Journal des débats 1987-déc-08 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Philip: G Enterprises is an Etobicoke-based manufacturer of mufflers and exhaust systems. On October 7, 1987, just a few days after the Mulroney-Reagan free trade deal was announced, G Enterprises was sold to a firm in Cleveland called Mr. Gasket. On October 13, it was announced that G Enterprises would be closed on January 15, 1988, and that production would be moved to Mescali, Mexico, where wage rates average about 65 cents.

The company will be moving into that area of Mexico that enjoys virtual free trade with the United States. Under the terms of the Mexican-US agreement, the vast majority of goods manufactured in this area re-enter the US duty-free and are treated as though they were US goods. Under the terms of the Canada-US free trade agreement, these Mexican-produced goods will be treated as if they are US goods and thus will enter Canada duty-free.

The employees at G Enterprises will not be the last to lose their jobs as a result of the free trade agreement. They are examples of what will come in the future as firms move production to Mexico, to free trade zones or to the low-wage sweatshops in the US south.

The Premier (Mr. Peterson) called an election on the grounds that he needed a mandate to veto free trade. He now admits he has no such veto. The hundreds of workers at G Enterprises believed the Premier; some of them even voted for him. He has the mandate; now what is he going to do for them?

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Jackson: Today outside the Legislature, there were hundreds of secondary school students from Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School in Hamilton indicating to this government their concern and their frustration with a recent arbitration decision regarding their school. Those students are pleading with this government not to turn this educational issue into an economic issue.

They are hoping this government will honour the promises all members of this House made back on July 4, 1985, when the then Minister of Education, the Minister of Mines and member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), stated that, in implementing this policy, the interests of students in all our schools must be first and foremost in our minds. It is clear that now is the time to pay the piper for those political promises and, clearly, this government must honour in a sensitive and responsible fashion its commitment to the educational needs of all the students in this province.

The students are here and they are confused and concerned because they want to hold us accountable for those promises. I am reminded of what the then Minister of Education said when he introduced funding on that day: “I am persuaded once again that the citizens of Ontario are an exemplary and generous people. They are looking to us to resolve these outstanding and historic questions in an exemplary and responsible fashion.”

Let us get responsible with this issue.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr. Offer: It is my pleasure, as the co-chairman of the Ontario Legislature Committee on Soviet Jewry, to rise and report on Sunday’s events in Washington, DC.

I and my colleague and co-chairman, the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen), attended a massive demonstration held in Washington on the eve of the third summit between President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev. This demonstration was called to bring to the public’s attention the issue of the deprivation of human rights and freedoms of those Jews living in the Soviet Union. Many hundreds of thousands of individuals from across Canada and the United States, from all religions, of all political parties and from all walks of life, met together in a unity of spirit and cause.

I was pleased to bring a message from our Premier (Mr. Peterson) to the Canadian delegation at a reception called by Ambassador Gotlieb. That message read, and I quote in part:

“On this historic occasion, it is fitting that we should turn our thoughts to the ideals of human dignity and global peace. The world yearns for the day when we will all live in liberty and justice.

“On this special Freedom Sunday, as you commemorate the struggle of Soviet Jews, I commend each of you for your efforts to achieve freedom and fairness for all the people of the world.”

It is signed “David Peterson.”

It was an outstanding day in which the message evolved that there can be no peace without justice and there cannot be any justice without human rights and freedoms.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Hampton: I wish to bring to the attention of this House the sorry situation which exists in many small northwestern Ontario communities with respect to health care.

Many Ontarians who live in southern Ontario are accustomed to having general-practice physicians and even medical specialists readily at hand. I want to tell this House that the experience of many communities in northwestern Ontario is quite the opposite.

For example, the town of Rainy River, mentioned in an article in today’s Toronto Star, with a population of 1,000 and a large agricultural area surrounding it, has only one physician. He is on call all day every day, to the extent that he is considering leaving the community if another physician is not found to share the workload.

The same kind of condition exists in the community of Ignace, with a population of 2,400, a community that is not by any means isolated.

To date, this government and its predecessors have tried to deal with the problem of too few doctors in the north by offering a grant here and some extra money there, and to no one’s surprise, these solutions have not worked.

What is needed is a more novel approach by this government. Why not establish one medical school as the school for northern Ontario and train doctors who want to practice in northern Ontario and who indicate so on their way into medical school, rather than holding out the inducement of money later on?

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Cousens: It is abundantly clear that the lack of affordable housing in this province will not be resolved in the creative and innovative fashion this government would lead us to believe.

One of the more logical options to this crisis would seem to be the use of provincially owned lands in developing affordable housing. In fact, it was this government’s campaign pledge to develop 12,000 housing units on government-owned lands. But where are these units? Where is the land?

Has any attention been given to the auditor’s report, which questions whether the Downsview rehabilitation centre needs all of its 65 acres of land when the actual buildings and facilities use only seven? Could this land not be used to provide decent, affordable housing?

The Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) time and again refuses to answer my questions on this serious matter. For weeks, we on this side of the House have been subjected to bureaucratic bafflegab and political rhetoric. We have been told that the provision of affordable housing on provincial lands is being actively considered. If this is the case, what provincial lands are being considered?

I believe this is a reasonable question and, on behalf of the thousands of people of Ontario desperately searching for housing, reasonable answers must be given. I cannot tolerate the lack of answers that are coming from the present Minister of Housing, nor should this House.

1340

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr. Polsinelli: I wish to bring to the attention of this Legislature a recent incident that took place in Brashov, Romania, where on November 15, the day of local elections for regional council, thousands of Romanian citizens marched in protest of the latest austerity measures imposed by the government. These measures include the severe rationing of food and energy while wages are cut by 50 per cent.

The protesters, according to United Press International, stormed the Communist Party headquarters and the city hall. The ensuing violence was the worst in that country in the past decade. The uprising was eventually crushed by security forces, who beat down the protesters and arrested several hundred. There is ample reason to be concerned that those arrested on November 15 will be detained and summarily tried without recourse to legal defence.

The systemic denial of human rights should be of paramount concern to legislators everywhere. Canadians of Romanian heritage and their organizations are particularly concerned with the reprisals of the Romanian government towards its dissidents and the oppressive measures of that regime.

I would like to welcome those responsible for bringing this information to our attention. They are with us today in the members’ gallery. They are: from the Romanian Voice newspaper, Mrs. Mihela Moisin; Professor Tudor Bompa, president of the Romanian National Council; and Nicolai Popescu of the Canadian-Romanian Institute for Human and Cultural Rights.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: If I may, I would like to draw the members’ attention to a former member of this Legislature who is in the gallery today, Murray Gaunt, the member for Huron-Bruce at one time.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr. B. Rae: My question is to the Minister of Labour, who I see is just coming in. Perhaps I could give him 20 seconds to find his seat.

My question concerns a number of broken promises and unkept commitments of his government. If I can just start with this simple question, I would like to ask him why, for example, when his predecessor, on behalf of the government, told this House on many occasions and when, in particular, he told the people of Ontario during the last election that one of the first priorities of the government would be to introduce legislation with respect to health and safety in the workplace, and indicated, in particular, that it would be a priority for the first session of the government -- indeed, he said he would bring it back on the very first day -- it is that after the House has been sitting as long as we have been sitting, and when we are about to break for Christmas, we still have no legislation from this government in the vital area of health and safety.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am not sure exactly what my friend is talking about in terms of a commitment to bring in legislation on the very first day. Let me just tell him and reassure him, as I have done privately, that the work is ongoing on the matter of legislation bringing in major revisions to the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Discussions are going on with union representatives, with other unorganized workers and with owners and managers of companies, and I fully expect to be in a position to bring a bill into this House in the relatively near future.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister has indicated on several occasions, both publicly and privately, as he said, that the government has no intentions to bring in any legislation before Christmas. I see the minister is nodding his head, so he can confirm that fact. The government committed itself as long ago as 1985 to new legislation in the field of affirmative action. As the minister responsible for women’s issues, can he tell us why the Liberal Party has broken its promises with respect to legislation dealing with the vital question of affirmative action?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I think the Leader of the Opposition ought first to look at some of the steps that have been taken within the public sector on employment equity and affirmative action. I feel and the women’s directorate feels that those steps are vital to bringing employment equity and affirmative action to the workplace generally in Ontario.

We are also working on other initiatives. I think he is aware of those. It may well be that in the future I can make a statement on those to clarify them if he is not aware of them. I think we have been very progressive in that area. I do not recall a commitment, whether in 1985 or during the most recent election campaign, to legislate in that area. I think I simply have to refer my friend to the throne speech that began this session, which speech confirms our commitment in that area.

Mr. B. Rae: If the minister needs reminding of what precisely the Liberal Party has been committed to, let me remind him that in May 1983, which is clearly almost to the point of being a historic commitment now of the Liberal Party, the Ontario Liberal Party stated, “Our party is definitely in favour of mandatory affirmative action, of equal opportunities for women.”

I would like to ask the minister, why has the government taken no legislative action in terms of affirmative action, in terms of contract compliance, in terms of those issues where other jurisdictions have moved? The federal government has moved in terms of the issue of contract compliance. Why has the minister rejected the approach of taking a legal, full-brunt-of-the-law approach to this question? Why has he broken his commitment, the historic commitment of the Liberal Party, to use the law in order to require companies to have affirmative action programs? Why has the minister rejected that approach?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Speaking of historic commitments, I think the Leader of the Opposition ought simply to look at the Pay Equity Act, which is a historic piece of legislation, which I remind him and every member of this House will be proclaimed on January 1 next year and will have a major impact throughout the public sector, the broader public sector and the private sector in bringing greater economic opportunity and economic equity to the working women of Ontario. It is legislation that breaks new ground not only for every jurisdiction in Canada, but throughout North America. He knows as well as every member of this House knows that it is perhaps the single most important piece of legislation for working women in North America.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. B. Rae: The only thing I can say about that answer is that it is utterly irrelevant to the question I posed to the minister, which dealt with affirmative action. The minister, I would point out, did not --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is your question to the minister?

Mr. B. Rae: Yes, and I will get to it.

The question I have for the Minister of Labour is this: In 1985, in November of that year, Donald Brown reported on the question of wage protection for workers who are affected by bankruptcy. Mr. Brown called for legislation to ensure that workers got the money owed them from a bankrupt firm before banks or other creditors could collect.

The minister’s predecessor is now the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye). He is supposed to be protecting consumers, having flunked the protection of workers. He said he would go ahead with provincial legislation in the spring of 1986 even if the federal government did not act. It is now December 1987.

I wonder if the minister can tell us just what he is going to do on behalf of those workers who even now are still left far behind banks and other financial institutions when it comes to their priority. Even now in Ontario there are workers who, when a firm goes bankrupt, are out on their ear and do not have a nickel to show for it from the company because this government has failed to move to protect them when it comes to where it stands on a bankruptcy.

Can the minister tell us why it has taken over two years before he was even aware of the report? Can he tell us now what he is going to do in terms of that broken promise?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Just apropos of my friend’s comments about passing and flunking, I think that is always an examination and a question that is put to the voters. I do not think my friend the Leader of the Opposition ought to be making comments. We know who passes and fails in the democratic process. It raises a larger question. I want to the speak to the issue the Leader of the Opposition has raised because it is a very important one.

1350

Members will know that the Bankruptcy Act and legislation in respect of bankruptcies, failures of companies, are constitutionally within the purview of the federal government under the British North America Act -- specifically sections 91 and 92, I think they are.

I agree that steps need to be taken for greater protection of the wages of working people in this province and right across this country in a situation where a company has petitioned itself or some other entity has petitioned it into bankruptcy. This is not an issue, however, that is going to be solved simply by provincial action. It is one that has to be taken in conjunction with the federal government, revisions to the Bankruptcy Act that will apply to every workplace and every situation of bankruptcy throughout Canada.

Mr. B. Rae: Let me tell the minister something. First of all, his answers are very reminiscent in terms of who won and who has lost. They are very reminiscent of Bill Davis after 1981. The minister was not here then, so he would not recall those conversations, but they are really almost exactly the same. If that is who the minister chooses to follow, that is up to him. If that is the record of the Liberal government, if that is the attitude it wants to take, that is fine. Let that hang around its neck, because that is the way it is going to be.

Surely the Ministry of Labour was aware of the Constitution when it asked somebody of the distinction of Don Brown to look into this question. Surely the minister is not arguing that Mr. Brown is unaware of some of the constitutional issues. Even though Mr. Brown said in 1985 that the provincial government could act in terms of changing the Employment Standards Act and even though his predecessor said that the provincial government would act by 1986, is the minister now saying that the Liberal government has broken that promise and that commitment of his predecessor with respect to protecting workers’ wages? Is that what he is saying?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am not saying anything of the sort. When the member refers to the Bill Davis era, he is clearly wrong. What he suggested in his supplementary is that my predecessor as Minister of Labour did not have a number of accomplishments during his tenure. I would point out to him first-contract legislation, women’s legislation, the indexation of workers’ pensions and on and on. The achievements of this government and the previous Minister of Labour have been historic. That is a success rate which the voters of this province confirmed.

I invite the views, the reflections, the suggestions and the policy approaches that the Leader of the Opposition and his party -- and the third party, the Progressive Conservative Party -- might take to protect workers’ salaries in a case of bankruptcy. I am not saying to him I will have legislation prepared for January, February or March of next year, but I think it is an urgent matter.

Rather than trying to politicize it by saying, “You had to have it done by 1986 and you did not,” why do we not try to put our heads together and see if we cannot develop a legislative approach that is consistent with the federal government’s constitutional authority and bring a better regime for workers in that situation?

Mr. B. Rae: I wonder if the minister can explain why the Liberal Party has broken its promises to the people of this province on affirmative action. It has broken its promises on health and safety. It has broken its promises on workers’ compensation. It has broken its promises on hours of work. It has broken its promises on protection from plant closures and layoffs and it has broken its promises in terms of protecting workers’ wages. We can point to specific commitments that have been made by the Liberal Party, the Liberal government, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the previous Minister of Labour with respect to each one of those areas. The government has not budged an inch to deal with those questions nor to help workers in those situations. Can the minister explain why he has managed to break all those promises?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Those who enjoy the broadcast of question period either simultaneously or later on in the evening will realize that this week the Leader of the Opposition is on a new theme, that is, broken promises. I think the people who look at the record know that is not true.

Mr. Wildman: You are the ones who are breaking that.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The people of the province know that is not true.

Let us take one specific issue, revisions to the Occupational Health and Safety Act. On the last day of the last parliament, my predecessor introduced Bill 106, which contained major revisions. Everyone I have talked to, including members of his party, has suggested that there are improvements to be made on Bill 106. People in the union movement, representatives from the Ontario Federation of Labour, have said to me, “Would you please hold off reintroducing Bill 106, because I think there are substantial improvements that we can make.” Others have said that as well.

My friend the Leader of the Opposition is shaking his head. I suggest that he check --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that is a sufficient answer.

PROPERTY TAXES

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Minister of Revenue with respect to the question of market value assessment. In following the minister’s comments with respect to this very complicated issue, I note the minister on one occasion indicated that before he would implement market value assessment it would require the unanimous consent and approval of the six Metro municipalities. On another occasion, he said it would require a majority vote of the Metro council. Those are two distinctly different positions, both of which I believe I understand reasonably clearly.

I wonder if the minister would, for the purposes of perhaps clarifying the confusion that may arise around this question, indicate to us which of those two positions, both of which he put forward, is the correct position.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Over our dead body.

Mr. Breaugh: Why is Ian Scott laughing?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: No, not exactly.

I must admit to the honourable member that maybe I was a little blunt two weeks ago when I was expecting six municipalities in Metro to co-operate with my ministry in implementing final legislation, but I must admit that my ministry is for ever trying to get all municipal governments to be on side with the final decision of this government. I can assure members that we will continue to co-operate with every municipality in this province. Who knows? One day Metro might have its own reassessment.

Mr. Brandt: I am not sure whether that is a brand-new, emerging third position or what the minister is really alluding to, but the municipal leaders in this great municipality of Metro Toronto would like to get some clarification from him. They have heard comment from the previous and the past Minister of Revenue, who is in this House at the present time, as the minister knows. He made certain comments with respect to this issue. The minister has taken a couple of positions on it.

Will he please, for the clarification of the House and for the municipal leaders, who are looking for some leadership from him in connection with this issue, indicate exactly what it is he is looking for them to do and what he intends to do?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I still agree with the position of my predecessor. I think he made it very clear to Metro that we would need some consensus from the six municipalities, and we will continue to work on this consensus.

I would like to remind the honourable member that all mayors and Metro politicians are very much aware of our position. That is why this evening they will take a vote and decide for themselves what they want to do with reassessment in Metro.

Mr. Brandt: I have a great deal of respect for the Minister of Revenue, whom I have known for a long time prior to his even coming to this House, and I have to tell members that even he had to smile while he was giving his answer to the House on the last question. It was very difficult for him to keep a straight face.

I have to say that the former Minister of Revenue indicated that the responsibility -- I am quoting directly from one of his more sage moments when he gave a direct and very specific quote --

Mr. Breaugh: It must have been early in the day.

Mr. Brandt: It was early in the day when he gave this quote. He said, “The responsibility lies with the elected members of the various councils.” I take that to mean he was talking about the six councils, the six municipalities in the Metro area. Again, I ask the minister, is it the Metro councils that are going to make this decision or is it the Metro council itself? Who is going to make the decision?

1400

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I think the previous Minister of Revenue has said in this House on a number of occasions that reassessment would never be imposed on any municipality in this province, and he was absolutely right. What I am looking for, and also to satisfy my honourable friend, is a consensus and, hopefully, that consensus will come this evening. Let us wait and see what the final Metro vote will be this evening.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Jackson: I have a question for the Minister of Education. I would like to quote a paragraph from the Stephen Goudge decision respecting the matter of the dispute between the Hamilton-Wentworth Roman Catholic Separate School Board and the Hamilton Board of Education and Wentworth County Board of Education.

“The goal of upgrading Roman Catholic secondary school facilities cannot be accomplished only by the transfer of existing facilities from public boards. To do so might impair the viability of the public secondary system. While the transfer of use can contribute to the solution of this problem, the remainder of the solution must be in large part a provincial responsibility and a longer-term goal. It must not be exclusively a burden upon the public secondary school system.”

Will the minister assure this House that cabinet will be looking seriously at this specific recommendation as a possible solution to the Hamilton-Wentworth appeal currently before cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I would like to assure the member for Burlington South that indeed cabinet will review carefully the submissions of the parties to the appeal in the light of the arbitrator’s report and will give serious consideration to all the viewpoints that are put forward.

Mr. Jackson: If the minister then has assured this House that this option I have referred to will be looked at seriously, can he today stand in the House and assure this House that the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has provided additional and sufficient capital funds so that cabinet is in a position to consider a new secondary school for the Hamilton-Wentworth impasse?

Hon. Mr. Ward: As I indicated yesterday to the member in my initial answer, cabinet will give careful consideration to the submissions that are put forward by the appellants to the accommodation dispute in Hamilton-Wentworth.

It would not be appropriate for me to respond beyond that, other than to say, certainly in general terms, that the capital allocation for this year throughout Ontario to meet the capital needs of school boards throughout the province is at a level some 50 per cent higher than the previous year. I think that does reflect this government’s commitment to ensuring that the students of this province are provided with adequate accommodation.

Mr. Jackson: It is hard to believe that we are in a position to look at the option seriously if the minister is equivocating on the fact of whether he has sufficient funding.

My final supplementary has to deal with the process involved in the transfers. During the hearings on Bill 30, issues of school transfers were considered in the light of the current regulations in place at the time governing school closures. The school closure policy in Ontario was a sensitive process involving community participation and full notice.

It appears that there is a concern being expressed today that there were a lot of surprises with respect to Mr. Goudge’s report. Is the minister prepared to consider a review of the sections of his regulations with respect to the transfer of schools as a result of arbitrators’ decisions under Bill 30 and will he advise this House whether he is looking towards building a more sensitive system that involves more community notice and participation in this sensitive issue of transferring facilities in communities across Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I would like to point out to the member for Burlington South that there have been quite a number of successful transfers, as he is no doubt aware, between coterminous boards throughout this province. Again, there has been a considerable number of successes.

I can indicate to the member that the government is always willing to look at any of its processes at any time, to see if there is any way in which we can enhance them.

HOURS OF WORK

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. The minister is well aware that chapter 13 of the Donner report indicates that, using conservative estimates, a reduction in hours to a 40-hour week would likely eliminate unemployment for some 66,000 unemployed workers in Ontario.

Given that changes to the Employment Standards Act that control the hours of work and overtime would be one of the more effective ways of protecting the workers, particularly those in the retail trade, is the minister now prepared to offer that kind of protection to workers in Ontario and bring in some changes that will afford additional protection and more jobs for Ontario workers?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: There is not unanimity at all as to the job creation effect the changes proposed by Arthur Donner in his task force report would bring to Ontario; but that is not to suggest that the recommendations contained in the task force report are not good ones, none the less.

The suggestion, I think, from my friend the member for Hamilton East is that changes consistent with what is contained in Donner’s report would also be of benefit to retail workers who may be impacted by the changing approach toward -- I guess he is referring to Sunday shopping. Obviously, as a result of my commitment and our government’s commitment to look at enhanced protection there, we will be examining whether, within the broad parameters Arthur Donner is suggesting in his report, we might be able to enhance protection for those very workers with that sort of regime.

Mr. Mackenzie: I would also ask the minister if he is prepared to take a look at measures such as additional paid vacation, statutory holidays and a gradual reduction of the hours of work below 40 in Ontario, and to do that now, in a time when the economy is not as bad as it has been at times in the past, which is generally considered to be the time to make these kinds of progressive moves, with a view to protecting employment of workers in Ontario as we meet with the additional challenges of automation and so on.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: There are a number of points the member for Hamilton East is making -- additional statutory holidays. I look at Orders and Notices and notice he has introduced a bill which would amend the Employment Standards Act creating, I think it is, three new statutory holidays. He is suggesting, as well, that we consider the possibility of reducing the standard work week to below 40 hours. Arthur Donner in his report is suggesting a 40-hour standard work week.

All of these things are right now the subject of some policy-crafting within the ministry. I can tell my friend that Mr. Donner has now completed phase 2 of his report. That document is being translated into the French language, and I anticipate we are going to be able to release that very soon. That document deals with specific areas, including construction workers, domestics and other specific sectors.

I have already examined some of the bills my friend has introduced and they are consistent and do go beyond some of things Arthur Donner suggested. I tell him and I tell the rest of the members of this House that we look forward some time in 1988 to bringing in some fairly substantial revisions to the Employment Standards Act. I do not think all of them will be to the satisfaction of my friend, but I think he will welcome many of them.

PURCHASE OF SURPLUS POWER

Mr. Runciman: My question is for the Minister of Energy. I wonder if the minister would tell the House what the policy of his government is with respect to purchasing surplus power from neighbouring provinces.

Hon. Mr. Wong: Purchasing power from neighbouring provinces is within the security-of-supply energy policy for Ontario.

Mr. Runciman: That was another one of the minister’s enlightening answers.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: You don’t like the long answers; you don’t like the short answers. If you want a long answer, ask me.

An hon. member: We do not like no answers; that is the problem.

Mr. Runciman: We are looking for some informative answers. As I said last week, we are getting nonanswers. Obviously, many of these ministers simply do not have a clue about what they are supposed to be doing over there.

1410

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary question?

Mr. Runciman: In the Globe and Mail, Canada’s national newspaper, of November 30, it was reported that Ontario Hydro declined to purchase surplus power offered by Quebec. I guess we assumed that the minister was asked for his input but, based on his answer, I guess we are going to have to assume otherwise.

Would the minister tell the House whether he agrees with Ontario Hydro’s decision and what does he see as the long-term implications of this decision, especially with respect to possible increases in nuclear generating capacity?

Hon. Mr. Wong: With respect to the particular hydroelectric power that Quebec offered to Ontario, Ontario Hydro decided that at the time that power would be available it would not be needed by Ontario and by Hydro in its grid system and therefore it was rejected.

However, in future it could very well be that the demand picture for electricity in Ontario is such that we would have to enter into such a contract.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Miss Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The minister will be aware that there has been a continuing struggle by the Sudbury Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Union to have its worker representative have access to the joint health and safety committee. He has not yet been recognized by the company, although this battle has gone on for a year now.

The minister will also be aware that this is a direct violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, subsection 8(5), which states, “A committee shall consist of at least two persons of whom at least half shall be workers who do not exercise managerial functions.”

I would like to ask the minister, since he is aware of the situation, what he intends to do.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am glad to see my friend the member for Sudbury East is back in the House. I noted her absence last week. I am not sure why she was absent, but she was not keeping up to date In fact, I think it was a week ago today that I met with the head of the Mine, Mill union in Sudbury. He raised the issue with me at that time.

At that time I had an opportunity to tell him that about two hours before he came into my office I had signed a letter ordering that the representative of the union be appointed to that joint health and safety committee.

Had she asked the question about a week and a half ago, she might have had a more powerful supplementary.

Miss Martel: The minister will know that the first order issued in this case was issued on January 6, 1987, with the compliance date set for February 9, 1987. The company did not appeal the order, there was no compliance and there was no prosecution.

On March 25, 1987, repeat orders were given after complaints were made by the union that the company had not complied. The ministry called this not a repeat order but only an assessment report and some friendly advice to the company. Again there was no compliance. The company has refused now to accept a second individual who wants to be placed on that health and safety committee.

I would say to the minister it is obvious this company has no intention of complying with this order and I would like to know what he intends to do to make sure this act is observed.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I guess I was wrong; I think that was a very good supplementary. I think it was an excellent supplementary.

I tell my friend the member for Sudbury East that the order I sent out about a week ago is clear and unequivocal on its face and I expect it to be complied with. The joint health and safety committee, whether at Falconbridge or anywhere else, is crucial, as she knows, to ongoing health and safety issues in the workplace and I expect those orders to be complied with. If they are not, appropriate measures will be taken.

I can tell my friend that I have, at the very same time, met with the president of the union on that very issue, among a number of other issues, and he, if not the member for Sudbury East, is entirely satisfied with the actions that have been taken by me and the Ministry of Labour in this regard.

TRANSMISSION LINES

Mr. Sterling: Today I received a copy of the decision of the cabinet that turned down the appeal by the Bridlewood community with regard to the Ontario Hydro corridor going through the city of Kanata. I note that it is dated December 2, 1987. This is December 8. I wonder why we did not receive this document December 3. Perhaps it had something to do with the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) opening a new school under that very hydro line last Thursday.

I say to the Minister of Energy that the people of Kanata are very angry today. They believe his government has not acted properly over the past two years in considering this matter. Is he now willing to offer the people of Bridlewood and the people of eastern Ontario in the city of Kanata the same opportunity as the people in southwestern Ontario were given, to sell their properties at fair market value due to the loss in property values over this decision by his cabinet, due to the fact that there is a possibility the 16-storey, 500-kilowatt twin towers might fall on their property and --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is very clear.

Hon. Mr. Wong: We empathize with the feelings of the people in the community. The government, of course, also has to consider the other 200,000 or 300,000 people who would be affected by this decision. One of the important factors we had to consider was due process of law. As the member indicated, the community has had two years in which to have its views known, heard and decided by cabinet.

Mr. Sterling: We have seen two years of bungling by this government over this decision. Bridlewood and Kanata feel that the system of government in this province stinks with regard to this matter. I fear for their confidence in the system. I fear for the violence that this decision may create in that community.

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Sterling: Will the minister provide these people with adequate funding to fight Ontario Hydro and to dispute his decision in the courts, where they intend to take this? Will he order Hydro to withhold any construction action on the corridor until this matter has been decided by the courts so that we can finally get some measure of justice? Will he provide the people with adequate financing so he can avoid the violence that is going to take place on that line if those hydro workers go at it?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Two questions were asked.

Hon. Mr. Wong: The joint board that originally made the first decision was a board with integrity and expertise. Its decision was appealed by the community, as the member knows. After full consideration, the cabinet decided that the original board decision was correct: The joint board went further and permitted a mitigation process. This again was appealed. I feel that after two years the matter has been fully discussed.

NEPEAN CIVIC AND PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE

Mr. Daigeler: My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications. Next April, the city of Nepean will be opening its new civic complex. This impressive facility will house our new city hall, a central library, an outdoor rink and a 1,000-seat theatre, built right in the heart of Nepean, and if I may say so, right next to my constituency office. This beautifully designed complex will become a major focus for the 100,000 residents of Nepean. The theatre will become a real attraction for community events in Nepean and across the Ottawa-Carleton region.

Never to be outdone by the interim leader of the once mighty but now third party, I have brought along for today’s show-and-tell hour a beautiful artist’s sketch to show how impressive this facility is going to be.

1420

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you have a question?

Mr. Daigeler: Has the minister had time to study the funding application by the city of Nepean for this project? Does she feel that this is an initiative worthy of provincial support? Finally, when might we expect an announcement and, hopefully, a positive one?

Hon. Ms. Munro: I have indeed studied the Nepean proposal, and visited the civic officials two years ago to take a look at the plans. As everyone in the House knows, those applications which use community facilities improvement programming dollars must go through the field offices. The proposal has now left the field office and has received favourable analysis through my ministry. I congratulate the people of Nepean and am hopeful that I will be able to provide the member with more positive information at a later date.

Mr. Daigeler: I am appreciative to the minister for her attention to this matter. I would just like to point out to the opposition that we can ask long questions as well on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a supplementary?

Mr. Daigeler: I would like to point out to the minister that we would be very pleased to see her at the opening of this project, and I would like to invite her to support me in my efforts to have the Premier (Mr. Peterson) present at this opening as well. So I would like to ask the minister whether she is willing to give me her assistance in getting the Premier to celebrate this important event in the life of Nepean and also the very historic achievement that, for the first time in Nepean’s history, we have a Liberal member for Nepean.

Hon. Ms. Munro: I think it is a marvellous experience to see so much energy and creativity being shown by a member on issues relating to culture and communications. I join the member in saying I will sincerely look at the invitation, should it come to me, as will the Premier. I invite the whole Legislature to go to Nepean, should it get the money.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr. Allen: My question is to the Minister of Labour. When I asked the minister a question yesterday about the closure of Lapp Insulators in Hamilton, he replied, “I can tell him...that ministry officials are meeting right now with company officials.’’ It sounded as though the minister were indeed coming to grips in an urgent and concerned way with a problem of Hamilton working people.

What are the facts? There was no meeting going on right then with company officials. The only contact there has been with the company was a brief telephone call placed on December 2 by the manager of the plant to the local plant closure office. That call was the only call that has been made. There have been no calls placed by the ministry to any Lapp official in Hamilton or elsewhere, as far as the company knows, asking the company to explain its action or anything else, and there has been no call from the minister’s office at any point to the union in question.

Is this what the minister calls meeting right away on the urgent and concerned problems of Hamilton workers? How can they take him seriously as a fighter on their behalf if this is the incredibly feeble response he is making?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: In addition to the discussions that have gone on between my ministry and people within the union and at Lapp, negotiations and discussions have gone on, I am told, between representatives of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology and officials from the company. Obviously, our primary concern is to find a way in which to ensure somehow that Lapp Insulators does not close permanently and finally.

If indeed that is ultimately not possible -- and those discussions are, I am told, going on within the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology -- the Ministry of Labour will be providing assistance to the workers within that industry to help them in retraining programs and in applying their talents in other areas within Hamilton. In addition, because of the size of the payroll, I am told the provisions of Bill 85 that deal with severance pay will be applicable to this situation.

We have a team within the ministry that will be at the disposal of union officials, management officials and the workers to ensure that their rights under the law are protected and indeed, if the plant is going to close -- and we all hope that it is not --that there will be assistance for those workers.

Mr. Allen: It is indeed very interesting when the manager of the plant tells us that the only contact he has had with any provincial official was on December 2 when he telephoned that plant closure office.

This government pretends it is gearing up to deal with free trade in this province. This kind of plant closure situation is exactly the pattern that will follow in case after case as we move down the road. Lapp bought its plant in Hamilton in order to supply the Canadian market. They got large contracts with Quebec on the supposition that they were remaining a Canadian supplier. It appears they are now transferring their production to a plant in upstate New York. There is no reason why this production should not stay in Ontario.

Will the minister immediately summon the owners of Lapp from New York to come here and meet with him, the union and community officials in order to discuss ways and means of bringing this plant back into production in Hamilton?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am not sure whether my friend’s question really was a question concerning free trade or whether it was something narrower or broader. Obviously, if he is making a statement on free trade, I think his assessment and the assessments we have heard from many people are consistent with what he has heard. However, I do not think in this particular situation it really is a free trade issue.

The company was purchased a couple of years ago. Lapp in fact purchased the assets of another bankrupt firm, Canadian Porcelain Co. Ltd. and there was an effort to make this a viable enterprise. I am told that it has not been successful. There was a strike that began on November 30 and since that time things have degenerated even further. We are doing what we can on the labour side. My colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) is doing what he can on the industry side. We will be taking co-ordinated steps to see what we can do.

RENTERPRISE PROGRAM

Mr. Pope: My question is to the Minister of Housing. Can the minister, in dealing with the Renterprise issue, explain clearly to this House and to the people of Ontario how tenders are awarded or proposals accepted for Renterprise projects across this province? Can she table all proposals made or tenders offered to the government and those accepted, with explanations of this?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I am honoured to be the person to receive the first question in this House from the member for Cochrane North.

Interjections.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Cochrane South, sorry.

The member opposite knows that we decided quite early -- l think it was in October -- that we were going to phase out Renterprise because there were more quick ways to have an impact on the housing market. However, the way in which the Renterprise project worked was that ads were placed by the ministry calling for proposals, then the proposals were received and evaluated to ensure the best product at the best price, and then there were 15-year interest-free loans provided to those people whom we thought could do a good job in delivering rental accommodation to the people of Ontario.

Mr. Pope: My question specifically to the Minister of Housing was, would she table all of the tenders and proposals, including those accepted, with an explanation for the decisions made. I would appreciate an answer to that question. It does involve public money. Will the minister table that information this week in the Legislature and can she also explain how the fair market value of land that composes part of these projects was arrived at and policed in the Renterprise program?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: There has already been a question from the Housing critic about this issue and the ministry is preparing a list of all the projects that have been given under Renterprise. When that is complete it will be made available.

1430

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question to the Minister of Labour, who has left the room. I will stand it down.

FARM SAFETY

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The minister will be aware that the accident rate in agriculture in this province in the last two years, 1985 and 1986, was higher than was the accident rate in mining and just behind the construction industry, according to Workers’ Compensation Board figures.

A staggering 50 per cent of farm fatalities and half of the child fatalities on farms involved accidents on tractors. In view of this, will the minister move to require mandatory roll bars on all farm machinery, such as tractors, in this province, rather than waiting for the implementation committee to report in April?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The honourable member knows that we did implement a farm safety program not too long ago. Part of the program was farm safety. My understanding is that a lot of the funding from that program is being used by farmers to put roll bars and cabs on their tractors. I would hope they would voluntarily use our program to continue to put those safety features on not only tractors but also other pieces of machinery and other parts of their farming operations.

I do not think we have to mandate it. I think the farmers are going to utilize the very excellent programs that we always put in place with this government and they will continue to apply more safety measures on their farms than they have in the past.

Mr. Wildman: If the minister’s approach had been followed, we would not have mandatory seatbelt legislation in this province. We would not require hardhats on construction sites in this province. It is a rather silly approach. We recognize that there is a ministry program to assist farmers to put safety devices on their equipment. I am asking if he is prepared to make it mandatory. In Denmark and West Germany, tractor-related deaths were reduced by one tenth the previous average when this legislation was made mandatory in those jurisdictions. Will the minister follow that example?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I am not prepared at this time to make it mandatory. I would like to wait for a further report on this. We do have a joint committee established to follow up the Richards report. One has to take into consideration other costs that are involved in making such safety measures mandatory. The member knows full well that many farmers have to go into buildings with their tractors to clean up those buildings. If we make roll bars mandatory, it means that they will have to rebuild because they cannot get through the door with those tractors with roll bars on. We have to look at other costs that are going to be involved before we start making such measures mandatory.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Wiseman: A question to the Minister of Transportation: About three weeks ago the regional representative of the Ministry of Transportation met with the municipal people from west Carleton, as well as the town of Arnprior and about 40 concerned citizens, on the rerouting of Madawaska Boulevard, the exit on to Highway 17, the closure of that and the problem the loss of business is creating for many of the merchants there.

I would ask the minister if the region has sent its proposal through to him for the correction of this intersection and if he could give us the answer here today that, we hope, he has approved it.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: No, I do not think I have received the letter, but as I recall, the left-turn intersection the member is referring to was closed at the request of the local councils because of the accident rate. However, we are looking at other intersection improvements that may be effected and I understand they could be effected some time next year to respond to the needs of the local merchants.

Mr. Wiseman: I understood from the region that a proposal had gone through to the minister’s office for his approval or disapproval, whatever the case may be, and that it was satisfactory to those 40-some merchants as well as the two municipalities. I ask the minister if he will check with the region, and if by chance he could, give us an answer before we adjourn for the Christmas holidays.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The member will be well aware we deal every day with many of the municipalities across the province, not the least of which are those the member represents. I did indicate that I think the report from the ministry is coming forward to make some improvements on Highway 15. I have not seen the specific letter he mentions, but I will look into it in about six minutes from now when leaving question period.

INTERNATIONAL BANKING CENTRES

Mr. Ferraro: I have a question for the Treasurer. He will know that the Mulroney government intends by the end of this month to designate Montreal and Vancouver as international banking centres. The Treasurer will know as well that the Mulroney government intentionally has decided not to designate Toronto, which is downright silly if not ridiculous. My question to the Treasurer is, can he tell the House of his plans and indeed his time line in making sure that the city of Toronto is not relegated to a back seat in the national and global financial arena?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I agree with all the adjectives used in the honourable member’s question and regret that the standing committee of Parliament reported the section positively. I understand that it had been before the committee previously and that under the direction of Mr. Blenkarn, the chairman, it was not reported. Some changes had to be made in the composition of the committee until they got a tied vote and the chairman himself supported the government policy that reported this, I would say, ill-advised recommendation back to the House, unfortunately, for enactment.

As far as we are concerned, we do not feel it is going to substantially change the very healthy competition between Montreal and Toronto, and including Vancouver, but we are watching it very carefully and we are prepared to make any changes necessary in our legislation or imposition of fees in order to maintain that competition. We feel, frankly, that it will not have a substantial effect and that it has a good deal of window-dressing associated with it, but we are observing it very closely.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Early when this session returned, I raised during members’ statements the matter of the death of Frank Pival, a 49-year-old resident of Windsor who had worked for 29 years at Wyeth pharmaceuticals and who had had his claim in front of the Workers’ Compensation Board for quite some time. In the last two years alone, my office has called the Workers’ Compensation Board or contacted it 17 times, the file has been lost at least once and the claim has not been approved as yet.

Does the Minister of Labour approve of this method of dealing with people’s lives through the Workers’ Compensation Board? What has he specifically done about Frank Pival’s case? When is his government going to get serious about cleaning up its problems at the Workers’ Compensation Board?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: As I recall, I did receive some correspondence from my friend the member for Windsor-Riverside on really a tragic case, Mr. Pival’s case. If I am not mistaken, I have sent a letter back to him on the issue. It is not an easy and simple matter for the board or for anyone, because the allegation is that the cancer that caused the death of the claimant was caused by a workplace substance. If I recall correctly, it was formaldehyde. That issue, of course, requires a great deal of scientific evidence and it is a very challenging issue for the board.

1440

My friend’s suggestion is that the board has taken far too long. I can only tell him I am sympathetic to his concern about the length of time and I have discussed the matter with the chairman of the board and will suggest again that the adjudication of the matter be completed as expeditiously as possible, realizing all the time that it is a very challenging scientific matter to relate what the cause of death was to the conditions in the workplace.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It is challenging for the Workers’ Compensation Board, but it is a hell of a lot more challenging for the Pival family and for a man who died not even knowing that his widow was going to be taken care of by the Workers’ Compensation Board after working for 29 years in these kinds of chemicals.

I would like to ask the minister, when is he going to get serious about giving workers like Frank the benefit of the doubt so they can get the benefits they deserve in a modern, 1987 Ontario?

Finally, I would like to ask the minister, what is his response on the request the workers have made at this plant to have a health study, because there are other people who have died from cancer at Wyeth and many other diseases that have been related to the chemicals they work with at Wyeth? When is he going to get a health study started?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: There is a frailty in the supplementary question that my friend the member for Windsor-Riverside asked, and that is his suggestion, within the context of his question, that it is a simple matter to determine that certain agents in the workplace were the cause of the brain tumour that caused the death. That simply is not the case. There is no medical evidence currently before the board or anywhere else that can be found to suggest a linkage between the chemical agent and the development of the brain cancer.

I suggest to my friend that if the workers at that plant have put in a request to me for a health study, we will be investigating it. I am not sure whether he is suggesting that request has gone to the ministry or to the board, but I will get back to him on that as soon as I can.

PETITION

SCHOOL BUSES

Mr. Poirier: I have a petition to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from 205 persons in my riding, asking the Ministry of Transportation to move to amend the provincial traffic laws so that all school buses across the province are uniformly required to come to a full stop at all railway crossings.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mrs. Smith moved first reading of Bill 61, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: On December 9, 1986, Metropolitan Toronto council made a decision to request that the province amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act to increase the size of the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Commissioners of Police from five members to seven members, one additional member being appointed by the province and one by Metro council.

The ministries of the Solicitor General and Municipal Affairs are of the opinion that the workload of the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Commissioners of Police is sufficient to justify a seven-member board. Further, it is felt that the board’s management function with respect to the police force would be enhanced by this change.

This bill was previously given first reading as Bill 81 on June 8, 1987, in the Third Session of the 33rd Parliament. It is my pleasure to reintroduce this bill today.

Mr. Cureatz: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I just want to say to the Solicitor General that I am disappointed she did not bring this forward in statements at the beginning of question period instead of sneaking the bill in.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

HEALTH PROTECTION AND PROMOTION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Henderson moved first reading of Bill 62, An Act to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Henderson: The purpose of this bill is to allow physicians and clinics for sexually transmitted diseases to provide for anonymous testing upon request for exposure to the acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or AIDS, virus. When testing has been performed on an anonymous basis, the clinic or physician will report a positive test to the medical officer of health in a way that does not disclose the identity of the patient.

LABORATORY AND SPECIMEN COLLECTION CENTRE LICENSING AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Henderson moved first reading of Bill 63, An Act to amend the Laboratory and Specimen Collection Centre Licensing Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Henderson: The purpose of this bill is to permit laboratories and specimen collection centres to report a positive test result for exposure to the acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or AIDS, virus to the medical officer of health in a way that does not disclose the identity of the individual tested when the testing has been performed on an anonymous basis.

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Henderson moved first reading of Bill 64, An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Henderson: The purpose of the bill is to make the provision of anonymous testing for the acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or AIDS, virus by physicians, clinics for sexually transmitted diseases, laboratories and specimen collection centres an uninsured service for the purposes of the Ontario health insurance plan.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

Mr. Kanter moved first reading of Bill Pr16, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

1450

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. D. S. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Could I ask you to look at the questions that were asked today by the member for Nepean (Mr. Daigeler) to see whether they comply with standing order 29(a)? The standing order states, “Questions on matters of urgent public importance may be addressed to the ministers of the crown but the Speaker shall disallow any question which he does not consider urgent or of public importance.”

I understand that the Speaker, in the spring of 1985, ruled out of order a question from my colleague the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) that was based on the Halley’s Comet issue and its flying over earth. You indicated that was not a question of urgent public importance, and I suggest to you that the questions from the member for Nepean today certainly were not of urgent public importance. I just ask you to look at that.

Mr. Speaker: I am always willing to listen to the members’ comments and I will certainly take a look at it. In fact, I may take a look at more questions. I would be glad to.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker: It is appropriate for you to look at other matters, from my perspective, because it is a difficult issue for you. The question is not so much the initial question asking for the minister’s help on a particular project but the supplementary asking the minister and perhaps the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to come to visit the member’s riding. It was at that point that I thought that we should be drawing the line.

Mr. Speaker: Thanks for your assistance.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: I would like to inform the members that last Thursday the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) gave notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to a question given by the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) and I know all members will be here for that debate at six of the clock this evening.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

Hon. Mr. Conway: Before orders of the day, I would like to table the interim answers to questions 20 and 32 standing in Orders and now we have the government, with this bill Notices. [See Hansard for Monday, December 14]

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. Philip: When we adjourned last night at six o’clock, I was talking about the fact that in spite of 40 years’ experience in Saskatchewan with public auto insurance, in spite of 16 years’ experience in Manitoba, in spite of 14 years’ experience in British Columbia and in spite of the fact that independent studies have shown that it is less expensive to go the route of those three western provinces, the minister sent clear signals that this option was not to be studied in his so-called independent studies that were being paid for by the taxpayers.

Even the great right-winger, Premier Vander Zalm, when he is privatizing everything in sight in British Columbia, refuses to privatize the British Columbia auto insurance program.

On October 14, 1986, the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Kwinter), when he was Minister of Financial Institutions, stated that a rate review board was unworkable and that if one had been in place for the last five years, consumers would be paying between eight and 39 per cent higher premiums.

What is this bill doing, except setting up a rate review board? If it were going to increase rates on October 14, 1986, why is it not going to do something similar right now? The Slater report, which was later tabled, stated as follows, on page 1 79-this is the independent report paid for by the taxpayers and commissioned by this Liberal government, and it states very clearly:

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

First, we have the minister coming out and saying that he is against a rate review board because it is inflationary, then the minister’s own independent study that he has commissioned comes out and says it is not a good idea; and yet before the House, saying that somehow it is going to solve the problems of the inflation in auto insurance in this province. It just does not make any sense. If it was not applicable a couple of years ago, why is it applicable now? If it would not work a couple of years ago, what are the circumstances in between that would change and make it workable now? The Liberals who get up to speak have not been able to explain what differences there are between two years ago, when it was clearly inappropriate, according to the Liberal minister and his own independent study, and now, when we have the very thing that they were against introduced in the House.

What the bill does is to set in place a complicated mechanism that provides no funding for consumer advocates or consumer groups to have representation on their interests. So what you are going to have are the insurance companies with their accountants and lawyers making their case and no one there representing the consumer. I suggest that if the minister really wanted this bill to work, then he would have at least provided some kind of funding for consumer advocacy so that the consumers would have a learned, well-researched voice to speak on their behalf.

The Liberal government was not content with one study on auto insurance. In November 1986 they appointed yet another commission, this time headed by Mr. Justice Coulter Arthur Osborne. He was supposed to report to the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. R. F. Nixon) on November 1 of this year. We still have not seen the results; we are still waiting for that report. So what we have are two studies over two years’ time, but not one of them deals with what one would think would be an essential, reasonable thing to do: namely, do a direct comparison, an independent study, with the three western provinces which have public insurance.

I get complaints from young drivers. I get complaints from taxi drivers. I get complaints from limousine drivers. There are a lot of limousine drivers in my riding. They own limousines that work out of the airport, which is just in the adjacent riding.

The Liberals promised during the election that they would deal with that problem. Well, they have done absolutely nothing in this bill or in any other legislation to cap the limousine rates. Limousine drivers can pay as much as $1,000 a month for insurance. They are now renewed on a monthly basis, so the rates can go up any month.

The minister has put in a reduction for taxi drivers and for young drivers but it averages something like $52 per driver. Earlier in the debate I pointed out that while introducing this very bill the minister in fact allowed a large increase as well in the rates for the insurance companies. What we have, then, is that the money is put in with one hand and taken out in larger globs with the other hand.

You tell a taxi driver who is paying $5,000 or $6,000 a year for insurance that he has got a great gift from the government -- it is going to be reduced by $52 -- and see what he will tell the minister, what he thinks of his legislation.

We have heard a lot of figures about percentages that insurance is going up in different provinces, but the fact is that Jack Lyndon himself, the president of the Insurance Bureau of Canada, on April 13, 1987, said that he could not quarrel with the figures that we in the New Democratic Party were tabling as the average insurance. He could not quarrel with the fact that Ontario is much more expensive when you look at auto insurance premiums. On April 14, on CFTO, Jack Lyndon further stated that the figures seemed to be right.

In Ontario the average number of accidents per 100 cars is 3.7, compared with 4.7 in Manitoba, 5.3 in Saskatchewan and 5.2 in British Columbia; so what we have is a higher accident rate in the west and still higher premiums here in Ontario. It just does not make any sense.

The Liberals like to talk about the recent increases in western Canada, but even if we take the very latest increases, we find -- and I would like to talk about the bottom line which the Premier (Mr. Peterson) likes to talk about. The bottom line is not the increase you paid, but the premium you paid. The bottom line is that a total six-year increase in British Columbia was 35 per cent; in Manitoba, 37 per cent; and Ontario’s six-year increase was over 70 per cent. Including the latest increases in the western provinces, what we end up with are average rates in British Columbia of $482, Manitoba of $405 and Saskatchewan of $251.

1500

I think Ontario motorists who are paying an average of $640 a year would love to have the premiums the people are paying in either British Columbia, Manitoba or Saskatchewan.

One must ask why the consumers in western Canada do not call for privatization if their system is as bad as the Liberals here try to bring out, with their little letters to the editor and so forth they like to read. Why do the right-wing Conservative governments that are privatizing everything else not wish to privatize the insurance industry?

Of course, the answer is very clear: because the public as a whole supports it and pays lower premiums than it would under the private enterprise system. If we look at an editorial from the Winnipeg Free Press, in the January 1 edition, we see that it deals with the problem. It says: “Spokesmen for the Ontario-based insurance companies insist that they are merely playing catch-up, but those who pay are complaining. That situation has led the Liberal government to admit that the jump in rates is a serious problem, and while it does not want to run its own insurance scheme unless it is substantially cheaper than the private operations, corrective measures would be considered.”

That is the position of the Liberal government quoted by the Winnipeg Free Press. This is hardly a left-wing newspaper; it has been attacking the New Democratic Party government whenever it could on its editorial page. It says, “Like it or not, the publicly owned system is cheaper.”

Here is the Winnipeg Free Press, that has been very critical of the government on other matters that has been monitoring, that has been acting as another opposition force, and yet it still comes out in favour of the system that was developed there.

What we have here, then, is the situation where the Liberals and their rump, the Conservative Party members in this House, try to state that somehow the taxpayers in the western provinces are in some way subsidizing the system.

Of course, when we go case by case, we know that is simply not true. It is the old system that if we --

Mr. Wiseman: What about Manitoba?

Mr. Philip: Manitoba does not have a deficit. If the member would listen to some of the facts then he would learn something.

Mr. Wiseman: It was in the news the other day that they’re in the hole.

Mr. Philip: If the member would kindly listen to the debate, then he would learn something. I realize that is very difficult for him because of his personal prejudices, but if he would kindly listen then we would set the --

lnterjection.

Mr. Philip: He can ask questions and I would be happy to answer those questions, but if he would kindly not do it in the middle of my speech. It has been explained to him several times and either he is a very slow learner, a very poor listener or he simply does not want to have the facts. If he asks me that question, I would be happy to answer it in the debate.

I know that when the member for Lanark-Renfrew (Mr. Wiseman) comes in here on these few occasional times, he does not speak much in the House so he has got to interject in order to get his name on the record occasionally.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. If we look at the Ontario select committee report, it says, “As a result of their findings, the committee is inclined to the conclusion that there are no significant hidden subsidies or free rides that would materially distort the financial information under consideration.” It goes on in that same report to show that the overhead or the operating cost of a public system is so much cheaper than in the private enterprise system.

We have before us a bill which will not solve the automobile insurance crisis in Ontario. We have a bill that enacts a process that is bureaucratic and that is contrary to the Liberal government’s own study. We have a bill that is contrary to the statements made by the last Liberal Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations who was also Minister of Financial Institutions. We have a bill that is contrary to the promises made by the Liberals during and before the last election. The minister should be ashamed to enact legislation like this; he should be ashamed that instead of protecting the consumers in this province he is, once again, like his predecessor, protecting the insurance companies.

Mr. Fleet: I wanted to address one particular alleged factor or alleged fact that comes repeatedly from the New Democratic Party on this matter. They keep referring to the number of accidents which occur. That is not the only factor that really impacts on the cost of insurance. The real heart of it is how many dollars get paid out per driver. It is the amount of the claims, the cost of repairing cars, the amount that is awarded in the costs. To not indicate the real facts is what really serves to mislead the public. That is also why this government will be moving forward, as I understand it and as I am urging it, to deal with the process of car repairs. That is one of the elements which drives up the cost of premiums.

The other aspect, of course, that is not really ever told by the opposition party, is that there are community groups that are quite opposed to what it believes. The community groups, such as People to Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere, believe that the no-fault system on a broad scale that the NDP would have us adopt is not desirable at all, that it will not assist in encouraging people to be responsible drivers. It is the sort of thing that they never mention. They never really tell the whole story. They give their view. While they believe in it a whole lot, that does not make it right. In fact, it is the more reasoned approach that this government is adopting, and all of the very complex considerations that have to be taken into account, which is what is going to really serve the public.

Mr. Wiseman: I just have to rise to ask the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip) a little bit about his car insurance and the fact that he said that Manitoba was not in a deficit position. What we all read and heard on the news was that they had to throw in another $50 million in order to make it viable.

Also, I would ask the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale if he has ever talked to some of the people who have had an accident in some of these provinces which have the government-run automobile insurance. I have an editor in my particular riding. He said that his first new car sat in a compound all winter long waiting to be fixed. We can all imagine, when we were young, a brand-new car sitting there through all the elements that it would go through in a winter, waiting to be fixed when the particular number came up for his car to be repaired. It was not repaired till spring. It was one of the accidents where the roof and so on had a lot of damage done to it.

Mr. Haggerty: Was his car replaced by one of the government cars?

Mr. Wiseman: No, there was no replacement. He had to take public transit. That was another thing.

Also, the bureaucrats that are set up in government to administer this state-owned auto-mobile insurance -- it is never mentioned how many people there are for that. It just makes it look as if the insurance companies are big fat cats without all this other truth coming in.

Mr. Swart: One opponent says thousands of jobs will be lost. Another says they are so inefficient they will have people falling over themselves.

Mr. Wiseman: The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) gets so wrapped up in the subject, he gets lost in it.

Mr. Philip: I would be happy to answer the questioners in reverse order. In the first place, if the member knew anything about the western system, he would know that there are no government bureaucrats. They are self-sufficient companies. Last year, in terms of his question about --

1510

Mr. Wiseman: Who pays them?

Mr. Philip: They are paid out of premiums of course, in the same way as any other insurance company.

In terms of the deficit this year, actually the rate surplus last year in Manitoba was more than sufficient to pay for the deficit this year, so in fact there is no deficit. In terms of the --

Interjections.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I have only two minutes to answer. If the member for Lanark-Renfrew is going to keep interrupting me, then I am going to ask for additional time.

The Deputy Speaker: Ignore the interjections.

Mr. Philip: As I was saying when I was so rudely interrupted, in terms of the first speaker, independent studies have shown that the costs of repairs in British Columbia and Manitoba are actually no different from Ontario. In terms of the overhead, however -- this is the first part of the question -- our own select committee drew the conclusion that in the periods reviewed, 63 per cent of Ontario’s expenditures went to play claims, whereas in the case of the three western provinces about 82.8 per cent, 80 per cent and 75.9 per cent of expenditures went to pay claims. In other words, in the three western provinces, there is more money in terms of percentage of the premiums going back to the insured than in Ontario.

I hope that answers his question. I urge him, since he is a new member, to study the select committee report that was tabled in this House.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I appreciate the opportunity to address Bill 2, An Act to establish the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board and to provide for the Review of Automobile Insurance Rates. I think it is most unfortunate for the people of this province that this government has not had the will to do something about the totally unjust rates we are paying and have paid for the last several years in this province. Certainly, this bill will do nothing to solve the injustices that drivers face right across Ontario.

In terms of this Liberal government, there is nowhere its performance has been more disappointing than in its failure to protect Ontario drivers, not only since we have resumed our sitting but also over the last two and a half years. Ontario with public auto insurance is a time that has come, but we will not get it from this government and from this bill.

The horror story of auto insurance has now reached truly crisis proportions. In Sault Ste. Marie, and I am sure members know it in their communities as well, everyone knows of someone who has been hurt by the insurance companies. Premium costs have been soaring out of sight. There are arbitrary cancellations of policies. We have refusals to renew policies. Young male drivers with good records are being victimized and discriminated against. We have long delays and hassles in the settling of claims. We have all been through it, or we know someone who has been through it. Believe me, this bill will do nothing to solve these problems.

This government could have tackled this problem over the last two years. It knew it would have New Democratic Party support, but what did it do? It did nothing except stall and make more excuses for the insurance companies. Now they have their majority and they are imposing the bill the insurance companies want for the drivers of Ontario. The bills that were brought forward in the last session and the current bill, in effect, are a cruel joke on the drivers of Ontario.

The Liberals have distorted the facts when they claim the NDP blocked legislation in the last session.

Mr. Haggerty: That is a fact; you did.

Mr. Morin-Strom: We did not.

If members have any doubts about whose corner the Liberals are in, I refer them to the May newsletter of the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario. It says, “To a great degree, both the Liberals and Conservatives have been the defenders of the insurance industry.” So who has been protecting the drivers of Ontario? The only party that has protected their interests has been the New Democratic Party.

The NDP has proved conclusively that public auto insurance works. It has worked in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Public auto insurance is cheaper and fairer. If anyone tries to tell you it is not working in the western provinces, just ask why it is that not one of those provinces has rejected the current plans and imposed a free enterprise solution, despite the political positions of the Conservative and Social Credit parties in those provinces. In fact, we have the absurd situation of Premier Vander Zalm, one of the most right-wing Premiers in the history of this country, being to the left of the current Liberal government in Ontario.

Why is it that a young man of 21 with a clean driving record and three years’ driving experience pays a premium of over $2,000 in Sault Ste. Marie? Why are new drivers of any age forced to pay premiums at least twice the average rate? Why are all drivers in a household penalized because of one driver’s record? We all know why. It can be summed up in one word much loved by the Liberals and their corporate friends, profits.

The NDP think that $1 billion was a pretty neat profit for the insurance companies to make last year. We think that new record profits this year are pretty neat also -- pretty neat for the insurance companies. The NDP believes it is time someone found something neat for drivers. We believe a driver-owned insurance plan is it. Such a plan would produce lower premiums and more efficient service. Such a plan is more economical than the private auto insurance companies can deliver. It will deliver better coverage and simpler administration. Independent studies have shown that the operating costs of public plans are half that of the private insurance system.

Private insurance companies like to tell you how much of their premium dollar is paid out in claims. They are less likely to tell you how much they earn by investing the enormous reserve funds created by those premiums. In Ontario, most of the investment income goes straight into profits. A driver-owned insurance plan would apply investment income to reduce premiums.

We believe the insurance premiums paid by Ontario drivers should be invested in Ontario, not shipped away as company profits. In Ontario, about 60 per cent of the general insurance industry is in the hands of foreign-owned companies.

It is possible to make things better for the drivers of this province, but it can only be done by implementing a driver-owned insurance system like that which has proven so successful in the western provinces. This bill will not do that. It will not provide benefits for the drivers of this province, and I ask the Legislature to reject this bill and defeat it this afternoon.

Mr. Philip: I have a question of the previous speaker. The father of the Minister of Financial Institutions started a marvellous investment called the Province of Ontario Savings Office. One of the abilities or rationales behind that was that it was able to invest money back into the province.

One of the topics the member did not address was the job advantage that could be found by the public insurance companies reinvesting those premiums in Ontario instead of building condominiums in Florida and other places like that. In the interests of the Treasurer’s (Mr. R. F. Nixon) father, who had done such a marvellous job on the Ontario savings offices but which the Treasurer has failed to re-enact in a similar way in that he is protecting the insurance companies here, in his name if not in the Treasurer’s name, I wonder if he would answer that question.

Mr. Haggerty: I was interested in the comments from the previous speaker. He talked about the lower rates in the western provinces, British Columbia and perhaps Manitoba. I have talked to people out there too, and they say the package they get from government-run insurance out there is the basic. If you require a comprehensive automobile insurance, if you want collision, fire and theft, then you are looking at a higher premium. I suggest that when you include that, it is not much different from the average cost in Ontario.

1520

There are other insurance agencies out there, such as mutual insurance or co-op insurance, that you might say are public, run by individuals themselves who share in automobile insurance, and if you shop around you can get a pretty good deal in these areas. I do not have the time to get into detail on this, but my daughter shopped around and she did get a good deal. Her insurance was reduced considerably.

Mr. Swart: Yes, for a member’s daughter.

Mr. Haggerty: I think the member for Welland-Thorold is against farm mutual insurance, such as Bertie and Clinton Insurance, which sells automobile insurance, and the co-op insurance, I think he is a member of it. But I will tell members that government does not have all the answers in this area.

If you take Manitoba, for example, there are government lawyers involved in automobile insurance there who are fighting the person who has had problems with an automobile accident. It reminds me of something that takes place in Ontario such as the Workers’ Compensation Board. It becomes an adversarial system.

Mr. Neumann: I was wondering whether the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom) could indicate, with his research of the plans in the western provinces, whether at any time in their history they have been affected by work stoppages and whether these work stoppages have affected the service to the drivers of the provinces.

Mr. Morin-Strom: The issue the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale brings up certainly is a very valid one. One of the main reasons these plans were implemented in the western provinces was to ensure that the funds generated in insurance plans are available. Insurance plans do build up investments, including tremendous investments in those western plans, which have tremendous reserves which are certainly sufficient to cover the costs of their plans. Keeping those funds within a given province ensures that capital is available for other endeavours within that province and that the income is not being siphoned off into other areas and other countries, as it is here in Ontario.

I think the member for Niagara South (Mr. Haggerty) is quite misinformed in terms of the situation in the western provinces. The rates last year, on average, including all supplementaries, were $605 in Ontario, $324 in Manitoba, $228 in Saskatchewan and $395 in British Columbia, for a difference of more than $200 per driver, even in the case closest to Ontario. Even under the projected new rate structure, the premiums in Ontario will still be at least 33 per cent higher than in any of the three western provinces.

I would just say to the member for Brantford (Mr. Neumann) that those plans out west are very successful. They do employ many people at decent wages in those provinces. As a party, we do believe in unions and the right for unions to negotiate contracts. I wish the Liberal Party believed in that as well.

Miss Martel: It gives me great pleasure actually to join in this debate. I had some remarks prepared for the response to the throne speech, but I was not able to get on because there were so many of our party who wanted to take a shot at the government on that. So I am pleased to get up at this point to join in this debate on Bill 2.

I am very pleased to be here. I am pleased to represent the riding of Sudbury East, and I wish to thank the constituents there for showing their support in electing me. I would like to say to them and to the members of this House that I intend to carry on the tradition set by my predecessor, who was a member here for 20 years. I do not know that I intend to stay that long, but I certainly hope my time will be as enjoyable and as successful as his was.

Again, I am pleased to join in this debate. I am pleased also that I will not be supporting Bill 2. It seems to me that it represents not a genuine or a major reform of the auto insurance system in this province; it merely represents some tinkering with the system that is in place. I think that is very unfortunate because in the final days of this campaign I well remember the Premier telling Ontario that auto insurance and reform to the auto insurance system were going to be a priority when the House returned, that we were going to have some major changes during the first session.

I say to the honourable members here that if this bill is an example of a major change in the auto insurance system, then we are in for some great difficulties in this province. I certainly do not see this legislation, as it now appears, as responding in any way to the priority and the need that really exists out there to make some major changes in this system.

I would like to begin by responding first to the Conservatives who spoke yesterday. It is too bad the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) is not here. I recognized yesterday in listening to him and to his response on this debate that he is even further right than Attila the Hun. I had heard rumours of that, and that was very much in evidence yesterday. It seemed to me that the poor gentleman was almost going to have cardiac arrest when he talked about the dreaded S word, which I have no problem saying. However, he certainly did have a problem spitting out the word “socialist” and referring to this as the first step down the socialist path. I certainly am glad to represent that and I have no problem in saying that.

Let me say that my own sense in responding to his concerns yesterday was that if the free market does not work -- and in this case it does not --perhaps we should do something to change it. It certainly is not responding to the needs of ordinary drivers in this province. Like medicare, where we went in and made changes there to improve that system on behalf of workers and working people in this province, we should certainly do the same thing for auto insurance in this province.

The second thing is that I was quite amazed by his obsession with all the possible adjustments that might result in introducing the rate review board that the government has proposed and in the changes that are going to be made once we remove sex and marital status from the basis of how premiums are set in this province. He went on at great length about that.

I am going to refer back to the newspaper article that he quoted concerning how terrible this rate review board was going to be. He stated that Cliff Fraser, vice-president of State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance, predicted that there would be a change that would 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. He went on at quite some length about who and which groups were then going to be affected by higher premiums when the adjustments were made in the system. Of course, he did not point out or make much emphasis of the fact that Fraser also said this is just speculation, but I think there is going to be a tremendous dislocation in auto premiums: some good, some bad, but all changed.

I would say to the member for Leeds-Grenville that it seems obvious to me that the present system is highly discriminatory and that there will be no change when we move to the rate review board. It, too, even though it removes discrimination based on age and sex, is not really the answer we need in this province. He seemed to be quite concerned about how there would be an increase and how we should maintain the status quo and the present system, which indeed is highly discriminatory, which he did not talk about.

I would like to say that what appears now is that young drivers under the age of 25 and males are very much being hit. If we move to the future system as envisioned by the member for Leeds-Grenville, we are also going to have women under 25 or both sexes over 25 hit. My sense is that if you are going to make changes and make sure that no one is being hit unfairly, then you move to a system where premiums are based on the driving record and not on any form of discrimination or any type of classification based on age, sex or marital status. We do not see that movement being made under the provisions of Bill 2.

I would like to respond also to the member for York Mills (Mr. J. B. Nixon). He made a great, lengthy condemnation of the systems in both British Columbia and Manitoba and went on at great length about the increase in premiums in both of those western provinces with those systems. He gave us the statistics concerning increases in the western provinces if you took two years beyond the figures that the member for Welland-Thorold had used.

I would like to point out to the member that he would have given the statistics a little more justice if he had also applied those statistics to the case in Ontario, because we did not get an accurate sense, or any sense at all, of what the rate increases had been in Ontario in the same period of time. We also were not given any idea what the base figure had been before the increases had been applied. We were given that there was some type of tremendous increase in the western provinces, but no idea of the base figures from which those increases were made. I say that we would have seen in Ontario, if a comparison was made, that the increases in Ontario, when added to the base rate, would have been much higher. Certainly, the premiums here are much higher than they are in any of the western plans.

1530

The public anger on this issue is very real. The need for reform became very evident to me during the election campaign. It might not have been a big issue in the ridings of some of the new members, but it certainly was the number one issue and the number one priority in my riding. As I canvassed during the summer before the election started and then through the election, I heard again and again that parents, families and young drivers were being hit very unfairly by this system and they resented it. They do not understand why the premiums are as high as they are. They do not understand why, if they are young drivers, they are being penalized under this system. In my riding, that was very real and people were very much aware of the injustices of the present system under the private insurers.

I also ran into several proponents of the system during my campaigning. I too, in my own riding, was subjected to the leaflets the auto insurance industry put out concerning the western provinces; the comparisons. I was also quite amused to see the advertisements in the newspapers called, “In a pig’s ear,” which I am sure the industry must have spent quite a bit of money putting into newspapers. We saw it locally right through the entire campaign. I cannot imagine how much money was spent. We countered that a bit by taking the advertisement, pinning it up on the wall in our committee room and stating, “Your premiums are paying for this.” People who were already angry about the system became even more angry when they saw the fight that was being waged on behalf of the private insurers against the New Democrats and against public auto insurance in this province.

I also met a very big proponent of the system in my campaigning in what happens to be a little more affluent area of my riding. One Friday evening when we had nothing better to do, we decided to go and canvass in that area just to make my presence known. We happened to run into Bob Price, who was with the Co-operators in Sudbury. He happened to be the top manager at the Co-operators in Sudbury and has subsequently moved to Barrie.

We had a very interesting discussion when I arrived at his doorstep. His wife was in quite a panic to have me meet her husband, who apparently wanted very much to speak to me about this issue. We had a very friendly discussion about the whole issue, but I must say he did not convince me, nor I him.

His sense of the whole issue and of our stand on it was that the general public does not understand the complexity of auto insurance and does not understand the complexity of arriving at the types of premiums they must pay in order to cover the so-called costs the auto insurance industry says it must cover.

He went on at great length about all the kinds of mechanisms and complexities that are involved in trying to get at this high premium figure residents in Ontario are forced to pay. It ended that I said to him, “People might not understand the complexity or why it costs so much, but they certainly understand that they are being ripped off.” That was very evident as I travelled about the riding and it is very evident even now in my riding. There are petitions on at two local high schools from young drivers who are being especially hard hit at this time. The issue is not dead in my riding and I do not think it is going to change even if and when this legislation is passed.

Let me talk a little bit about some of the injustices that are so very evident in the present system that is ruled by the private insurers in this province. This is what we compiled as a party after our tour in 1986 concerning the insurance system, in particular the auto insurance system, in this province. Let me go through them again. I am sure members have heard them already, but I will refresh their memories.

The number one problem seems to be the outrageous rates people are paying, in particular young drivers. It seems just absolutely incredible to me that when we compare the premiums being paid in western provinces with the premiums being paid here in Ontario the discrepancy is enormous. I cannot understand how it could be so wide and how we in Ontario must pay as high and as much as we must for auto insurance. It is outrageous and nothing has been done by the industry to explain why, how or where the money is going. That is the first major problem.

Second, the discrimination based on age is blatant. The system is based completely on the discrimination of young drivers, male drivers under the age of 25. They are penalizing an entire class for the bad driving of a small group within that, which is completely unfair and is probably against the Human Rights Code; in fact, I am sure it is.

Unfortunately, the auto insurance companies have not been able to explain adequately to the general public why the system must be based on this type of classification. We do not see a need for it. Certainly, discrimination continues in this system. It may well go away with the rate review board. That does not change the problem of having premiums set on drivers’ records so it is drivers themselves who are responsible for their actions and themselves responsible for any increase in premiums.

Another injustice, of course, is the arbitrary cancellation of all types of insurance or the refusal to renew it. One of the constituents in my riding, who worked very hard for me in the campaign, bought her first car in early April. She had been covered under her parents’ insurance up until that point. She wanted to get her own insurance. Her parents’ company would not cover her as a new driver. She could not get coverage from three of the major companies operating in Sudbury which are giving out insurance. She ended up with a very small company which was able to insure her but at an exceptionally high price, much higher than the price I am paying.

An insurance company in this province has absolutely no right not to insure people. We have to have a licence and coverage to drive in this province. I do not know how the insurance companies then do not have the obligation to provide insurance for our drivers. It is absolutely unbelievable to me.

There are several other injustices. We have seen increases for frivolous reasons, for no apparent good reason: the auto insurance company coming in and automatically increasing for any number of reasons, from having tickets to parking violations, speeding tickets, etc. There is an enormous increase with absolutely no justification on the part of the private insurers to say why.

There has also been a penalizing of all members of a household for one driver’s record That has been almost as bad as the discrimination against the young drivers. It has become a normal practice that premiums have increased because of one driver, whichever driver in that household either has had an accident or for some reason his own rates have had to rise. That is a blatant act, and I think it is completely unreasonable that the company is allowed to penalize an entire household for the bad driving of one.

We have also seen, and this has been another major problem, that new drivers at any age are finding that the rates they have to pay in order to drive are excessive. We have had cases of women over 40 and 45 years of age who are driving for the first time. We find that they cannot afford to get the coverage because the insurance premiums are as high as those in the category of males under 25. The discrimination in that regard is blatant as well.

I got all of this during the election campaign, because people are very much aware that the discrimination exists under this present policy. My friends, it will not go away. It will not change because of Bill 2, because there is very little in this bill that changes any of these injustices and takes them out of the system.

I want to look at what seem to be the two main components of Bill 2, which I want to reiterate merely tinkers with the present system and does not provide genuine reform for drivers in Ontario. What it means is that we will have a system that continues, which is unfair and which is a very high-priced system, much higher-priced than the driver-owned auto insurance systems that are being operated in the three western provinces.

We have a rate review board which will be established, and I want to make several comments about this board. They were also made by my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold, but they were so interesting that I want to point them out to this House again.

First, we have seen that in a question raised by the member far Welland-Thorold to the Minister of Financial Institutions in 1986, the member asked the minister if section 371 of the Insurance Act would be implemented to allow his ministry to hold or adjust rates that were excessive, discriminatory or unreasonable --

[Failure of sound system]

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Hey, hey, you’ve blown a fuse.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

1540

Mr. Fleet: I wonder if you could repeat what you said -- not that we want to hear the same things again, but perhaps new things.

Miss Martel: I could start from the beginning. Let me begin again.

In going back to the rate review board, about which the member for Welland-Thorold so adequately spoke in his own speech, I want to go back to the question he raised with the Minister of Financial Institutions in 1986, when he asked the then minister to enforce section 371 of the Insurance Act, which would give that ministry the power to hold or adjust rates that appeared to be excessive. The minister at that time, in light of the growing crisis of insurance in Ontario, stated that provision has been on the books for more than 50 years and not one government has seen fit to implement it.

It seems to me that this government has presently seen fit to implement it, and I must wonder what occurred to cause the change of heart.

There is a second conclusion about this rate review board which should be mentioned, and it was mentioned by Mr. Slater, of course, who set up this wonderful commission to study the problem of auto insurance in Ontario. He recommended against a board and stated: “Rate regulation has been tried, in its various forms, in the United States with respect to insurance rates. The opinion is that the effects have been largely cosmetic, in that regulators allow deviations from established levels in rates that are, in effect, determined by competitive forces.”

We have seen two opinions of this rate review board, both of them highly negative, one expressed by the former Minister of Financial Institutions; now we have the Liberals in the same breath presenting a bill which includes the rate review board.

I say we have come a long way when we have seen a complete turnaround from 1986 to 1987 on how we are going to deal with this crisis. We certainly have not gone anywhere to correct this situation, which would be to have public auto insurance, but we have now a cosmetic approach at trying to deal with a very unhealthy and discriminatory system in this province.

Second, I want to talk about the capping of rates, which seems to be the second major provision of this bill. The House knows this is actually enforcing legislation that had been set out April 23, 1987, when the former Minister of Financial Institutions announced there would be a capping of rates at that point in order to halt the spiralling rates of insurance. We were in a major crisis then; we continue to be in that crisis of insurance.

Unfortunately, what happened is that although he announced there would be a halt in rates, it did not occur in many parts of Ontario and, indeed, did not occur for many drivers. In our own constituency, we got letter after letter in June, July and August, as young drivers in particular began to renew their insurance and found that their prices had not been capped but their prices were increasing, and substantially in many cases.

A young gentleman who was a resident at McMaster University in Hamilton, and who lives in my riding during the summer, was in the same boat and wrote to us. We wrote to the minister, who responded: “As you know, the necessary legislation is not in place to support our capping and rollback initiatives. You might wish to suggest that your constituent make inquiries of several agents and brokers to ensure that the best terms available are obtained for the coverage required.”

There was absolutely no response in April to the serious problem of rates and excessive premiums. They were not capped in many cases but continued to rise. I know my own did as well, and I was not exceptionally pleased about that. I must say the problem with the present system is that it does not do anything to undermine the excessively high rates. Even if the rates were capped at their present levels, the levels are much too high to be paying for auto insurance in this province.

Under the legislation, the capping or the rate changes can occur in two ways. The first is that there will be an across-the-board adjustment in rates; and second, there will be a transitional increase which will have to be justified by the insurer to this new rate review board. That would have worked out not too badly, except that this has already been overruled by the minister himself when he stated the government would allow, effective January 1988, a 4.5 per cent increase from the April rates, which also were not capped in many cases.

The second major problem with the capping of rates, as I said and will say again, is that the premiums at this point are outrageous. They are excessive. There is no reason for them. We have seen no reason given by the ministry or by the private insurers as to why the rates are as high as they are. I must say that if we are only going to cap rates at their present levels, then it is certainly not a good omen for Ontario consumers because, if anything, they are going to continue to spiral. There will be no change in the present system, which is very discriminatory and certainly excessive.

I want to continue by saying that there are several defects in this bill which have not been addressed by the government, and I hope some of my other colleagues have picked up on these or will pick up on them when they speak.

Firstly, we have nothing in this bill which will specifically prohibit the classification system from being based on age, sex or marital status. The Treasurer has assured us that the premiums will not be set on this, the classification system will not be set on these types of issues, but we have nothing in the bill that specifically prohibits that. In my sense, because there is not very much in this bill, at least that should be there to ensure that we do not return to a classification system based on those types of issues.

Secondly, we have nothing in this bill to ensure that entire households are not penalized by the record of one driver. We have a continuing problem in Ontario with this particular aspect. It was certainly an issue I heard again and again, about how an entire household was penalized by the driving record of one, and there is nothing in this bill that is going to prevent the private insurers from continuing on in this manner.

Thirdly, another major problem which I can foresee is that the mandate of the rate review board has not been specified. We have said it is going to regulate rates after fair hearings industry-wide, and people are going to be allowed to come forward and present their case, as are the insurers, but we have no further mandate. We have no idea, for example, if the board will be allowed to go in and change the classification system later on if it appears not to be working, or will that return to this quasi-agency that the government has set up at this point to study the issue? We have no idea where the responsibilities for any future changes in the classification system actually lie.

Fourthly, there is nothing in this bill which is going to stop the increasing numbers of drivers who are driving without insurance. There is no provision in here that ties the buying of insurance to the buying of licence plates, and indeed there is no provision that the increasingly high numbers of drivers on the road without insurance are in any way going to be stopped. There is no provision made in order to police that more effectively either.

Finally, there is nothing in the bill which also co-ordinates or attempts to co-ordinate some of the criteria used by the Facility Association. Across the industry at this point in time there are all kinds of definitions of who is a risk, why that particular individual is a risk and what price he will pay to be a risk. We see nothing in this bill to co-ordinate, industry-wide, who is going to be a risk and who is not.

My sense is that the bill is defective in many ways, but the real reason we cannot support this --and certainly I cannot support it -- is that it does not provide for the measures to make it fair for Ontario drivers. The only measure that would be fair for Ontario drivers is a move to driver-owned auto insurance in this province. We are not going to get any change in the discrimination. We might get a change in the discrimination, but certainly not a change in the excessive rates and the other arbitrary systems being used by the private companies now if we do not move to a driver-owned system in this province.

My colleagues have outlined on several occasions the benefits of that system. I will do it again for the benefit of the House. This system is fairer. The premiums are based on the driving record; they are not based on your class, your age, your sex or your marital status. They are based on how you drive, and so you assume responsibility for that driving and you pay for it. I certainly think that is much fairer. I cannot see why we cannot move to that system.

It is also more efficient than we have seen under the private systems in Ontario and in other provinces. First of all, the administration costs under the private system are higher, and we have had documentation of that. Secondly, the claims that are paid out as a percentage of total expenditures are much less in the private plans than they are in the public; that is to say, the percentage of money that goes out to a person who is making a claim is much higher under the public plan than it is under the private.

A third advantage is that any profits that are made under the public system are reinvested back into that province in terms of going back into municipalities, going through municipalities for hospitals and for the education system. We in Ontario are in the unfortunate situation that not only do we export our resources away; we export all of that excess revenue from the private insurers out of this country as well, at a tremendous cost to us. We are even unsure as to what that cost actually is. The profits, if any, that are seen under the public systems go back into either reducing those premiums or higher payouts to those claimants.

1550

Fourth, all drivers are insured. We have to have insurance in this province in order to drive, and yet insurers do not have to provide that. We have seen under the public plan that when plates are bought with insurance, everyone must be and is covered. That would certainly go a long way in this province, where we have increasing numbers who are driving without insurance because they cannot afford it.

Finally, the savings on premiums alone should be enough to convince this government that a move should be made to driver-owned auto insurance. My experience during the election -- and I know my colleague the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) mentioned yesterday that he talked to a number of people who had moved to Ontario from the three western provinces, and I spoke to quite a few during my own campaign. Their sense, regardless of any of the problems that might have been brought up in the House yesterday by my colleagues from the other parties, was that there was no doubt that the premiums they were paying were much less than in Ontario and there was no doubt that they thought the public plans were certainly much more fair than the one they were experiencing here in Ontario. I got that again and again as well during that campaign.

Let me say in winding up that certainly in this House and in this province we have opponents of the driver-owned auto insurance system. But let me reiterate to this House that even in the west, when we had changes of government from the New Democrats to the other parties, there was no move by those parties to remove that system. Indeed, if we had seen it anywhere, we would have seen it in British Columbia when Bill Vander Zalm was elected, because there is no one more right wing than he, except for perhaps the member for Leeds-Grenville; I am not sure after yesterday. But certainly there was no move by him or by any of the Liberal governments that succeeded New Democrats in those provinces to make any change to the system.

Second, the private insurers in this province sure spent a bundle, both before and during the election campaign, to defeat New Democrats, to defeat this issue and to hope it would go away. I will say now, as I said during the election campaign, that for a group that is losing money and a system that is supposedly losing vast amounts of money, they sure had a heck of a lot of money to spend during the election campaign to fight to hang on to this system. They still continue to do that, so I have to wonder how badly beaten the auto insurance industry is when it can spend that kind of money to defeat public auto insurance in this province.

Let me say in summary that I will not be supporting Bill 2. The Tories will not be, but for many very different reasons from ours. It seems to me they are hoping to maintain the status quo in spite of the ripoff that is occurring in this province, particularly the ripoff of young drivers. We in this party believe that if the market is not working to benefit the people of Ontario, then something must change. Certainly, the price gouging under the present system has to end. Unlike the Liberals, who will support this bill, the Conservatives continue to sit on the fence on this issue.

The reform here is not a genuine reform. It does not go nearly far enough to replace the present system with a system that is more cost-efficient and certainly a system that is more fair and benefits drivers in Ontario. I am proud that I will not be supporting this bill, and I thank the House for listening.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: I have just a couple of comments. During the election campaign, of course, I went out and about through my constituency and very rarely, I would say to my friend the member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel), was the question of auto insurance raised. When it was raised, the question was put more in the way of a demand, “Please, do not nationalize this industry, but for God’s sake you have got to do something about the rates.” Then, of course, I was quite pleased to be able to talk about the future of Bill 2.

Let me tell members something. I find it incredibly strange that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) sits here laughing yet he ran an election campaign on the platform of, “I am there for the ordinary person; I am there for the working guy.”

There are 12,000 people directly employed in the insurance industry and he is going to take their heads off and put them out of work. There are thousands of indirectly employed people, but he prefers to characterize them all as -- what are the words? -- ”greedy pigs” or something like that. What is the member going to do about them, these ordinary working people? This is a big decision that has not been faced by the official opposition. I would ask them, what would they do about it?

Mr. Neumann: I will try again. I think the previous speaker makes a good point with regard to the working people involved. I know in my riding there were some people who had traditionally supported the New Democratic Party who had friends who worked for the insurance agencies and so on. They had some grave concerns about this policy and ended up working on my campaign --people who would normally perhaps be allies of the NDP, members of the Canadian Auto Workers and so on.

Interjections.

Mr. Neumann: I notice they are getting quite agitated; they do not like to hear the truth.

I will try my question again to the member who gave the speech, since I did not get an answer from the previous speaker from that party, and that is, with all of the research on the western systems, whether or not they could indicate to the House the lost time due to work stoppages.

Mr. Swart: Perhaps my colleague would want to answer this, but is it not true that the independent brokers’ association of British Columbia has voted over 70 per cent in favour of the public system and not having it changed?

Is it not also true that in both British Columbia and Manitoba they do in fact use the brokers for selling the public auto insurance and in Manitoba too they are in favour of it?

Is it not also true that an insurance industry itself would arbitrarily put something like 92 per cent of all the lawyers in Ontario who deal with auto insurance out of work by putting in their so-called smart no-fault insurance and leave it to the insurance companies to determine what people would get?

Are all of those things not true?

Of course from the comments they made, would it not also be true that if all of these people they talk about are going to be laid off, it must prove that it is a very, very efficient operation they have there and it would save an awful lot of money when they can reduce the numbers that are actually used to operate the systems?

Mr. Dietsch: I would like to compliment the member for Sudbury East. She does most definitely put her viewpoint forward in a most eloquent manner. I found it enjoyable to listen to.

I would like to remind the member for Sudbury East that we too went to a lot of doors during this campaign and talked to a lot of individuals. I found that many of the individuals in my particular riding shared many of the concerns that were shared through that particular member’s riding as well. I feel the bill that is put forward will certainly address in many areas the concerns that are made.

I feel the member outlines that it is their ultimate goal, I suppose, to have government-run everything. I would assure the member that government-run practices are not necessarily the most efficient and most meaningful way to go in these particular areas. I think it was Will Rogers who once said, “The only thing we can thank God for is that we don’t get as much government as what we pay for.”

I think the members should enlighten themselves, in respect to dealing with these particular issues, that government-run insurance is not the way to go and what is being proposed here will address many of those concerns.

I compliment the speaker in putting forward those views and assure her that I too, representing many of those same types of individuals, will put forward very forcefully those areas that I feel are important to those individuals as well.

1600

Miss Martel: I would like to respond to the comments that have been made by the member for York Mills. In talking about the nationalization of the industry, how many people were being thrown out of work, I reiterate what the member for Welland-Thorold said. I also want to add that we would probably be able to use some of the profits that are presently being exported out of this country to an excess we do not even know of. If they were put back into the system, some of those jobs that may -- and I say “may” -- be dislocated because of the move towards the public system can certainly be compensated in that regard. I would also reiterate that the people working in the private system are more than likely going to be able to move into the public system because we are going to have to have adjusters in that system and people working on files there as well.

Secondly, to the member for Brantford, I must admit I cannot answer his question on the work stoppage. I would state that perhaps my colleague from Welland-Thorold can answer that for him, because I do not know the response to that.

To the member for St. Catharines-Brock (Mr. Dietsch), I would like to thank him. His concerns in his riding are very much like my own. My sense is that across our entire basin, which represents three ridings, the concern on auto insurance is very prevalent. I thank him that at least in his riding he got the sense of that as well and was honest enough to admit it.

I must say that we on this side of the House are not saying everything should be run by the government and we never have said everything should be run by the government. He would like to point out that not everything is run well by the government. I would like to point out that it is his government that refuses to have even a comparative study done between the rates in this province and the rates in the western provinces to see if, in fact, the government is more efficient.

My sense is that they refuse to do that because they will find out quite quickly that, indeed, the system is more efficient and should be adopted here. I would also remind him that for someone who might not like government-run anything, I think we have all certainly benefited by the medicare system in this province, and I make no apologies for the movement we made in that regard either.

Mr. Hampton: It is with a great deal of pleasure that I am able to speak in this debate, because I have a unique circumstance in that my constituency is located exactly against the Manitoba border. In fact, most young people in my constituency, when they wish to further their secondary education, go to institutions in Winnipeg or in Brandon, since those institutions are only two or three hours’ drive away.

So we quite often have the experience of young people, whether they are 17 or 18 years of age, or 21, 23, 24 or even older, moving to Manitoba to pursue their education, and it is not unusual at all that when they leave the community, whether that community be Fort Frances, Atikokan or Rainy River, they are very much aware of what they are paying for auto insurance in Ontario. They are very much aware that if it is their own vehicle and they are under 25 years of age, they are looking at rates of $2,000, perhaps $3,000, perhaps even higher, even when, in terms of their driving records, they are good drivers, have had no traffic offences and have had no accidents. But that is what the insurance companies deem to be fair in their treatment of many of these young drivers.

They are also unaware when they go to Manitoba, when they enrol at the University of Winnipeg, the University of Manitoba or Red River Community College, whatever the case might be, that their insurance in Manitoba is going to be quite a bit cheaper once they establish residency there.

So inevitably at Christmastime or at the end of the first year, they return home to the constituency and say to their parents, “Gee, mum and dad, you know, it’s ridiculous. I was paying $2,000 for my auto insurance here in Fort Frances. I can get better insurance in Winnipeg for $475,” and in some cases even less.

That is one of the questions this government has to come to terms with. That is one of the incredible inadequacies in not conducting at least a comparative study between the private insurance plan and the public insurance plan, because those people who go away to university or to some form of post-secondary education in a province that has a public auto insurance plan experience this right away. They cannot understand how the government of Ontario can allow this incredibly expensive, discriminatory and unfair system to continue. They just do not understand how this government can allow that system to continue.

This is only one part of the situation, however. As well, because the northwestern part of this province is primarily based on the extraction of resources from the ground or from the forest inevitably people have to purchase insurance for their trucks, trailers or heavy equipment, and that insurance is very expensive indeed. In fact, it is not unusual to find someone who is transporting wood or cattle or is otherwise involved in some sort of haulage who is paying $6,000, $7,000 or $8,000 a year for insurance for his truck and trailer.

Yet that same person, when he hauls to Winnipeg, Manitoba, and speaks to someone at the stockyards in St. Boniface or to someone who also is involved in the same sort of haulage in Manitoba, finds out that people in Manitoba are probably paying one half what the same kind of driver with the same kind of truck is paying in Ontario. They do not understand this crazy system either. They do not understand why the government has not at least had the courage to conduct a comparative study to find out why those differences are there.

We are not talking about wealthy people. We are talking in many cases about people who have to work 11 or 12 hours a day, six and seven days a week, to keep their rigs on the road, people who have to haul an inordinate number of miles from the bush to the paper mill and who do not make a lot of money, who might make $20,000 in a year after all their investment and all their hard work. They see $6,000 of it going to the insurance company. They begin to wonder, “Who am I working for; for myself and my family or for the benefit of the profits of the insurance company?”

These people do not understand this system and they cannot understand why the government refuses to even study the comparative possibilities between a public insurance plan and the private insurance plan we now have here in Ontario. That is the situation we encounter.

All the other inadequacies that have already been identified by my colleague the member for Sudbury East exist in my part of the province as well. Again, as I pointed out earlier, there is discrimination based on age. Again, there are exorbitant rates. Again, there is arbitrary cancellation or refusal to renew policies. There are increases for frivolous reasons, for silly things.

You have a husband and wife who each have a vehicle and the husband drives a beat-up old half-ton and the wife drives a car. Three years ago, the husband had an impaired driving charge. What happens? The wife is hit with an unjustifiable increase in her insurance because the insurance company says, “Your husband might some day drive your car.” People do not understand this and they do not understand how this government can allow this kind of situation to continue, penalizing all for one driver’s record. That is the situation we are talking about with the husband and the wife.

New drivers are charged prohibitive premiums. Because we have communities along the border between Ontario and Manitoba, we often run into the situation where someone moves to Manitoba to go to school or to take a job. He is there for three or four years, returns and attempts to purchase insurance in Ontario and is told: “We have to treat you like a new driver. We do not have a record for you here in Ontario. You have been away for a while, so we have to treat you like a new driver. Your insurance is $1,000 or $1,500 more than someone else your age and driving the same kind of vehicle with the same kind of driving record.” People do not understand how we can allow this kind of system to go on.

As for the bill the government has brought forward, as for Bill 2, as for what it will do, I have to say that it really is a sorry piece of legislation. At its very best, if the government follows through on its promise to cap rates -- and in reading the bill it is apparent that it can waive the cap on rates --

1610

Mr. Swart: They already have.

Mr. Hampton: Yes, they already have.

If the province follows through on a promise to bring in a nondiscriminatory rate structure, it might be almost half good in that case. But the government is already --

Hon. R. F. Nixon: We can’t allow that, Mel.

Mr. Hampton: I have not finished yet. We will get down to dissecting the rest in a minute.

The problem is, already in this one-month-old Legislature, the government is setting a record for not living up to its promises. Promises on education, “Well, we will forget about those.” Promises on free trade, “Well, there is no more bottom line, it disappeared.” Promises on labour law reform -- that has disappeared too. Finally, promises on capping the rates on insurance -- that had to disappear too.

The public is left wondering. We have this shell of legislation, but before it can become in any way effective we have to have a bunch more promises. I am very much afraid that the consumers of this province, the drivers of this province, the public in general is not going to see those promises lived up to. that they are going to vaguely disappear or somehow get lost over the next four-year shuffle.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: What about the promise not to nationalize insurance?

Mr. Mackenzie: That’s the only one they’re living up to.

Mr. Hampton: We will go on to the promise not to nationalize. It is very clear whom the member is speaking for. The consumers of the province do not matter, but their promise to the industry, their promise to the insurance companies, they are quite prepared to live up to that. That took no problem at all; but as for the drivers and capping the rates, as for the nondiscriminatory rate system: “Ha. We are elected; get rid of it. Forget about it.” That is clear, we understand that much, and the public is going to understand it too.

The most interesting part of this bill, though, is that, as it stands and as it presents itself as a piece of legislation, it will do nothing more at this stage than entrench the already unfair, expensive, discriminatory and unjustified system that we have now. It will do nothing more than that. It will entrench it, and perhaps the government will even try to use the bill to justify the system that we have now.

When I read the bill, I am left saying: “This is very empty. It sets up a rate review board and that is it.” It does not give a structure by which the rates are to be reviewed; it does not cap rates in a way that cannot be waived or set aside; it simply sets up another institution.

We have already had experience that has been played out back and forth in this House in the last month as to the success of the government’s rent review board and the efficient way in which it is operating and the way it deals with unfortunate consumers in the rental industry in terms of finding housing. If this kind of rate review board is going to operate in the same way it is going to be quite unsatisfactory.

I think, quite frankly, the minister knows this. The member for Welland-Thorold has recounted the number of times the government has switched back and forth on this issue of the rate review board over the last two years. I noted that while the member for Welland-Thorold was doing this, the minister did nod his head on more than one occasion.

It seems to me that even if we give the government the benefit of the doubt on this bill, on this piece of legislation, and it caps rates and brings in a rate review board and we get nondiscriminatory classifications, even then the unfair system is going to be there because, as has been shown in 1978 with the Woods Gordon report and as has been shown again when Manitoba looked at the comparisons of operating costs between their plan and Ontario private insurance plans, it costs more. The private insurance companies in Ontario have much higher operating costs than do the public plans. That is going to result in higher rates.

But even more, in Ontario we are going to continue the system whereby private insurance companies are going to make very healthy profits at the expense of the consumer. That is going to add to the cost. When you do away with all of the conflicting information, the point you are left with is simply this: in Ontario, when the insurance companies make profits, and they make profits, none of those profits go back to the consumers; under the public insurance plans, when the plan makes a profit, the profit goes back into the plan and is used to lower rates.

Even at its best, even if the government does follow through on all of its promises, what we are going to be left with is a system that still guarantees that people in Ontario are going to pay more in rates than they do under the public auto insurance plans. I think the government has to answer for that.

I would be remiss if I did not deal with some of the broader arguments and some of the issues that the insurance industry has tried to bring up and that the government members of the House have been only too happy to copy and to promote.

First, the auto insurance companies have said that the employees who now work in auto insurance companies in Ontario will lose jobs. I want to point out the history of the situation in Manitoba, because living where I live most of our media comes from Manitoba. I remember very clearly what occurred in Manitoba when the then Attorney General of that province, Howard Pawley, brought in the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act. The insurance companies said at the time: “This is going to be a disaster. You are all going to lose your jobs.” They gave everyone two days off work and sent them down to the Legislature to say, “You are taking away our jobs.” There was a massive hysterical protest promoted by the insurance industry.

The interesting thing is that a short year and a half after that legislation was introduced, there were no layoffs in the auto insurance companies in Manitoba. Yes, some employees left companies like Wawanesa Mutual Insurance and went to work for Autopac. That is true, but there was no horrendous loss of jobs.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: How do you explain the fact that Manitoba has a zero population growth?

Mr. Hampton: The member for York Mills somehow wants to talk about population growth. Obviously he reads Darwin and other authors such as that and thinks it has something to do with auto insurance. I wonder if that is what he was talking about to citizens in his riding.

The history in Manitoba is that independent brokers continue to sell auto insurance in Manitoba. Independent brokers in Manitoba cannot only sell Autopac, but can sell private insurance as well. In fact, they will tell you, “Yes, I sell Autopac; I sell Royal insurance; I sell Zurich insurance.” The fact of the matter is, though, that nobody ever wants those other kinds of insurance. They are too expensive. They cannot match Autopac’s rates.

There is no government monopoly in the sense that a broker, the person who serves the public, is told, “You can sell this insurance and this insurance only.” There is still a free market, in that, once you have bought your basic policy and want to buy additional insurance you can buy it from Autopac, you can buy it from a private insurance company and you can buy both through the same broker.

There has been no great decrease in jobs in Manitoba. In fact, in 1978, after the Lyon government was re-elected -- and for those members who are not familiar with the political history of Manitoba I will explain that --

1620

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Fine name. He is a judge now; be careful.

Mr. Hampton: Yes, I realize he is a judge now; I realize that.

Mr. Lyon, when he was the Premier of Manitoba, easily fit into the camp of Mr. Vander Zalm and probably Mr. Reagan in the sense that he thought everything that was public should be sold back to the private sector. He actually had a plan to sell Autopac back to the private sector. He brought in some consultants from the private insurance companies and they prepared a plan and took it to the auto insurance brokers and said, “What do you think of our plan?”

The interesting thing is, the auto insurance brokers said: “Hey, look, we don’t want to go back to the old days. We like this system. It works well, it’s efficient, there’s less paper work, we get paid on time and it’s an efficient system.”

That was the answer that was given to the insurance industry and to the insurance industry’s government when they proposed to reprivatize public auto insurance in Manitoba. The Premier of the day, Mr. Lyon, realized that he had no support even in his own camp for what he was proposing to do, so he backed off.

It is interesting. If you go a little bit further west, in Saskatchewan you had public auto insurance introduced by the Tommy Douglas government and then you had medicare introduced by the Douglas government. Immediately after the Douglas government, you had a Liberal government under Ross Thatcher. Thatcher actually went to work on cutting back on medicare. He actually went to work on cutting up medicare piecemeal, but he did not touch auto insurance. So even Liberal governments that have followed New Democrat governments have simply admitted, “Yes, it works; it’s efficient, it’s fair and it’s less costly.”

Why will this government not at least do a comparative study between the benefits of the private insurance system and a public auto insurance system? People still wonder why the minister will not undertake that study.

Finally, I know that some members on the opposite side of the House and some members from the opposition have jumped on the fact that even public auto insurance companies at some point raise rates. They have jumped on that and said, “Aha, here they’ve raised the rates so it must be an inefficient system.”

I want to just review basically what has happened in Manitoba. Over six years, the rates in British Columbia have risen by 35 per cent. The result is that the average auto insurance rate in that province is about $482. In Manitoba insurance rates have risen by 37 per cent over six years, with the result that the average rate is about $405. In Ontario insurance rates have risen by more than 70 per cent in the last six years. As we all know, people in Ontario are paying, as a result, much higher rates for their auto insurance.

We cannot support this bill because this bill fundamentally does not deal with the problems that are out there. It does not deal with the issues that are bothering the public in terms of: “Why do I have to pay so much for my insurance? What is the justification? What is the justification when I’m 24 years old and I’ve never had an accident, never had a speeding ticket. Why am I paying $2,000 for auto insurance when someone living 90 miles away in Manitoba is paying $400 and someone in Saskatchewan may be even paying less and someone in British Columbia paying less again?”

It does not deal with those fundamental issues of excessive cost, of unfairness, of discrimination, of so many of the things that this government said it was going to deal with during the election: “Oh, yes, we have a proposal to set up a fair auto insurance system. We have a proposal to keep the rates down. We have a proposal to deal with the problem.”

Well, this bill does not do it at all, and for this reason we will vote against this bill. We will criticize it here and in committee until the minister decides finally to make the amendments that will at least result in some semblance of fairness to the consumers and the drivers of this province.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: I have just a small comment. Like my friend the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton), who conducted his own unscientific survey of the difference between rates in Rainy River, Kenora and Winnipeg, I, too, conducted my own nonscientific, anecdotal survey and asked my parents, who live in Winnipeg, what they pay for automobile insurance. Both my parents and I have $1-million coverage. We all drive American cars and they are several years old. I pay $540 in Toronto, my mother pays $550 and my father pays $600.

So I found that quite odd, but I just throw that out in the midst of this argument as some more anecdotal evidence that proves really nothing, does not further the debate but might help confuse the issue and prevent us from getting on with the rate review bill, which is what is before us.

Mr. Runciman: I just want to make an observation in respect to the member’s references to the government being in bed with the industry. I guess there is no question that the industry representatives I have heard about -- the Insurance Bureau of Canada and, I guess, the brokers’ association -- have endorsed Bill 2. I have indicated in my comments yesterday that I think they are making a serious error because they are not looking down the road in respect to what is going to happen to the private sector in this province as a direct result of this bill.

I think the industry should be concerned. I know that the leader of the official opposition has made reference to the 4.5 per cent increase that the Treasurer has announced in violation of the promise to hold the line. But I think the industry should be concerned because some of those insurers increased their rates only a few months ago and others have not had an increase since 1986. Here we have this minister tarring them all with the same brush, treating them equally. Some deserve an increase; some are less deserving of an increase. He is doing this in a situation of unprecedented government revenues and a significant majority government. He is treating them in the manner he is treating them now, and I think it is a cause for concern in the industry. I think this bill should be a cause for concern within the private sector across this province.

Mr. Hampton: I want very much to respond to the member for York Mills. I cannot, of course, comment upon what his parents may or may not pay for auto insurance, but I want to make clear to the member that my figures are not figures I pulled out of the air; nor, indeed, are they figures that are primarily based upon individual experience.

My figures are, first of all, figures provided by Autopac in its survey. Secondly, they are figures which the Saskatchewan government -- a government which, again, wants to privatize almost everything it can get its hands on -- refers to and agrees that they are accurate. Thirdly, they are figures which have appeared in both the Winnipeg Free Press and the Winnipeg Sun. I merely checked those figures out. I have telephoned various people to see if what I had read in the paper and what I had received from Saskatchewan and Manitoba was basically accurate, and I found out it was accurate.

Now, I do not know, again, how the member for York Mills came by his unscientific study.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: His mother wrote him from Winnipeg.

Mr. Hampton: Yes.

Mr. Pelissero: Very nice lady.

1630

Mr. Hampton: I really cannot comment on the member’s private experience. If he wants to introduce and examine those figures provided by Saskatchewan Government Insurance or by Autopac, and if as the assistant to the minister he wants to persuade the minister to conduct a comparative analysis as to the benefits of the public auto insurance plan as opposed to the private system we have here in Ontario, I would be very happy to work with him on that.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): The member’s time is up. Does any other honourable member wish to participate in the debate? The member for Hamilton East.

Mr. Mackenzie: My comments will be very brief. I am not going to rehash the benefits or lack of benefits in the bill itself. I simply want to say that it took only about 30 seconds -- that is about how long I figured it would take listening to the member for Leeds-Grenville -- to know that I would have the basis for my comments when I got up on my feet. He said first off, in referring to my party, that auto insurance was rejected by the voters. I do not know how he can say that. I want to cover that for just a moment or two.

He then followed that up by criticizing the government for going down this socialist path. If anything is ridiculous, it is the idea of this government going down a socialist path with this piece of legislation. I think the weakness of the Liberal government’s position is its refusal for many months in this House to accept the argument of my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold that, “If you don’t agree with us, do a comparative study that includes the western provinces that have the plan.”

An hon. member: An independent study.

Mr. Mackenzie: Yes, independent. I do not know how the government can justify its position in refusing to do that comparative study. Without that comparative study, their arguments just do not hold weight and indicate a real defensiveness. I do not think it is because they are afraid of the results. I think the results will be exactly as we have stated in this House, that they will find it is cheaper, better and more complete coverage. The real problem is that it might not put the government in the good books of its friends in the auto insurance industry. They do not want to be put in the position where they have some reason not to buy the alliance they have obviously worked out with the private auto insurance industry. I think that is really the crux of the problems of my colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville. They are losing; they used to be in the hip pocket of the insurance industry and do not like the fact that the Liberals have now taken that position over in the deal.

In my riding we had a head-to-head battle with the Liberal and it is one of the few areas –- all four of the downtown Hamilton ridings-where the swing really did not hold. Our vote is almost 46 per cent to their 40 in those four ridings. Auto insurance was the major issue. The second issue was the plant closure stuff that was hitting our city pretty hard.

We faced those issues head on, and nowhere did the insurance industry go after us more than it did in the Hamilton riding. The pig ads, or whatever you want to call them, the door-to-door leaflets and the National Citizens’ Coalition doing a nasty little letter taking on some of us in our particular area did not work because we faced them down. We took those issues on and we made them issues.

If I had people saying anything to me at the doors consistently -- and I am not talking of tens or twenties; I am talking literally of hundreds because I visit an awful lot of doors in the course of an election campaign in my riding -- they were saying: “Are we going to get an auto insurance bill? Are we going to get a driver-owned or a public plan?” I kept saying, “I hope so but I have to tell you it really depends on the numbers in the next election.”

Their next point was: “Surely this government is committed to some form of auto insurance and we will get at least something from them. Surely it will support you or you can convince it to make the move towards a public auto insurance plan in some form.” I tried to warn them but they really thought that this was one of the must pieces of legislation in Ontario and that they would achieve it. That is what the voters were voting for to a large extent in our ridings.

The opposition, which was led so strongly by the Tory party -- the Tory candidate in my riding went around door to door criticizing auto insurance -- for the first time in history was behind even the Communist candidate in a few of the polls in my riding. So I would not say there was a rejection by the voters of this issue. If anything, I think the people do expect and do want a better bill than what we have here which does not meet our needs. We are not going to be doing justice to drivers in Ontario without a proper auto insurance plan.

I have to finalize my remarks by wondering, why is it on every issue that has some real meaning, some real benefits to people -- whether it was the health insurance issue in earlier days, the pension issue, various labour bills and now this bill -- we have to drag governments in this province kicking and screaming into the 20th century when it comes to decent legislation that will really have an effect that benefits people in Ontario? I just cannot understand the holdback by this current government and the reason it would come in with such an inadequate bill.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any members who wish to comment or ask questions?

Mr. Runciman: I just want to compliment the member on his brevity. I did not realize a socialist could be that concise. It is quite surprising.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: I will try to be brief, but in direct answer to the questions raised by the member for Hamilton East, I would like to make the point that I have made before in the Legislature in commenting on the speech of the member for Welland-Thorold. The member for Hamilton East asked quite clearly why we would not commission a study. I have pointed out that Dr. Slater studied the delivery systems of the three western provinces and he clearly recommended that the government of Ontario not choose public auto insurance as the means of delivery. Again, I point out that Mr. Justice Coulter Osborne is looking at the western provinces. We do not know what he will say, but Dr. Slater did report, did study it and said no.

Mr. Morin-Strom: Obviously, the government is dumbfounded in terms of countering the arguments from the official opposition party on this issue. In particular, the member for York Mills (Mr. J. B. Nixon), if he was sincere in terms of presenting some information, would in fact table the studies which document the comparison in rates between Ontario and the western provinces. As he well knows, those studies have never taken place in this province and he does not have them. He has never asked either of the two task forces that they have commissioned to do those studies, and no one within the ministries responsible for this issue has conducted the studies that should have been done to prove which plans provide better and lower-cost plans for the drivers of those respectlve provinces.

All the evidence we have gathered convinces us that the rates are far lower in those western provinces than they are here. No evidence of any tangible nature has ever been presented by this Liberal government to refute that charge. Until it does so, it has no credibility on this issue whatsoever.

The Acting Speaker: Does the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) wish to have a few minutes to reply? If not, does any other member wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. B. Rae: I take great pleasure in wrapping up the debate for our side. First of all, I want to say a few words about the contributions of the member for Welland-Thorold.

When I came to this place, I had naturally heard of the reputation of the member for Welland-Thorold. I can only tell members that in my life in politics l have met literally no other person who has so well represented his riding, his constituency, no member who has better represented the consumers and the working families of this province or indeed of Canada, and no member in my judgement who has done more to make this question of fairness in insurance a province-wide issue, an issue of conscience in the province. As leader of our caucus and leader of our group here in the Legislature, I want to say to the member for Welland-Thorold how very, very proud I am of the contribution he has made to this debate, as indeed he has throughout the provincial debate.

1640

I have listened, obviously, with care to the debate as it has unfolded, not simply over this last session but over many months and indeed many years. I have participated in a number of debates on this issue and obviously have just come out of an election campaign which has been interpreted by many as the ultimate referendum on this question.

I do not mind saying that I have read with some degree of interest a publication called Canadian Insurance, a Stone and Cox publication, which has a picture of a gloating pig on the cover entitled, “Hog Wash, We Won One.” As I understand it, it is the publication which incorporates the agent and broker in Canada. It is basically a publication of the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario and it contains some interesting comments with respect to the recent election on this issue, which I think throw some light on where we are and where we are going as a province.

It is interesting, for example, that at a recent meeting of the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario and indeed in an article in this journal, on page 20, John Watkinson, who is the vice-president of communications for the Insurance Bureau of Canada, sets out very clearly for the public precisely what the strategy of the insurance industry was.

I want to say to the government that it should be congratulated for having fitted as nicely as it has into this strategy which has been set for it by the insurance industry. I can think of no better messengers for the insurance industry than the individuals who have stood up and spoken on behalf of the Liberal Party in this debate. Indeed, the questions that have been raised in comments made to various members reflect almost word for word the briefing notes from the insurance industry that many of us encountered during the election campaign. There is a certain reminiscent ring.

For example, the member for Brantford (Mr. Neumann), whose own political history would fill many an interesting book, has raised his concerns as to whether the right to strike has been exercised in any jurisdiction with respect to where public auto insurance is in place, knowing full well that there was a labour dispute in British Columbia.

I would have thought the member for Brant-ford’s commitment to the cause of working people would have been such that he might have recognized that in that industry and the service industries in this province, collective bargaining is an idea whose time has come. I would be interested to hear his views. Is he saying that people who work in the service sector should not have the right to strike, should not have the right to organize, should not have the right to bargain collectively? His record with respect to municipal strikes is something we might want to discuss in this House from time to time. He is one who, having crossed the road politically, has not only abandoned his party labels but now appears also to have abandoned the principles he at one time espoused with considerable vigour, if I remember some meetings we both attended when we were members of the same political party.

I think it is worth pointing out the sense of smugness and gloating which has now taken over the insurance industry as it realizes just how much its interests have been and are being protected by the Liberal Party of Ontario. Let us look over the campaign because during the election campaign I said on many occasions that the insurance industry was engaged in a systematic attempt to distort the message of the New Democratic Party, to distort the impact of public auto insurance, to discredit those who were in favour of public auto insurance, to discredit those who believe in a driver-owned plan, to discredit those who were prepared to come forward and tell their story and to attempt to intimidate its own employees when they wanted to get involved in election campaigns. Now we have an admission from the industry that this is exactly what was going on.

I am quoting Mr. Watkinson. It is going to be a rather long quotation, Madam Speaker, but I hope you will allow me to read it through: “In the spring of 1987, the Insurance Bureau of Canada began working with the various groups in IPAC” -- IPAC is the Insurance Political Action Committee – “to set up a network of industry people with a riding captain in every riding in Ontario and eight regional chairmen.”

They never publicized this. They never told anybody they were doing it until we managed to expose it during the election campaign, and this is the admission. I do not know, Madam Speaker, if you are aware of who the regional industry captain was in your constituency. The member for Guelph (Mr. Ferraro) is shaking his head. They did not need a captain in his riding. He was the captain. They did not need to have anybody else there. Why would one need to have a captain? He was a colonel. He was a general. He was a field marshal in that campaign. They did not need a mere captain appointed by the insurance industry. Why do that?

Perhaps I can go back to the quotation. “The riding captains were carefully picked industry volunteers, who could play an effective high profile role. Their task was to monitor election activity in the riding, to supply information to help candidates who supported a private enterprise system and act as an industry advocate when required. Other volunteers” -- what a marvellous phrase -- “from all segments of the industry played an active role in the election. This included canvassing, distributing campaign literature and participating in all-candidate meetings.”

Having attended a couple of all-candidate meetings in my constituency, I can vouch for the fact that the insurance industry was well-represented. They all had their free enterprise buttons on one lapel and in my riding they had their red buttons on the other lapel. They knew that if they were going to defeat the New Democratic Party candidate, they had to get behind the candidate they thought was most likely to win. In my instance, of course, I was running against a Liberal.

Mr. Runciman: They came close.

Mr. B. Rae: They came very close, as the member for Leeds-Grenville has said. He and I do not share many things but one thing we do share is a knuckle-gripping election night, which we both shared.

“Many volunteers also participated in a speaker’s bureau, telling the industry’s story to audiences throughout the province. Media training was provided to help industry spokesmen work effectively with reporters.” I wonder; I think reporters would be interested to know that the insurance industry is engaged in this kind of systematic campaign. “Other industry initiatives, including briefing the Liberal and Conservative caucuses at Queen’s Park” -- I would have thought the caucuses might have wanted to make very clear that they had just been briefed by the Insurance Bureau of Canada, had just been briefed by IPAC; I think that is an interesting point; we were not briefed by these groups, so this is all news to me -- “meeting with the editorial boards of newspapers in Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton and London.

“In addition, IBC prepared a videotaped presentation for companies to show to their employees. The video explained what was at stake for the industry in the election and urged company employees to get involved with whichever party they chose to support.” That is a code word, “whichever party,” meaning either the Liberals or the Conservatives would be the party they could support.

They then talked about their two-phase advertising program. They talked about the development of their own alternative campaign to the New Democratic Party’s campaign and then they talked about something very interesting, a dispute which broke out between the Insurance Bureau of Canada, which represents the insurance companies, and the insurance brokers. The insurance brokers ran the so-called “hogwash” campaign. I am sure members saw the picture of a pig in some regional newspapers. They did not feature ads in the Toronto newspapers, but they did advertise locally in many other parts of the province -- in Hamilton, London, Windsor and many parts of the province. There was the “Pigs can fly” campaign and so on.

The insurance brokers wanted to continue to play what I would describe as a slightly more hardball approach, going directly after the New Democratic Party, attacking the campaign we had put on for over a year, very directly and so forth. The Insurance Bureau of Canada said: “No, that is not the way to do it. Do not let the NDP get to you with a response. The best way to do it is to cool it.” Mr. Watkinson talks about the fact that it was discussed directly with both the Liberal and Conservative parties, the fact that the insurance bureau did not want to make this an issue and the Liberal and Conservative parties apparently agreed, according to Mr. Watkinson, as I understand the article he has put out here.

“A decision was taken in the latter days of the campaign that because the Liberals were doing sufficiently well in the polls, there was no need for the insurance bureau to come on strong with a second phase of the campaign across the province. A much better and more subtle way to do it would be to continue to volunteer at the local level, attempt to knock off the New Democratic Party candidates at that level and get behind the Liberal Party candidate, in most instances, who would be the candidate who was closest to the New Democrat in individual ridings.”

1650

Finally, it says: “In retrospect, it seems to have been the right decision to give widespread publicity to industry views and proposals prior to the election campaign and to draw back during the campaign’s latter stages, except in certain ridings.” Would it not be interesting to know just what those ridings were and how those decisions were taken?

I do not think it is any secret -- l have been criticized for saying it, because it is apparently something one is not supposed to say -- but all of us felt -- I certainly felt, I think a number of other members felt and some people who are not here, because they were defeated by the Liberals by a couple of hundred votes, felt -- that what was going on was an on-the-ground campaign that was obviously fuelled and helped substantially by the presence of the insurance bureau on the ground.

It goes on to say: “Furthermore, the excellent work of the riding captains in briefing candidates and questioning NDP claims at public meetings helped significantly to keep the issue in perspective at the riding level and forged valuable links with the MPPs who were elected on September 10.”

I do not think they are talking about links with our party and I do not think, judging from the comments of the member for Leeds-Grenville, they are necessarily talking about members of the Conservative Party, who have at the very least maintained the true faith in free enterprise, for which one can only attribute a certain degree of respect and admiration in this context. They are obviously talking about the valuable links that have been forged with the Liberal Party of Ontario.

I think it is worth just emphasizing that these words are not mine. These are the words of the insurance-industry people themselves, talking directly about a campaign which they themselves ran. It is interesting to note that in the same conference, which took place just a short month and a half ago, I understand Orland French was present at the conference and gave a speech to the industry, and a copy of his speech is contained in this report. If any other members would like to have a look at Mr. French’s views, they are quite interesting.

It goes on to say: “Mr. Watkinson’s position was supported by Ken Kelly of Zurich Insurance, who was also on the program representing the Insurance Bureau of Canada. In reviewing the IBC’s record during the recent election, he specifically alluded to an arrangement” -- now, these are his words, not my words -- “which the industry had undertaken with both the Conservatives and the Liberals whereby auto insurance would not be an issue initiated by the industry. ‘We would do our utmost to contain the topic and equip the free enterprise candidates to respond to the questions presented to them on the campaign trail,’ he said.”

Those are the words which are directly attributed to Ken Kelley of the Zurich Insurance Co., who was representing the Insurance Bureau of Canada.

I will just repeat them, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is important that you hear it again, knowing, as I do, your interest in getting to the bottom of this: “In reviewing the IBC’s record during the recent election, he specifically alluded to an arrangement which the industry had undertaken with both the Conservatives and the Liberals whereby auto insurance would not be an issue initiated by the industry.”

I find it interesting that the insurance industry is saying very directly that it arranged, together with the Liberal and Conservative parties, to refuse, in a sense, to respond directly to the insurance campaign but to relate to it directly at the riding level, where it would be harder to detect. So the links were established --

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It doesn’t make sense.

Mr. B. Rae: That is what they are saying.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: What about the pig ads?

Mr. B. Rae: No, no. That is where I am saying there essentially was a dispute.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: That is crap.

Mr. B. Rae: The Treasurer has been here listening. He will have his chance. He said that what I am saying is crap. What I am saying is quoting from the insurance industry.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: He did not say that.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Crap.

Mr. B. Rae: Yes, he did. The Treasurer would not say anything in the House he was ashamed of having repeated. He said that what I said was crap.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: “Camp,” I thought the word was. I think it was “fuddle-duddle.”

Mr. B. Rae: No, he did not say “fuddle-duddle,” he said “crap.” What I am quoting from is not crap; it is hogwash. The hogwash is put out by the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario. All I am doing is quoting from this publication. That is just of interest.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I have it in full colour.

Mr. B. Rae: The Treasurer has it in full colour. Obviously, they send him a personal version. I do not get those. The Treasurer has his own copy.

Mr. Mackenzie: He probably has an autographed one.

Mr. B. Rae: He has the pig’s trotter right on the cover.

What I want to say is that this bill has a long history and it goes back a considerable time. I am not surprised the member for York Mills would be getting up. There is a question of parentage here. He obviously feels partly responsible, having been the minister’s executive assistant during the previous government. He obviously feels a sense of parentage in dealing with this question and the particular measure that has been taken. I am not surprised he would be responding as defensively as he has to any criticism of the issue, to any issue that is raised by us. I am not surprised he is taking that role upon himself.

I want to talk briefly about the Liberal Party’s solution to the problem we encountered, particularly in 1985 and 1986, which continues to trouble a great many drivers in 1987, though I think it is fair to say that this year, since the rates have not risen at the speed with which they rose in 1985 and 1986, there is a certain process of anaesthetization that takes place. After he has been hit with several years of very substantial increases and his broker tells him, “Your increase this year is not going to be quite as great,” the average consumer feels a sense of almost perverse gratitude to the industry for not having hit him over the head yet one more time.

I do not think we should take from this that the issue has in any sense gone away. The member for York Mills says it was not an issue in his riding. I can only assume he represents one of the few ridings in which there are more insurance brokers than drivers. I do not know. I cannot account for it.

I think it is fair to say that most of us in the last two and a half years have been obviously affected by this issue. I say to the member for York Mills that obviously his own colleagues felt it was an issue; otherwise they would not have asked Dr. Slater to do his report. They would not have asked Judge Coulter Osborne to do his report and they would not have come up with a rate review board with all the fanfare with which it was associated if they did not think it was an issue that was going to cause them some kind of political trouble.

Mr. Runciman: The member is forgetting minority government.

Mr. B. Rae: The member for Leeds-Grenville, for whom I have an ever-increasing affection, I must say, as he participates in the House, is quite right in saying that I forgot to mention minority government. Obviously, that is one of the factors that affected the government’s determination to try to put an issue to bed.

I want to talk directly about what the Liberal Party’s solution is, because it is a very expensive solution and it is an interesting solution. It is a classic Liberal solution. It is one in which the government says, “On the one hand, we are going to freeze or cap,” and then it says, “We will give them 4.5 per cent. We did not keep our word, but what is the big deal? It is just 4.5 per cent. Anyway, we have a majority and everybody will forget about that in a few years.” So they get away with that in 1988.

I just want to go back to the issues we raised last spring when the government first brought in this measure. I do not think the public is in any sense prepared for what is coming with this particular piece of legislation. I remind honourable members that what the insurance industry has been telling us for a long time is that it is not making money in the auto insurance business. I have no idea whether that is true or not.

I have before me a publication that was just very kindly handed to me by the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope). I appreciate very much his help and participation in the House. It is a publication called Insurance Update. The cover is a little letter that thanks the Treasurer for the 4.5 per cent and says how deeply appreciative the industry is of what he has done on its behalf.

1700

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Are you paraphrasing?

Mr. B. Rae: I am paraphrasing here.

It says: “The insurance industry welcomes the Honourable Robert Nixon’s December 2 announcement authorizing increases up to 4.5 per cent.”

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Read the part where it says it is inadequate.

Mr. B. Rae: “It will provide some measure of relief, albeit inadequate, for many insurers, some of whom have not increased rates since 1986.”

Is the Treasurer suggesting by his heckling that this is some kind of hard-hitting attack on the Liberal Party for what it has done? I am prepared to quote the entire record. If the Treasurer wants quotes here, my other favourite quote is the determination of the insurance industry to go soft on the Liberal Party. One of the spokesmen for the insurance industry said, “The reason that we went soft is because we didn’t take any action that could be interpreted as being critical of the Liberal government, the people with whom we were going to have to sit down and make a deal after the election.” If you want quotes, pal, you have them all here. They are all here.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Do you remember when you sat down with us and made a deal?

Mr. B. Rae: I do, and you were much kinder --

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Where was insurance then?

Mr. B. Rae: The Treasurer asks, do I remember when we made a deal. I certainly do remember when we made a deal. The one thing I do remember is that he did not say anything about my having a tight halo. He did not call me a twerp. He did not say all the --

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Because I was meeting with Breaugh, not you. That guy’s reasonable.

Mr. B. Rae: Not at all. No, no. The Treasurer says he was meeting with the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh). Of course he was, but the Treasurer had many opportunities to say nasty things about me and he did not for two and a half years. He could not be kind enough. Then the first opportunity he has to get up for a reply to the speech from the throne, he says I am sensitive about being born in a log embassy.

I want to say for the record, I invented that line and the Treasurer stole it from me. How could I possibly be sensitive about it? I do not mind.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Why have you been in a suit ever since?

Mr. B. Rae: I have never been cheerier than being as close --

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I think Breaugh is right and you should look at job prospects.

Mr. B. Rae: I have never been cheerier.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Would you like to be chairman of the rate review board?

Mr. B. Rae: The Treasurer says, would I like to be chairman of the rate review board. No, because I have better things to do with my time than sit there with a rubber stamp and do the insurance industry’s bidding, which is precisely what this rate review board is going to be doing.

Interjections.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: You are too cynical in your old age.

Mr. B. Rae: I am neither cynical nor particularly old. I am a happy fellow who is encountering a government which is now mired in its own complacency. I remember when the member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. R. F. Nixon) was a radical presence in this House, that is how far back I go.

As I was saying before I got diverted, the insurance industry has told us that it is losing a ton of money. In fact, I think the figure they used -- the member for York Mills would be familiar with this --was that they were losing $330 million a year. They have also said in this letter in which they talk about the Insurance Update, “The costs of settling insurance claims have continued to increase at roughly one per cent a month.”

I do not think the industry can decide as to whether or not it is a pauper or whether it is loaded to the gills. It cannot make up its mind, because in this publication put out by the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the property casualty insurance industry in Ontario says, “Premiums in Ontario amounted to $5.4 billion.” This was made up as follows, “Premiums in 1986: automobile, $3 billion; property, $1.5 billion; liability $675 million; other, $275 million,” for a total of $5.45 billion in premiums. They then say that they paid out $3.7 billion in claims, including $2.5 billion in auto, $675 million in property, $415 million in liability and others are $110 million.

That means the difference between their premiums and their claims in that year was $1.7 billion overall and in the automobile field they took in $500 million more than they paid out in claims. The premium information does not include the information on investments and return on investments. They do not tell us what that is, but they do say that --

Interjection.

Mr. B. Rae: They do not say that. They will not tell us that, but they do give us a list of their investments in Ontario, which total $7,555,000,000 -- which, if you took a very conservative figure of a return on investment of 10 per cent, would mean they were making $800 million a year.

Mr. Swart: It was actually $1.5 billion.

Mr. B. Rae: The member for Welland-Thorold says the figure they have put out is now $1.5 billion. All I am saying is that in order for these figures to add up to a loss of $330 million, their costs of administration would have to be the most gargantuan, mammoth, grotesque and wasteful series of expenditures you could possibly imagine.

It is fair to say our figures, over the last couple of years, have run into some heavy sledding from time to time, and there have been many in the industry who have made a point, at various times, of saying, “This isn’t right and that isn’t right.” My bottom line has always been: Let the industry come forward, let the industry be examined, let the industry tell us what it is making.

The member for York Mills says that is exactly what this bill is intended to do. He is only partly right, because this bill will finally give the rate review board a chance to get at some of those facts but, having got at those facts, the only thing the rate review board can then do is pass judgement on rates, which will be: “...the board shall set a rate or range of rates that in the opinion of the board is just and reasonable and not excessive or inadequate.”

Mr. Dietsch: That sounds like a good idea.

Mr. B. Rae: The Liberals say that sounds like a good idea. I want to say to the Liberal Party that the experience of financial institutions in this province and, indeed, in the western world is that there is no better cash cow than where you have a private-industry monopoly that is regulated by the government and that assures to that monopoly a just and reasonable rate of return. It is not free. It is not enterprising. It is a cash cow, paid by consumers, legislated by government and rubber-stamped by a rate review board.

It is a guaranteed rate of return, a guaranteed rate of profitability for the industry. All the inefficiencies are built in, all the duplication is built in, all the excessive costs of administration are built in. All the excesses which have given rise to the problems we have in this province are built into the system and they are going to be rubber-stamped by the rate review board. It is a classic Liberal solution. No wonder the industry is laughing. No wonder the industry is happy. They do not even have to go out and compete any more.

The member for Guelph says it is like the Ontario health insurance plan and he is wrong, because it is not like OHIP. Let me tell him what it is like; the member for Guelph should remember. I will tell him what it is like. It is like those brief days in this province where medicare was financed by the government and carried on and passed on and administered by the private insurance industry. Listen to the member for Welland-Thorold, who will describe to you how the costs of administration under OHIP compare to the costs of administration under private-profit insurance companies, where you have a guaranteed rate of return to those companies. There is simply no comparison.

I say to the member for Guelph that what this bill gives to the people of this province is -- I would not even call it a second-best solution. It is a solution which is good for the brokers; they are laughing. It is good for the industry; it is laughing. It is not good for drivers. It is not going to be good for the consumer and it is not going to give the consumer the protection the consumers and the drivers in this province should get.

It seems to me that we in our party are still entitled to say there are some issues of significance and importance to the people of this province. I want to close as I started, by saying how proud I am of the campaign that was started by the member for Welland-Thorold; how very proud I am.

I know the Treasurer took exception to the comments I made on election night. I gather he made some observations. I listened to the Treasurer on election night, as he said how mad he got listening, to me speak, and I thought to myself, “The Treasurer must be one of the few sore winners I have encountered in my political career.”

1710

Imagine, here is the guy who is going to become the Deputy Premier, with the biggest majority in the history of the province, and he takes such exception to comments that I make with our tiny band of 19. I was trying to give a little bit of spirited life to a party that had gone through a rough campaign and I was speaking to a crowd, one of whose members had been defeated, and the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) takes exception.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Stuffed shirts always annoy me.

Mr. B. Rae: The Treasurer says, “Stuffed shirts always annoy me.” I can remember when the Treasurer was not a stuffed shirt. I can remember that.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Don’t make fun of my handicap.

Mr. Breaugh: Eat chocolate bars.

Mr. B. Rae: That is right. Bring him some more M & Ms. will you? Cheer him up.

I want to say that I am proud of this campaign. I am proud of what our governments have done in those provinces, taking on the industry. I can say, having taken on the industry in one campaign, that I am a little bit wiser now in terms of the power of that industry. I think they are expressing their power today in the gloating they are carrying on because they are so proud of what they have been able to do with their new-found relationship with the Liberal Party.

I can understand the frustration of the Conservatives, who for so long had that kind of close relationship with the industry and now see themselves abandoned like some ageing crone by the insurance industry for the younger version of the same thing, the government that is best for the vested interests in this province.

That is what the Liberal Party is. It is good for the vested interests. It is good for the insurance industry. It is doing its bit for the insurance brokers, and it is not caring a whit for the consumers of this province. That is the government we have; that is the government we are going to have to fight. I say to the Treasurer, it is a government that I look forward to fighting for the next three years.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I have certainly enjoyed the debate. I think it has been well put forward by both sides and it has been quite effective. I was particularly glad to hear a number of new members participate and to realize that the quality of debate in here is going to go up.

A number of members have mentioned my friend and colleague the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. J. B . Nixon), who I feel has done an excellent job in contributing his views from time to time as the debate has gone forward. I am sure all members will agree that he is well informed and moderate and not hesitant to participate in this particular venue. I am delighted to be so closely associated with him. Everybody here knows he is capable enough to be the minister, but they should also know that he is even bright enough to be the deputy. I certainly look forward to close association with him, to continue his effective work here and in the ministry.

I also was glad to hear two of the three New Democratic Party members; who I think -- l do not want to be condescending; the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) will shoot me out of the water -- were very good at putting forward their views on this issue.

The Leader of the Opposition, who was not scheduled to take part in the debate, was able to get himself in here and express a view. Oddly enough, I agree with a number of things he put forward. Frankly, I felt the hogwash campaign probably won him as many votes as it won his opponents. During the campaign, it was an issue in all the constituencies, certainly my own.

I winced a bit as I saw the public campaign associated with this, and I thought, “Well, I suppose we will survive even that.” Rather than, as the honourable member pointed out, feeling that this was some sort of massive, highly financed steamroller moving aside the rational approach to the provision of a reasonable rate review board, which was our position, I thought in many respects it interfered.

However, the other thing he mentioned was some sort of nefarious plot where individuals took part in campaigns at the constituency level. I think he would agree that all residents of Ontario -- even insurance agents -- have the right to participate in a campaign. In Haldimand-Norfolk, for example, my campaign headquarters was in the town of Paris. I do not recall any massive infusion of funds from the insurance industry. As a matter of fact, I have checked and there was --

Mr. Swart: The minister should wait until the reports come out.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The member can pay his 25 cents, if he can get it together, and examine the reports. For reasons that may or may not be obvious, I had a look at the contributions. There was $100 from Bob and Bill Burns, who have Burns Insurance Service Ltd. In fact, they write the insurance for the Nixon family farm, and they have always given us good service; that is it. As a matter of fact, when our premiums come due, they drive over to St. George, sit down and have a cup of coffee. We talk about everything. He says, “By the way, there is this little bill here.” Dorothy writes out a cheque, because she is the signing officer, and away they go. Because they undertook a minor role in the campaign -- l do not remember them coming out and knocking on doors particularly, but they were part of the campaign -- I do not see how anybody can criticize them.

To accuse the Leader of the Opposition of paranoia would be an exaggeration. But it seems to me that for him -- of all people, the leader of the New Democratic Party -- to object to these fine young men, and men and women like them across the province, participating in the campaign for the party and the candidate of their choice -- surely, who could possibly object to that? The fact that the honourable member did not have the counterpart in his campaign is something that he should regret. I do not want to make too much of a point of this, but I really feel that participation in the democratic process is something that should not be criticized.

There was a point that had not occurred to me, and I really thought at one point to leave it closer to the end of my remarks. It was brought up by the member for Leeds-Grenville, who asked, “Where was the New Democratic Party during the famous NDP Liberal accord?” I thought, “That’s right,” because I was one of the negotiators with the NDP. It is only two and half years ago. Under those circumstances, we had very careful discussions about where we, as a government, would go with the support of the NDP as we turfed out the Tories and formed a new Liberal government.

I think it is obvious from the accord, which was signed by both leaders and widely distributed -- as a matter of fact, it was kept in the vest pocket of the now Leader of the Opposition for two whole years. He would drag it out, wave it around and say, “What about the accord?” There was not anything in there about automobile insurance.

Mr. Breaugh: For a good reason too.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I think the good reason was that they might very well --

Mr. Breaugh: Somebody took it off the table.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Well, I -- look, all I can say is --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Breaugh: Somebody wiped it off the table.

Interjections.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: That doughty little band of warriors -- which is the way the leader describes them -- and that infinitesimal rump remaining of 38 NDPers -- which is the way I would describe them -- have finally wakened up.

I simply make the point that the government changed, and there was no position taken by the NDP in that accord, which was signed by both leaders. It was perhaps an opportunity for them to exercise a little influence during that tiny little blip in history when they had some negligible influence. I just think that is part of the record.

I am indebted to the member for Leeds-Grenville for recalling that important matter.

Interjections.

1720

Hon. R. F. Nixon: In talking about the contributions made by the honourable members, I want to join with everybody else who has spoken in complimenting our good friend and tough opponent the member for Welland-Thorold in his contribution to the debate. A lot of us have heard some punk speeches around here --

Mr. Breaugh: Wait for it, Mel, for the last half of that sentence.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: There is his cue. But I have heard more than any, because I am now the dean, and I have to go back quite a long time before I can recall a speech that was so, let us say, committed in principle by the individual involved. I have to go back to some of the major speeches of Donald C. MacDonald, back when I was first elected to the Legislature.

I may have mentioned this at one time previously, but there was a discussion about Northern Ontario Natural Gas that exercised Donald C. MacDonald in those days. The Liberals were not as involved in that issue as we might have been, for reasons that members may remember. But I was thinking that the one thing probably that the member for Welland-Thorold and Don MacDonald have in common is that they come from the populist and, I would say, perhaps intellectual background of the New Democratic Party. They represent what the party could have been, and in fact was in small part, before some segments of organized labour moved in and took it over.

I really appreciate the fact that his speech was so effective. I do not agree with the principle of it, obviously, because I am in support of government policy and am looking forward to defending it some time in the next few minutes. But I did want to say that, because it is not often that an honourable member is so committed to an issue that all else is set aside and all his strength, all his vitality and all his ability are concentrated. It occurred to me that if Billy Graham believed in his cause half as much as the honourable member believes in his, then he too would be a great speaker. But this commitment is something that certainly made an impact on everybody here.

I also want to tell members --

Mr. Swart: Thanks, cousin.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: OK. Now you have raised something that is embarrassing.

I do not want to spend a lot of time on this particularly, but there were a couple of references to the old section 371 of the Insurance Act. I think the member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel), who made an excellent presentation with which I totally disagreed, was referring to that old section that was passed as an amendment to the Insurance Act in about 1936. There was a Liberal government in those days. Mitch Hepburn was the Premier, and there are a good many stories associated with it.

As a matter of fact, it was before the days when premiers were driven around by a driver. He was driving himself from St. Thomas and picked up a hitchhiker. I am not sure I have all the details of this, but this is as closely factual as I can recall it. He got into an accident. The hitchhiker, whether or not he was really injured, was complaining of a sore neck and undertook to sue the Premier.

The Premier was outraged, having been a sort of good Samaritan, picking somebody up alongside the road, and then, through nobody’s particular fault, there was an injury. So there was an amendment --

Mr. Breaugh: We think you are sanitizing the story.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I did not say “he or she.”

Anyway, they brought in an amendment called the gratuitous passengers amendment, which meant that if there were a hitchhiker or a passenger in the car, he could not sue for negligence or injury. But this, at the time, was another one of the amendments which were very far-reaching for the day and, for reasons that are not now known in detail, it was never proclaimed.

It does give the government substantial powers to adjust insurance rates. The very idea that somebody would suggest that this old, historic anomaly be proclaimed now as the solution to our problems does not make much sense. We believe that the up-to-date powers associated with the responsibility of the government to review the rates and adjust them and control them really lie in the legislation before us, and while it does not satisfy a small group of doughty warriors in the Legislature, it appears that it does command the respect and support of a large majority. We are going to test that, I hope, in the next few minutes.

The establishment of the board has been discussed in some detail. The provisions in the bill are quite clear, and it is my intention as minister to see not that this board is some sort of a rubber stamp where the minister or somebody requested by the minister phones up and tells it what to do, or its members go out to dinner with some insurance lobby and respond to what to do, but with the authority of the Legislature, which we are requesting at this time, that the board is set up as an independent part of government with all of the reviews that are built in as safeguards. It will be up to them to reach their decisions only after full and appropriate hearings in which people concerned, the consumers of the automobile insurance as well as those people who write the automobile insurance, have an opportunity to express their views and a judgement by the board is undertaken.

Much has been said about the capping of the rates that was announced by my predecessor, the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter), back in April. Members are aware that one of the provisions of that bill stated clearly that the capping would come to an end when the rate review board was established and therefore could take over the responsibility of any adjustment of the rates. or on December 31, 1987, whichever came earlier.

I am glad I stimulate so much interest in the chamber.

Mr. Breaugh: You always stimulate a lot of conversation in the chamber.

Mr. B. Rae: It is one of your best speeches.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It is too late to improve.

As far as I am concerned, we had the responsibility to have that capping provision up until the time the board was established. We had hoped and expected it would be by now or until the end of the calendar year, which is coming up. That is why, on introduction of second reading, I indicated we were going to permit an increase of up to 4.5 per cent. I am not going to spend time indicating the level of that increase compared with the double-digit increases in other jurisdictions and all that. We have had that back and forth and I do not want to spend any time on it.

As minister, with the information that I had available to me, which was similar to that which is available to all members of the House, I felt that this was justifiable and that the capping was otherwise going to be unfair and in fact might be a substantial detriment not only to the companies, which not everybody in this House worries about but which I think have to be of some concern, but also to the people who have to be insured. So I wanted to deal with that provision under those circumstances.

I do not want to spend any time defending myself against what the member for Welland-Thorold has so gleefully pointed out on so many occasions; i.e., I had said there was no capping provision. As I said, I had to plead guilty with an explanation. The explanation really is obvious; that is, the capping bill, as a separate entity, is not required. If we found that the insurance industry was not living up to the reasonable provisions in the capping bill, it would have had to have been reintroduced November 3 and carried November 4 so that we could impose the will of the Legislature on maintaining that cap.

It offends the members of the New Democratic Party for me to say it, but the industry, in large measure, was co-operative in this regard. They made their paybacks of the 10 per cent to males under 25 and to taxicab drivers and they did not raise the rates, although they indicated clearly to me, as they have to others, that they found an extension of the cap beyond January 1 to be unusually dislocating and unfair. I had to agree, and that gave rise to the decision that does not seem to please everybody in the House but a reasonable majority, and that is good enough in a democratic system.

The second point I want to deal with is the objections to too much being in the regulations section. I have made similar speeches myself on a number of occasions. It made sense when I made the speech; it makes slightly different sense now, but it is not something that has to be and that I am dismissing, I can assure members. The idea of our commitment as a matter of policy to eliminate age, sex and marital status from the rate structure is a commitment of policy and it certainly will be a part of that structure.

We feel it should not be in the bill but be something that is the responsibility of the government under the power granted to it in the regulations section.

1730

I think members are also aware that the Coulter Osborne report is expected some time in the next few weeks. I hope it will be made available to the House, not before Christmas but in January or when we return in February, because we feel that the recommendations will be extremely important to the administration of this bill. That is something else that may very well be affected by the regulations section.

I would say I have a small regret that I did not hear all of the speeches. The honourable members are aware that the Ministry of Treasury and Economics estimates began yesterday, and it was possible for me to go down there and answer some of the questions associated with Treasury expenditures, with the member for Don Mills (Mr. Velshi) filling in for me up here very well indeed.

I would say that the speeches I have heard on all sides have indicated that there may be some improvements in the bill that would be warranted for consideration during the committee hearing. I understand the House leaders have agreed that there will be a substantial hearing of three weeks in January in which the bill can be reviewed very carefully. It will certainly be my view that we are not expecting this to be accepted as if it is set in stone. I can assure members that we are prepared to give positive consideration to amendments, but of course I am not making any guarantees.

I will just tell members this: the people in the ministry, whom I just got to know a few weeks ago, who have been working on this for a long period of time, are very capable and very dedicated individuals. They have worked very hard. They will be taking part in the committee review and, believe me, they are knowledgeable about it as well. I do not place myself in their category, but when the experts in this matter -- and I only know one outside the government -- are discussing these matters, it will be a very interesting discussion. I think we will be able to improve the bill by what occurs at the committee hearing, which I expect to be at the standing committee on administration of justice, if that is the will of the House.

I was just thinking of other points that were made. Dr. Slater’s report was referred to extensively. The honourable member for Don Mills has made the point, but I just thought it was worth while, since there seemed to be an indication from spokespersons from the New Democratic Party that somehow Dr. Slater was in support of their contention, to indicate that the basic recommendation is as follows: “The government of Ontario should NOT establish at this time a government insurance corporation to deliver auto insurance services.”

Mr. Swart: I thought it was the rate review board.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The member has quoted that. I am making my selection, if he does not mind. I see the member immediately digs into his report. He cannot wait to get up and quote what he already has quoted, but this is the thing that got my attention.

I would say that, as minister, I do not find the thought of publicly operated automobile insurance anathema, as far as I am concerned. The argument is made that in this jurisdiction, where there is a mixture of publicly and privately operated endeavours, our experience with both has been reasonably good. It really has been, accept it or not, I say to the honourable members of the NDP, the decision of this party and actually this government, that the people of Ontario will be best served through this alternative. It was not an attractive alternative for us at this time to establish some large and perhaps bureaucratic, in something other than the best sense, new structure.

We feel that the people are reasonably served by the industry except for the problems that we are all aware of having to do with the cost of insurance. We feel that by the establishment of this board at arm’s length, with independent responsibilities and very great powers, we can use the authority and the decision of this Legislature to accomplish what the government, and in fact all members, wish to accomplish, that is, the provision of fairness and equity, a just and reasonable procedure for establishing these rates and we hope a procedure that will be seen to be just and reasonable and, besides that, open to the residents of Ontario and the companies and individuals which provide the service.

I invite the honourable members to support this bill in principle, in that an arrangement has already been made for a full review of it in detail in committee, and particularly the members of the New Democratic Party who, I sense, are opposed to the bill, to give it some broader consideration, let us say. We share, as I have said many times, the same aim: we want to serve the citizens effectively; we want to see that we have appropriate coverage of automobile risk in this province, where this coverage is mandatory by law, and we feel this bill will effectively and in a democratic and fair way provide this coverage.

So I once again thank the honourable members for their participation in what I consider to be an excellent debate. I hope the majority of the House will support this on second reading, but I think it would be a clear signal to those people out there that we want the best for our citizens if there were a unanimous, 100 per cent support for this bill in principle.

Mr. Swart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: To my understanding, and I believe this was practised the other day, there is still the opportunity for members to ask the two-minute questions. This was done in the House the other day. It was recognized --

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Not on windup speeches.

Mr. Swart: On the windup speech; it was recognized. I will get Hansard for you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Do you want to wind up the debate?

Mr. Swart: No, I want to ask a question. I was not going to make any comments. I just want to ask an important question of the minister

Hon. R. F. Nixon: As long as it not on the basis of this relatively new rule, that there are 90 seconds of questions and all that stuff, I think the honourable member is correct that whenever a member stands up and asks if he may ask a question, normally that is approved. I would be glad to hear from him.

Mr. Swart: On whatever grounds, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask --

The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry. Order. The standing orders are very specific on that. I am sorry; the standing orders specify very clearly that there is no period of questions and comments following the windup debate of the minister.

Mr. Swart: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the minister would like to wind up his speech by making a comment on whether the bill which is going out to committee will be accompanied --

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Swart: I am very serious on this -- by the classification system so that --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Swart: -- hearings can be held on both at the same time.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I cannot make that undertaking.

The Deputy Speaker: Now that we all understand the rules in the standing orders very clearly.

1751

The House divided on Hon. R. F. Nixon’s motion for second reading of Bill 2, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Adams, Ballinger, Beer, Black, Bossy, Callahan, Caplan, Carrothers, Chiarelli, Cleary, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cordiano, Curling, Daigeler, Dietsch, Eakins, Elliot, Elston, Epp, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Fleet, Fulton, Furlong, Grandmaître, Haggerty, Hart, Henderson, Hošek, Kanter, Kerrio, Keyes, Kwinter, LeBourdais, Leone, Lipsett, Lupusella;

MacDonald, Mahoney, Mancini, Matrundola, McClelland, McGuigan, McGuinty, McLeod, Miclash, Miller, Morin, Munro, Neumann, Nixon, J. B., Nixon, R. F., Offer, O’Neil, H., O’Neill, Y., Owen, Patten, Pelissero, Phillips, G., Polsinelli, Poole, Ray, M. C., Reycraft, Riddell, Roberts, Scott, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sola, Sorbara, Stoner, Sullivan, Sweeney, Tatham, Van Horne, Velshi, Ward, Wilson, Wong, Wrye.

Nays

Allen, Brandt, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Eves, Grier, Hampton, Harris, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Mackenzie, Marland, Martel, McCague, McLean, Morin-Strom, Philip, E., Pollock, Rae, B., Reville, Runciman, Sterling, Swart, Villeneuve, Wildman.

Ayes 82; nays 29.

Bill ordered for standing committee on administration of justice.

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER FOR LONDON NORTH

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. I had intended to make this statement tomorrow, but I am asking the indulgence of the House to make it now because of the rumours that have been flying around for an hour or two and my understanding too that a statement is being made by the Office of the Premier.

I wish to inform the members of this House that I have submitted to the Speaker my resignation as the member for London North, effective December 31, 1987.

It has been an honour and a privilege to have served my constituents and the people of this province; it is something that I will always cherish.

I wish to you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of this assembly every success in your future endeavours.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: This comes as a bit of a surprise. I would like very much to express to the honourable member, on behalf of my colleagues in the Liberal Party, the regret with which we have heard his announcement.

On a personal basis, he and I have been in the political trenches for a number of years. We have even slid down a few ski hills together, and our association has been an excellent one and I will certainly miss him.

On behalf of all of my colleagues, we wish him well in his further pursuits.

Mr. B. Rae: On behalf of the official opposition, I do want to take an opportunity to say a few words to the member for London North while there are so many members here. I must say I am not used to speaking with so many people here, but I do want to say this to the member for London North.

Personally, I just want to say that when I came here we were on the same side and I can say that he very quickly, as one does in the atmosphere of the House, made a point of coming over and chatting and talking about politics, quite apart from partisanship, and about family. Mine was just getting started and he was giving me some advice about what to do when kids would not sleep at night and that kind of thing, which I must confess I am still learning about.

When the government changed and the member became a minister, I took the earliest opportunity to share some concerns I had had in a field in which I have an enduring interest and in which members of our party had had a long interest in terms of care for the elderly. I want to say to the member that I know we all felt he was working with great distinction to talk about and to raise issues within cabinet, within his caucus and within the House that are of great importance to the people of the province.

1800

He has served his constituents very well and he can be very proud of the work he has done. I know I speak for all members when I say the surprise with which his announcement has come perhaps makes our responses a little less prepared and elegant, but I hope, perhaps for that reason, all the more sincere.

We really do wish the member well. He has contributed a great deal to the House and to the atmosphere of this place. He has worked very hard on behalf of his people and he has worked very hard on behalf of senior citizens. We are very grateful for the work he has done.

Mr. Brandt: I too would like to associate myself with the remarks of the previous speakers and my colleagues in the House and, more particularly, on behalf of my party, to say to the member that we deeply appreciate the collegiality, the friendship and the contribution he has made to this House, to the people of Ontario and also to the people of his riding.

My personal knowledge of the member for London North goes back a long number of years. I consider him a friend. We have had many evenings when we have discussed political subjects, and I have to say in all candour that we have not always agreed. However, we have always parted friends and I think with a deep and abiding respect for each other.

The decision the member has made at this particular time strikes me very much as a surprise. I did not anticipate that it was coming at this point. He will be missed even by those who perhaps had fights with him on occasion in this place that we all respect such a great deal.

He will certainly leave with our love and our affection and in the full confidence that whatever he decides to do in the future will be not only to the benefit of himself, hopefully, but also to those around him and to those he has served so very well over such a long number of years. He will be missed, and I trust that the future will be a bright and successful one for him. I wish him Godspeed and the very best.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

The Deputy Speaker: Last Thursday, December 3, pursuant to standing order 30, the member for Nipissing gave notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) concerning the impact of Sunday store openings in northern Ontario. The member has up to five minutes to debate the matter and the minister may reply for up to five minutes.

Mr. Harris: I appreciate the minister’s difficulty with being here last Thursday and am delighted to have the opportunity today. I want to say also that I have never been back here for a late show before and have never felt it necessary, but I was particularly concerned with the answers from the minister on both December 2 and December 3. They are both appropriate because on December 3, I basically asked the minister to reflect on the answer she had given on December 2. I would just like to review quickly my concerns with that.

When I asked the question about northern Ontario with regard to the Sunday shopping issue -- and I do not want to review the whole issue; I think we all know what we are talking about -- I asked about the unorganized areas of northern Ontario. I did so to find out what consideration had been given to what would happen in the unorganized areas versus the organized areas. I used the example of North Bay, where the city of North Bay, with some 50,000 people, is the principal area of shopping. There is an unorganized area a matter of two or three miles from the city centre and certainly that distance from the major shopping areas.

The answers to my questions disturbed me. The answer to the first question was: “There must be somebody there now who is making decisions on store hours. They can continue to do it.”

The persons making the decisions in unorganized areas are basically the ministries responsible. There may be a local roads warden who will make a decision vis-à-vis roads; there may be a utilities commission which will make a decision vis-à-vis services. However, vis-à-vis store openings, it is the minister herself who will make that decision. That is what it is: it is unorganized. There is no organization to make these decisions. She says, “There must be somebody.” Yes, there is: it is the minister.

Again, it was very obvious to me that the matter had not been discussed, the implications for unorganized areas, and there really are only a couple of reasons why that would occur. First, it was an oversight on her ministry’s part, and they were proceeding post-haste with a policy that they had to fire out in a hurry and make an announcement on. It concerns me that the implications for northern Ontario were not considered. I think her ministry has an obligation to consider northern Ontario. It concerns me that the impact on the north of some of these decisions, that many consider to be metropolitan decisions, are not considered.

Second, it concerns me that the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) did not take it on himself to have some input. So I raised those issues with the minister, and she replied, when I asked by way of supplementary -- when it was obvious she did not know the answer to that, it had not been considered; at least, if it had been, she did not remember, which would concern me, and I do not think that was the case -- I asked, had there been any input from the Minister of Northern Development on this matter? I asked if the Solicitor General had asked for his input or if he had asked for input, one way or the other; was there any input there? Answer: “This was discussed at great length in cabinet and the minister was there.” Clearly, the implication is: Yes, of course, the Minister of Northern Development had his say and his input, and it was understood.

I do not think the evidence points to the fact that such was the case. That is why I asked on Thursday if, in the light of the answer she had given and the hastily prepared notes that were going back and forth to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) and the Minister of Northern Development, she might not want to reconsider that answer. That was basically the gist of the question, and I think it would be appropriate if the minister did reconsider and did tell us exactly what occurred.

What we are concerned about in northern Ontario is what is going to happen. We did not have those answers. We are also concerned with what is happening vis-à-vis consideration of northern Ontario in other ministries.

1810

The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, your time is up.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: Third, I would like the minister to consider whether the Minister of Northern Development is, in fact, having the input that she should have there.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I thank the member for his consideration in delaying the night scene until tonight. I am appreciative of that.

I quite readily admit to the member that I did not have as much information on the unorganized territories at my fingertips as I should like to have had, but I would like to point out that the discussion at cabinet and the decision was related to what was then reported to the House; namely that the definition of “tourism” in a way that was meaningful, and could cover every part of this province, had been discussed at great length and it was decided that not one definition could stand.

We did not in any territory or part of the province discuss what would then be done for that particular area. We set that aside for discussion afterwards, because we knew that many people will want to have input, will want to come from their own ridings, their own areas and put forward their points of view of what should be done or not done in our oncoming bill, if we have a bill, or our oncoming stance, if we do not put forward a bill to be opted out of.

I have a done a good deal of inquiring about the unorganized territories and the impact it will have on them and on those nearby. There are about 80,000 people living in the unorganized territories, 30,000 of them on reserves. There seems to be no compacted information on the numbers of stores there. Most of them are small, tourist-related, often family run.

The boards that exist, as the member has pointed out, tend to be committees of education, services, roads, planning, welfare, health, and the practical experience is that there has been no one controlling hours of shopping in the unorganized territories. If the member has some sense of someone there controlling them, I have been able to find that no such control existed. They have, in effect, because they were unorganized, in each instance controlled their own individual hours of shopping, which does not mean they were all open all the time or all closed all the time but, rather in the manner of unorganized areas, they were doing, ahead of what we are now talking about, a much closer thing to what we are now doing. They were making very local decisions with their very local considerations in mind.

In fact, if we went to no retail act, under the ordinary events they would have fallen back under the Lord’s Day Act, but the Lord’s Day Act has been ruled unconstitutional by the courts. Therefore, there is in fact a vacuum. So I would concur that if restrictions were going to be put in which have never existed, then probably we would have to find some way to do it through order in council of cabinet through my ministry. However, the reverse is what is true. What is being proposed now is not a restriction or a centralized decision, but rather a localized decision, and this is what already exists in the unorganized areas.

The member has expressed concern because an unorganized area without control is in fact on the edge of North Bay, for instance -- the example the member gave -- and might vote to be closed. This is no different from any other area that all of us represent. In London, we might vote to be open and Strathroy might vote to be closed. But then to take the member’s comparison, what if London voted to be closed and Strathroy voted to be open? Ore would have the same situation that he would have if a store in the unorganized area voted to be open while North Bay, just a little distance away, was closed.

The situation as it exists presently in the unorganized communities or districts will continue, and the people who live in North Bay will have to take a choice and vote as they will, just as all of us with abutting neighbours have to look at our abutting neighbours, making those decisions in the light of the fact that we may have neighbours who make a different decision.

The situation in that territory remains exactly the same as for other people in Ontario. It is a local decision. In this case, it will likely remain a local decision, as it always has been, where the people make their own choices. It seems to have created no problem.

Mr. Harris: There are no people there to make the choice.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: That is right. They open when they open and they close when they close in he individual stores, and that is the way it has been until now. If the member sees a problem in this, we will be having open discussion on this and will welcome the input of the unorganized territories.

The Deputy Speaker: I deem the motion to adjourn to have been carried.

The House adjourned at 6:16 p.m.

8 décembre 1987