his question to the minister seemed to place considerable emphasis on the fact that these women’s centres are basically to provide access to abortion. It is my understanding that they provide a great deal more. Specifically I asked the minister earlier a question in the House with reference to community involvement in setting up in continuity with these committees provision for alternative measures. Will these community organizations, if they approach the ministry, be entitled to participate in the funding and also to advice and assistance from the ministry in dealing with these community organizations?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would like to thank the member for the question, because it gives me the opportunity to reiterate the services provided at the women’s health centre at Women’s College Hospital and also to talk about our approach to the provision of women’s health services generally.

The approach we have taken is that women’s health should be dealt with in a comprehensive fashion. The needed services provided to women at the Women’s College Hospital centre will include many services such as counselling on alternatives to abortion, pro-abortion counselling, post-abortion counselling, including family planning information and a range of services provided in all areas of reproductive care. I want to stress that, because our commitment to women’s health is clear.

We have asked for proposals and will continue to ask for proposals from across this province to meet the needs of women’s health. Groups, community groups and community-based groups as well as hospitals will be encouraged to bring forward proposals to the ministry to respond to the needs of women.

Mr. Callahan: I am particularly pleased with the aspect of these community centres that deals with the question of providing information as to --

Mr. Breaugh: Still on side with the government, eh?

Mr. Callahan: I am more interested in that than what the member for Riverdale is interested in.

I am interested in the question of providing, which I think in a very positive vein is a positive step, information regarding alternatives to abortion, recognizing that the government’s policy in setting up these women’s health centres is going to put emphasis upon that aspect. I would ask the minister to consider, if this is the policy, that perhaps that might also be included in the advice, if it is not already the case, that is offered by hospitals that are not the subject matter of these women’s health clinics at this time.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me say to the member and for the information of all members of this House once again that women’s health services will be dealt with in a comprehensive fashion. We have already noted at Women’s College Hospital, for example, that they have a list of many firsts in the provision of services to women such as the treatment of sexual assault and funding for rape crisis centres. The ministry has funded numerous research projects for women’s health issues. We believe the area of women’s health requires a comprehensive response and that is the approach this ministry has taken.

PETITION

NATUROPATHY

Miss Martel: I have a petition signed by 130 people, which begs the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practice their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment. I would like to state I am in full agreement with them.

1510

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that the select committee on constitutional reform be authorized to meet on Tuesday, December 8, 1987, following routine proceedings.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MINISTRY OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mrs. McLeod moved first reading of Bill 58, An Act to amend the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have a brief explanation?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I think the explanation will come forward at a later point.

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Eakins moved first reading of Bill 59, An Act to amend the Municipal Act and Certain Other Acts Related to Municipalities.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: This legislation addresses a number of issues that have been brought to the attention of the government by individual municipalities and by the various municipal associations. It will, for example, increase from $50 to $75 the annual fixed-rate payment made to municipalities for each permanent student in a university or a community college, for each resident placed in a correctional institution and for each patient bed in a public hospital or a provincial mental health facility. This will confirm the commitment made by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) to increase annual payments on these institutional properties.

The legislation will also give municipalities more flexibility to respond to their liability insurance needs by allowing them to self-insure, to participate in reciprocal insurance exchanges and to provide liability coverage to volunteers working on their behalf.

These changes were recommended in the final report of the minister’s Advisory Committee on Municipal Liability Insurance in Ontario and have the endorsement of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

ENERGY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Wildman moved first reading of Bill 57, An Act respecting the Sale of Farm Machinery and Equipment in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Wildman: The purpose of the bill is to regulate the sale of farm machinery and equipment in Ontario. The bill establishes the farm machinery and equipment board to carry out several tasks respecting the sale of farm machinery and equipment. The board is given authority to investigate complaints and mediate disputes arising from the sale of farm machinery and equipment and may establish inventory guidelines for vendors of and dealers in farm machinery and equipment. The board may also make recommendations to the minister concerning safety requirements and parts standardization for farm machinery and equipment.

Among the other principal features of the bill are the following: Dealers are required to provide certain emergency repair parts on 72 hours’ notice; where a dealer fails to make repair parts available within the times required by the bill, the dealer is liable to pay the purchaser an amount equal to one half the normal rental rate for the farm machinery and equipment. The bill sets out warranties applicable to the sale of farm machinery and equipment as well.

HAMILTON CIVIC HOSPITALS ACT

Ms. Collins moved first reading of Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the Hamilton Civic Hospitals.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE BOARD ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 2, An Act to establish the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board and to provide for the Review of Automobile Insurance Rates.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Hamilton Mountain was speaking on this subject when he adjourned the debate. Is there anything further?

Mr. Charlton: After very careful consideration and thought, I have decided that my comments are completed.

Mr. Runciman: I appreciate the opportunity to offer a little bit of input into this very important debate. I want to thank the members of the official opposition for carrying on with the debate in my absence. I was not able to participate on Thursday and they kindly volunteered to carry on. Of course, I do not think it was any great hardship on the members of that party, because we know they are a notoriously long-winded bunch. They did admirably, in any event.

I did have the opportunity to listen for a period of time to the observations of the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), always an enjoyable speaker to listen to. I certainly do not share his views on too many things but I do have a great deal of respect for his sincerity and his dedication to his role as a member of this Legislature.

My party is not going to support Bill 2 in its present state. At some point, whenever appropriate, we will be introducing a number of amendments.

I mentioned in a press release in November that I felt Bill 2 was really the first step in a government-run auto insurance program for this province, a step down that very slippery slope and one about which we have a great deal of concern. I think the second step is going to be presented to us next year when the government proposes a no-fault auto insurance program for this province. Obviously, in our view, what we are talking about is that at some point, if we have a rate-setting board and a no-fault system, it is a very easy third step to move into a government-run program.

We think that the folks in the industry who are supporting these initiatives are mistaken, although we can understand their position somewhat, given the environment of the past couple of years with respect to automobile insurance and the environment in this Legislature where we had the governing party supported by the New Democratic Party.

In their wisdom or lack of same, they determined this would be the issue for that party and applied a considerable amount of pressure to their governing partners, who acceded to some of their requests and moved in directions which we do not believe are appropriate in a free enterprise economy and are not in the best interests of this province or this province’s consumers in the long run.

1520

We have gone through an election and we might ask why we are at the stage where the government is continuing to pursue quasi-socialist initiatives, in the sense of further intervention in the private sector, by establishing a rate-setting review board. We really have great difficulty in determining why they are doing this when the Liberals very obviously won the election and won it in a big way. The New Democrats made this the number one plank in their campaign and were rejected by the electorate.

The Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has not been reticent about pointing this out in the House on a number of occasions, but still they continue down this slippery slope. I suppose they could argue: “We are not going all the way. We are not going for a government-run program.” But again I emphasize that this is a significant step in that direction, and we have a great deal of difficulty in determining why the government persists in forging ahead. In this respect, they are also going against the recommendations of the Slater task force which they established and financed.

We have to wonder whether one of the reasons perhaps is that the Toronto Star, the unofficial government organ, has for some time been advocating a position comparable to that of the NDP -- a government-run, no-fault system. We know the Star has a direct pipeline into the decision-making folks in this government. Perhaps it has undue influence, I do not know. The paper itself certainly takes a continuous and without-wavering approach in terms of political theology to the very left of the spectrum.

In a CBC radio interview recently, John Honderich, who is the editorial-page editor for the Toronto Star, was asked whether the Star distorted its news coverage, its headline writing and its article placement to coincide with the editorial positions of the paper, and Mr. Honderich said, “Yes, we do.” They had another chap from the Globe and Mail and asked him if he did that at his paper. He said: “Of course not. That goes against the grain of what newspapers are supposed to be about. It goes against the grain in terms of belief in the objectivity of the print media.”

Mr. Honderich, the surprising source, indicated quite publicly that the Toronto Star is indeed a very biased journal. That is not a surprise to those of us who have been observing it for the past number of years. In terms of the source, the individual who said publicly that the Star is indeed doing that, bastardizing the process, was none other than the editorial-page editor and, I gather, the son of the publisher, Mr. Honderich.

Perhaps the Star is having an undue influence in terms of government policy. Who knows? It obviously has some impact. It had an editorial in this past weekend edition, “No-Fault Plan Needed.” That is a moderation in tone in terms of several months ago when it was continuously urging a government-run, no-fault program; now it is talking about needing no-fault.

That is a clear indication to me that we are going to hear a statement from the minister in response to the Justice Osborne report, which is somewhat overdue. November 1 was the original indication of the date for release, and I hear it is at the printers. The government knows the recommendations contained therein, so obviously the Toronto Star knows what the recommendations are and that editorial reflects it. I do not think that is a long reach, not at all, based on what we have seen in the past couple of years.

They were also talking in the Toronto Star editorial, which I think speaks for the government -- again, I want to emphasize that -- about the New Zealand experience. If someone takes a look at what has happened in New Zealand in this respect, I do not think we would be terribly enthused about getting involved in a process similar to the one in New Zealand.

We simply have to look at the Workers’ Compensation Board in Ontario as an example of the kind of quagmire we can get ourselves into in respect to automobile insurance in this province if we adopt the New Zealand model as the one we want to see developed in this province. It is a very serious mistake. As to no-fault, when the government does ultimately make those recommendations, we are not going to support that thrust.

As I have indicated, we cannot accept the concept that no individual should have to be liable for his own actions and that the cost of any risk should be distributed among all members of society. I think we all agree that this is a litigious society, but we urge the government to correct the system through tort reform and not through legalized abdication of responsibility.

If we go to no-fault why stop at auto insurance? What if someone slips in the bathtub and injures himself? The member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Munro) might relate to that one. Do they deserve compensation regardless of fault? You can pursue this one at great length. Perhaps that is the ideal society but it is certainly not realistic. It is a position and a thrust by this government that we will not be supporting. We simply do not buy it. In this party, we believe in the ethic of responsibility, that individuals must face the consequences of their own actions.

I want to say just briefly that this thrust in my view reaffirms essentially that this is an antibusiness government. We have talked about this in the past two and a half years, and I think the business community essentially said: “Look, they are under a great deal of pressure from the socialists in this province. They have to do things that they really do not believe in, things that go against the grain of the Liberal Party of Ontario.”

In this party, we were saying, mostly to people who obviously were not listening, based on the results of September 10, that that party is essentially antibusiness. If you look at the key players in that party, the handful of people who are making the decisions, they feel quite comfortable indeed with an antibusiness attitude.

Take the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), for example, a former fund-raiser for the NDP. There is a gentleman who is a key player, a key decision-maker in this government. I look around this room and I am sure there are people who are very much free-enterprisers in that party and in that caucus, but how much input do they have in the decisions their cabinet, their executive council is making? It is negligible.

The people who are really going to make the decisions are to the left of the majority of that caucus sitting over there. They know that and I know that. Most of them have only been around here a little while, but they know they have a very definite socialist slant in terms of the power brokers in that party. It is going to show. It is showing in this initiative, Bill 2. It is going to show in the no-fault auto insurance the Minister of Financial Institutions is going to be proposing in the next couple of weeks.

Mr. Fleet: Your government introduced no-fault.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Elston: It wasn’t me, Bob says.

Mr. Runciman: OK, I am going to get into the interjections. The government members are interjecting in respect to very limited no-fault provisions in the current act. We did indeed introduce those and we continue to support them.

What we are taking about is significantly different. If the gentleman would take a look at it, I think he could appreciate that. What his party is proposing and will be proposing is doing away with the ability to take someone who is at fault through the court system and ensure that individual faces the consequences.

In fact, we believe the current, limited no-fault provisions should be enhanced. They have not been amended since, I believe, 1979 and we believe there is certainly a need to enhance that. Again, I think that goes against the argument of complete, comprehensive no-fault, where it is not really reacting to the current state of the economy, the cost of living and so on. Again, it is, in my mind, a black mark against comprehensive no-fault.

1530

Going back to Bill 2, we do support a review board, but we believe the review board should have authority only to review the proposed rates that the industry is desiring for the coming fiscal year and to comment publicly on those proposals. We think if there are problems there, they are going to be exposed. The bad actors are going to be clearly indicated to the public.

I think that kind of monitoring agency is going to be adequate. We do the same sort of thing with the Ontario Energy Board. No one is suggesting-up to this stage, anyway-that the Ontario Energy Board have rate-setting authority. We may see that coming. There is probably more of an argument in respect to the Ontario Energy Board when we are dealing with, for example, Ontario Hydro than there is with the private sector in the auto insurance field.

We think a reviewing agency with the ability to comment publicly is going to be sufficient and would preclude unjustified government intervention into the private sector. The people who are really going to suffer by these initiatives are the consumers. There is no question, short-term and long-term, that the consumers are going to take it in the neck.

If we just look at some of the short term consequences, what are the costs of running this review board with a full-time chairman, vice-chairman, associated staff and resource people? In the overall picture of the cost of government it is probably not going to be all that significant, but it is going to be a lot of dollars to the average Joe. In this House, when we look at the individual dollars going to this board and the operations of this board, they are going to be fairly significant. Who is going to pick up the tab for that? We know who is going to pick up the tab. It is going to be the consumers of this province.

When we take a look at this government’s experience in terms of its payments for agencies, boards and commissions, it is enough to make us shudder. We can look at the Social Assistance Review Board, which we have been talking about; the salaries for those members are significantly increased since this government took office. The mental health review board is another one where the former chairman was making $150 per diem. Now the government is paying the chairman of the mental health review boards $550 per diem, a 500 per cent increase, and that is happening across the board with agencies, boards and commissions in this government. Not only are we putting all those Liberal hacks into these positions, but boy, are we sweetening the pot for them. We are increasing the per diems by 400 per cent to 500 per cent. Those guys are going to make up for those 40 years in about six months; there is no question about it.

Mr. Ballinger: We will never make up for it.

Mr. Runciman: The government is sure giving it a good try; there is no question about that.

When we talk about the short-term implications of this bill, references to the changes in risk classification, I think this is something we have to take a very close look at in terms of its impact on the consumers of this province.

There was an article in the Globe and Mail last week which indicated that the impact was going to be tremendous in terms of some of the people. Females under the age of 25 could be looking at increases of up to 50 per cent, and 10 per cent across-the-board increases for those over 25. We are talking about significant increases of which the silent majority out there are really not aware at this point. They are not aware of the problems that consumers in this province are going to face because of initiatives that this government has to take complete responsibility for. The government cannot blame it on these guys over here, because they are not in a position any more to force it to do things that they have been trying to force it to do for the past two and a half years.

Those guys have to carry the load on this one, and a couple of years down the road, when they are facing the electorate again, they are going to have a lot of problems with this one when we look at what this has cost consumers and what the implications are for the long term.

When we talk about the long term -- getting away from the cost of running this committee, getting away from the changes in risk classification -- let us take a look at the analogy between establishing this kind of board and establishing the rent review board. It is quite comparable, really, in many ways.

I think the rent review act was brought in in 1975 or 1977. Again, the government of the day was under a great deal of pressure from our friends over here. I think Mr. Lewis was the leader of the party at the time.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Is this the same guy that Brian Mulroney took up to do foreign policy?

Mr. Runciman: Same guy. For reasons best known to the Premier of the day -- I am indicating that it was a mistake. I do not believe the Minister of Housing of the day even was aware of the policy until it was announced.

In any event, they made that mistake, and it has been an error that has been compounded ever since. It is a problem that has grown like Topsy. We do not know how to get out of it, and now we are in a real housing crisis in this province. I think we can go back to the implementation of rent controls by a Progressive Conservative government. I do not want to back away from that. There is no question that that was the case; it is a matter of record.

A mistake was made. They could not back away from it, and these guys do not want to back away from it. What have they done? They have extended controls to buildings built after 1975. They have compounded it. But they have got themselves into a problem, and it is a very difficult problem to extricate yourself from. I know that. I live in a riding where we do not have a great many tenants. I did a poll a number of years ago, and over 80 per cent of the people in my riding wanted to retain rent controls. It is a difficult thing to get yourself out of once you are into it. We are in a desperate situation in terms of housing in this province, and no one wants to stand up and say that rent controls are the major reason behind the housing crisis in this province.

Now we are about to embark on a similar kind of situation in the auto insurance field. We are not paying any attention to the lessons of history. Take a look at what is going to happen. You know, we get into a situation where you are going to regulate this industry extensively, and that again is a double-edged sword. Regulation leads to lack of competition and leads to another kick in the pants to consumers. But, at the same time, down the road we are looking at perhaps gradually reducing the number of private sector insurers. We are going to continue to reduce competition significantly in that industry, and we may get to the point where the competition is so limited that the government has to look at stepping in to fill a void -- no other alternative according to the government of the day, according to the public demands and so.

This government is going down that slippery slope. I am predicting it today and I feel pretty darn comfortable predicting it. They are going down that slippery slope. These guys may not be around here and I may not be around here, but we are going to head that way. We are going to end up in that kind of mire, and boy, oh boy, is it going to be tough to get out of it. It is going to get the consumers of this province in the neck. We are all going to pay the price.

Maybe that great sage Conrad Black had it right a couple of years ago when he was talking about being frustrated as a conservative by what is happening in this country. Perhaps we have to go all the way: have a national socialist government. We need a socialist government in this province. Let us go all the way, put this country down the tubes and maybe that is the only way we will find out. I do not know, because it is certainly a difficult sell. It is a really frustrating problem for anyone who believes in the free enterprise system.

So you guys over in the back row do not have any concerns. You are there for four years. Keep your seats warm.

Mr. Ballinger: You were in the back row once.

Mr. Runciman: Yes, and I know what it is all about.

You know, talking about insurance, it was funny. We were talking about something with the Premier (Mr. Peterson) the other day in question period. My friends to the left said, “Well, why didn’t you do something about it?” I will tell members, I was a government back-bencher who tried to do something about it.

Mr. Dietsch: You are still here.

Mr. Runciman: Yes, that is right. I will indicate to this gentleman to try to do something about it as a government back-bencher, and we will see how much he accomplishes. Already we know there is a small clique running this government. These guys do not have any input and they will not have any input. It is all a charade. Nothing has changed.

1540

Getting back to this bill, we talked about a change in the risk classification system. I would urge all members to take a look at the experience in the state of Montana when they went to the unisex formula. It has resulted again in some significant cost increases to consumers. Essentially, the consumers who do not merit those kinds of increases. The safe drivers, the people with good driving records are the people who are suffering under this kind of initiative and who will suffer under a comprehensive no-fault program.

A few brief comments about the four and a half per cent increase that the minister announced in his comments last week. Again, it is this whole problem, like increasing rents: Who deserves them, who does not deserve them; what is fair and what is not fair?

I know that some of the insurance companies had not increased their rates since July 1986. Others increased their rates on April 1, 1987. The minister comes in with an announcement: four and a half per cent. The company that goes back to 1986 is still only allowed a four and a half per cent increase, and the company that had one already this year is going to feel quite legally justified in kicking its consumers again with another four and a half per cent increase.

The company that had its last increase in 1986 is now going to close off that business, I have been advised, and there is more than one in this category. They are simply going to close off their business, and why should they not? They are not being treated fairly by the government; they are not being treated fairly by the minister.

Again, the consumer is going to have to go to the company, for example, that just increased its rates by six per cent, I think it was, in April, and now the government says, “You’re entitled to another four and a half per cent in January.” Over a very brief period of time, we are looking at about an 11 per cent increase, and that is the kind of company the consumers of this province are going to have to go to.

It is a mess that this government is getting itself into dealing with this kind of thing in the private sector. It is just going to get worse and worse and worse.

I was reading a reference here, a gentleman talking about arguments raging back and forth over no-fault versus the free enterprise system, and I have to agree with this. This gentleman listened to the arguments rage back and forth over the years. He finally came to the conclusion that all the economic arguments and all the social arguments that are put forward are invalid and it boils down to one simple fact: If you are a socialist and you believe government should intervene in business and should operate business, then you believe in government insurance; and if you are a private enterprise person who abhors the idea of a monopoly, you do not believe in government insurance. I agree with that analysis, and the government members can clearly understand the slot that I place them in and that this analysis places them in.

We have said we want to hear some more about tort reform. Perhaps some of the lawyers in the front bench over there are having some input into this.

Mr. Swart: What front bench?

Mr. Runciman: Yes, what front bench?

As I said, certainly we know the Attorney General will have some input into this area, but even the Ontario branch of the Canadian Bar Association is agreeing -- and we are talking about the Family Law Act -- the act needs to be changed because:

“Its interpretation has gone far beyond what the Legislature intended and is adding more work and legal cost to each case. It is recommended the Legislature consider major revisions to the act. The breadth of the class of claimants, as well as the numerous nuisance claims, has created cumbersome, expensive procedures for plaintiff and defence counsel as well as the insurer. You wind up paying $200 to $400 for even the smallest claim, and those add up.

“If you sat there and saw the people who come out of the woodwork, you would be concerned. Why should we be paying money to a daughter who says, ‘I was put to inconvenience because I had to visit my mother in the hospital?’ It gets to be outrageous and difficult to accept. But the plaintiff on balance says, ‘I might as well grab it while I can because I am going to be paying higher premiums anyway.’”

In something related to that, a gentleman in my riding, Frank Davies, who is also president of the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario, again was urging towards reform and was citing an instance of a local insurance claim in which there were 45 different claimants seeking compassionate care payments because a lady they knew or were related to had had an accident while she was a taxi passenger some years ago. One of the claimants was awarded $500 just because she was a bridge partner of the injured person and could not play bridge with her any more. Tell me if that has not gotten out of hand.

We have not as yet heard the government make any reference to tort reform -- no reference at all.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: All in due course.

Mr. Runciman: All in due course. They are just overly anxious to hop on to the socialist path and run down it as quickly as possible and say, “Well, all in due course,” or, “In the fullness of time.” We have heard that from this government over and over again: “In the fullness of time.”

I want to put on record a couple of other things; essentially, it is the position of our party, which regrettably has not received much public notice. They have been content to catch the Premier combing his hair or jogging down the beach with his wife or significant things like that. I want to put our position --

Hon. Mr. Elston: We were all interested in your position on day care this afternoon, but the House leader was unable to enunciate the issue.

Mr. Runciman: After I am finished speaking, the minister and I can go out in the hall and I will fill him in on my position on universal day care.

Hon. Mr. Elston: On your position? It is sort of an interim position, right?

Mr. Runciman: Can you not do anything about him, Mr. Speaker?

Before I get into our position, this was just brought to my attention and I mention it in passing. It is a rather significant article: “Ontario Drivers Facing Big Boost in Premiums.” This is in reference to the bill before us and, essentially, the changes in the risk classification system:

“Cliff Fraser, a vice-president of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, predicts that rates will move higher when the government goes ahead with its stated intention to bar insurers from using age, sex and marital status. Fraser forecasts the change will mean a jump of up to 50 per cent for women under 25 and perhaps 10 per cent for drivers 25 and over of both sexes. The extra premium income will be necessary to subsidize under-25 male drivers who, because of their high claims record, take out of the system about four times what they put into it.”

Mr. J. B. Nixon: He has not even seen the classification system, but he knows.

Mr. Runciman: He has seen the classification system, as a matter of fact. He has seen the proposals, as I have.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: The proposal has not been made yet.

Mr. Runciman: Well, we have seen what is at the discussion stage, in any event. I gather it is based on the British Columbia model. Perhaps the parliamentary assistant may want to disagree with that; we would be pleased to hear his opinion. But that is the information I was given as of today. If they want the opposition to be more adequately informed, we are open to an invitation to sit down with them and hear what they are doing, what their direction is, and offer our input in a very meaningful and productive way. We are pleased to do that at any time. We have to take our position based on the information available to us.

These, of course, are views expressed by the industry -- talking about the Montana experience again, which I made passing reference to. According to the US magazine, Journal of American Insurance -- and this is in Montana -- 20-year-old single female drivers paid an average of 49 per cent more for auto insurance in 1986 than in 1985 -- that is when they went to this unisex formula -- while 20-year-old males paid an average of 16 per cent less. A 40-year-old couple with a licensed 16-year-old daughter saw their premiums increase an average of 33 per cent last year, while the same couple with a 16-year-old son who also drove enjoyed an average premium cut of 16 per cent.

1550

Again, this just reinforces our concerns. I hope the government, at least in terms of the no-fault program, will carefully consider that before it makes a commitment, although I suspect the commitment is already made. I understand Bill 2 is going to committee. Hopefully, the government will be receptive to some helpful amendments we will be making during that process.

In conclusion, I want briefly to put some of our party’s positions on record in respect of automobile insurance in this province. Our party supports a strengthened role of the current legislation governing registered insurance brokers. We would create the role of insurance ombudsman to resolve consumer complaints. Change is also needed to break the syndrome that is prevalent throughout the system of adjusters and the legal profession in auto body repair. It seems every accident that occurs causes more property damage than the deductible. The attitude has developed that the insurance company is paying anyway, so there is no need to keep costs down. However, this increase leads only to increased premiums for all drivers.

Finally, when we are talking about adjusters, one thing I think we should also be doing is requiring adjusters to inform anyone involved in an accident of the current no-fault provisions in the act. I had an individual in my community -- the chief of police, as a matter of fact -- who was involved in an accident. His broker did not tell him about the provisions; his lawyer did not tell him about them. He finally went to a lawyer in Ottawa who informed him that the costs and expenses he had incurred up to that point were covered by the current no-fault provisions, so he had his cheque within a week or two. But the local adjuster and the local lawyer did not inform this individual. I think there should be some obligation upon them to ensure that the consumers are very much aware of the benefits of that program.

We would also urge the federal government to eliminate income tax collected on financial court settlement awards. The federal government should amend the Income Tax Act to remove the income tax payable on the income from the amount of a damage award. These awards are often allocatable to required future care of the victim. This tax has caused lawyers to gross up insurance claims to allow for payment of the tax and still see their client receive a significant amount of payment for damages.

Our research shows that in cases of very large awards involving very seriously injured victims requiring an abundance of future care, the amount of the award could be reduced by almost 50 per cent. Also, the idea that the federal government is taxing an injured victim for income related solely to a serious physical injury seems most unfair and even unethical.

We would also propose to restrict the right to sue by the immediate family of a victim to situations involving only the very seriously injured. In 1978, the Family Law Reform Act was amended, giving an injured person’s family the right to sue a wrongdoer for the financial expenses incurred by the family and for its loss of guidance, care and companionship of the insured person. As I mentioned earlier, we think that has got out of hand.

We would also like to see a change to prejudgement interest. Plaintiffs quickly launch their lawsuits, but then they delay the trial in order to earn more prejudgement interest at the prime rate. Perhaps this interest rate should be changed to that of the prevailing bank rate or that of savings bonds. This might remove some of the incentive for plaintiffs to delay cases, and it seems even more likely that the overall monetary amount of claims would be reduced.

We would also suggest that the insurance companies pay annuities to accident victims instead of lump-sum payments. Such annuities would last only for the period of convalescence. That could be for the lifetime of the victim or for a much shorter period of time. The advantage to that, of course, is that it would be up to the insurance company to decide how the money allocable to the award should be invested and this would eliminate the possibility that an injured victim could lose his award through faulty investments. It may also decrease the number of false claims. For example, if an injured person who was given a long-term annuity was found to be playing squash six months later, the annuity could be cancelled without recourse.

We would also like to see some reduction in court costs. Currently, when lawyers go to court over insurance claims, often the evidence for both liability and damages are presented together, as both issues are adjudicated in the same proceeding.

However, a study by researchers at the University of Chicago law school found that litigation costs could be reduced by as much as 20 per cent if the following measure were introduced: have the court decide on the question of liability first. That would allow for some costs to be reduced in the preparation and presentation of the damages case where the defendant prevailed on liability. In cases where the plaintiff prevailed on liability, settlements would be encouraged.

I think that pretty well sums up our party’s position. We are very much concerned about the direction this government is taking us in with respect to Bill 2 and the forthcoming announce meets, we suspect, in respect to no-fault auto insurance.

We are going to oppose this bill in its current state and, as I said, we are going to be proposing some significant amendments in committee. We hope the government will listen to those and will indeed take a look at the long term in respect to where it is taking us in this regard. They should have some real concerns, not just taking a look at perhaps some short-term political advantages, because once we are into this quagmire, as I said before, it is going to be extremely difficult to extricate this government or any future government. It is a mistake, a very serious mistake.

Mr. Mahoney: I find it interesting to hear the member opposite using the S word in relationship to members on this side of the House. He represents a party that brought us such past notable moves as the acquisition of Minaki Lodge and Suncor, and yet he tends to call us socialists. I find that a little difficult to take.

I recognize that some members on that side of the House are slightly to the right of Gunga Din in their philosophy, and I can understand that, and do not really seem to care much about having to deal with social policy, but the official opposition is not the only party that has a right to care about social issues and social policies. It is the responsibility of this government to do that.

The honourable members should recall the statement by the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Kwinter) in the election when dealing with the issue of government-run insurance. If I do not have an exact quote, I believe I am close. He said, “If you like the post office, you’ll love government-run insurance.” I think that really sums it up. I am sure we would agree that a government-run insurance program is not the way to go in this situation, because there is no free lunch.

Quite clearly, what the honourable members in the opposition party seem to forget is that it is a little bit like the Fram oil filter, “You can pay me now or you can pay me later.” They seem to just blindly go ahead and suggest that the way to run things is to have the government run them. It has been my experience that is not a successful way of delivering service to the community.

Finally, I appreciate the advice and the constant barrage to those of us here in the back benches on this side telling us how we should be reacting and that we do not have much say. I assure the honourable gentleman that our caucus listens to us, unlike his when it was in power.

Mr. Swart: I find myself in some agreement with some of the comments of the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman), but there are a couple of things, of course, that I have to object to.

The first is that he said -- I think I am paraphrasing him correctly -- that we had sort of forced the government to move part-way on our demand. Well, of course, the government has not moved part-way on our demand at all. For the very reasons he gave about bureaucracy and so on, we are opposed to the bill we have before us.

I have to remind the member that they did not move in our direction; they moved in his party’s direction. In fact, the leader of his party, when this legislation was introduced last spring, complained that they had stolen this legislation. Members will remember that Mr. Grossman said they had stolen this legislation from those people. The member cannot say they are going part-way in our direction; they are going a long way in his direction.

1600

I guess today we have a statement of a change of policy on the part of the Conservative Party.

However, I have to agree with them in saying this bill is worse than nothing, and at least the member has the honesty to get up and say that.

I also must point out that the member mentioned Montana. Of course, that is not analogous to the situation here. They abolished sex out there as a criterion but they did not abolish age, so the young women had to pick up half of the cost.

Finally, I just want to say to the member that he talks about his opposition to the public running things. Of course, this comes from the other side of the House, too. If you like public health insurance, you will like public auto insurance.

Mr. Runciman: I appreciate what the member for Mississauga West (Mr. Mahoney) said. I appreciate that they are not talking about a government-run insurance program and that they are, in essence, going only halfway, if you will, in respect to what the New Democratic Party has been proposing. I know the other member will disagree.

I have indicated that I think they are going in that direction, and I am very concerned that once they start in that direction, as I said, it is a very slippery slope and they are not going to be able to pull back. It is going to be extremely difficult politically to pull back, and I am basing that on the history of rent control.

The member talks about what we have done in the past, and it has been indicated by our interim leader and by members of this caucus that this is a new party. We have had problems with people in the electorate, and that is reflected in the fact that we have only 16 members. There is confusion over what this party has stood for in the past, and we are going to indicate clearly to the electorate in the future that we do have principles and a philosophy that we are going to abide by and that will appeal to the electorate. I think it is going to be a conservative thrust.

I do not think that restricts us from caring about social policies, social programs, social initiatives. I guess that is a problem in terms of the member thinking of auto insurance as a social program. That is a very serious mistake. Obviously, that is an error. The member has fallen into the trap with respect to the NDP’s efforts to make this a social policy.

The member talked about rate review being a Conservative plank. Our former leader did indeed propose a rate review board but he did not propose a board with rate-setting powers. There is a difference, and it is a very significant one, in my view. The government is talking about significant intrusion into the private sector, telling people what rates they can set for their business in this community. We are saying we want an advisory board looking at it and commenting publicly on the appropriateness of those increases -- a significant difference.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I particularly want to congratulate the member for Welland-Thorold, who spoke in such a lengthy way but, I must say, in such a passionate way and with such conviction. I admire and respect that.

None the less, I also rise to say that I speak in support of this bill and I am happy to speak in support of this bill. I am even happier after having heard the member for Leeds-Grenville speak, because now we have got the parameters of the discussion completely outlined. We have the position of the official opposition, which is, as I would suggest, on my left, and the position of the third party, which is on my right. We have found once again that the Liberal course or the Liberal principle has persevered and that it distinguishes itself from either the solution of public ownership of the means of delivery or the complete, private and unfettered market which my friend the member for Leeds-Grenville suggests.

We have faced a very serious problem in the last couple of years in the area of auto insurance -- auto insurance premiums in particular, but not in isolation. The government announced a number of measures, not the least of which was Bill 2, or the rate review board.

The measures also include the uniform classification system, which is going to be encompassed in the regulations underneath the rate review board bill; the examination of no-fault which was commissioned to be studied and reported on by Mr. Justice Coulter Osborne; the examination of tort reform which has been studied by the Ontario Law Reform Commission and the expansion of powers under the Insurance Act for the superintendent of insurance to cure certain abuses which exist in the marketplace.

So indeed, Bill 2 is only part of a large range, a large number of measures all intended to deal with the disruption in the insurance market and problems of the social impact upon consumers who suffer from those disruptions.

I would like to make two generic comments in my speech, one to do with the public delivery system in the western provinces and the second in the area of the abuses in the marketplace which we perceive and which we have introduced Bill 2 to rectify.

But before I get going I would like to point out that this debate is getting to be like the debate on free trade and every other debate on so-called significant issues. The words used tend to gather steam and have their own meaning. They float about like clouds and they are not attached to the ground, so that we get my friend the member for Leeds-Grenville telling us that no-fault insurance is a socialist system.

As members may know, the state of Michigan, that well-known capitalist state, has a very comprehensive no-fault system, but I do not know that Michigan has embarked on a government-run insurance corporation at all. In fact, there are many states in the United States of America and there are many jurisdictions in western Europe that have no-fault or partial no-fault systems, yet they do not have a government-run insurance corporation.

I just wanted to clear that up. Everything, if you do not like it, becomes socialist or everything, if you do not like it, becomes capitalist. Somehow there is a balanced approach, I think, somewhere in the middle where the interests of the consumers and the individuals take priority over the interests of the insurance industry or the interests of ideology. I think Bill 2 meets that demand.

In going to the experience of the western provinces, I would just like to preface my remarks by referring to an editorial from the Kitchener-Waterloo Record of March 1987, and I refer to it because I think it summarized some of the problems that the official opposition was facing going into the election. This was written in March 1987, talking about the official opposition’s plan for a government-run insurance corporation. They wrote:

“Appearing at a news conference, NDP leader Bob Rae would not provide estimates about the startup costs of an insurance plan or the reductions in premiums that drivers could expect. He just asserted his belief that a public plan would work better than a private plan. Rae may be right in thinking that there is a difference between an auto plan that is hatched by politicians and one that comes from the business community. Thoughtful business leaders would not recommend that their companies start a business without knowing anything about the costs. A company with little foresight will not last long.”

I would suggest that there is indeed a difference between a corporation launched by politicians and a corporation launched by businessmen and, if anything, this government has reaffirmed its faith in the ability of the private market to deliver a system. But we have recognized that it cannot deliver that system in a totally free market environment. We have made it compulsory for all drivers in this province to purchase automobile insurance; given that, we have a duty to ensure it is available to them at a fair price, something my friend may not want to ignore.

Mr. Runciman: Do it through the Facility Association.

1610

Mr. J. B. Nixon: If he thinks Facility prices are cheap, fair and affordable, my friend has another think coming. We have heard too many horror stories about the Facility Association.

Let me just say that the insurance corporations themselves have well recognized that they have failed in their obligation to deliver insurance in a fair and affordable way. I do not know who my friend is speaking to when he argues they can do the job. We well know, after two years in this House, they cannot do the job.

Let me just turn to the experience in Saskatchewan. When we talk about premium increases, we might note that in October 1985, the Saskatchewan auto fund minister announced that vehicle insurance premiums would increase as of January 1, 1988, by 10 per cent. She noted a 64 per cent increase in liability claims costs in the last two years alone and she noted that changes in the legal environment were partly responsible for this rise.

My friend the member for Welland-Thorold has told members much about the slow rate of increase in the last six years in Saskatchewan in the cost of insurance. Let me point out that in the last eight years the cost of insurance has increased by 72.6 per cent. An increase of 72.6 per cent in the last eight years is something quite different from my friend’s six-year increase of 37 per cent, the reason being simply that he forgot the insurance market, like any other market, operates in a boom-and-bust cycle. If you ignore the boom years and choose only the bust years, you are going to get a much lower percentage.

The problem is that he and I and all of us could debate the statistics until the cows come home, but it is not the statistics from Saskatchewan that matter; it is the statistics in Ontario we should be looking at.

Let me finally comment once again that the Saskatchewan minister did make the point that the cause of the 10 per cent increase this year, and I guess the 70 per cent increase over the last eight years, is the increased cost of liability claims. I will leave that out there for members and come back to it in a few moments.

In British Columbia, the ICBC, Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, in July 1987 was warning of a 10 per cent increase in premiums pending. Again, the Vancouver Sun wrote in July 1987, “The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia will charge higher rates next year if the number of claims filed this year continues to jump.”

On Friday, November 13, I assume a bad day for the consumers of British Columbia, the Vancouver Province writes: “BC drivers can expect a sharp pain in the wallet next year. ICBC is set to hike car insurance premiums later this month.”

Then the official announcement comes out. The press release for public information from the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, dated November 16, 1987, notes, “The average premium for private passenger vehicles will increase about 22 per cent,” which, I think, was a surprise to everyone. The Vancouver Sun notes: “ICBC Rates to Jump 22 per cent,” and the president of the corporation says: “Liability is what is killing us here. Liability costs are up 61 per cent from 1983 to 1986.” ICBC president Tom Holmes said, “The drivers of this province to a large extent set their own premiums.”

As the days go on, when we come to November 20, the Vancouver Province notes: “Motor Madness: Aggressive Drivers Send ICBC Rates Skyrocketing. ICBC Bill Through the Roof.”

Once again, we have to look at what has happened in British Columbia over the last years and we discover it is quite interesting. My friend the member for Welland-Thorold told members that in the last six years the overall rate increase in BC has been something on the order of 37 per cent or 35 per cent. But if we go back eight years, we find that the real increase has been 130 per cent.

By very selective, careful selection of the appropriate years, my friend manipulates the statistics to show that the public corporations have a premium rate increase very much lower than in Ontario. In fact, if you throw in the next two years, it jumps from 35 per cent to 130 per cent. I have to ask my friend to look again.

As I have said before, the problem is that statistics are what you want to make of them. It really does us no good to artificially select business cycles and portions of a business cycle so that we can massage our statistics to a point where we develop an argument to prove our case and disprove the other case.

Finally, we come to the wonderful province of Manitoba. It has had quite a history of questions being raised within its community about the public insurance corporation. I would like to speak to a few of them. Back in July 1986, the Winnipeg Free Press was noting: “Autopac will lose at least $4 million this fiscal year. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. sources said Autopac’s losses this year could be much higher than the minister, Mr. Bucklaschuk, estimated.” Remember Mr. Bucklaschuk; he will come back into this discussion.

Back in July 1986, there was one other article in the Free Press that I want to refer to because I found it really quite odd. I thought public auto insurance guaranteed insurance for everyone. Headlines: “Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. Pulls Coverage for Nurses. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. has refused malpractice liability insurance coverage to the Manitoba Association of Registered Nurses.”

I know we are on to auto insurance and rate regulation, but I would like to point out that no system is perfect. The delivery of general liability insurance was an issue in this House last year. It was an issue in Manitoba last year because MPIC or Autopac or General PIC or whatever it is known as would not give insurance to nurses. Why? Because it would have cost them too much. They would have lost money and they refused to give it to the nurses. The nurses had to go to the private market out of the province. Somehow this general corporation spawned by the government was failing to provide its own citizens with insurance. I ask my friends to take a look at it. What would they do?

As we go on in the year 1986 in Manitoba, we see this: “Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. Premiums Expected to Soar. ‘We could be looking at double-digit increases,’ confirmed public insurance corporation spokesman Graham Newton. Some industry sources have speculated Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. may be considering rate increases as high as 30 per cent in some insurance categories.” The news goes on.

Of course, the public insurance corporations face their own problems in the delivery of automobile insurance, different problems than you might find in the private market, but none the less they face problems.

Reported in the Winnipeg Free Press in November 1986, “Management Practices at the Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. have left the crown corporation seriously understaffed and put it into a state of crisis for the past three years.” Who said this? “A union report indicates.” Which union? The union governing the employees employed by the Manitoba Public Insurance Corp.

“Beginning in March of 1983, the Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. local of the union warned that serious understaffing problems were” -- get this -- “causing long lineups for customers, inadequate service of claims as well as high stress and low morale for employees.” The report notes a “fiasco cost to the corporation of $700,000 in fees paid to a consulting firm that advised job cuts were needed.” You should note, Mr. Speaker, that the $700,000 spent and complained of was spent without consulting the government. You start to gather this image of a corporation that is out there on its own, running staff as it sees fit, abusing the customers and the clientele as it sees fit and spending government moneys as it sees fit without government authorization.

1620

“Understaffing of the centre leads to other problems there,” the union said. “Every Monday, they have 11,000 to 12,000 items left over from the week before to deal with.” It also says that the general insurance division has not shown a profit since 1981 and suffered huge losses in 1984 and 1985. “Staff adjusters reported they were working 10 to 12 underpaid overtime hours per week just to keep up.” It is a picture of a government corporation poorly managed, poorly run and not serving the consumer.

Then, in Winnipeg in September 1986, the opposition begins to call for an inquiry into the management of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corp., not because it announced a significant increase in its rates was necessary, but because the opposition perceived other problems.

Just in the background, during that period of time, the Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. announced an 8.4 per cent increase in premiums across the board. “In addition, owners of about 30,000 vehicles in rating groups with high loss ratios will experience an additional increase in basic premiums, ranging between one per cent and 20 per cent. In addition, accident surcharges will be assessed against motorists found 50 per cent or more responsible for two or more accidents. In addition, additional premiums will be assessed against motorists with six or more demerit points. In addition, a maximum insured value of $40,000 will be placed on all passenger cars.”

So you start to see a basic 8.4 per cent increase, with surcharges and additional premiums and additional penalties being imposed, all of which led to the ultimate statement that in 1987 there were across-the-board increases of between nine per cent and 30 per cent in the Manitoba automobile insurance corporation’s premium structure.

I referred to the opposition demand for an inquiry into the operations of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. It finally came out. The former president of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corp., Carl Laufer, said that the then minister, John Bucklaschuk, the hired merchant of truth for my friends during the election and prior to the election -- remember, Mr. Bucklaschuk came down here, gave press conferences and said; “You guys are crazy. The best system in the world is in Manitoba. It is great. You’re crazy and you’re dupes of the industry.” The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) and the member for Welland-Thorold got up and they trumpeted this wonderful man who was bringing to Ontario a vision of a new way.

This is what happened to Mr. Bucklaschuk. “MPIC minister John Bucklaschuk ordered a coverup of massive losses at the crown corporation in 1984 for political reasons, former MPIC president Carl Laufer charged yesterday. Bucklaschuk claimed on Tuesday that he had not been informed of losses of up to $36.6 million in the reinsurance division of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. until after Laufer was fired last summer.

“‘Bull,’ Laufer exclaimed when he heard the Sun tape of Bucklaschuk’s comments yesterday. ‘I told the minister about it and he advised me it was not appropriate to show those kinds of losses at that time. He mentioned that an election was coming up. That was the link that I got.’”

Later on in the article: “On the board’s instructions, Laufer said, he told Bucklaschuk and was told to keep the figures under wraps until after the provincial election, then expected in 1985. Laufer said he allowed the auditors to report the figure, which he knew to be wrong” -- they underreported their losses -- ‘“because I was instructed by the minister not to reveal the higher figure.’”

This is Mr. Bucklaschuk who is telling his employee: “For political purposes -- I’ve got an election coming -- don’t report these losses whatever you do. If these losses get out, and the fact that we permitted them, we’re going to be in big trouble at the polls.”

There we have a minister in another province manipulating the figures to suit his own argument, manipulating the statistics, telling his auditors, telling his crown employees, “Don’t report this information, because it doesn’t justify my argument. In fact, it damns my argument and I’m going to be in big trouble at the polls.” That is hardly the way to conduct business.

Mr. Laufer said, finally, “I can’t take it any more.” He said, “‘There comes a point where you can’t stand still.” He made the announcement.

What happened then was a lot of discussion and examination of these losses. Mr. Laufer said, “They’re $36.6 million”; Bucklaschuk said, “Ignore them,” and they started to examine them. The losses turned out to be much more than $36.6 million. In fact, they turned out to be $58.6 million.

At the same time, one has to ask who pays for these losses. Someone does. The Winnipeg Free Press felt it had to comment on the prevailing average premiums being charged across Canada, so it looked at them in its own way and said in an editorial: “What the rates point out most clearly is the difference in traffic density. Vancouver was always much higher than Winnipeg, as was Toronto, before public insurance” --

Mr. Philip: Why don’t you look at accident rates?

Mr. J. B. Nixon: I will get to that.

Mr. Philip: I’ll bet you will.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: Hold on to your shirt. Just relax; take it easy.

-- “before public insurance came on the scene. Winnipeg has always had higher auto insurance rates than Lethbridge or Kitchener.

“The most significant information to be found in the news is not that public schemes are just as expensive, more or less, as insurance offered by the private sector; the most significant information is that governments are just as greedy when it comes to gaining access to automobile insurance dollars as any of the private companies that politicians are so ready to criticize.”

My point is that with the Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. sitting there with reserves, the government of Manitoba has available to it a large pool of capital which it can borrow from at less than market cost. Who pays the difference between the market interest rate that prevails and the interest rate at which the government of Manitoba borrows? The consumer. So it all comes back to the consumer one way or the other.

Mr. Philip: The consumer is also the taxpayer, didn’t you know?

Mr. J. B. Nixon: No kidding.

The consequence of the less-than-favourable borrowing from the Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. by the government of Manitoba can come out in two ways. It can come out in increased premiums charged back to the consumer or it can come out in a subsidization of the program by the government of Manitoba.

If you look at Manitoba, at the same time that Mr. Bucklaschuk finally had to admit he had engaged in a coverup, at the same time as he was saying, “I made a mistake, I really did cover it up,” Manitoba was raising its taxes.

The newspapers in Manitoba noted: “Winnipeg Tops the Tax Polls. The new net income tax of two per cent, along with the additional surtax on incomes over $30,000, makes Manitoba the most expensive province for urban families.”

What do those tax rates include? They include a tax on government services, most particularly taxes on driver’s licences and on licence plates. There are all sorts of ways to get money to pay for your public insurance corporation, and it appears that in Manitoba not the least of them is a fee or charge or tax on your driver’s licence and on your licence plate.

Finally, later in that year, we read: “Mr. Bucklaschuk contradicts his loss estimate. He backed off on another statement yesterday when he admitted....” Mr. Bucklaschuk for six months had carried on about how he had never been told by the president of Manitoba’s automobile insurance corporation; he had never been told about the losses. The president then said, “I told him and he told me to cover it up for election reasons.”

1630

Then Mr. Bucklaschuk does an about-face. This is Mr. Bucklaschuk, who came here to tell us all the truth. He is the merchant of truth from the marvellous province of Manitoba. He did an about-face and then he backed off and admitted that he fired the president of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. when he informed him of a potential $24.3-million reinsurance loss. He still did not have the numbers right, but he changed his mind and that is why he fired him.

At the same time this story is going on -- Mr. Bucklaschuk is changing his story and trying to remember whether or not he told someone to change the story for political reasons; or he cannot remember what the loss is, but then he does remember -- we have another headline and story, “Shredded Reports Detailed. Cabinet submissions, a Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. audit, a 1984 annual report and corporate directives were among ministerial papers shredded within the last month, archival records reveal.”

How can we get the truth about the Manitoba auto insurance corporation when the minister, Mr. Bucklaschuk, the merchant of socialist truth, is shredding the papers? There are no papers. They do not have any evidence. They do not know what it costs. They do not know what their losses are. He shredded the papers. It is very upsetting.

An hon. member: You are doing great.

Mr. Swart: There is no truth in it, but he is doing great.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: There has to be truth in it; the Free Press wrote it.

An hon. member: That is right. He took a page out of your book, Mel.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: That is right.

Bucklaschuk later went on to admit political considerations were partly responsible for his decision to accept Laufer’s advice that the losses should be shown. He says: “If it is not true, why did he not sue for libel and slander? I am not aware of any libel and slander actions going on, so I will assume it is true unless I am informed otherwise. I would be less than candid if I said I did not think politically.”

What we have is the image of a minister who manipulates the premium levels according to election years and, lo and behold, they have had their election. Ontario has already increased its premiums. Along we go. In Manitoba there was a nine per cent to 30 per cent increase last year. And what are we hearing out of Manitoba this year? We are hearing that Manitoba faces premium increases in excess of those it faced last year. It faced an $18-million loss in the first six months of 1987. “If the current trend continues, we will be forced to look at considerable rate increases next year” -- that is, in 1987.

Then on November 24, 1987, the new president of Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. -- remember Mr. Lauder? He got fired for telling the truth. Maybe this guy will get fired. What did the new president say? “‘Autopac premiums will rise by considerably more than nine per cent next year because of record losses by the government-run vehicle insurance agency,’ its president says. ‘It would not surprise me if they exceed $39-million losses. I can say our rates will increase considerably more than last year’s nine to 30 per cent, but I cannot start focusing on a number.’”

A significant increase, something that should concern us before we even consider accepting my friend’s arguments.

I would like to go back for a minute. You know, the fallout from Mr. Bucklaschuk’s reversals of forms and his coverups and his shredding of documents did not stop there. Frances Russell, in the Winnipeg Free Press, writes;

“John Bucklaschuk, minister responsible for Manitoba Public Insurance Corp., is a member of the Pawley cabinet’s walking dead. Bucklaschuk’s difficulty is that he either didn’t understand or couldn’t communicate what exactly was going on with MPIC’s reinsurance.”

The reason I keep focusing on Mr. Bucklaschuk, and particularly for the new members here, is that prior to the election, the official opposition brought Mr. Bucklaschuk down here as its spokesman. He was going to tell us how government insurance could save us in Ontario; certainly, I guess, it had saved Manitoba. But then the troops in Manitoba got a little unsure of Mr. Bucklaschuk’s ability always to put forward the truth, or the truth as he knew it. Bucklaschuk’s difficulty was that he either did not understand or could not communicate what exactly was going on with MPIC’s reinsurance. Remember, he is a minister of the crown. Bucklaschuk’s trials, reminiscent of a Mack Sennett slapstick comedy, finally started to sort themselves out almost a week after they began, so far too late for both him and the government.

Seven days after he tabled the Manitoba Public insurance Corp.’s 1986 annual report, pegging potential reinsurance losses at $36 million, Bucklaschuk, already a public laughingstock for the gross coincidence of his shredded files and his torrent of seemingly contradictory loss numbers, called the media to his office. The numbers, it turned out -- Mr. Bucklaschuk tells the media -- were not contradictory. They were, in essence -- and here we go -- the same numbers expressed in different time frames. The $12 million was estimated 1984 reinsurances losses; the $14.9 million was actual 1984 reinsurance losses, the $24.3 million was potential claims for the five-year period, 1984 to 1989. Therefore, we will spread it out to the year 2000. That is public insurance corporation accounting at its best.

Let me point out that not only are there problems with the losses and the substantial premium increases in the public insurance corporations -- and not only the losses, the premium increases, the maladministration and the incompetent administration offered by this monopoly -- but there are other problems. They have problems there, too.

From the Winnipeg Sun: “Pain Eased Little by Settlement.” My friends over there in the third party will get a kick out of this one: “Former federal Tory candidate Frank Crockett, living in poverty and unable to work since a five-car accident eight years ago, has finally won a settlement worth $185,000 from Autopac.” My friend the member for Welland-Thorold was just telling us how in Manitoba you get your settlement right away, all the money you need. Here is a guy who had to wait for five years. What happened? Why did it take so long? Why did they screw around? Fault was never an issue. They admitted 100 per cent liability. This is what they are saying. They admitted 100 per cent liability: “‘I am not complaining, because I agreed to the settlement,’ he says, ‘but MPIC used every legal manoeuvre it could to drag this thing out.’” My goodness, a public insurance corporation using every legal manoeuvre it can to drag this thing out? God forbid.

There were three examinations for discovery and two pre-trials. “‘Autopac had an incentive to delay proceedings,’ he said, ‘because Manitoba was the last province to force insurance companies to pay interest on court awards.’” My friend from the third party wants to get rid of prejudgement interest. Manitoba does not have it. The public insurance corporation sticks it to the consumer, taking advantage of the fact that they do not have prejudgement interest. Madam Speaker, I get so confused listening to my friends in the opposition that I do not know whether I am coming or going, but I can tell you soon where we are going.

Another wonderful story from Manitoba from the Winnipeg Free Press: “Firm sues MPIC over suit’s handling. A Carman businessman is suing the Manitoba Public Insurance Corp., claiming it could have settled out of court a personal injuries suit that might cost the firm $700,000.”

What happened, to give the members the facts, quite simply is that this man ran a business. Someone was hurt at the business and sued him The Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. did not tell him he was being sued for more than the value of his insurance, so what happened was that the court awarded a judgement greater than the level of his insurance and the Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. conveniently forgot to tell him that. Do members know what happens if a lawyer does that in this province? If a lawyer does that, he is disbarred because that is negligence. It seems as if the Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. is exempt from the normal rule of law. It did not tell him, and all of a sudden he is sitting there with a $700,000 judgement against his business, and what recourse does he have ?

1640

What we come to is the fact that it has a system which does not serve its clientele. It has a system whose employees are not serviced, they do not have overtime, they are overworked. The union complains. The union says the place is incompetent. Maybe I should believe the union. I do not know.

The bottom line, as far as the consumers are concerned, is that they faced a nine per cent to 30 per cent premium increase last year and that the president of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. is saying this year’s premium increases will be greater.

Through you, Madam Speaker, I ask that when my friend the member for Welland-Thorold does his averaging, he should not forget to go back all the way, to do the whole business cycle. Unlike the 35 per cent increase over six years in British Columbia, we get the full picture: a 130 per cent increase in BC in eight years. Unlike the 37 per cent increase which he suggests in six years in Saskatchewan, we get the true picture of a greater than 70 per cent increase in Saskatchewan over eight years.

Having argued over the statistics, my friend will then say, “Go 10 years; go 12 years.” We may well do that, but I suggest to him it is not a productive or fruitful debate. I just wanted to give the other side of the story.

The reason it is not a productive or fruitful debate is one that was recognized prior to the election. It was recognized by the press. I have to quote from Orland French and Lorrie Goldstein: “Unguided Flying Statistics a Menace. When the insurers and the socialists start shooting at each other, take cover.”

That is sort of like what happened here today. We have the official opposition shooting at the third party and the third party shooting at the official opposition. The air is soon filled with unguided flying statistics, most of which are dangerous to the truth.

Orland French is referring back to April 1987:

“This week the New Democratic Party tangled with the Co-operators General Insurance Co. over the average cost of auto insurance premiums. The NDP said the Co-operators’ average premium was $605; the Co-operators said it was $449. The NDP said, ‘Oops, sorry.’”

Then Lorrie Goldstein commented on the same incident. He had received a note from Robin Sears, the mastermind of political machinations over in the official opposition’s office. In it, Robin Sears, son of Toronto Star columnist --

I have to pause there just for a moment and ask: If the Toronto Star is advocating government auto insurance, which is the platform of the official opposition, how can it have a direct pipeline into the decision-making of the government, when the government is not advocating government-run auto insurance? I ask that question only rhetorically, because my friend the member for Leeds-Grenville is not here, I would note.

In any event, Mr. Goldstein goes on that he received a note from Robin Sears. He asked Lorrie somewhat sarcastically whether he was proud to be associated with the insurance industry in the battle over private versus public auto insurance. They were commenting on the kerfuffle between Co-operators and the official opposition where the official opposition finally said, “Oops, sorry.”

The day the column appeared, and I have to say this in deference to my friend the member for Welland-Thorold, “Mel Swart contacted me to say that while he believes the Co-operators” --

Mr. McLean: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: Is there a quorum present?

Madam Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1647

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): A quorum is now present. The member for York Mills will continue.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will pick up where I left off.

I was referring to an article by Lorrie Goldstein.

Mr. Swart: The members sure want to hear their colleague, don’t they? How they love hearing you. There are eight others here.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: Well, it is eight more than some other people might expect.

The Acting Speaker: Order, order. Would the members please direct their comments through the Speaker.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: I have to say, in deference to my friend the member for Welland-Thorold, that the day the column appeared that Robin Sears was complaining about, the member for Welland-Thorold contacted him to say that “while he believes the Co-operators’ tactics were improper he felt I made a fair point about his overblown rhetoric. ‘A lot of times, what you write drives me crazy, but I want you to know that on this one I thought you had a point.’” Mr. Goldstein says: “Class guy, Mel. The NDP could use a few more like him.’’ I mention that by way of comment, but Mr. Goldstein then goes on to say he is not associated with the insurance industry, whose auto rates are too high.

We all agree that is the problem, but I wonder how proud Mr. Scars is to be associated with John Bucklaschuk. Jeez, the guy keeps coming back. It is like a bad pizza. Here he is again.

Mr. Swart: It shows your position when you quote the Sun. Go on quoting the Sun; that shows your position.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: I finished on the Globe and Mail, but I wonder how proud Mr. Sears is to be associated with John Bucklaschuk, the embattled New Democratic Party cabinet minister in Manitoba who oversees that province’s state-run insurance system.

His final rhetorical question is, “Robin, how can you associate with these guys?” And I know Robin is not here in the House. In the final column from Mr. Goldstein on the issue, he writes, “I often accuse big business of being paranoid about making information public, but sometimes there is a reason for that paranoia. In this case, information voluntarily supplied by Co-operators Insurance to the Ontario NDP was distorted, either accidentally or maliciously. The NDP then used that incorrect information to bash the entire industry. While NDP consumer critic, Mel Swart, personally apologized for the screw-up earlier yesterday, it took hours for the party to issue a grudging one-line correction.”

Once again, the problem was in the debate over average premiums in all of the provinces of Canada and, of course, when you average, you average the premium for six million drivers in Ontario and 600,000 drivers in Manitoba and you do not talk about the inequities in any system. You talk about averages; you do not talk about the problems in either system, you talk about the averages. The whole debate goes downhill to the point where we are standing issuing threats, arguing and shouting back and forth: Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, 22 per cent; Ontario, 19 per cent, as if that meant something to the consumers, as if that were going to solve their problems. The bottom line is Bill 2.

Mr. Philip: The bottom line is that it is a lot more expensive in Ontario than it is in Manitoba or Saskatchewan. That is the bottom line.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: Let me point out that even in Ontario the premium for auto insurance varies according to a number of variables. A number of these variables exist in any public insurance corporation’s underwriting program. But let me give you some examples of the variance within Ontario. Price varies according to the extent of coverage asked for, the company chosen and the class you find yourself in. For instance, a principal operator aged 25 or older, who drives his car for pleasure use only and has five years claims-free, will in Toronto pay anywhere between $724 and $300 and in Peterborough anywhere between $588 and $199.

1650

My friends, when they join in the debate, will quote the highest price, and the average when it is useful, but in this case, it would be the highest price. I say that only to give members an example or a flavour of the variances that occur geographically and as between different companies, which is why the former minister’s admonition, “Search the market,” makes sense. No broker sells insurance for more than seven or eight automobile insurance corporations. If he cannot get you a good price, some other broker may be able to.

I pointed that out by way of example. I hope my friends will not ignore it when they are looking for a better price. But then to get to the point, my friend the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) -- I believe it is, I am not sure -- asks me, “What about the bodily injury frequency?” As everyone knows, the frequency of accidents in Ontario has been decreasing and the number of fatalities has significantly decreased in the last two years.

I say that is as a direct result of this government’s initiatives in the area of drinking and driving and the program to reduce drinking and driving. In any event. there is no dispute that the frequency of injuries and fatalities has decreased. In fact, I am quite proud and pleased to say on behalf of my constituents that the frequency of accidents and the average number of accidents in Ontario is less than in many of the western provinces.

We agree with them, but the big problem, the reason premiums go up, is the reason given by the president of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, the reason given by the president of the Saskatchewan Government Insurance, the reason given by the president of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. and the reason given by the private industry in Ontario. It is not the number of accidents but the quantity of bodily injury claims, the size, how much money you have to pay out. That is what drives the premiums. It is true no matter where you are.

The fact is that in Ontario, way back in the good old days of 1968-69, insurance companies were paying out on average twice as much in individual third-party liability claims as opposed to the western provinces. In other words, the cost of a bodily injury claim was much, much higher. The final damage award was much higher. It is driven by the decisions in the courts, driven by the cost of living in Ontario. In fact, the size of the actual cost of bodily injury claims has increased 125 per cent in Ontario since 1980.

What I do not have for members is the statistics from British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Why? Because they will not tell you. Even if they could, they certainly will not tell you in Manitoba because they shredded the documents for 1984.

But given that, what is driving the cost of premiums to the consumer in this province is the increasing cost of bodily injury claims. It is not as if the government is not doing something about that. We are looking at the principle of no-fault auto insurance; Mr. Justice Coulter Osborne will report very soon. The Ontario Law Reform Commission is looking at the entire area of tort reform; that report is expected soon. We are looking at the cost of bodily injuries. We are looking at the cost side, which drives the premiums paid by the consumer.

Having said all of that about the public systems out west, I have to tell members about what brought us to produce the policy which drives Bill 2. It was not because we lived in the sterile world of public versus private ownership as being the dialectic debate which should resolve this issue. We looked at it from the point of view of the consumer and how can we best serve the consumer.

We asked ourselves what we were hearing from the consumer. We were not hearing consumers say, “I want a public insurance system.” We were hearing consumers say: “We are upset because our prices are going up. We are upset about the rate of increase in our prices.” Particularly, underage drivers were telling us they were upset about the premiums they were paying.

They were telling us about the premiums they were having to pay when they were forced into the Facility unjustly. They were talking about the short notice given when the companies refused to renew a policy. They were talking to us about a practice of the auto insurance companies, in terms of premium setting, to forgive the first accident, but when the second accident came along to impose a huge increase.

They were talking to us about the excluded-driver rule. My friend the member for Welland-Thorold is quite familiar with that rule, which says that when my spouse is convicted of impaired driving, cannot drive, loses her licence and so on, I will still have to pay a much higher insurance premium because we live in the same house and she might have access to the car. They were talking about that and they were talking about payment of legitimate claims promptly. Consumers were waiting two, three or four years to get payment of their claims because they had to go through the court system.

They were talking about arbitrary cancellation of payment of benefits under schedule C. Schedule C is the limited no-fault benefits which exist in this province, basically $140 a week for 12 months or $70 a week for a homemaker. I think the death benefits are $3,000 or something in that order. They were complaining about them. I say to my friend and I say to this House that no-fault benefits are under examination by Mr. Justice Coulter Osborne, and we expect his report. But public auto insurance will not solve that.

We were also hearing complaints about age, sex and marital status used as underwriting risk criteria and their impact on young drivers and on seniors. People were asking us why their premiums were going up when they had not done anything bad. Brokers were contacting us about arbitrary termination of contracts by insurers when their volume of business went down.

We have said to ourselves that there are a number of initiatives in all these areas that are required to solve these various problems, only one of which is Bill 2. That is not to say Bill 2 is inadequate. The bill deals directly with the problem that we see and that all of us have faced in terms of dealing with our constituents, regardless of parties, that is, a boom-and-bust cycle in the auto insurance market that is unacceptable.

The cash-flow underwriting of the early 1980s that resulted in reduced premiums in real dollars -- people tend to forget that premiums were going down in the 1980s. Now they are going up and it becomes a big news item, but people tend to forget that they were going down. At the very least, what the board will do is stabilize the market.

With a number of initiatives under way, the goal is to bring lower prices, whether it is tort reform, whether it is no-fault or whether it is use of the uniform classification system. But to go back, I have a few more comments --

Mr. Swart: That is the only direction you know.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: Now I am coming forward. I come forward from 1978.

I believe my friend from Welland-Thorold made great reference to a Woods Gordon report that was prepared for the select committee on company law which talked about allocation of operating expenses. What I have to point out is that the select committee on company law, which received that report, did not receive it with the same fervour and conviction as my friend has put forward to the members. The comments by the committee go as follows:

“The committee wishes to make it abundantly clear that considerable care should be exercised in the interpretation of the above observations. Differences in the product and the product mix and the possibility that government organizations may have some access to free services or cost sharing not available to private companies renders a definitive conclusion difficult.

“Also, the low-cost certificate-of-insurance premium paid by consumers in the government-ownership provinces is somewhat of an illusion, as it is only one of a number of sources of income used by the government insurance corporation to support the automobile insurance system.”

1700

I will not bore the House by reading the entire passage, but I do say to members that the much-touted Woods Gordon report lost some credibility when it faced the light of day before an all-party committee, in a minority Legislature, I might remind you, Madam Speaker. They said, “There’s a lot of things that we should have looked at that this report didn’t look at, and we’re not quite prepared to accept its recommendation.”

Moving forward to the Slater report, just as my friend would like us to do, he did not like it but then he urged us to take its counsel. I say, “Either you do not like it and you reject it out of hand or you accept it for what it is, a report to government, from which the government is entitled to take recommendations as it sees appropriate and put them forward in legislation.”

I must remind the member for Welland-Thorold, as I said back last week, that Mr. Slater did look at the western systems. He comments on Saskatchewan, Manitoba, British Columbia and Quebec. He went there, he has spoken to us about it, and what does he say? He says, “The government of Ontario should not establish at this time a government insurance corporation to deliver auto insurance services.”

I remember when Dr. Slater was appointed all three parties lauded, to a greater or lesser extent, his appointment. They thought he was a man who spoke with independence, a man with credentials in the academic community, a man who would give us good advice. We think good advice came back. Suddenly, it becomes “pathetic” when it does not fit the doctrines of the official opposition. When it does, the member questions the government’s motives in not accepting it.

My friend the member for Welland-Thorold also referred to reciprocal insurance exchanges and why we have not done something about them. Of course, this troubles me greatly, because there have always been provisions in the Insurance Act to allow the creation of reciprocal insurance corporations.

A reciprocal insurance corporation is not public insurance. It does not require the government to set up a corporation, fund it and administer it. It is just a group of like risks, like-minded people coming together and saying, “We will insure ourselves for the first level of insurance and go to the private market for our second level of insurance.” That is all it is. No big deal.

The Ministry of Financial Institutions put out a how-to-do-it book. We gave it to the municipalities and we gave it to the school boards and we gave it to the hospitals, and they said: “We like it. We’ll insure ourselves to a certain extent and then we’ll let the market provide the reinsurance.” And so it has all been done, but we still get press releases asking, “When is this government going to do something about reciprocals?” It has done something, and it did something over a year and a half ago.

Finally, the icing on the cake, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) stood up today and introduced a bill to amend the Municipal Act to allow municipalities to create reciprocals.

Mr. Swart: We’ve been waiting a year.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: We are there.

Finally, I am speaking in support of Bill 2 because Bill 2, aside from regulating rates and setting rates and establishing a stable environment where fair premiums are made available to the consumer, will have a public and open hearing process. Once the bill has passed, once we have in place the rate review board, I urge my friends from all parties to appear, in whatever status they wish to appear.

The information will be available to justify the premiums charged, the premiums set. The public and open hearing process will in itself explain the mysteries of supply and demand, explain the mysteries of the cost of bodily injury claims, explain the mysteries of reinsurance, I trust, if anyone takes the time and effort to attend.

One final comment to my friend the member for Leeds-Grenville, who accuses us of slipping down the slippery road to socialism: I can only ask him to look back at the state of the market a year ago and ask him if he really believes that is the way we want to exist and that is the type of market we want.

Mr. Philip: There seems to be such a great number of inconsistencies, but I would like to ask about just two of them.

The member says that somehow one should be consistent and accept a commission report in its entirety. Well, the Slater task force report, which he has said is such a great report, in fact recommends against the very principle of this bill; it recommends against a rate review board. How does he answer that inconsistency in his own thinking?

He also invites the public, the consumers, to present their views on the bill. There is no funding mechanism for the consumers to develop the kind of research that is necessary. His government has not done the research; it would not go out and do a direct comparison with the western provinces. What voice does a consumer have other than his own personal experience before a committee dealing with this bill when no funds are provided? The insurance companies will certainly be well funded to present their view. Where is the funding for the consumer to present his view?

Mr. Swart: In two minutes, I do not have time to correct the inaccuracies and the distortions in the speech by the member for York Mills (Mr. J. B. Nixon). In fact, it would take as long to correct them as it did for him to make the speech, and we do not have that kind of time.

I notice, though, when he started his speech he said we had not put out any figures relative to the savings of the public plan. Well, of course we have on various occasions. The actual saving to Ontario motorists by having a plan such as they have in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia would be between $500 million and $750 million annually, most of that by the very figures, which of course the member did not touch on today, related to the difference in the cost of administration, the 42.5 per cent last year for the private insurance companies here versus 20 per cent and 20.4 per cent in Manitoba and British Columbia. That saving in administration costs alone would save almost the figure that I have given here.

He also quoted at great length from the Winnipeg Free Press. I wonder if he does not know that right-wing publication has also recommended that the public plan be kept in that province. Even though it is opposed to the New Democratic Party and has criticized it always, it says the public auto insurance is a success story and should always be kept in that province.

He talked about increases in Saskatchewan -- and, incidentally, he is wrong about the 72 per cent, but I just want to say that even if it was 72 per cent, still 72 per cent of a $200 increase is an awful lot cheaper than 80 per cent of $400. It is dollars and cents that count.

The bottom line, of course, is that at the present time average rates in Manitoba are $405; British Columbia, $485; Saskatchewan, $251: and here, $640. The president of the Insurance Bureau of Canada agrees with those figures.

Mr. Pollock: I just want to comment on the fact that the member for York Mills made the comment that Mr. Bucklaschuk would actually shred documents and distort figures right in front of an election. Surely no minister of the crown would ever do something like that. I am a little surprised he would make that particular comment.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: It wasn’t mine; it was the report --

Mr. Philip: It was an accident.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

1710

Mr. J. B. Nixon: First, Dr. Slater’s report recommended the government not get involved in the direct business of rate regulation. We agree for the very reason that you do not get something such as Mr. Bucklaschuk artificially manipulating the premiums in a pre-election period. We want an independent board with full public hearings.

Second, there are lots of public interest groups out there right now, such as Andy Roman’s, that are quite happy to appear in front of this board, and I am sure they will.

Third, my friend is not talking about the hidden costs, the artificially deflated borrowing expenses of the Manitoba government from the pool of capital in the insurance corporation.

Fourth, he refers to the 42.5 per cent overhead costs. That is the Woods Gordon report, 1975 not 1987. The insurance industry says -- I am not its spokesman; the member says it says 42.5 per cent. They are telling us 11.3 per cent. The argument about numbers is fruitless. That is why we need Bill 2, so we get all the facts.

Finally, Judge Scollin in Manitoba did an independent inquiry into the operation of Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. This was not political. This was not the media. This is what he said about the government-run auto insurance program. He has concluded “that Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. throws taxpayers’ money around like confetti.” One cannot stonewall when a respected judge criticizes the control structure of MPIC’s claims system, expressing amazement that the entire company was not floating in the red, saying the lack of control could be described as “the ultimate meaning of the Red River.” That was the judge speaking.

Mr. Allen: I rise to participate in this debate. I am not going to be among those who give a definitive speech, the members will be glad to hear. It will not be massively laden with statistics and I hope it will not be too long, but I do have some things I want to say.

In the first instance, it was rather interesting for me to hear the member for Leeds-Grenville argue, as he always does very consistently with his principles and his position, against government-operated anything. For myself, I have never believed everything should be run by government nor that one should automatically conclude nothing can he run well by government. It seems to me one takes a pragmatic view of these things and undertakes to determine the best way of operating with regard to a particular enterprise that serves the public.

Most of the areas of service that are universal and that people need as a matter of course in a society lend themselves to one kind or another of monopoly or near monopoly treatment. One is not surprised to discover that is the case with regard to everything from hydroelectric power to telephone services to hospitalization. We all have health problems. We all have legal problems and we should therefore have legal aid on a universal basis. We all have accidents and disabilities of various kinds that result from them, sometimes long-term and sometimes short-term. However one tries to resolve those problems, one inevitably is dealing with them in a very broad social scale on a monopoly or near monopoly basis.

Sometimes it is a good question whether a private monopoly or a public monopoly ought to be the agency for doing that, but I think the problems we often discover in large systems are fairly common. It is not a matter of whether they are privately operated or publicly operated. The issues that afflict monopolies, large systems, are fairly common and widespread among all large systems of operation. Myself, I would generally wipe out a lot of the comments that get made around that kind of observation.

It is very interesting, it seems to me, that when you come down to it, the last speaker gave us a great run-through of statistics. I noticed that when he gave us the data over 10 years for the western plans, he then did not go on and give us the data over 10 years for Ontario; so we were left up in the air at the end of his speech, not knowing what the comparison ought to be. I do not know myself what the statistics are for the 10-year comparison, but I think it might have been a little bit more honest of him and more useful for us in this House to have had all the comparisons at once, the way in which my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold is used to proceeding. At least he gave us all of those provincial comparisons over a given year period.

I suggest that if we went back 12 years, 15 years or 18 years, we would find again a different range of comparisons. But at the end of the day, where do we stand? At the end of the day, when we add on even the latest of the increases in all the plans across the provinces that we are comparing, Ontario is still substantially more expensive. You discover that Saskatchewan is still the least costly. You discover that in between, only slightly more than Saskatchewan, is Manitoba, and slightly more than that is British Columbia. Then you get the big gap, as I say, leaping up to the costs in Ontario.

If you ask yourself the responses of persons who are very much involved in assessing the attitudes of individual drivers and look after the interests of individual drivers in provinces where those increases have recently been announced, it is very instructive to look, for example, at the responses of the vice-president of marketing and public affairs of the British Columbia Automobile Association.

We all know the automobile associations are assiduous in the way in which they look after their members. They do all kinds of things to help them deal with their motoring problems and so on. Most of all, they are concerned about insurance and the insurance rates they have to pay. So you would expect that if there were a major problem in British Columbia, this would be the man who would be telling you exactly how bad it is.

If you read what Mr. Rattel is reported to have said with regard to the premium increases in British Columbia, he says: “None of the motorists who has contacted the association recently has suggested that ICBC be privatized. I think that is significant, given that we are in the throes of a public debate on privatization in this province.”

We all know about that debate. We know how it is proceeding. We know who is pushing it. Certainly, it is not the British Columbia Automobile Association with regard to insurance. It is not just that the government or the New Democratic Party, which founded that system, wants to keep it in place; it is that the most active proponent of automobilists and their interests in the province is discovering not only that there is no demand among the motoring public to privatize the system but they themselves as a body do not want to see that system privatized. He says, “The vast majority of BC residents think that ICBC serves them well.”

Election campaigns are like referenda of a sort, I guess, for a member in particular, because as you go around from door to door, you meet all sorts and conditions of men, women, children, dogs and cats, etc. But at the end of days and days of canvassing, one does run into people who have moved around this country. I am sure if you were asking people, as certainly members of our party were asking, what they thought about automobile insurance in Ontario, whether they had any experience in other provinces, what their feelings were about those plans and so on, you discovered universally that people who have moved to this province cannot understand why this province does not have a publicly operated automobile plan, and they do not hedge the question. They do not make reservations. They do not say: “The service is bad and the staff morale is poor. You do not get a good deal on your auto body repairs. The thing comes back only half fixed,” and so on. You do not get any of that stuff. There are no fundamental problems that people who use the system have.

During that campaign, many of us were following hard on the heels of or being followed very closely by the little guys with the bags, who were giving out these things, putting them in the doors. “Automobile insurance: Let’s get the facts straight.” It was the automobile insurance.

1720

I suppose this cost a few pennies, but in the Hamilton region generally, the campaign of the automobile insurance industry ran to figures that were in excess of the combined costs of all of the campaigns of my colleagues the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) and the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie), of myself in Hamilton West and, I dare say, of my colleague the member for Hamilton Centre.

They spent that much on that one issue. We were covering the whole front of issues and doing a whole lot of things in those campaigns. When we ask ourselves the ratio of dollars that went into the campaign around automobile insurance, it was a frightening sum.

It is not surprising that in light of that kind of development in election campaigning and the commitment of private resources around single issues, there have been suggestions in the federal House, for example, that the Election Finances Act ought to be amended in such a way as to virtually make that kind of expenditure by private corporations and private interest groups illegal.

I am not sure about that proposition. I have some problems with it. None the less, it is not surprising. This is precisely the kind of activity by a private interest group in the midst of an election that will force legislatures ultimately, l think, to take that stand. As I say, I think it has problems with it. But it is that kind of abuse of power and money in public debates by well-heeled private interest groups that is going to bring that kind of result some day, unless they are more restrained in their activities.

What I discovered in the election campaign was that the insurance campaign was in some respects marginally effective with people who obviously found it difficult to find any authoritative study anywhere to refer to that would tell them how it was with the western plans. We in this party have been insisting time without end that if people like the member for York Mills want to get up and give us a little sample of statistics about the western plans, why do they not advocate that the government sponsor, ask an independent agency, get in some fashion an extensive investigation and report on the western plans?

Then they would find out what all of us want to know, which is, how is it that western plans appear to be able to deliver more cost-effective insurance? How is it that, even though there may have been some faults in the Woods Gordon report -- and there may have been -- none the less, that very eminent and reputable accounting firm brought back a report which said there were no obvious uses of additional and miscellaneous government incomes of one kind or another fed into the plan in order to reduce those costs? How is it that if things are so bad out there, Mr. Slater himself said they were efficiently run plans and that they served important social purposes?

There has been no independent judgement of the western plans that is substantially negative. Why do we not clinch the matter once and for all? Why does the member for York Mills not carry back to his minister, who will carry back to cabinet and carry back to caucus, the urgent message -- one which he would like, obviously, to have settled, because he has dug into it to a certain degree -- to settle this urgent question once and for all? Then the government, ourselves and the public will have that final word and we can all at least begin to settle our policies in the light of what is the best information available.

If they are not afraid to do that, why do they not do it? We have tried to do our research, we have come to our conclusions and we have laid them out relatively clearly, we think. We think they are convincing and we think they will be upheld. So why are we not getting on with that job? I do not understand that.

It is all well and good to have a little committee out there or a commission studying no-fault or studying some other aspect of something the government thinks might be appropriate to respond to one or another of the individual problems in the automobile insurance system.

Last spring I sent out a householder to all of my constituents and I got by far the largest response I have ever had to any householder, somewhere in the order of about 2,300 responses. It was not a householder that asked you to “check here if you like this or check here if you do not like that.” It asked people to write their own stories, and that takes a little bit of time. Virtually every one of those cards came back with a very substantial story on the back telling about that individual’s insurance problem.

I have to tell members there was every one of the eight problems our own caucus committee which travelled the province discovered out there with regard to automobile insurance. Whether it was excessive premiums or arbitrary cancellations and refusals to renew insurance; discriminatory rate increases; taxing all drivers in a household the same way or penalizing them all even though only one of them had a bad driving record; the problem of discrimination against young male drivers or middle-aged women drivers who were just beginning to drive; drivers who had cancelled their insurance and then tried to pick it up again and suddenly discovered their rates leapt as though they were new drivers once more; the growing number of people driving without insurance, or the issue of no-fault or of legal costs, I discovered in card after card returned to me that those kinds of problems were out there in massive numbers.

I could have brought them here and stacked them up and started reading them to you. I could have bored you to death with case after case after case. Some of them were really very absurd -- for example, a young man whose car was broken into and whose stereo was stolen. He went to the insurance company and asked to get that handled. What was the judgement on him at the end of the day? His insurance rates were increased as a result of the incident because he was labelled a high-risk driver.

There was more than one of those examples of that kind of vandalism, break-in, theft of something in the car, and the driver, at the end of the day, being charged and penalized for being a high-risk driver. That just does not make sense, obviously.

That is the extreme, and obviously everybody’s problem did not have that degree of absurdity in it, but all of those people who replied to me had serious problems with insurance. You had only to read the story to see exactly what the problem was.

It is true that when people give you that kind of information, it is to a certain extent anecdotal. The member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Fleet) got up the other day and said, “In the midst of the last election campaign, we had somebody who was not exactly right in all of his statistics and something happened about checking it out. Wasn’t it great, because the insurance company came back and gave us all the true information about that particular situation?”

If you look at the instances I found reported to me, you would have to conclude that there was something pretty wrong with the insurance company’s own statistical operations and handling. l do not know it proves anything very much simply to say, “The insurance company said he was wrong; it was this way and that way and something or other else.” I am not sure why we should accept the insurance company’s word over the word of a consumer, who is dependent on that company for his insurance.

We have been treated over the last year by the former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to various reasons why there was a problem out there. At first, he would not admit there was a problem. For the minister, it was simply a matter, as it would be for my friend the member for Leeds-Grenville, of the market handling everything: The marketplace was the proper judge; everything that happens out there in the marketplace is fine because it is the marketplace. I respect that. That is a fundamentalist position that anybody can adopt.

If the minister wants to try to live with it. I would like to see him live with it, because I think he would very soon perish in the kind of nonregulated world that would result. None the less, if he wants to take that position, that is a philosophical position. One may have it and one may talk about the unseen hand in the marketplace and get very mystical, as the Fraser Institute does. Even so, one appreciates the gentleman’s consistency.

1730

The issue surely and finally has to be an issue of results. Surely the results are investigatable, as I said earlier, and surely it is possible for us to have the kind of study that would give us that kind of information. But the minister last year, asked numerous times to do that, was not willing to do so. His first answer was, “The marketplace should settle everything.”

Then he suggested, of course, that the reason there were problems was that Ontario motorists were somehow greedier in the claims that they placed and that there was something wrong with the Ontario driver that led to the higher premium rates. That, of course, did not wash for very long.

Then he started suggesting that perhaps it was because there were so many cars and so many people and so many miles of road and so many drivers in Ontario that one must assume that, given all that, there must be a higher accident rate, there must be greater injury rates in Ontario and therefore that is why the insurance rates were higher.

Well, then, of course, when one looked at actual statistics over a reasonable flow of years in the course of the 1980s, one discovered that the accident rates in the western provinces were in fact higher than they were in Ontario. Why is that? I do not know. I do not know that anybody knows. I suggest it may be that Ontario carries a high volume of traffic on divided highways like the Queen Elizabeth Way or Highway 401, and that may have something to do with it, but maybe that has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Morin-Strom: Maybe unreported accidents.

Mr. Allen: Maybe the levels of reporting and levels of nonreporting. Who knows? There are just a lot of problems out there.

But at least the statistics we do have that are gathered by the provinces in question, which are obviously concerned about levels of accidents on their highways, do tell us that the accident rate is higher in the western provinces. It does not sort of square with your anecdotal or impressionistic sense of how it should be, but there it is.

Indeed, the fact of the matter is that even if you turn to the injury rates and compare the western plans and the Ontario plans, you find that, with the exception of Saskatchewan, the injury rates in the western provinces also are higher than they are in Ontario. So that kind of anecdotal approach was not any good. It did not work for the minister, so the minister did not get very far down that road.

Eventually, of course, the minister had to come into the House on one fine April day and to lambaste the industry for being so arbitrary, for being so high-handed, for being so expensive in its rate setting, for being this and that and another thing, and the insurance industry did not know what hit it. Here was this guy who had been defending the marketplace, who had been defending them all down the road, saying there is nothing wrong with the level of costs of insurance, now suddenly turning around and turning on them and telling them there was something wrong with their industry, they were arbitrary and high-handed and what have you.

It sounded a little bit like ourselves for a time to hear the minister talk that way, but of course he was going to propose some solutions. He had a number of propositions to put before us which he was going to use to tackle this problem -- not in a doctrinaire, ideological way, as the NDP would do; not to have a publicly owned plan that would service the consumers on a one-stop, across-the-board basis. He was going to set up a series of mechanisms that would deal with the problem.

No need to recapitulate them all, of course, but there was a capping mechanism: there were going to be rebates; there was going to be a move to nondiscriminatory rates; there would be an auto insurance review board and so on and so on.

That lasted for a while until we got through the election. The Premier assured us in the election that something was going to happen, that it was really going to be very substantial. The Premier was going to protect the driver; the new government would protect the driver if it were elected and so on. The only thing we have in hand, at least to this point, is this bill, which we are debating now. It deals purely and simply not with a regulatory mechanism but with a board that may just review, that in the course of reviewing may or may not recommend, that obviously lacks very much in the way of teeth.

I think the question all of us have at this whole level of representation of truth and fact in the industry is one that has to be troubling. The question, for example, which has been raised time and time again, about whether the western plans do have some input, not from hidden sources in government but some taxation directed into the government plans, is one that was used very widely in the past election in order to discredit the concept of a publicly run plan.

Let me simply put on the record the problem which has been pointed to, and not just pointed to but, even though it has been refuted time and time again, exploited dramatically in the last election by the insurance companies and the brokers in their campaign against our party and against publicly owned automobile insurance. They point, of course, to three instances, and always are pointing to exactly the same three instances in the past where, they allege, there has been taxpayer money flowed in large quantities into the public auto insurance plans.

Let us look at them, because we might as well deal with the charges themselves. The first of these is in Manitoba between 1975 and 1978. During that period of time, the Manitoba government asked itself whether there was not some way to make the cost of automobile insurance somewhat more equitable in terms of the amount of time the driver spent on the road. The way it decided to gauge that was in terms of the gas consumption of the driver in question, so it placed a small tax upon gasoline which would go into the automobile insurance plan.

The notion was that if you are on the road more frequently, you are more apt to be involved in accidents and therefore the more gas you consume. There was something equitable about attaching the amount of gas you consumed to feeding a small income into the automobile insurance plan.

It seemed to make a good deal of sense. In fact, other administrations have looked at it as well and may even use it, for all I know. Of course, the automobile insurance industry instantly attacked the provincial government in Manitoba for using taxes to subsidize the automobile insurance plan. It was a tax, but it was not general taxation. It was a specific tax and it had its intention. It was not everybody, indiscriminately, whether he drove a car, whether he consumed gas, who would be paying into the plan through that device.

The government said, “Who needs this nonsense?” and simply got out of the arrangement. From that point, as previously, not a cent of any kind of taxation, let alone this kind of tax, went into the plan.

If we look at the other instances: for example, in Saskatchewan, it is alleged that the Saskatchewan government flowed tax dollars into the government insurance organization in that province. Well, if we look at the facts of the matter, there was some money the government did put into the Saskatchewan government insurance organization --

1740

Mr. Philip: And into crop insurance.

Mr. Allen: -- but the Saskatchewan government insurance organization operates a whole series of insurance arrangements, and among them is crop insurance. That year happened to be a devastating year as far as hailstorms were concerned. Crops went under like you would not believe, and the massive costs of reimbursing farmers on their crop insurance were too much for the crop insurance section of the plan to handle. The government did the obvious thing. Rather than see people defaulted on the insurance they were due it contributed to the plan; those payments were made and the farmers in question were dealt with justly.

There is nothing essentially wrong with that, as far as I can see. Although I do not know it, the next year the rates for crop insurance may well have gone up. Whether they did or not is beside the point. The point is that general income tax dollars were not funnelled into automobile insurance in Saskatchewan; never were, never have been and are not today.

Third case, British Columbia: it is alleged on this small piece of paper, as it has been alleged so often, that in British Columbia in 1976, $181 million of taxpayers’ money was put into the auto plan in order to cover losses. In this instance, it is true. There was $181 million of general revenue money that went into the plan, paid into the plan by a Social Credit government to top it up.

It was for two reasons. One, there were losses because when the plan was first set up, the premiums were set too low. That happened partly because the insurance industry would not give any of the appropriate information to the government to help it set up the rate structure.

The second reason was that the government in question, the Social Credit government, was contemplating at that point in its history selling that plan to a private agency. What they wanted to do to sell it was to make it look actuarially sound, make certain it was in good shape before they trotted it off to a private buyer, so they put the money in. Of course, they soon discovered that that was not a very popular move to make -- namely, selling it off -- and at the end of the day they kept the plan under public ownership.

Those are the three examples that are used by the insurance industry to demonstrate to all and sundry that regularly, on an ongoing basis, public revenues from general taxation constantly go into the publicly owned plans in western Canada to make sure they get subsidized, so that in the end the consumer can get a subsidized insurance rate out of government insurance. It ain’t true; it simply is not true. The three examples I have given are the only ones the insurance industry trots out regularly to hoodwink the public about public automobile insurance plans.

Inevitably, and properly so, when we in this party speak on this subject, even on a bill such as Bill 2, which is setting up an auto insurance review board, we come back to the bigger question of whether public automobile insurance is or is not a better way of handling the insurance of drivers in Ontario. Sooner or later a government in Ontario is going to have to examine those western plans and other publicly operated plans honestly and, based on real information and real fact, is going to have to make a decision whether automobile insurance, publicly operated, is more efficient.

We in this party think it is. We think the inhabitants of western Canada are convinced it is. There is no movement in the west to privatize the auto insurance plans in the west. In a sense, Mr. Speaker, you might almost rule me out of order for speaking at length about public auto insurance when we are only talking about a bill that has for its focus an auto insurance review board. I notice in your generosity and in your kindly spirit in which you regard all of the members in this House that you have not done that. None the less, it is inevitable that we come back to the question.

I simply submit to you, Mr. Speaker, in concluding my remarks, that we will keep coming back to this question either until we have a plan, see it functioning and learn its worth, or until we have a study that tells us in a substantial way whether it is worth doing. To date, we do not have that. We do not understand why the government is rejecting that option without having done the necessary study.

Let us get on with that kind of inquiry and let us get on with that kind of debate; because rest assured: when this bill goes out to committee and we start having hearings, the debate is not going to be around whether this diddley auto insurance review board is going to be the subject of concern. What will be the subject of concern for people who are coming before that committee to make their views heard on this bill will be that the drivers of Ontario deserve something better than a little piecemeal response to a major problem they have been having for years and years. In fact, the government will find that most of the consumers who come before that committee will be telling it that, in their view, there is nothing wrong with public auto insurance and asking, “Why do we not get on with it?”

Mr. McLean: I just wanted to comment briefly on the remarks made by the member. I observed during his presentation some facts that he related that were very interesting. I often wonder why the member and his party have not taken the time to go into a little more depth, and I would be interested in hearing some of the results of interviews that would take place with regard to the other governments across Canada that have public auto insurance. I would certainly be enthused to see a report from a government in western Canada on what procedures it uses and the total aspect of the whole government-run insurance.

I think that everybody in this Legislature would do well to hear really what other jurisdictions have to say, and I know the member is referring to that and I just wanted to comment on that.

Mr. Allen: I thank the member for his comment. I think it reiterates the point I was making that it would be very helpful indeed to have a fair and comprehensive study. The reason that our small caucus does not have one is that you have to have some pretty massive research resources to put in place a major study that would involve counting assessments and what have you of the western plans. We have certainly undertaken as much of that kind of study as we can, we have issued our own brief summary of our conclusion and I would be happy to send the member a copy of that if he would like to see it.

Certainly it needs much more substantial study, and I think until we all have that in hand, we perhaps need to properly suspend certain of our conclusions with respect to its benefits. None the less, certainly the anecdotal information that we all get from western Canada, as well as some of the systematic investigation that has taken place, tells us how solidly built those plans are; how secure the service is; how convenient it is to have one-stop service, unlike the arrangements we have in Ontario; and, in fact, how economical the rates are and have been on an ongoing basis, year in and year out, in those plans.

1750

Mr. Philip: I would like an opportunity to participate in this debate on Bill 2, called An Act to establish the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board and to provide for the Review of Automobile Insurance Rates.

Auto insurance rates are a major problem in my riding, perhaps more than for some of the other members. I live in a riding where the average working person must frequently drive an automobile because of the way in which the plants are located in other jurisdictions where they work. They must commute to work -- indeed, I am 25 miles from the Legislature -- and people who are on shift work and go downtown or go to Mississauga have no choice but to drive their cars to work.

A good number of the people who live in my riding are also the owners of taxis and of limousine services that serve the airport. It was during the election that our leader, the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae), and I met with the association involved with the limousine drivers at the airport and heard some of their stories.

We heard stories from people like the gentleman who was 55 years old, who had saved his money when he first immigrated to Canada, who had bought a limousine at considerable cost to himself and his family and who had had a reasonable business over the years. Now, at age 55, he was saying that whereas in the past he had to drive his limousine only eight or 10 hours a day, in order to pay the insurance premiums he was having to drive 14 hours a day. He said quite frankly that at age 55, driving with the kind of back problems that are caused by being in that kind of job for 30 years, he simply could not cope and he was packing it in.

We had the case of the small businessman who told me that whereas he had previously had two trucks on the road, he had to take one truck off the road, lay off his driver, and in fact he and his wife were delivering with their one truck after their store was closed.

So I have seen some very real situations among my own constituents.

The example was given earlier about people whose premiums were raised even though they were not at fault. I had a recent case that I brought to the inspector of insurance for Ontario in which a senior citizen in a seniors’ building had her premiums go up substantially simply because somebody in that building had too much to drink, threw a chair out the window, it landed on the top of her car, and suddenly her rates go up as a result of a small accident of the chair falling on the top of the car. It was legally parked in the public parking space --

Mr. Swart: Nobody in the car, was there?

Mr. Philip: Nobody in the car, luckily.

An hon. member: Or in the chair.

Mr. Philip: And nobody in the chair, luckily.

Interjection.

Mr. Philip: I am always pleased when my colleagues on the standing committee on public accounts assist me in being absolutely accurate. There was nobody in the chair. I imagine if there had been somebody in the chair when it went out the window, then her insurance would have more than tripled rather than simply going up some $50 or $60 a year.

Interjection.

Mr. Philip: I can tell the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella) that many of the dump truck drivers who live in his riding are upset at the way in which he sold them out as consumers with this abominable bill. That is what I can tell him, with his interjections.

When we first raised the issue of automobile insurance in this House several years ago, the minister said there was no problem. Then on June 29, just three hours before the House was to recess, he tabled what amounts to a facsimile of this bill.

Either there was a problem or there was not a problem. If there was not a problem, then why was it necessary to introduce legislation? And if that legislation could stand up to scrutiny, why was it not tabled earlier so that a full debate could have taken place before an election, rather than pretending to do something to get one through the election, as the Liberal government did?

That is why one has to be suspicious of a bill tabled what amounted to three hours before the Legislature was to adjourn so that they could go to the people during the election saying: “We have something that is going to correct your problems. We were afraid to debate it. We did not want public scrutiny of the bill, but somehow we are going to do something for you.”

One could, if one were somewhat cynical, suggest that the only reason this bill was introduced in the first place was to get the Liberals through the election, to pretend they were going to do something for the consumer, knowing full well they were doing very little.

So, Mr. Speaker, from the same people who brought us wage and price controls federally -- and you remember how well those price controls worked -- we get a similar kind of bill that is supposed to somehow review the prices of premiums. They will probably be as effective as their federal counterparts were in controlling prices through wage and price controls.

The Liberals promised during the election campaign that there would be a cap on insurance premiums. Now we see just how this government fails to keep its promises. At the time the minister made the statement announcing the bill, he also announced he was going to allow an increase of over four per cent in the insurance premiums. How can you have a cap and say, “We are going to have a cap but we are still going to raise the rates”? It simply is a contradiction in anyone’s logic.

In 1986, when this government appointed a one-man commission to look into auto insurance problems, it stated it wanted an unbiased assessment. It then restricted the commission. It restricted it through ministerial statements. The minister publicly stated that the government was philosophically opposed to at least one of the options, the particular one we were advocating, namely, government owned and operated insurance.

Thus, in spite of the fact that a system had existed in Saskatchewan for 40 years, one which the Conservative government in Saskatchewan now would not dare touch --

Mr. Swart: The Liberals would not either.

Mr. Philip: Nor would the Liberals, even though they opposed it initially, in spite of the fact that a system has existed in Manitoba for some 16 years, which the Conservative government, when it got into power, would not dismantle, in spite of the fact that --

Mr. Lupusella: Mention the deficit.

Mr. Swart: There is no deficit.

Mr. Philip: The member for Dovercourt, as usual, does not know what he is talking about. He did not know what he was talking about when he was on this side of the House and he does not know any better on that side of the House.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Philip: I had to listen to the member for Dovercourt in the standing committee on administration of justice. I know he did not know what he was talking about then, and he does not know what he is talking about again.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I would like to remind the gentleman over there that Manitoba has a $57-million deficit.

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, if you allow that sort of point of order, perhaps you will allow me the point of order that, in fact, Manitoba has no deficit. It had accumulated a surplus over the years; 11 years of surplus, five years of deficit, and it still has some surplus left.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Would the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale proceed please.

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

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

7 décembre 1987