Journal des débats 1993-juil-19 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I am delighted to recognize a new Canadian accomplishment: 24-year-old Paul Tracy of West Hill, Ontario, thrilled a record crowd of 66,225 by winning the Molson Indy in Toronto this past weekend. The total weekend crowd was also a record, with 159,097 fans attending.

This is the eighth Molson Indy in Toronto and the first one to have been won by a Canadian. The win, Paul Tracy's third this year, comes just one week after having won the Cleveland Grand Prix, as well as winning the Long Beach, California, race earlier in the season. He completed the 103 laps in one hour, 53 minutes and 58.951 seconds. He won the race by a margin of 13.02 seconds.

When you consider that in order to win, Paul had to beat such champion drivers as Emerson Fittipaldi, Danny Sullivan, Bobby Rahal, Al Unser Jr, Mario Andretti and Nigel Mansell, it was an outstanding accomplishment.

The win by Paul Tracy and the performance of Scott Goodyear have firmly established the reputation of Canadians as major players in the world of motor sport. This follows on the reputation of the late, great Gilles Villeneuve, who won the 1978 Canadian Grand Prix Formula One world championship.

The Molson Indy race focuses attention of motor sport fans from around the world, and to have a Canadian win it brings recognition and pride to Canada, Ontario and Toronto. I am sure that all members will join me in congratulating Paul Tracy on his historic achievement and wishing him well in his future endeavours.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): The last NDP budget clobbered us with a $2-billion tax hike and a $10-billion deficit which destroyed 50,000 jobs.

I have heard from constituents that they agree with Mike Harris when he says that Ontario can't afford any more taxes, because higher taxes kill jobs. They agree with Mike Harris that Ontario needs a new budget without any tax increase, definite permanent cuts in government waste and a prosperity plan to create jobs and renew the economy.

After working more than six and a half months for the government, the people of Ontario finally begin working for themselves tomorrow. July 20 is tax freedom day. Thanks in large part to the more than 60 tax increases imposed by the Liberal and NDP governments over the last eight years, the average Ontarian now spends more than half of his or her time just to pay taxes.

When you consider that Ontario is now one of the highest-taxed jurisdictions in North America, is it any wonder that consumer spending is so low and unemployment so high? When you consider that tax freedom day arrived for most Americans about two months ago, is it any wonder that fewer investors and companies are choosing to locate in Ontario, meaning more lost jobs?

The tax-and-spend policies of the last eight years have cost us our credit rating, saddled us with enormous deficits and crippled the economic engine that creates new jobs and opportunities in this province. Ontario needs new direction, new leadership to make tax freedom day a much easier and less painful event. Unfortunately, they won't get it under the Liberals or the NDP.

GREATER NIAGARA GENERAL HOSPITAL

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Thirty-five years ago, on July 16, 1958, the most modern hospital in Canada was officially dedicated, that is, Greater Niagara General Hospital in Niagara Falls. It was built for approximately $3 million, which was half the usual cost of hospital construction at that time, due to an innovative, horizontal design.

GNGH has continued to establish itself as an innovator in health care, with the most up-to-date facilities and progressive programs, such as the quick response team, a provincial pilot project; one of the highest day surgery rates in all Ontario; being among the first to implement the Roy nursing model for health needs assessment.

In 1993, it will mark the beginning of a new era at GNGH by the acquisition of a truly scientific wonder: the helical CT scanner. This new era was symbolized by the unveiling of the new logo last Friday at the birthday party. This new logo is a visual symbol of our bright, new future full of hope and promise.

I want to thank all the staff, the physicians and volunteers for their vision for GNGH as the very finest of health care facilities. This vision is supported by our recently awarded three-year accreditation. This is the 12th such honour, adding up to 36 consecutive years of excellence.

We all know that to preserve our quality health care system in Ontario, we must change, and GNGH is leading the way.

KRISTEN FRENCH

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On Saturday morning, hundreds of St Catharines residents gathered at Jaycee Garden Park to witness the unveiling of a memorial to Kristen French, whose life was taken in a brutal murder in April 1992.

Over the past several months Donna and Doug French and members of the family have participated in so many ceremonies of this nature and have been a source of strength for all families who have experienced a tragedy of this nature.

As we witnessed the unveiling of the memorial, everyone present could not help but be emotionally moved by the memories of Kristen French and the events which have transpired since the taking of her life last year. Yet the words of her father, Doug French, gave inspiration to a community, which has shared the tragedy of the family in a very personal way.

The St Catharines Jaycees have captured the feelings of the people of St Catharines in building a memorial to an innocent, vibrant and wonderful girl who brought so much joy to those around her during her short time on this earth. The inscription on the memorial reads as follows:

"This memorial stands in the memory of Kristen French and all missing children. When Kristen's life was taken, it was as if a living spark escaped and ignited a fire that brought an entire community together in love. Kristen's spirit will live for ever."

GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): As I travel throughout my riding I am constantly reminded of the growing discontentment, not only in Grey but in the province as a whole, with this present government.

People are angry, people are frustrated and people are seeking ways to be heard. They feel it is important that the government listen to them and understand what they are saying. They don't want a government which does simply what it wants, but one that actually consults and puts people first.

1340

The evidence of this dissatisfaction can be seen daily after question period when I and members from all three parties use up all the time allotted to bring the concerns of our constituents to the government's attention. I doubt that any government in history has heard so much unrest from the public. My own office daily receives more requests for me to ask the government to rethink its policies on bilingual highway signs, casino gambling, Sunday shopping, auto insurance, the expenditure control plan and the social contract.

Thus far, the government has given no indication that it cares at all about the views of the average citizen. It doesn't matter that the people of Ontario are feeling overtaxed, overregulated and overcome with the intrusiveness of this government whose tentacles are reaching further and further each day into every facet of our lives. The people of this province have had enough. The government should realize this and listen to them.

Does the Premier wonder why his federal cousins have fallen to 8% in the polls and the NDP leader to 5% behind both Preston Manning and Lucien Bouchard? Will this government ever realize that it cannot steamroller over everyone's rights in the quest for the Holy Grail of socialism?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired.

Mr Murdoch: Will they finally realize that this is still a democracy and the people must be heard?

FLORENCE GOOD

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): Today I rise to tip my hat and salute one of life's ordinary superstars. On Saturday I had the pleasure of attending the 75th birthday celebration of Mrs Florence Good of Scarborough. Mrs Good, who is a lifelong resident of Scarborough, has become an integral part of the community. She tells stories of when Scarborough was simply farms and fields across as far as the eye could see.

As a former foster child herself, Mrs Good took in children from the children's aid society for over 25 years. Mrs Good's kindness had a significant impact on their lives and she is directly responsible for helping many of these children to become well-adjusted, happy and contributing members of our society. She still keeps in touch with many of the children, some of whom are living as far away as Australia, and they remember her with great affection.

Mrs Good was always there when her friends or family were in trouble. Many times she has taken in someone who needed a place to stay or has helped out someone who was down on their luck.

I've had the pleasure of knowing Mrs Good for approximately 12 years and she has become a second mother to me. I again tip my hat to Mrs Good on her 75th birthday.

VIOLENCE

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Serial killer trading cards are now available for sale in Ontario. These cards depict colour sketches of convicted serial killers, mass murderers and organized crime figures. Splotches of red ink depicting blood are smeared across the front of the serial killer cards. The back of the cards give details of the murders, the weapons used and the serial killers themselves.

I am extremely concerned that these cards are sending out the wrong message to our children. Trading cards have traditionally been used to glorify sports heroes. Are we now telling our children that instead of looking up to Roberto Alomar or Wendel Clark as role models and heroes, their heroes should be people like Son of Sam, Karla Homolka and Clifford Olson?

I have written to the federal minister of revenue to urge him to prevent these cards, which are produced in California, from being imported into Canada. I also intend to introduce a private member's bill this week to restrict the sale of these cards in Ontario.

Personally, I would like to see these cards totally banned in Ontario. However, I'm aware that not everybody agrees with this stand, citing censorship and freedom of speech as their reasons.

But one thing surely we can all agree on is that our children must be protected. Therefore, in the hope that the Ontario government will take up my private member's bill as government legislation, my bill will focus on restricting outlets from selling these cards to children.

Surely this is the very minimum we expect from our government, which says that it cares about our children.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): On July 15 the Minister of Health wrote to long-term care facilities outlining increases for preferred accommodation. It now will cost seniors who are living in nursing homes or homes for the aged $1,425 per month for semi-private and $1,730 per month for private. Only seniors in basic or ward accommodation will receive some form of income test to ensure affordability.

As though this were not shocking enough, the minister has told each facility that the maximum percentage of beds that can convert to preferred accommodation is being raised from 45% to 60%, effective immediately. This amounts to luxury apartment conversion, something the NDP has fought for 20 years.

Has the NDP not realized the hardship this 32% increase will create for residents and their family members? Women are especially vulnerable: 71% of the elderly poor are women and women of low income are more likely than those with adequate incomes to suffer from chronic disease, disability and need.

With the increase in fees, compounded with the NDP plan to promote luxury condominium conversion, these women are going to all but be denied room in the government's vision of long-term care reform. Why does the NDP discriminate against seniors? Older women's poverty is a cumulative result of unequal status in society. Bob Rae's policies will cause a further decline in the standard and therefore the dignity for older women in Ontario.

VISITORS FROM GERMANY

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): It is with great pleasure that I rise today to welcome to the Legislature a group of 35 people visiting us from Germany. Members will notice the visitors seated in the public gallery.

This group is here on behalf of the SPD, the Social Democratic Party of Germany. They are travelling across Canada on their own time to learn about our political system, economy, culture and to better inform themselves of issues that are of concern to Canadians. I'm sure that as they travel the country they will realize that many of the issues that Canadians face are similar to the issues facing their own homeland.

The group has a very heavy schedule. From Toronto, they will travel to Alberta and British Columbia, where they will meet with government officials to discuss a wide range of topics. On behalf of all members, I would like to thank them for taking time to visit Ontario and to learn more about Canada.

It is a special pleasure, of course, and a privilege, as someone who was born in Stuttgart, and a privilege for our caucus to welcome these representatives of the Social Democratic Party of Germany. We appreciate their great interest in Canada, in our province and thank them for visiting our Legislature. We extend to them our very best wishes for an informative, educational and pleasant journey across our country.

Remarks in German.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): The Ontario government is committed to the Environmental Assessment Act. Today, I want to reconfirm that commitment by informing members that we are improving the EA process to ensure that it deals with the concerns of all interested parties in a fair and timely manner.

During the past 17 years, this program has helped to reduce the environmental and social impact of countless projects, but we recognize that the EA process has been criticized as being unclear, costly and time-consuming.

In April 1992, my predecessor Ruth Grier announced a series of proposed environmental assessment reforms. Today, I would like to report on the progress of those reforms by releasing a report on the improvements in the EA program.

I am pleased to inform the Legislature that the government review process for EAs has been streamlined. We have reduced the average length of time it takes for the government to complete reviews of the environmental assessments by about 40%, from 16 months to 10 months, and we are committed to lowering it further.

In 1991-92, the government completed more EA reviews than it did in the previous four years combined. This rate was maintained in 1992-93. We are providing better direction to project proponents regarding the requirements they need to meet at the outset of their planning. The public is being consulted earlier in the EA process. We are encouraging simultaneous public and government reviews of environmental assessments rather than one after the other.

Issues are being resolved early in the process. We are using alternative dispute resolution. This approach has met with great success. In many cases, such as the Waterloo landfill or the Spadina light rail transit project, hearings were not needed because of the use of this alternative process.

The Environmental Assessment Board has been working very hard at improving the administration of hearings. For example, preliminary hearings are used to produce schedules and to determine which issues can be resolved. As well, case managers are assigned to hearings and the EA Board actively pursues dispute resolution outside the formal hearing process.

Much time and effort by the public, the Environmental Assessment Program Improvement Project Task Force and the Ontario Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee have gone into these reforms. I would like to thank everyone who has contributed since 1988.

1350

Clearly, we have significantly improved the EA process through administrative reforms. We intend to proceed further in this direction rather than open up the EA act for legislative change. I believe that proponents, the public and government, need experience working together with these administrative reforms before we can determine if legislative amendments are needed.

We will not extend the EA act to the entire private sector in the near future. However, we have just passed a regulation making select privately constructed municipal road, sewer and water projects subject to the municipal class EA process. We also routinely designate, under the Environmental Assessment Act, all new or proposed private sector landfill sites in a manner consistent with our treatment of public landfill sites.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This sounds like a full retreat, not what Bob Rae would have said years ago. It's a full retreat.

Hon Mr Wildman: And I will continue to make decisions on citizens' requests to designate individual private sector developments under the act.

The environmental assessment is an important tool for making sound environmental decisions. The reforms I've announced today are improving the EA process by making it clear, timely and fair to everyone.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Responses? The official opposition.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): It is, as my colleague from St Catharines said, a peculiar kind of announcement from the New Democratic government. Usually in the summertime it's not administrative announcements that they get up and have the pleasure to bring forward, but certainly they were after us while we were in government, and I think after the Conservatives when they were in government, for a whole series of actions to be taken.

I think we would have been much happier to have heard the minister rise in his place today to talk about the cleanup of the beaches. How are we going to get kids back so that they can swim? That used to be the thing that happened along the Great Lakes and in other places, but there's nothing in here that's going to help kids this summer to go to the beach.

My colleague from St Catharines mentioned earlier in this session that the NDP had killed the clean air program, and again, when we saw that the Minister of the Environment was going to be making a statement, we were hoping that perhaps today something might have been coming forward on that.

What about MISA and what the municipalities have been looking for and asking about with respect to all the cutbacks? Those are gone. What about all the toxic hot spots? We'd heard about Hamilton Harbour, the Niagara River. What about the action that this government was going to take to make sure those were all cleaned up?

In reading this statement, there are a couple of lines that I think, for all those who have been involved now over the last year and a half with respect to the selection of waste disposal sites, of dump sites, really jump from the page. "The Ontario government is committed to the Environmental Assessment Act." How could any government that brought in and passed Bill 143 be able to stand and make that statement? The two simply cannot be said in the same breath.

We get to the back page, where the minister notes that, "We also routinely designate under the EA act all new or proposed private sector landfill sites in a manner consistent with our treatment of public landfill sites. And I" -- this is the minister speaking -- "will continue to make decisions on citizens' requests to designate individual private sector developments under the act."

Again, I say to the minister that all the citizens in Durham and in York and in Peel who have been going through this travesty which is called the Interim Waste Authority process would read this and say: "How does this help us in any way at all? Here we have a Bill 143 which says that all of this is meaningless because Bill 143 does not allow for a true environmental assessment, and yet the government says that it is those principles that they hold dear, that they are going to protect, that they are going to make sure are used in the selection of any new dump. That's certainly not what is going on in York region."

Just last week, my leader, the leader of the official opposition, the member for York Centre and I spent the day with members of the communities in Maple and King going over the various sites and listening to what the concerns are at this late date, as they wait for that final meat cleaver to come down on them in terms of the selection of that final dump site.

There is nothing in here that can give them any comfort about the Environmental Assessment Act or about the environmental assessment process. This is a technical statement. This is a statement that says, "We're going to try to do better with the process." Everybody is in favour of doing better with the process, but what we need, Minister, is some real action, the kind of action that the former minister was prepared to take, whether it was with respect to clean air, clean water, or a whole host of issues.

Nothing here is going to have a real and immediate impact on people, on those whose lives are affected by problems with the environment, but most particularly, nothing here is going to help ensure that York and Peel and Durham don't have better solutions in front of them with respect to waste disposal.

That's what we're waiting for from this government, that's what we're waiting for from this minister and that's what we would have much preferred to see today than this simple administrative announcement.

Mr Bradley: I would simply note that this is a full retreat from the previous NDP position on the Environmental Assessment Act, though it should not be surprising because it is yet another reversal of NDP policy, policy for which so many people in this province voted in the last election.

It appears that Project X, which was stopped under a Liberal government, has succeeded under an NDP government, and it is my hope --

Hon Mr Wildman: It was started under a Liberal government too, as I recall.

Mr Bradley: Wouldn't it be interesting to note the reaction of the NDP, the environment groups and the hard-nosed environmental journalists if a Liberal government had announced this particular item today.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): How times have changed. If this government were still in opposition on this day, and they stood up in opposition during this July 19 announcement by any other government, they just before lunch would have resolved the cleanup of the beaches; they'd be open. Before lunch they'd have a clean air program second to none. Before lunch the MISA program would be in full blast, operating unbelievably well. Then they'd have lunch, I guess, come to the House and solve the flooding in the Mississippi crisis, since they have resolved all the problems in Ontario.

But now we have them in government --

Hon Mr Wildman: We'll have an EA on the levee.

Mr Stockwell: And they're going to probably ask for an EA in opposition on the flooding of the Mississippi, because they've solved all the problems in Ontario.

But now in government they seem to have run into a brick wall with respect to the beaches, and they've been on the record with respect to cleaning up the beaches, the clean air program, MISA etc, etc.

What do we get from this government today, on July 19, 1993? An announcement by the Minister of Environment and Energy, an announcement that the EA process is working very well. In fact they've sped it up. Isn't it curious how they've sped this up so quickly? And they suggest it's been sped up because they're operating efficiently at abnormal speed, everyone's working very well.

The one very important factor they forgot to mention is how many EA applications they're getting. They didn't mention the fact that since 1989 the sewer and watermain projects are down by 50% -- down. Well, time to get your EA approved is down 40%. So it would only stand to reason that maybe it's not the effectiveness with which they're handling the EA process.

Hon Mr Wildman: Oh, how cynical.

Mr Stockwell: Maybe it has something to do with this recession they've helped load this province into, applications are way down for environmental assessment. Why? Because nobody's building anything. Nobody's creating any jobs. So with the recession hitting us, EAs way down, this government stands up and makes a good-news announcement that, "We've sped up the environmental assessment program."

No wonder there are cynics out there who suggest that this government may not be all it's cracked up to be.

Hon Mr Wildman: But you're not one of them.

Mr Stockwell: Oh, I'm not being a cynic. I'm not being a cynic myself, although I would have investigated these numbers before getting here and found this kind of curious conclusion.

I did note, though, in the second to last paragraph, they said -- in full retreat, the member for St Catharines had announced -- "We will not extend the EA act to the entire private sector in the near future." What does that mean? "We will not extend the EA act to the entire private sector in the near future." It's not, "We won't extend the act." It's not, "We're going to implement the act to the private sector. We're just not going to do it today." Well, are you going to do it tomorrow? I don't know. Are you going to do it next week? Maybe.

This is the kind of response we get from this government. So we have an announcement from the government. It basically says nothing, except, "We might do something tomorrow," and if you stay tuned you'll find out, but probably not.

I say to the Minister of the Environment, I don't think you're going to get any nosebleeds from working so hard, Mr Environment.

1400

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would like to invite all members to welcome to our chamber this afternoon, seated in the members' gallery west, a former member for Wentworth North, Mr Eric Cunningham.

I would also like all members to welcome to our chamber this afternoon, seated in the Speaker's gallery, Mr Ray White, the MLA from the Legislative Assembly of Nova Scotia. He's joined by his wife.

Welcome to our assembly.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Premier. Premier, your last budget was a direct assault on drivers through new taxes on insurance. Bill 164, to be put before the House for a final vote today, is increasing automobile insurance costs even higher. I ask you today: Will you finally tell us, before this bill comes for final reading, how much are premiums going to increase as a result of Bill 164, what is this new bill going to cost consumers, and where is the NDP promise to lower automobile insurance costs?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'll be glad to hand this question over the minister responsible.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): The Leader of the Opposition's question I guess reflects the fact that she gets all of her information out of press stories. I have said and maintained for some time now that the costs associated with Bill 164, in terms of how much it will impact the consumers of this province, will be 3% to 4%. I stand by those numbers.

The issue which the Leader of the Opposition refers to, though, is unfortunately the exorbitant costs of the package that was imposed in this province referred to as OMPP, the costs of Bill 68, the Liberal package which was passed in 1990; costs which the company actuaries indicate, if it were left in place unamended, would go up by 10% to 15% every year from this point onward; costs which, as some have correctly noted in the media, have been carefully dealt with by the process around Bill 164 and the task force on rehab and long-term care and other cost control mechanisms that we've put in place.

Mrs McLeod: Although the Premier refers the question, I know he is certainly aware of the issue. I know too that he must be aware of the fact that throughout the time this bill has been before the Legislature or in committee, it has been opposed by virtually everyone. It has been opposed by consumers; it's been opposed by brokers; it's been opposed by lawyers. Even Mel Swart has opposed this legislation. Everyone from insurance companies to the consumers has said that this legislation is not good legislation and that this legislation is not necessary.

Even the leader of the third party is trying to tell the government that there is no need to fix something which is not broken. The leader of the third party is saying what we all know, and that's that for the past two years we have received no public complaints about auto insurance. The OMPP is working. There is no need for this legislation.

I ask this government and this minister: Why are you so intent on imposing new costs on drivers just to justify an election promise? Why are you proceeding with legislation that nobody wants?

Hon Mr Charlton: The Leader of the Opposition seems not to understand even the information she did glean from the press stories on Friday and this morning. The numbers of 7%, 8% and 9% which were being kicked around in those stories are rate applications which the insurance industry is filing under OMPP, this system she claims is working and working well. Those 7%, 8% and 9% increases will eventually be reflected in much higher increases as a result of that legislation if the amendments we're proceeding to put in place, both in Bill 164 and in the regulatory changes that we've negotiated with the industry through the task force on rehab and long-term care and a number of other initiatives that we've undertaken, aren't put in place.

OMPP is broken. It's a system that is imposing, right now, on ratepayers in this province 8% increases on average that we have to deal with and roll back.

Mrs McLeod: As this piece of legislation comes before the House for the last time, we still cannot get any clear information from this government about the impact this bill is going to have on consumers. This government has been less than forthcoming with the consumers of this province. This government is absolutely determined, it seems, to keep adding costs to businesses and to consumers. There is surely no question, from everything that's been heard in committee and in the debate, that Bill 164 is going to give less coverage for more premium costs and that you've added new taxes on top of those increased premium costs to boot. This is going to be a disaster for consumers. We believe, contrary to what the minister has presented, that this bill is likely to add up to 20% to insurance costs, as much as $200 per insured vehicle.

We understand that the Premier, even as late as this morning, was suggesting that it might be necessary for the government to intervene in order to fix rates if in fact the premium costs go up higher than would seem to be tolerable. That indeed could lead to our fears that this is a backdoor way to public auto insurance, with all of the job dislocation that would accompany that. This bill means more costs for everyone who drives a car or who must drive a car, from unemployed young people, to business, to retired seniors. I ask one last time, why will you not scrap Bill 164? The people of this province cannot afford to pay more for less.

Hon Mr Charlton: I've never heard so much nonsense all contained in one question as long as I've been in this House. First of all, the Leader of the Opposition has ignored the fact that I've tried to put to her quite clearly that the rate applications that are presently before the Ontario Insurance Commission, some of them approved and some of them being considered, for 7%, 8% and 9%, are under the legislation passed by the Liberal government that was supposed to solve the problem in the province of Ontario. Those rate applications have nothing to do with the piece of legislation that hasn't yet passed and won't be implemented until some time later this year.

Second, she made reference in her comments to scrapping Bill 164 and the other changes we're proceeding with, changes that are designed to put in place some of the regulatory mechanisms that the Liberals failed to put in place under Bill 68, under the Ontario motorist protection plan, to put some cost control mechanisms in place so that we won't end up back in the mess we found ourselves in the middle 1980s with 15%, 20% and 25% increases happening every year. We're proceeding to implement Bill 164 and the other consequent regulatory changes in order to bring some firm stability to pricing in the insurance industry in this province.

VIOLENCE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question, on another topic, is also to the Premier. For some time now we have been expressing our very real concern about the proliferation of slasher films which celebrate the gruesome slaughter of young women. In the spring, the Coalition for the Safety of Our Daughters organized a showing of Reel Hatred, which is a compilation of these horrendous films. I can tell you that there was no question in the minds of any of those who attended this showing that these films are abhorrent, that their viewing cannot be condoned on any grounds. I strongly suggest to you today that this is not a censorship issue.

The member for Eglinton introduced a private member's resolution to curb the slasher films. Her resolution was passed unanimously in this Legislature, yet three months later the government has taken no action. Premier, we are all concerned about violence that is directed towards women and we surely all agree that we must act against anything which promotes, which incites, which in any way seems to condone violence. I ask, will you take action before this session ends to act on the private member's resolution which was passed in this House?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'd refer that to the minister responsible for the Ontario Film Review Board, the Minister for Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I certainly welcome the question from the Leader of the Opposition and also wish to congratulate her member who recently came out against the latest video games. I would like to say that I think we're talking about the real issue here, and that is the graphic, gratuitous, explicit, brutal violence that exists in our society in many forms, including these kinds of slasher films.

1410

I would like to say that on April 20 I wrote a letter to the then Minister of Justice, the federal minister, urging him and his government to take action against materials which exist for the sole purpose of promoting brutal and graphic violence. In that letter, I specifically mentioned these kinds of serial killer trading card games and slasher films.

To date, I have not received an answer from the federal government. I'm in the process of writing to the new Prime Minister, who used to be the Minister of Justice.

I feel that it very much is within the jurisdiction of the federal government to change the Criminal Code to classify this kind of brutal violence as obscene within the Criminal Code. Until that is done, it makes it very difficult for a provincial jurisdiction to deal directly with that, and I certainly ask her and her colleagues to participate with us in urging the federal government to change the Criminal Code to reflect this kind of graphic horror that we're subjected to these days.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, I sincerely say to you, and through you to the Premier, that we really do need more than words; we need action on this issue now. We need to take actions to deal with what are clearly the most horrendous depictions of violence against women. I would say to you that there are actions which you can take, not just referring to the federal government for actions, but actions which you as the minister responsible for the Ontario Film Review Board can take, and those are the actions which were set out in the resolution presented and passed unanimously in this House.

You'll be aware that one of the reasons the Ontario Film Review Board was created was to ensure public protection and that all the films that go through the Ontario Film Review Board are required to reflect community standards. Surely, even those who are totally opposed to censorship would agree that slasher films do not meet any type of community standards.

I was dismayed that recently, in a move that I recognize was controversial, some members of the board attempted to weaken the guidelines for adult sex films. The guidelines are supposed to reflect community standards, but I wonder how the board can claim to be reflecting community standards when there's no mechanism to allow for public input into board guidelines.

Would you agree to hold a public review of the Ontario film board guidelines so the public does have a chance to voice its opinions and community standards will be truly reflected in the decisions of the board?

Hon Ms Churley: I'm sure that over the coming summer months the members of the board, including the chair, will be seeking the input of a number of interested groups and individuals around this very subject.

She's raised a really interesting point, that the technology of today, which has advanced just over the past couple of years and continues to do so, makes it very, very difficult for provincial boards, which do represent the community -- they are made up of individuals from all walks of life -- to try to reflect community standards. They do go out in their communities; they go out and talk to people and hear what has to be said. But as the minister responsible for women's issues said last week in response to a question about the video game, these are very complex and difficult issues, especially with the change of technology.

We know, for instance, that we don't want any government and any one minister projecting his or her personal viewpoint on what is best for Ontarians to see or not see. That is why we appoint individual people from the community to a board to look at these issues.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Churley: They are doing that these days. They are doing a total review and will be communicating with interested parties over the coming summer months.

Mrs McLeod: There should be no question about this. There surely is no question that slasher films violate community standards and that none of us in fact would ever want to live in a community which could condone such films. If it takes a public inquiry into community standards for that message to get through to the Ontario Film Review Board, and indeed to your government, let that public inquiry take place, because I think the issues of censorship and the issues of what is truly a blatant violation of community standards and materials which in fact do incite violence are not being clearly drawn.

I have another example of violent culture which is being distributed in Ontario. You may be well aware of the serial killer trading cards that are available in Ontario collector stores. They are even available to young people to collect, since there is no ban on their restriction or their sale to minors. The editor in chief of the California company that produces the serial killer trading cards has said they will definitely be doing a Karla Homolka card as soon as they can get all the information.

Again, I say that I surely think we all agree that we have to take immediate action to deal with anything which in any way incites violence as we become more and more concerned about the incidence of violence directed against women. I ask whether or not you will act to ensure that these cards are banned for distribution in Ontario and that in fact they are withdrawn from Ontario stores.

Hon Ms Churley: Let me make it clear to the Leader of the Opposition that nobody in this House, including myself and this government, condones the availability and presence of these slasher films. We do not condone this kind of gratuitous, horrifying violence that we are being subjected to these days.

I have been doing everything within my power, within the jurisdiction of the Theatres Act in the provincial government, to limit what's available to the public. I have said before that we are trying to work with the federal government to make sure it takes its responsibility seriously and changes the Criminal Code so that we have more power within the provincial Legislature to do something about these kinds of materials.

But I will commit to the House today, believe me, that I will take any steps that I possibly can within the realm of my jurisdiction to stop these kinds of cards from entering into the province of Ontario. I'll continue to work with the federal government, and I'd be happy to work with any member in this House and do what we can within our power, within our jurisdiction, to stop these cards from entering Ontario.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the minister in charge of auto insurance. In Friday's Hamilton Spectator, you stated that if the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives hadn't stalled the bill in 1992 -- meaning Bill 164 -- "we would have been able to have clearly, from the point of view of the public, implemented that package without any cost increases."

Given the wide number of studies that have been performed, in fact performed by your government, by other actuaries, how do you justify this ridiculous statement, particularly in light of the fact that the bill was given first reading on December 5, 1991, and you didn't call it till September 30, 1992?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): The member for Willowdale likes to have fun with his selective memory. The member will recall last summer discussions that I had with him in his very own office when we were attempting before this House adjourned to get second reading done on Bill 164. Unfortunately, the opposition ensured that didn't happen last summer.

That's first of all exactly what the complaint was about, but secondly, let's deal with the first part of his preamble, where he raised the question of what the actuarial studies showed. The actuarial studies showed a number of things. That includes not only the government's actuarial studies but the actuarial studies that were done by the insurance industry as well.

The actuarial studies that were done by the insurance industry showed that OMPP was substantially overpriced. In fact, the member will recall that in the fall of 1991, the insurance industry voluntarily rolled back rates at our direction because the product was overpriced. There is no question in anybody's study that if in 1991 or in June 1992 we had passed Bill 164 and implemented it, we could have implemented it without any cost to the consumer.

1420

Mr Harnick: If your bill couldn't withstand debate in the Legislature and that caused costs to go up, merely debating your bill, I'd hate to see what's going to happen when your bill hits the marketplace.

I'm a little bit perturbed about the fact that every time you get up to answer a question about rates, you talk about the Liberal bill and the costs that were associated with the Liberal bill, 6%, 7%, 8% rollbacks in somebody's direction. The fact of the matter is that people are saying, and people of good authority, people who have done actuarial studies, are saying that your bill is going to cost consumers up to 17% or maybe more in increased premiums, and that includes Floyd Laughren's tax increase that is rolled into that which you didn't even know about.

The concern that I have, without blaming it on the Liberal bill being 7% more or 8% more, is that with a 17% raise in rates, people aren't going to be able to afford to drive their cars, and if they do drive their cars, they're going to drive their cars without insurance, and that's not going to benefit anybody.

What I'd like to know from you is, if the insurance rates go up by 17% -- I probably should say "when they go up 17%," but I want to be fair to you -- what are you going to do?

Hon Mr Charlton: Two things I have to take out of the member's question and respond to as clearly as I possibly can. Firstly, the member on the one hand refers to 17%, which has appeared in a couple of press stories, and then says, "Don't talk to me about the 7% or 8% that's associated with the current legislation, the Liberal legislation." Unfortunately, if the member reads those press stories carefully, the 17% includes 8% associated with the current legislation. So I can't leave that out of my response.

Secondly, rates are not going to go up by 17%. I have said consistently throughout, ever since December 1991 when I introduced Bill 164, that I believed the insurance industry at the end of the day would act responsibly. They did in the fall of 1991, at my urging, and rolled back rates by 5%. I believe the insurance industry, under Bill 164, will do the same thing, but I have said consistently from the outset that if the insurance industry behaves irresponsibly, I will deal with that by regulation.

Mr Harnick: The concern I have is if rates go up 17%, there's an assumption that you're making that it's because insurance companies are behaving irresponsibly. If they are or if that's your assumption and you're incorrect, they could be going broke.

When I look at Bill 164, your bill increases accident benefits by up to $400 a week. Weekly accident benefits go up $400 a week. Your bill increases medical expense limits on every policy by perhaps up to $500,000. Only a fool could look at that and say, "Prices can't go up," because you're increasing the benefits. How can't prices go up? Then in the same breath, you're saying to us, "Oh, don't worry, prices aren't going up." How can you make these statements with any credibility?

Hon Mr Charlton: I'm extremely glad to hear that the member for Willowdale has now publicly got up and said that this bill increases benefits for injured drivers in this province, because there was a day not too long ago in debate on this bill when the member for Willowdale stood with the member for Welland-Thorold and said, "This takes benefits away from people." But he's now right. There are significant benefit increases in this package of changes to the auto insurance legislation.

At the end of the day, the simple bottom line is that Bill 164 has to be taken and understood in conjunction with the other consequent changes that are part of this bill, changes which the member knows full well about, changes like the regulations we'll put in place to regulate the delivery of rehabilitation and long-term care, both very costly items for the insurance industry, which up until now, under the current legislation, have gone totally unregulated.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question's to the Premier. Your government offered the health care sector a $50-million signing bonus, or bribe, in essence, a $50-million bribe per year, built into the base for the three-year package of your social contract. That bribe accounts for $150 million over the next three years.

Now, if the whole plan of the social contract was to reduce compensation, reduce the costs of government, how then can you explain to me and to the constituents of the province of Ontario where this $150-million bribe is coming from and who's going to pay for it?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'll refer this to the Deputy Premier.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): I appreciate the question, because it allows me to clear up some misinformation that appeared in some of the tabloids today.

The total health care sector, as I recall, was at almost $500 million, $470 million, in the entire health care sector for the social contract public compensation savings.

The health care sector is unique. As a matter of fact, each one of the eight major sectors that was designated under the social contract legislation is indeed unique, and as a matter of fact, as a result of the fact that the sector is unique, the agreements are unique as well.

The amount of money that was put into the health care sector was not either a signing bonus -- it certainly, to use the term of the member for Etobicoke West, which I find very unfortunate, and I'm sure he'd want to reconsider it, but to refer to it as a bribe really is terribly unfortunate and I'm sure that on sober second thought, when he's had a chance to breathe deeply, he'll reconsider that expression. It was simply money that will go into a social contract structural equalization fund and had absolutely nothing to do with being a signing bonus to allow us to establish an agreement in the health care sector.

Mr Stockwell: Well, that was the question. I understand it's a structural equalization fund, as you would call it. Others have referred to it as a bribe; others have referred to it as a signing bonus. But the fact of the matter remains, you didn't answer the question. We all know you called it a social contract structural equalization fund. But the question still stands: $50 million a year over three years is $150 million. Where are you getting this money from? You didn't answer that, which was the very point of the question.

Secondly -- and I've got a copy of the contract here -- also included in the deal to the health care sector is an agreement to allow workers to collect wage increases under the grid system, which they commonly refer to it as. In other words, at a time of restraint, at a time when the public sector wages, sir, have to be cut, you are allowing health care workers to increase their individual salaries as yet another bribe to reach a deal.

You can be sure, Mr Treasurer, that if the health care workers agree to this, the teachers will do with nothing less. If the health care workers get it -- they get the grid system increase, the merit raise, every year -- the teachers are going to want it.

Mr Treasurer, can you tell me how much these expected bribes are going to cost? We talked to the Ontario Hospital Association today. They suggest the grid system increase is going to cost them $53 million a year. You've included $50 million as a bribe to get them to sign. That's $150 million plus $159 million. Over three years, that's a new $309 million you've included that they've got to find cuts for, and they can't even find the original 5%.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member place a question, please.

Mr Stockwell: Where is this money coming from? Because according to sources in your ministry quoted in the Globe and Mail, they suggest they're going to run up the deficit. So what was the point of the exercise if you're going to bang an additional $300 million on to the debt?

Hon Mr Laughren: The member for Etobicoke West, in response to my answer, in his first supplementary said it's other people who are calling it a bribe and then proceeds to call it a bribe two or three times more in the second question. Either you're calling it a bribe or you're not calling it a bribe.

Mr Stockwell: I am.

Hon Mr Laughren: You are calling it a bribe. All right then, as long as we can see that that's on the record.

Is he also saying, I would ask him, that Mr Timbrell called it a bribe? Is that what he's implying in his question as well? Because I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that the $2-billion saving under the social contract is still the target that we intend to achieve. The fact is that you may find this hard to understand, and certainly the Liberals will never understand it, but we have not ended our attempts to find further savings in the health care sector, and that's where the money will come from.

1430

Mr Stockwell: What an absolute joke that answer is. You've asked them to save 5%. On the wage freeze they've got 1% and that's it. Now you're saying you've got to get an additional 4% of the 5% plus 300 million new dollars. They haven't saved your first 5% yet, and you're burdening them with another $300 million. The OHA would be crazy to sign this. If you want to save $300 million right away just tear this up, because all your negotiations have done is cost the taxpayers money.

Your bag of goodies has been estimated to cost over $300 million to the health care sector, this cost that was designed to reduce the cost of government and the cost to the payroll. It doesn't make any sense to offer signing bonuses and wage increases as part of the system.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): Remember when Dennis Timbrell said 14,000 people were going to be laid off?

Mr Stockwell: I hear the economic minister piping up. The fact is that you're going to allow grid increases, in essence, merit increases. You're going to give them a $50-million signing bonus --

The Speaker: Would the member place a question, please?

Mr Stockwell: -- built into the base every year for three years. You're going to cost this health sector $300 million. They haven't found more than 1% of the original 5%. My question to the Treasurer is, where are you going to find this additional money, considering the fact that the health care sector has already said: "We can't even meet your original targets. How are we going to find an additional $300 million?" Where are you going to get it?

Hon Mr Laughren: I guess there are doubting Thomases everywhere. I can recall when this government indicated that the growth in health care spending that was run up by the Tories and the Liberals in the 1980s was unsustainable, they scoffed and said, "You won't be able to do anything about it." Guess what? We did something about. We've reduced the growth in health care spending to 1% and, as well, we've cut the growth in drug benefit spending by half.

I would say to the member for Etobicoke West that what he doesn't understand is that the sectoral agreements are arrived at by negotiations with the parties involved, and I remind him that the employees in the health care sector are prepared to sign this agreement.

If the member for Etobicoke West thinks that somehow by achieving 5% savings in the health care sector is a basket of goodies, I wish he'd translate that to other people out there in the province, because other people believe we are dealing with this problem in a very serious way and we are going to achieve these savings.

The member for Etobicoke West can call me crazy or stupid or whatever he wants, the point is that he didn't believe this government could achieve the savings it has shown that it can.

The Speaker: New question. The Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Again to the Premier, I was dismayed to see a full-page ad, paid for presumably by the taxpayers of the province, extolling the virtue of the government's social contract scheme in newspapers across the province this weekend, another $84,000 attempt to put a gloss on this government's disastrous policy and a process that is breaking down even as we speak.

Even worse than that for me was the fact that this ad was full of what I can at best call half-truths. It is a half-truth to say you're negotiating with workers and employers, because it is not negotiation when you're prepared to sign deals with whomever you can entice to come to the table. It is a half-truth to say, as this ad says, you're going to bring in wage freezes as a last resort when everybody you are negotiating with or to knows very well that you are rolling back wages.

But what is not talked about in the ads at all is what these deals are going to cost this province in the future. I ask the Premier, are your negotiators instructed to cost all financial liabilities for future budgets when they reach these subagreements and have you calculated all the financial liabilities of your fail-safe provisions if in fact no agreements are actually reached? If so, will you make these calculations public?

Hon Mr Rae: I find it ironic that the member for Etobicoke West, who just finished his tirade, accused the government of bribing everybody and in fact not effecting any savings, and the Leader of the Opposition now talks about the fact that we're simply rolling back everyone's wages.

The facts of the matter are that we are negotiating. We are negotiating and we've indicated that we can't negotiate in a vacuum and that on August 1, if there are no agreements in a sector, obviously certain things will happen as a result of that. As much as we regret that reality, it is the case that we can't continue to negotiate in a complete vacuum. We've been negotiating since April.

I guess the clearest answer that I can give to the honourable member is obviously, on conclusion, it would seem to me that what the member is entitled to and what the act in fact provides for is that the Minister of Finance will make regular financial reporting to the House with respect to the agreements and to the costs and savings of those agreements.

So my short answer to the honourable member would be, yes, we will provide a full accounting to the House. My judgement would be that we can only do that after August 1 in terms of the first accounting, but that I would fully anticipate that's what the Minister of Finance will do.

Mrs McLeod: I would say to the Premier that the concern of the member for Etobicoke West is reflective of concerns that we have and it is not inconsistent with the concern I express today. Both concerns are real. Your negotiations are a sham. They are not achieving the cost saving that you're looking for in this budget year.

Even beyond that, this government, through this social contract process as well as a host of other initiatives, is piling up cost after cost after cost for future governments, both municipal and provincial, and that is what I am trying to get at today. I am truly concerned about the effect that your last-minute deals are going to have on future deficits, and the financial incentives that are being put on the table are only part of that concern. Let me mention three others.

There are confused messages being given out about how these agreements are going to affect pension plans, even as you have already recalculated the government's contributions to use $500 million to be able to set up redeployment plans and offer the financial incentives that you've put on the table, and you have already deferred $500 million in pension payments. You are negotiating days off without calculating overtime costs. Thirdly, you are requiring deferred pay to be made up in the future, with no calculation at all of future liability for governments. I say to you that this is not deficit control, whatever your newspaper ad says, and you cannot use newspaper ads to cloak what is financial irresponsibility.

Premier, the public of this province have a right to know what this set of deals is going to cost them, and I ask today whether you will agree to bring in the Provincial Auditor to assess the future liabilities of all provisions of negotiated agreements and of your fail-safe provisions before any implementation begins. Will you call in the Provincial Auditor to do this analysis and will you make his findings public?

Hon Mr Rae: What I find ironic is that the member, whose party did not move any amendments during the course of the discussion, would now be coming forward with a very specific proposal. I would say to her very directly that I've already undertaken, the Minister of Finance has undertaken, to give the kind of accounting to the House which is required.

I can assure the honourable member that when we took office and had to deal with the ongoing and increased costs of programs which were brought in by the former administration, we developed a very keen awareness of this issue of long-term liabilities and long-term problems and long-term costs and the impacts they have.

The purpose of the social contract negotiations is to save money. It cannot be separated out from the long-term fiscal context of the province. There are going to be no huge revenue increases down the pike which will produce enormous windfalls to government. We do not see that as being a prospect of the financial plans of the province.

So I can say to the honourable member: Cost reduction is the name of the game. The idea that we would delay the implementation of cost reduction in order to deal with a proposal which, if the Liberal Party was sincerely interested, they would have brought in in the course of the debate on Bill 48 is not something that we intend to do.

We intend to proceed with the savings, we intend to proceed with negotiations and we intend to proceed on a course which we believe is in the long-term interests of the province and will result in long-term savings to the people, the taxpayers, and to the future economy of the province of Ontario.

1440

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have a question for the Minister of Health regarding her Bill 101, long-term health care reform.

Minister, you know that the cornerstone of that legislation was to inject at the outset $150 million of increased copayments from seniors all across Ontario and that those have resulted in semiprivate accommodation going to over $1,400 a month and private accommodation going to over almost $1,750 per month. Because there was such short notice, there has been chaos in many institutions across Ontario, because they're just now finding out the size of these increases.

There's a specific concern that I raised when these bills were before the House. It has to do with the fact that women and men who are married do not have their combined incomes calculated and that men have, on average, better pension plans -- veteran or employment -- and Canada assistance, and women are quite vulnerable. This has created a serious problem for women who are trying to remain independent in their homes when really most of the family income is being calculated for this accommodation issue.

My question, Minister: Will your government respond to the calls of our caucus and have an immediate review of this issue, since 71% of the elderly poor are women and they are more at risk here with the affordability of being able to stay in their homes and live independently while their husbands are in an institution where most of their income is being captured for accommodation?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I think I would have to be very sure that the figures and the ratios that the member refers to are in fact the actual ones, based on the experience of people who are in long-term care institutions.

But let me point out to him that the change in the per diem rates that resulted from Bill 101 had a very real effect of making the whole situation a great deal fairer right across the province. While there were undoubtedly some people, because the rates had varied from $26 a day to almost $90 a day in some institutions, whose accommodation rates were increased, there were over 10,000 whose rates in fact went down, in order to make sure that everybody was paying the same rate for the same kind of service.

I would also point out to him that another factor in the formula that was used, that I think brings some relief to the people he's talking about who might feel jeopardized in being able to retain their independence outside an institution, was the change in the calculation of income to being merely income, not assets, because certainly there were a number of people who were frightened that because one spouse was in a nursing home, the other would have to sell their assets and the home that they had both worked for in order to pay the cost of the nursing home. That is not now a factor because of the new formula.

Mr Jackson: Madam Minister, you're badly misinformed, because if you're in a semiprivate or private room, there is no calculation and you're forced to pay the high rate. You missed the whole point of my raising the question.

I raised this during public hearings and I didn't vote for this legislation for this reason. You were not the minister at the time, but when public hearings were occurring, your parliamentary assistant from Simcoe Centre and Mr Geoff Quirt responded to my question about the fact that, since there's no income testing for people in preferred accommodation, what regulations were going to be put in place to ensure that homes for the aged didn't immediately begin converting affordable, basic ward accommodation into high-priced, luxury accommodation, which was a practice your party fought for 20 years when it happened to tenants in the private sector.

My question to you is this: We were assured during public hearings that no such conversion plans would be allowed. Yet I have before me a letter dated July 13 and I read directly from one sentence from Geoff Quirt, the same individual who assured me this would not happen, "In addition, the maximum percentage of beds in each facility for which preferred accommodation may be charged is raised from 45% to 60% of the mix of that building, effective July 1, 1993."

So my question is this: Aside from what's on the obvious face of it --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place his question, please.

Mr Jackson: -- that you've had a change in policy, you are forcing seniors into preferred accommodation where they are not income tested, and women are more vulnerable who are left with less income. Please answer the question directly, because your government's policies are allowing for conversion.

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Jackson: Will you review immediately this part of your regulation, not legislation, which empowers you to allow these residences to convert to a larger mix of luxury units, making access to affordable basic accommodation a real struggle for seniors in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me make it very clear that no resident will be discharged because of the new rates. The formula will look at the ability to pay, and the rates that are in place are maximums.

Mr Jackson: But they are stuck paying $1,700.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Grier: If in fact a home is raising the rates to the maximum, well, then I'm afraid the patient and the family have to make a decision as to whether --

Mr Jackson: It is $20,000 a year.

The Speaker: The member for Burlington South, please come to order.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- they can maintain a private room or need to have some other kind of accommodation. But let me assure the member that I am confident --

Mr Jackson: Answer the question. You are allowing luxury conversion. Why did Geoff Quirt lie at public hearings?

The Speaker: The member for Burlington South took a great deal of time to ask a serious question. I thought he would have listened for the reply.

New question.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): My question is to the Minister of Health. A health issue has recently come to my attention from one of my local unions in the area. The issue relates to the health policy of a local company and the return to work of employees.

Employees of Stelco Lake Erie works at Nanticoke reporting off work due to illness must go to the nearest hospital emergency room to obtain a physician's note in order to justify their absence should their own doctor not be available. I received a letter the other day about that from the local union and it goes on to say:

"I am forwarding this correspondence as a result of an existing Stelco policy regarding employee absenteeism. This policy currently requires employees reporting off work due to illness to go to the nearest hospital emergency room to obtain a physician's note in order to justify the absence should their own doctor not be available."

They go on to question whether or not this is an appropriate use of emergency room facilities.

Madam Minister, I'm very concerned about this practice. It shows an intent to arbitrarily have people use costly emergency services for purposes not intended. Obtaining a doctor's note to satisfy an absence concern at a workplace is obviously not an emergency.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member have a question?

Mr Jamison: I believe this to be a grave misuse of emergency room facilities. I would like to know your position on this matter.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I would share the member's concern. Emergency rooms are for emergencies and I think it is incumbent upon all of us -- employer, employees, health providers -- as we struggle to both reform the system and contain its costs, to use the system responsibly. I would agree with the member that going to an emergency room for a note to justify that one is sick, to take to one's employer, is not an appropriate use of that service.

Mr Jamison: As I stated, Madam Minister, this is a policy that's put forward by the company in question, and it's come to my attention, after showing some concern over this, that this is not isolated to one company. I'd like to ask the minister, what measures, if any, have you or will you take to ensure that this abuse of emergency room facilities by employers is stopped?

Hon Mrs Grier: As the member is aware, third-party billings, which I think is what this would fall under, are in fact not now covered by OHIP, and I would think that the question between an employer and an employee as to who should bear the cost of that is something that --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Now the worker has to pay. Now the worker has to pay his own.

The Speaker: Order, the member for St Catharines.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- has to be negotiated and worked out between the employees and their employer, and I would suspect in the situation he refers to that this would be a subject for negotiations.

The Speaker: New question, the member for St Catharines.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Thank you. You were just early in asking for me. I knew that.

I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, though I would have liked to have asked it of the Premier, because he's really in charge of casinos. It's about casino gambling.

I was listening to the CBC 1 o'clock news today, one of my favourite programs, and it was reported at that time that 25 people from the business community in Windsor had been taken by one of the corporations that is bidding for the casino in Windsor on an all-expenses-paid trip to Gulfport, Mississippi. It's called Grand Casino Corp. The purpose of this, apparently, was to show the people how a casino works and hopefully get their endorsement of it.

Could the minister tell me whether her government believes it is proper for these corporations to be taking people on all-expenses-paid trips to these various casinos in order that they come back and endorse it for the people of Windsor and the people of Ontario?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Obviously to arrange such a trip is not illegal, but just because it's not illegal doesn't mean that it's proper. The companies are quite welcome to tell the community as much about themselves as they can, but they should do that within reason.

I personally think the trip was excessive. That kind of behaviour quite frankly will be taken into account, I'm sure, by the deputy minister's team which is looking at and assessing the bids. They'll be looking at the integrity and the business ethics and their ability to work cooperatively with the province.

1450

Mr Bradley: Bill Gillies of your ministry, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, was quoted as saying he doesn't believe that all-expenses-paid trips are helpful to the process. Would the minister assure the House that she will insist that no further trips take place, that no further people be taken to various casinos around the United States and elsewhere in order that they can be so-called convinced of the virtue of these casinos? Would she reveal whether the remarks she just made in the House mean that in fact those who've already done so will have their applications looked upon with disfavour?

Hon Ms Churley: I made it clear that I don't condone this activity and I have asked the project team to make this clear in writing for any future plans that the bidders may have in mind. I've asked to have it put in writing to ask companies, if they have any future plans, to let the community know about who they are, to let us know that they are and to check with the project team. We'll tell them our views on this. That's the very best we can do. We've made it clear that we don't condone this. It is not against the law, but as Bill Gillies said, it is not helpful. We will be making that very clear to the bidders.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): My question is to the Minister of Finance, back on the social contract. At the municipal level, a concern has been raised by the Ontario Urban Transit Association concerning transit services for municipalities, in that there is no coordination among the various ministries of the province of Ontario with regard to imposing cuts on the municipalities through the social contract.

Let me give you an example: The social contract for the Toronto Transit Commission will require a cut of some $22 million, but as you're aware, the funding for transit is cost-shared through the province of Ontario -- the Ministry of Transportation -- the regional government and the users of the system. The Ministry of Transportation is demanding its share of the social contract cut, its share on top, piggybacking on the social contract program. It's 16% of $22 million, which in this case is $3.5 million of additional cuts that have been required.

Minister, my question to you is, will you ensure that there is no double reduction to the transit authorities in the province of Ontario?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I must confess I'm not sure I followed the entire complexity of the member's question. That's not his fault, I would say. But I would simply say to him that I hope he's not opposed to the fact that the municipalities must play their share in our expenditure reduction exercise in the province when it comes to public sector compensation.

Secondly, when we engaged in the expenditure control plan earlier this year, prior to the introduction of the social contract, the municipalities also had to play a role there through the unconditional grants.

I hope the member opposite is not parting company with his other Conservative colleagues and suggesting that there shouldn't be a contribution on the part of the municipalities.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): He didn't understand the question, Dave.

Hon Mr Laughren: I acknowledge the fact that I perhaps did not understand the question.

Mr David Johnson: Let me try again. Back to the minister, no, I'm not parting company. We understand that spending cuts are necessary. We understand that all sectors, including the municipal sector, have to bear their fair share.

The problem here, though, is that because of the formula, there are two cuts that are being made, not just the social program cut but a further cut from the Ministry of Transportation, in this case an extra $3.5 million that is a cut solely because of the social contract, for no other reason. So the Toronto Transit Commission and the 68 other municipalities across the province of Ontario are seeing two cuts: one direct cut and one indirect cut through the Ministry of Transportation. They are asking at the social contract table why they should have to bear two cuts. One cut would be fair, but two cuts are not fair.

I might say that because of the pause day program, they are also going to see a loss of revenue. In the case of the Toronto Transit Commission, they're estimating they're going to lose three million riders in 1994 and a further loss in revenue, which even poses the question --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member conclude his question, please.

Mr David Johnson: It makes it more important that they not have two cuts, an indirect cut and a direct cut.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm glad the member clarified it in his supplementary, because I'm convinced now that I did understand his first question.

The reason there are two impacts or hits on the municipal sector is because of what I said before, that there was an expenditure control plan that clicked in and affected the unconditional grants and affected GO Transit. Secondly, the social contract of course impacts on the entire public sector.

Mr David Johnson: You still don't understand.

Hon Mr Laughren: If I'm still not connecting with the member, I'd be happy to have a private chat with him and see if he can straighten me out.

FUEL SUBSTITUTION

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): My question is for the Minister of Housing. Madam Minister, two weeks ago I was in my riding in Port Perry to make an announcement of funding of $400,000 for a transfer from electrical heating to gas heating for 26 co-op housing units. I can tell you that the seniors there were absolutely ecstatic about saving the money on their heat. They couldn't say enough.

My question is, there was some discussion about the number of jobs this project created. What's the rationale? I said one figure and I want to make sure I got it right.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The job creation estimates we provide for a program of this nature really are provided on the basis of the expenditures involved. The overall expenditure for the social housing energy retrofit program over two years will be $28 million. Therefore, we do our calculation and we say we're going to create the equivalent of full-year jobs for 1,100 people. Some members of the opposition queried that when I suggested we are now doing work on more units. Seven thousand had been the original estimate; now it's 23,000. They queried the job estimates, but that's basically done on an expenditure base.

We're changing the nature of the work we're doing. It's not merely conversion from electricity to gas but also a lot of tightening up, insulation work, use, where we can, of such features as solar passive power, and also putting in some water conservation measures.

Mr Mills: Thank you for that explanation.

As I stood outside, the newspaper reporters said to me: "You know, this is a wonderful program for the seniors in this building, but what's the reaction of Hydro to this? You're cutting them out of the business." Are we undermining Hydro, Madam Minister?

Hon Ms Gigantes: Nobody wants to undermine Hydro, and this program is certainly not going to do it. The problems that Hydro has it recognizes as being ones of overuse of electricity for inappropriate purposes in in-home heating. It's turned out to be a very expensive proposition, which of course was sold to the Ontario public in earlier days under different governments, and there's a very high price to be paid for it.

We stopped putting electric heating in social housing in Ontario in the spring of 1991, and we think this will contribute to energy conservation in the future in Ontario.

1500

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas proposals made under the government's expenditure control plan and social contract initiatives regarding health care in the province of Ontario will have a devastating impact on access to and the delivery of health care; and

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality health care services across the province;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw these proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the Ontario Medical Association/government framework and economic agreement."

Signed by 477 constituents of the Brant-Haldimand and Brantford ridings, and I affix my signature.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I have a petition presented to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor, Legislative Assembly of Ontario, from the people of Ontario. They're from Etobicoke, Scarborough, various parts of Metropolitan Toronto. It says:

"That free and open collective bargaining for public service employees be restored and be returned to its honourable position in Ontario," something this government used to believe in;

"That the social contract in its present form be destroyed" -- not just revoked; they want it destroyed -- "and that the valuable programs and services in the public sector be maintained for the betterment of all Ontarians," something that this government used to also believe in;

"That the government withdraw Bill 48," and this is the key point here, "and, in place of this bill, the government work cooperatively with the public service unions to find an equitable solution rather than eliminating valuable public services," something that would form the cornerstone of this party's platform in opposition.

I myself have not signed this, but I will, and enter it for all the good people of Metropolitan Toronto and Etobicoke to register their sincere discomfort with this government.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a petition here which I'm presenting to the Legislature on behalf of the member for Beaches-Woodbine, who, being a minister, is unable to do so herself. It is a petition in regard to delivery of psychotherapy, and it reads:

"Whereas these proposals will enable the government to unilaterally and arbitrarily restrict payments for psychotherapy," particularly those offered, I guess, by physicians, psychiatrists;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"The government of Ontario must move immediately to withdraw the proposal to restrict payments for psychotherapy."

It doesn't mention the social work act, although of course it should if we're talking about access to psychotherapy in this province.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'm pleased to present a petition signed by hundreds of people living in and about the county of Renfrew, in which petitioners express their grave concern about the elimination of Sunday as a day of rest.

DRUG BENEFITS

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have a petition here that has been signed by numerous pharmacists in the Kitchener-Waterloo community, and it reads as follows regarding Bill 29:

"To the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

"Whereas the introduction of Bill 29 makes substantial changes to the Ontario drug benefit program that would allow the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make unilateral and significant changes to the Ontario Drug Benefit Act through regulation and without consultation with seniors nor negotiation with pharmacists;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly to adopt the amendments to Bill 29 as proposed by the Ontario Pharmacists' Association which is affixed to this petition."

This petition has been sent to me by Sherry Peister, and I hereby affix my signature as well.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I have a petition here signed by several hundred people in southwestern Ontario, and it's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality health care services across the province;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw these proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the 1991 Ontario Medical Association/government framework and economic agreement."

PUBLIC SERVICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads:

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Red Lake, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"We, the undersigned, call on the Ontario government to maintain and improve our public services. Public services are vital to our communities and our way of life. We can't afford to lose them."

HEALTH CARE

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I must say, we receive many of these each day in my offices.

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality health care services across the province;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw these proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the 1991 Ontario Medical Association/government framework and economic agreement."

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I have a petition from the Committee of Concerned Citizens Against Bill 38 in my riding of York East:

"We, the citizens of Ontario, the constituents of your riding, wish to express, by way of the attached petition, our serious concerns about the proposed amendment to the Retail Business Holidays Act, called Bill 38. It proposes to delete 51 Sundays each year from the list of legal holidays and substitute a single Sunday, Easter Sunday, in its place as the only remaining legal Sunday holiday.

"We are aware the number of signatures contained in this petition which is now being presented is due to the extraordinarily long delay in the provincial Legislature's consideration of Bill 38.

"We remind you that the current government was elected on the promise to keep Sunday a common pause day or a holiday and to continue to restrict Sunday store openings.

"Please be assured that we, as citizens of Ontario, will be watching with interest how you, as the representative of the people in our riding, will cast your vote on this critical issue.

"Our vote will be for the retention of Sunday as a legal holiday 52 weeks out of the year.

"We strongly urge you to support your constituents in their logical choice in favour of retaining Sunday's current status as a legal holiday all year round by voting against Bill 38."

1510

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a petition signed by many constituents addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas these proposals will enable government to unilaterally and arbitrarily restrict payments for psychotherapy; and

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality mental health care services across the province;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw the proposal to restrict payments for psychotherapy and withdraw the proposal to allow the cabinet to make decisions with respect to the number of times patients may receive particular insured services and set maximums with respect thereto.

"The government of Ontario must reaffirm its commitment to the process of joint management and rational reform of the delivery of medical services in the province as specified under the Ontario Medical Association/government framework agreement."

I agree with this petition and have affixed my signature.

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Constituents from my riding of Oakville South and the surrounding areas have asked me to table a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas in 1923, seven Ontario bands signed the Williams Treaty, which guaranteed that native peoples would fish and hunt according to provincial and federal conservation laws, like everyone else; and

"Whereas the bands were paid the 1993 equivalent of $20 million; and

"Whereas that treaty was upheld by Ontario's highest court last year; and

"Whereas Bob Rae is not enforcing existing laws which prohibit native peoples from hunting and fishing out of season; and

"Whereas this will put at risk an already pressured part of Ontario's natural environment;

"We, the undersigned, adamantly demand that the government honour the principles of fish and wildlife conservation, to respect our native and non-native ancestors and to respect the Williams Treaty."

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here like the many petitions we've heard read over the last period of time on casinos, and I'll just read it.

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

There is a covering letter from a minister of the United Church of Canada who said that this petition only had a brief mention at two church services last Sunday, in Knox church in Sutton and the United Church in Virginia, and that all kinds of people signed this and went out of their way to sign this. I affix my signature to it.

ABORTION

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I have a petition from a number of Ontario residents expressing opposition to the government's intention to implement the recommendations of the task group of abortion service providers.

Since it is a very long petition, I will refrain from reading it, but I will add that, to express my support for this petition, I will add my signature.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling; and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have, since 1976, on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before,

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

It's signed by 32 parishioners of the Scotland Pastoral Charge of the United Church of Canada, and I affix my signature.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition that's been sent to me by the Hepworth Zion Amabel Church, and it's a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling; and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before,

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

I have affixed my signature.

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I've finally finished counting all these petitions. There are 3,368, which say the following:

"We, the undersigned, as citizens of Niagara Falls, appeal to our provincial government and its elected representatives to designate Niagara Falls, Ontario, for a casino operation.

"Each year, over 12 million people regularly visit our fine city. Of these 12 million visitors, it is estimated that over 70% of our visitors stay for only one day. We feel that one government-regulated casino would be an excellent attraction to retain our tourists for a longer period. Increasing the percentage of overnight tourists would have a significant positive effect on our economy in Niagara Falls and the region, which would also contribute to the provincial government's increased revenue requirements.

"In summary, we believe that one regulated gambling casino will provide much-needed employment, increase tourism for our existing hospitality industry, provide an immediate and lasting improvement for our local economy and provide much-needed revenue for the provincial government.

"We therefore strongly urge you to support the establishment of one government-regulated casino in Niagara Falls."

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INSURANCE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LES LOIS CONCERNANT LES ASSURANCES

Mr Charlton moved third reading of Bill 164, An Act to amend the Insurance Act and certain other Acts in respect of Automobile Insurance and other Insurance Matters / Loi modifiant la Loi sur les assurances et certaines autres lois en ce qui concerne l'assurance-automobile et d'autres questions d'assurance.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Does the honourable minister have any comments to make?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Just before I start, it's my understanding that we have an agreement that I will take 15 minutes on my remarks now and five minutes to close at the end and that the opposition parties will split the remainder of the time equally and, although I'll leave it to them to inform you, that one of the members of our caucus may use a small portion of that time at their discretion.

The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous agreement? Agreed.

Hon Mr Charlton: It's a privilege and a pleasure to begin the debate on third reading of Bill 164. When I introduced this legislation, I emphasized that it was designed with three basic objectives in mind: to ensure fairness in the operation of the automobile insurance system in this province, to improve the schedule of benefits available to accident victims and to deliver those reforms in an affordable package.

You'll notice, Mr Speaker, that all three of the aspects I've set out here have been a very prominent part of the debate around this bill since the beginning, some focusing exclusively on the cost questions, others focusing exclusively on the benefits-that-are-delivered-to-people questions and some others focusing on the question of fairness and accessibility. They have all become a very important part of the debate around this bill, although often those that focus on one tend to forget the others.

These objectives were established to address the very real and damaging inequities which exist in the current Ontario motorist protection plan introduced by the Liberal government in 1990. The government was determined to respond to the stream of very serious complaints it was receiving about the failures of the OMPP system. We have done so with a reform package that addresses not only the needs of accident victims but also the question of achieving stability in the setting of premium rates, which of course is a concern shared by consumers, the insurance industry and the government.

1520

This legislation is a product of extensive and lengthy consultation over a considerable period of time and reflects a balanced approach to reform of the province's automobile insurance system. The Liberal OMPP scheme simply ignores the insurance needs of many people. Accident benefits are inadequate for the long-term disabled and often fail to meet income replacement needs. There is no recognition of accident victims with special circumstances, like those who are unemployed, students, care givers or small business owners in the current system. Benefits are not indexed. As a result, people with long-term injuries see month-by-month erosion of compensation that often was inadequate to begin with. But even if it is adequate today, 20 years down the road, in an unindexed form, it becomes totally inadequate.

The existing caps on rehabilitation in long-term care mean that permanently disabled people may not get the support they need, both in terms of their ability to recover to some extent and in terms of their ability to live in some dignity over the rest of their lives. Monthly limits on attendant care create pressure to institutionalize victims who need greater support. In addition, the restricted access to courts means that many seriously injured innocent accident victims cannot claim for pain and suffering losses. In fact, only catastrophic injuries qualify. No psychological damage, no matter how devastating, is recognized at all.

Alongside these limitations and inequities in the OMPP, the system does nothing to provide stability in the setting of premium rates. The caps on attendant and long-term care have proven to be both ineffective and an inefficient means of cost control. Without standards that provide for the needs of the disabled while at the same time ensuring industry-wide guidelines for care, there is no predictability in the system and therefore there is also no rate stability. Bill 164 changes all of this.

The new insurance plan combines the best features of structured automatic accident benefits with court-assessed compensation. It's a unique model that draws on the best of both systems. The improved benefits schedule is the most generous and equitable in Canada and it eliminates the need to sue a third party for economic losses. Liability through the court system will be reserved for those non-economic losses that courts are best able to evaluate.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): It eliminates the right to sue. What do you mean, the need? You don't have the right to sue for economic loss. It has nothing to do with need. You take away the pure right to sue.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: I am convinced we have achieved the best possible reform package, one that is innovative and comprehensive and that reconciles the various concerns brought forward by the insurance industry, consumer groups, advocates for accident victims and rehabilitation specialists and others.

Mr Elston: Where is your social democrat background?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member across the way obviously has some guilt that he feels about the package which he imposed on the people of Ontario. Now we have to proceed to fix the difficulties created in that package. I'm proud of the consultation process that has been so fundamental to the future in crafting this legislation which I think will be fair, accessible and affordable for the people of this province in the long-term future.

Perhaps the best illustration of the success of a cooperative approach can be found in the report of the Task Force on Rehabilitation and Long-Term Care Benefits. The unanimous set of recommendations was produced by a group of people representing all stakeholders in the reform process. They have provided government with an essential reference point for positive regulatory reform and, in so doing, demonstrated how cooperation can benefit everyone associated with the problem.

Among the many recommendations from the task force which the government views as extremely helpful are those concerning the raising of caps on monthly attendant care, from $3,000 to $10,000, and on lifetime supplementary medical and rehabilitation benefits, from $500,000 to $1 million.

The report also proposes a comprehensive framework to clarify the responsibilities and obligations of insurers, injured persons and professionals. In doing so, the members of the task force provided a further concrete expression of the objectives of Bill 164, namely, to ensure that the needs of accident victims are met while at the same time establishing standards for care to provide a consistent measure of predictability in the setting of premium rates.

As part of the consultation process, the government also received a wide range of submissions during public hearings which were held in several communities across the province following second reading. As an indication of the value of the submissions and the willingness of the government to adopt positive ideas to make the legislation stronger, we produced a number of amendments that were tabled during clause-by-clause reading.

One of the most significant of these was a change to the provisions for court access in which we moved a proposed $15,000 deductible to an amended approach where a $10,000 deductible, in combination with a verbal threshold, will apply. This was after serious and significant consultation with two of the extremes in the debate, the insurance industry on the one end and the legal community on the other end of that spectrum. This change was generated by the evidence presented particularly by lawyers, advocacy groups and the Insurance Bureau of Canada, which persuaded me that in the interests of achieving the maximum amount of fairness in the new system, this would be the best approach and in fact in some respects applies a lesser test to people's ability to gain access to compensation for pain and suffering.

Another important amendment called for by many witnesses is a provision for the mandatory offering of insurance coverage for excess economic loss on an optional basis to consumers. The government was persuaded of the benefits in requiring the availability of choice for consumers, with the marketplace providing the ultimate test of the viability for such options. As I said, we will force the companies in a mandatory way to offer those options, but they will be optional for the public if they wish to pursue that kind of additional coverage.

Let me say just a few words here about the contentious issue of premium rates in this debate.

Those who have followed the debate around this legislation will know that at various times there have been alarms sounded about its impact on premiums. I have always maintained that many of the public comments were an exaggeration of the real cost of implementing our reforms, reforms that were designed not only to help accident victims but also to be affordable to consumers.

During question period just today, we saw questions raised about media stories over the last three days talking about 17% increases resulting from this legislation, Mr Speaker, and I want to tell you so that you and my colleagues here in the Legislature clearly understand what's going on here in the shift on the cost question, the premiums question, which has occurred, because the member for Willowdale in his question to me today referred to actuarial studies that have nothing to do with the newspaper stories of Friday and today.

The actuarial studies which the insurance industry produced some months ago did comparative studies of OMPP versus Bill 164 and predicted in one study cost differences as high as 25%. The insurance industry, as a result of the last six months, has now rejected totally the findings of all of those actuarial studies and the insurance industry is clearly and openly saying that the cost difference between Bill 164 and the OMPP system is about 6% or 7%. I still maintain, as I have said from the beginning, that the costs associated with the implementation of Bill 164 will be 3% to 4%. But that's an industry which predicted 25% and 30% increases, then brought them down to 20%, then advocated just a few short months ago that the increases would be 15% and is now down to 6% or 7%.

1530

In addition to that, we have to deal with what has become a real and now gradually more defined problem, the cost of OMPP itself. One of the things we're beginning to understand as a result of rate applications that are being made by a variety of insurance companies this spring -- not because of Bill 164, but because of the existing system, the Liberal legislation -- companies are having to go out and seek 7% and 8% and 9% rate increases because the Liberal system only did half the job. It dealt with some of the issues around very high court costs that evolved during the 1980s by moving to a no-fault system except in catastrophic cases, but it didn't deal with putting in place the appropriate cost mechanisms in that system.

The work we've done around Bill 164 and the work we've done with the task force on rehab and long-term care, other initiatives that we're proceeding with, like graduated licensing and other road safety initiatives, are the things that start to come to terms with the unpredictable costs associated with the current system.

At the end of the day, taking this whole reform package together, we will not only have accomplished the goal I set out for you at the beginning of my comments, the goal of fairness, the goal of accessibility and affordability and stability in terms of prices, and the goal of extremely increased benefits to which accident victims in this province will have access and benefits which will be most important to those who most need them -- those who are most severely injured in accidents, those who are the long-term disabled, who will now have access to indexed benefits; not only indexed benefits but the right to sue for pain and suffering and to gain substantial compensation through that mechanism and, as well, to be able to do that in the realm that we've talked about here today of a 3% or 4% premium increase -- people who are unemployed, children, students and others will also have access to adequate benefits that they don't have access to under the current legislation.

It's been a long road with this piece of legislation, but it's one of which I am very proud, both of the work that was done by the staff in the auto insurance review as well as by all of those who participated in the consultation process: the insurance industry, the advocates for a variety of victims across the province, a number of consumers' groups and others who became part of the public hearing process. I thank them all for their contributions to this debate.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The honourable member for Bruce.

Mr Elston: At the outset may I say that 10 minutes of the time I have will be relinquished to the member for Welland-Thorold so he can get some thoughts on the record. I can tell you, lest anyone misconstrue my generosity, I have no idea what he's going to say, bearing in mind his interesting remarks when I was minister. But in any event --

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Are we going to be having two-minute comments at the conclusion of each speech?

The Acting Speaker: No. When something like this has a time allocation in terms of splitting up the time between the various parties, we do away with the questions and comments.

Mr Harnick: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Bruce has the floor.

Mr Elston: In any event, I alerted you to the intervention of the member for Welland-Thorold.

What more can we say about auto insurance in this place? This long-term public policy issue was born out of real economic problems that were confronting people in the mid-1980s. Some of the members who are here -- in fact probably one other member than myself who is here right now -- recall the difficult economic times that came out of the early 1980s.

I was elected in 1981 and, as a new member, went through the times when interest rates were spiralling, when people in small business and farms were paying 15%, 18%, 22% for operating loans, when they were paying double-digit interest charges for their loans on real estate. Out of all that came a real sense of economic dislocation like there had never been, at least in my time, in the Legislative Assembly and certainly in my formative years when I was really taking note of some of these economic events.

Right along with that economic dislocation was the introduction in the mid-1980s of double-digit cost increases in auto insurance. There were a lot of reasons why this occurred and a number of them have been enumerated through successive reports and from testimony on the public record by various groups of people.

It's interesting to note that to a large extent, the real problem of auto insurance for most of us who have fortunately not been involved in personal injury accidents is the fact that when it comes time to pay the bill every year, or monthly if that's how you pay your bill, to renew your insurance every year, having not used your insurance to fix a car, to help pay for the cost of personal injury or otherwise, it's hard to understand why we paid 15% and 20% increases when you didn't seem to use your insurance.

It's that sense of having to pay for something that you don't get value for that had led in a lot of ways to a growing malaise in the public about auto insurance in the province of Ontario. Very little had been said before the mid-1980s, at least in my recollection, about auto insurance.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Do you like public auto insurance?

Mr Elston: No, I don't like public auto insurance, in answer to the member for Lake Nipigon.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Neither does he.

Mr Elston: Neither do the New Democrats, so we're even on that score.

I was merely trying to outline for some people how we got ourselves to this location. The dislocation because of the financial circumstances of business and private people in this province was such that they couldn't tolerate another double-digit increase in the expenses of daily living.

Take a look at our fine province. It's a huge province, but it's a province that has been built on communication of one sort or another over all of its history. The people in the riding of Bruce can't go easily from one place to another without jumping in an automobile. We can wait for a bus -- there are no rail passenger services up our way any more -- or we can call a cab.

I'll tell you, it's expensive going from Walkerton to Tobermory by cab. It is impossible in fact to go to Tobermory by bus from Walkerton. We can go to London, we can go to Toronto by public transportation, licensed routes, but it takes a long time, so we drive. We drive trucks, we drive every imaginable sort of vehicle that gets us from one place to another for our everyday living.

We have got to carry auto insurance, because in the early going in the 1980s there was a piece of legislation passed that said, "Everyone who applies for a licence for their vehicle must show proof of insurance coverage on that vehicle." It was designed to make sure that if there were accidents, people were covered. It is a requirement that if we travel in an automobile, it be licensed.

When it came to the mid-1980s and the crises of financial dislocations were occurring and were causing real problems for people, a 15% or 20% increase in your yearly operating expenses, when you weren't making a profit or making any kind of a return on your investment, meant for most people very difficult times.

In addition to that, young people, particularly young males, were finding that they were getting really hard hit because they were in that dubious group of people who were insured in the province of Ontario who were seen to have the highest incidence of the most severe accidents and, as a result, were paying a premium at a level much beyond that of others.

If you were paying $2,000 or $3,000 or $4,000 or $5,000 in insurance premiums over a year as a young driver and you suddenly found that 20% was being tacked on to your premium by the insurance companies, you found it almost impossible to make ends meet. In fact you were ending up being unable to keep your job and keep yourself in finances to pay your way through life, which everybody had discovered was becoming quite difficult in those days.

1540

When the Conservatives left government, the Liberals came in and there was this new desire to try to deal with the economic dislocation in several areas. One of the areas that seemed to be most ripe for reform was seen to be the auto insurance problem. We could see that the dislocation was such that it wasn't just affecting the young people of the province, it wasn't just a very small, select group who were problem drivers, but it affected every young driver no matter what the record was. It affected a number of other drivers as insurance companies moved to make sure that they could continue to compete in the market.

That problem was actually exacerbated as the interest rates of the mid-1980s started to decline later in the decade, because without some income on the retained earnings or income on the premiums that flowed through, there was less and less money available to distribute to the people who actually applied for insurance benefits.

As things got worse, the situation of higher increases became intolerable, and the Liberal government of the day moved to bring in some stability, the type of stability that was spoken about by the member for Hamilton Mountain in his opening remarks. But lest anybody be very surprised by all this, whenever any public organization gets involved in a marketplace issue like this, there cannot be any permanent stability of any great length -- permanent of any great length, what a silly statement that is.

There cannot be any permanence in rate stability, because I'll tell you, Mr Speaker, the things that we did in the 1950s and 1960s with insurance programs are not the things that we do in the 1970s and the 1980s or indeed in the 1990s. In fact anybody who stands in his place and says that we will once and for all reform the insurance program of this province and that we will have the best and fairest and most long-lasting plan that is imaginable is of course bound to end up rewriting the history later on, because our society is moving and evolving in such a way that we can but barely keep pace with the changes that make real economic dislocation in the insurance business a reality of our time.

I was once the Health minister before I was involved in being Minister of Financial Institutions, and over the course of my watching for about the last decade or so the health industry and the health providers and the health researchers and all of those people who deal on a day-to-day basis with trauma and other circumstances in health, I can tell you that it's because of the efficiency of a system of which I am quite proud that we actually have caused ourselves some difficulties in respect to insurance coverage, particularly for auto insurance.

I remark from time to time to people who ask about my current health and all those sorts of things that the one thing that is distracting for me is what I see as being an erosion of the stability that was once the hallmark of our health system in this province. I languish from day to day under the headlines that show that more and more stress is being placed on one facility or another, that there is more danger of us losing research institutes, that more nurses are being laid off the floors of our hospitals, that fewer and fewer people are receiving the services in our community as a result of one cause or another.

Not all the problems are associated with policies of the New Democratic Party government here in the province, not all associated with those of the Mulroney Conservatives and his successor in the federal House, but some of them are structural in nature, some of them are costs which have been largely unanticipated by us as well-meaning and publicly interested policy setters.

What does that mean? Basically, it means that as our health system has continued to improve, we have no way to go but up in terms of the consumption of money with respect to our health system. I remember going to a meeting of a group of trauma experts when I was at the Ministry of Health, and we were talking about the various issues which intervened in relation to saving lives of individuals who were in automobile accidents.

We invariably were talking about the development of specialized trauma units in hospitals in Toronto and other larger centres that could entertain or host the economic problems associated with intensive health interventions as a result of traumas in automobile accidents.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Yes, but I see two lawyers and a car salesman sitting together.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Bruce has the floor.

Mr Elston: If the Minister of Transportation would like to go and speak with his two lawyer friends and the automobile rental person, I wish he would do that outside while I go through what I think are relevant, maybe slightly interesting to some people, remarks on the auto insurance program.

Let me get back to my meeting with the trauma people, experts in the province. I was struck so often by remarks that came back to me from those people and they said, "Minister," -- just like today, they sometimes don't know your first name so they get to call you minister a lot -- "if you want to have the cheapest system, if you want to make sure that you contain costs, don't do a single thing to improve any type of intervention with respect to dealing with trauma from automobile or indeed any other kind of accident, because if you are interested primarily in making sure that you have the least expensive system possible, let the people die." I don't suspect there is anyone here anywhere who would want that as public policy.

I have striven, as I think most have, to try and put together programs that respond to intervening to prevent death from trauma situations. As a result of the success of trauma teams throughout this province of Ontario, and probably borrowing from successes from other venues as well, we have very good intervention with respect to automobile accidents. We save people who would have died a long time ago, even a short time ago. We now intervene and have people whose limbs would've been useless being rehabilitated to an extent that they can live very close to the best lives they could have had before the accident occurred.

But what is the result of that intervention, to use the lingo of some of the experts that I used to sit on panels with, that salvage of trauma victims? The result is that we pay more because we don't stop dealing with them when they're in the automobile accident. We take them into the trauma centres, we take them into the intensive care units, we take them from there into the hospital beds, we take them to the rehab centres, and we take them to physiotherapy and occupational therapy and all of the therapies we can possibly apply so that they can recover and do well.

In the end, the success of our health system has been that it has made insurance coverage much more expensive, and for me that is a remarkable oversight by most people. They think that all the advances we have made in being able to assist people who are in accidents come at no charge. It doesn't. It costs money, and in the end the money for all of the work that has to be done in rehabilitating an injured person has to come from someplace.

The issue was addressed by us, the Liberals, when we were in the administration from 1985 to 1990, under my guidance from 1988 to September 1990, and we said there was not any prospect of gaining any advantage by going to public auto insurance. We said that quite clearly.

We in fact even made some other decisions about which I'm sure you'll hear from at least one or two of my other colleagues in this House, but in the end you have to understand that when you pay for a service, the money has to come from someplace. It has to be collected. It has to be distributed, and it is really that distribution network that automobile insurance talks about.

1550

Hon Mr Pouliot: Murray Elston wasn't there. What about amendments, Murray?

Mr Elston: The member for Lake Nipigon is always interested in yipping and yapping but he hasn't done very much to help this auto insurance problem anywhere in this province. He has spoken so much and so often in such a flippant way, I wish that he would make one real speech about good public policy.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Photo radar, graduated drivers' licences.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, he is even now musing about his announcement that he thinks he might plan to hold some hearings some time, maybe, on graduated licences.

Hon Mr Pouliot: As soon as we are out of here.

Mr Elston: I can't tell whether the guy is interested in doing anything real for the province or whether he just wants to lip off so he can get his name in Hansard and send it out to some constituents who really want to hear from him at some point. If he wants to engage in some of this stuff back and forth across the House, I am prepared today to take him on, but if he's not, then I wish he'd be quiet and let me go on giving my remarks, because it won't be that long before I am finished, and we hope for the last time, at least in this Parliament, that we'll have to deal with auto insurance.

In the end, all I'm saying is that we have some remarkable successes in this province about which to be proud. Our health care system does things it never could before. We can bring people from the brink of death and move them back into a normal situation, or almost normal situation, so that they can really participate in our society. But it costs money to do that, and in the end somebody has to pay for it. It's no different than any other situation where services are asked for. If they're asked for, if they are acquired, then you've got to pay for them, and that's what this auto insurance stuff is all about.

In the mid-1980s, it was seen that a 20% cost increase year after year was too much, and Monte Kwinter in his days stepped in and put a moratorium on any rate increases. At one point we had a 4% rate increase. Mr Nixon, when he became the minister, went further and did some more studies and we came up with a unified classification plan which, when I came in, I discovered caused some real problems for the good drivers, particularly good drivers who were seeing 80% and 100% increases at a time when their records didn't merit it. So we scrapped that and we did away with the system that was there, retaining, as the minister responsible for auto insurance said in his opening remarks, access to the courts for the most severe cases.

In the determination of what we should do, and it has been alluded to here before, there were some suggestions that the Liberals would move to make sure that there would not be an increase in auto insurance premiums. In fact, there was the very famous, by now famous -- infamous, I guess -- announcement in Cambridge of September 1987 wherein the Premier of the day suggested that there was a specific plan, and I was then for another year or so after that engaged to lay out the provisions of the specific plan for the public so that they could actually come up with some reasonable, or at least contained, cost increases.

For my part, I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that looking into the insurance industry was not one of the reasons I came into public life, but I did come into --

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We need a quorum.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the table to ascertain whether there is a quorum in the House.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Bruce has the floor.

Mr Elston: Well, at least part-time anyway, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much for that.

In any event, over the year or so following my appointment as Minister of Financial Institutions, which began in August 1988, I sought to set out the circumstances under which we could make a more reasonably costed program to pay for the insurance coverage in the province of Ontario, and it's not an easy thing to try to make sure that you get a reasonably priced program that will intervene in a way which will actually assist and pay for the services that are needed by accident victims.

There were a whole series of groups of accident victims, if you take a look at the way the world shakes down. There are some who are accident victims without any personal physical injuries. There are those who lose money as a result of a loss of a vehicle or a loss of personal goods in the car. Those are relatively easier to deal with than others, because it's a little easier to talk about those tangible pieces of property in a way that is dispassionate. You can always make some determinations about how far you go to intervene with respect to those losses. To be quite honest, it's easier to put a numerical value on any piece of personal property, even if it were considered to be an heirloom or a rare or exotic antique type of car, as some people often used to come and talk to me about, being priceless in nature.

Then there are the others who suffer minor physical injuries. There are those who need to be assisted quickly. They have to be helped on their feet to get back to work very quickly. Those people require a different set of interventions to make sure they come back into the society in which they were involved before the accident than do the people who had no injuries at all. Sometimes you can wait to get your personal property replaced, but you cannot, in my view, wait at all to have your physical conditions assisted back to a normal state as quickly as possible.

Then there are people who are injured in a more serious fashion, although not permanently, but who require intensive interventions. There is another group of people who then are seriously and permanently injured: those people whom we know quite well we cannot ever bring back to the way things were, or even close to it, because they have lost an important bodily function's use.

Then, if you look at those lists which I have formulated for today's speech but are probably not exhaustive -- you can probably break them down further, if you wish -- you have the group of people who cause the accidents and those people who are purely innocent or any set of percentages of fault in between.

In the end, the people we decided to intervene for are obviously those people who needed the physical help the most. We put a lot of time into updating a no-fault system which had been brought into place by the previous Progressive Conservative government way back in the 1970s. In fact, schedule C, which contained the no-fault benefits, was revamped and was expanded. We decided that if we could get the services delivered much more quickly, then we could actually help the less injured get back to normal more quickly and we could do away with a system which really was, in a way, extending the less serious injury cases for a long time in the courts as people waited and waited to maximize claims.

We chose to minimize the expense of going through that court system, and that's part of the reason why the threshold no-fault system came in. It was designed to take as many of the premiums as we possibly could get and move them off into the payments for the accident victims.

We then also retained the current system -- that is, the tort system -- for the most seriously injured, because we believed that there should be an independent adjudication in a court of law where people could take into consideration the circumstances that each of the people had in their life prior to the accident. Of course, it's only available for people who were without fault or the major blame in an accident. Only they could go through the courts, just as the system was prior to the introduction of the OMPP.

All of that was designed to make sure that we could maximize the return of premium to the people who needed it and to make sure that we had a good degree of service in the no-fault system so that people could get access to services they needed to put things right.

It has always been clear, I think, that although there has been a bit of haggling over the loss to cars and personal effects, generally speaking that has been taken care of very well. But the public policy reason why we visit this at all, apart from the fact that we mandate that you have to have insurance, is because the Legislative Assembly of Ontario is charged with protecting the welfare and the wellbeing of the people of the province. If you have to carry some insurance, then we want to make sure you can do it and expect a reasonable level of service.

1600

I've given you a rough outline of how we got to where we were. It took numerous hours, weeks and months of meetings. It took a lot of haranguing here in the Legislative Assembly. In fact, the member for Welland-Thorold in those days sat back there someplace in the official opposition benches and read for about 17 hours a number of telephone messages and notes as he launched his by now famous diatribe on how bad the OMPP was going to be.

It was certainly not a wait-and-see attitude with him. He knew it was bad from the outset; the New Democrats knew it was bad from the outset. I might even offer that there are a number of Progressive Conservatives who offered that their opinion likewise was that it would not be a good system for Ontario.

I was surprised beyond belief, when I was coming to work this morning from good old Walkerton, Ontario, to hear on the radio that Mike Harris was quoted as saying, "If something ain't broke, don't fix it," referring to the OMPP. I was happy to hear that because in my days as Minister of Financial Institutions, I wasn't absolutely sure that Mike Harris was one of the supporters of the OMPP.

To be quite honest, I can't tell you that everybody in the Liberal caucus was a unanimous supporter of the OMPP.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Names, Murray, names.

Mr Elston: Well, let me name a couple of names. I think there are always people who have some doubts about man-made or human-made systems in this province and everybody is right to question a major change, which really was the case with the OMPP. It was a change away from a system that we knew a great deal about. Sometimes it's better the devil you know than the devil you don't, so I had a number of people from the legal community who were wondering to me privately, and sometimes out loud in some other meetings, whether or not this wasn't a bit of a risky situation, to think that you might be able to introduce this system and it might cause a whole series of other shock waves.

It did cause some shock waves, but those largely have been political in nature; it certainly did deal a bit of a blow to some of the people who used to be supporters of the Liberal Party when it came to the 1990 election. But by and large the bulk of the financial circumstances as a result of insurance claims in this province, for automobile anyway, have been dealt with effectively.

My leader asked a question today that basically paraphrased the intervention by the member for Nipissing, and while I thank both the leaders of the opposition parties for thinking at least that it's not broke, I would have to volunteer that there have been and there are some weaknesses in the OMPP. It's very, very clear that there was no indexing for people who had long-term needs for the weekly benefits. But if you were a permanently and severely injured person, then you would be suing through the courts in any event, and it would seem that there was a bit of tradeoff with respect to how far you took the amount of money that was being given on a short-term basis into a permanent allowance.

Mr Harnick: The threshold, Murray. The other weakness is the threshold.

Mr Elston: The member for Willowdale, who will speak later, is just now actually getting counsel from another member of the bar, and I think they are probably even now conspiring as to how to undo these reasonable and rational remarks I am offering. He mentions that the threshold was a weakness.

The test to have the most severely injured, the most difficult cases, dealt with in the courts was a decision we made and left with the courts to determine, because we didn't want to put on some kind of template that would say, "Here you go; there you don't." We wanted to make it difficult so that people would know their interests were being adjudicated and so that we would know there was some kind of an external factor applied to what was an internalized insurance system.

I have quite clearly stood by the threshold. I still think it's a reasonable and rational way to go about things, and I think to a large extent it is much more manageable than the member for Hamilton Mountain suggested it was in his opening remarks. I think it is far from the unmanageable, unpredictable setup he alleged.

But here we are, now dealing with 164, which is of course the New Democrats' answer to the OMPP. It's interesting to note that he claims to have the system which will perfect stability and rates. He has, even today, threatened the insurance industry that if it doesn't behave, he will intervene to make sure that its misbehaviour is checked -- as he did when he first came into his role, as I recall. He has suggested, both privately, I suspect, and publicly, I can say, that he would prefer to have public auto insurance, and in some ways, a lot of people, both in the insurance business and people in the street, see 164 as a way of creating such calamity that in fact he will have his way.

That's maybe part of the world of New Democrats these days: that if you cannot do directly those things which you once stood for, then maybe you can do them sort of in a roundabout fashion; maybe you can go round the flank of everybody, get them from behind and sneak up on them. Maybe that's really what 164 is all about.

There isn't any question that 164 has been amended several times by the time it's got to this third-reading stage. In fact, Mr Speaker, as you would know, having gone through all of the committee reports, we had a mass of information tabled with us on two or three different occasions. In fact, although this is not the list of amendments, this little piece of information which I have here represents the thickness of the amendments which were tabled on the committee hearings for 164.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): That's a cheap political trick, Murray. Come on. Where were your amendments?

Mr Elston: The member for Scarborough Centre, who was the committee Chairman and who is of course in this impartial --

Mr Owens: I'm the parliamentary assistant. That shows how often you were in attendance.

Mr Elston: Oh, I'm sorry. The member for Scarborough Centre was the parliamentary assistant. He is responsible for this terrible piece of crap that he's foisting on the people of the province. He mentions that I wasn't at the committee hearings much. To tell you the truth, I wasn't, because I became critic of this role just as we came into the current sittings. He knows that and he should in fact apologize. I didn't go to any of the committee hearings before because it wasn't my responsibility for our Liberal caucus. You know that Mr Mancini, who has retired now, was in charge of this, and I'm proud to pick up where Mr Mancini has left off, because Mr Mancini and I both believe the same thing about 164: that it's a bit of a plot by the New Democrats to salve their own wounded conscience for withdrawing from the public auto insurance promise they made before.

I could go back and read a few things that were said by Mr Rae and by other people who also didn't attend the committee hearings so that the member for Scarborough Centre would feel much better about my not being there. But I can tell you that every day that I attended those committee hearings, we were offering amendments that were, in the event, as it turned out, successful in being passed, sometimes with respect to some very minor, technical stuff, but we worked to improve it and in fact we made some improvements. The member for Scarborough Centre is probably over there aching now because they didn't think of making such small changes.

In fact, at one point I even found myself an ally with the member for Durham West, I think it was, Mr Wiseman. We in fact together, because we represented rural ridings, suggested that certain amendments be made so that the mail could get out to the people who got registered mail notice of certain things happening through the now-to-be-passed 164.

I was happy enough to make those amendments so that people would feel that they were being dealt with fairly. In fact, what we did in committee, both Mr Wiseman and myself, was really to make the suggestion that the service level of the Canadian post office under the charge of the Progressive Conservatives federally had deteriorated to the extent that we could no longer rely upon the usual five-day notice provisions, which usually appear in civil procedure manuals and rules in the province of Ontario.

We made some changes, but in the end this 164 is not going to be the salvation that the member for Hamilton Mountain thinks it will be. As I said before, the insurance industry has changed because the health professions have perfected procedures which to this point in time were really only dreamed about. We do so many things now that we didn't used to do. We are able to be successful in bringing people back into society, when just a few years ago they were lost to us altogether.

1610

As long as we continue to have those successes, whether it's Bill 164 or Bill 68 or the former tort system or whatever, it is not possible for us to predict that the costs will for ever remain stable. Right now, we will sustain cost increases with respect to auto insurance in Ontario, sure. In fact, when I was looking at the review of some of the presenters in the committee hearing stages, I came across a Mr Carr who was appearing for FAIR, I think, and basically what Mr Carr did was agree with the government, which said that basically Bill 164 was going to mean at least a 4.5% increase beyond the Ontario motorist protection plan.

Mr Harnick: He's an economist, not an actuary.

Mr Elston: I'm sorry, Mr Carr is an economist; he is not an actuary. That's exactly right. The member for Willowdale is right. But he is at least able to comment, and he was agreeing that there would be a minimum 4.5% increase beyond the OMPP as a result of Bill 164. It's going to happen. New changes are going to occur, new interventions are going to occur, and the people are going to want to have access to those if they have been involved in personal injury accidents. When that occurs, the cost of the product will have to go up because, as we have discovered in this 1990s Ontario, there is nothing for free. It has to be paid for. If we need it, then we have to be prepared to find the resources to pay for it.

I think, therefore, it is a problem for me, as a former minister, for the current minister or for anybody who would be minister -- and there are some, as we look around -- for anyone, to suggest that we are going to get -- I just got the two-minute notice here, and I have no two-minute game plan for my remarks.

We will not be in very good stead to promise that there will not be rate increases. Whatever it is that we need to make sure that our people can come back into our society, I suspect this House will want to take the steps. I suspect that the companies which offer the coverage will want to offer the coverage to those people and offer the services to get the people back into society. But it will cost money. That is sort of the one final statement. If we need it for people, whether they were at fault or not at fault, we will probably intervene to make sure we can give it to them.

I don't understand why people don't get to that one simple lesson of this whole long trek through auto insurance: If you want it, buy it. You have to pay for it. In the end, you can't have anything for nothing, and it doesn't matter what you do with the system. I believe that Bill 164 diminishes the whole regime under the OMPP.

I believe that Mr Charlton could have taken what changes he has made, the real changes he has made, and gone to the regulations and actually expanded the coverages. He would have expanded the cost, no question about that, but he would have been able to get as good coverage, in fact in my view better coverage, without passing Bill 164. In fact, he could have done all of this two years ago, and he would not have lost a single step. The only thing he did was cover his tracks from the retreat at Honey Harbour. That's what this is all about. As a result, the people of this province are going to be paying huge numbers of dollars so that the New Democrats can save face. I'm voting against Bill 164.

Mr Harnick: When I rise to speak on the issue of auto insurance, I think of a couple of things. I think of where we were when the NDP got elected. I think of the promise to give us public auto insurance, I think of the promise to restore the rights of innocent accident victims and I think of the promise to keep premiums down -- in fact, to lower premiums -- and when I look at those three promises, I see that every one has been broken. Not one of those promises factored its way into Bill 164; not one. Public auto insurance is gone. I need not discuss that. It's not before us. All I can say is, we don't have public auto insurance -- and in reality, thank goodness for that.

The second issue is what's happened to innocent accident victims. Their rights haven't been restored under Bill 164; their rights have been diminished. I'm going to get into that in a little while.

The other thing is, and we know from the questions and answers today in question period, the fact is that the costs are going up. The premiums that every single person in this province is going to have to pay are going to be increased and they're going to be increased in significant numbers. At the same time as they're going to be increased significantly, the rights of the innocent accident victims are being reduced. The innocent accident victims are paying for the increased benefits -- and I admit there are increased benefits, but the innocent victim is having his rights eroded to pay the increased benefits for those who are at fault for accidents. That's the reality.

I want to go back for a moment. Everyone knows of my conflict of interest in this area. It's enormous. You can start shouting at me and tell me what my conflict is, but the fact of the matter is, I'm the only person in this place, I suspect, who has acted for innocent accident victims, who's seen what happens to innocent accident victims as the result of a car accident, to see what happens to families, to see what happens to jobs, to see what happens to the ability of a family to maintain an income.

Hon Mr Pouliot: That is an interest, not a conflict.

Mr Harnick: My interest, as the Minister of Transportation indicates, is a sincere interest and that's why I stand here today to review where we've been on the issue of auto insurance and where I think we're going.

When I first started practising law, the accident benefits aspect of an auto policy paid a victim, regardless of fault, $70 a week. Shortly after I started to practise law, that went up to $140 a week. It's always been the philosophy of reasonable-minded people that everyone who is involved in a car accident is entitled to adequate compensation so that they are not left destitute, and that's whether they're at fault or whether they're not at fault. The line, or the distinction, has always been that if you're the innocent victim then you can claim, beyond that amount of no-fault benefits, your actual losses.

That is the way auto insurance proceeded in this province from the early 1970s up until the OMPP. The innocent victim could always claim his actual damages. That's what the law has been from time immemorial. If someone caused you harm, if someone caused you damage and they were at fault, you were entitled to be compensated. It wasn't until the OMPP came along that this started to change. The fact of the matter is that when we reach a point when we try and compensate everybody more than adequately, the only way we can afford to do it is by taking benefits away from the innocent accident victims, so that they end up getting less than what their actual damages are.

The OMPP came along at a time when insurance rates were going up significantly, and the issue was premiums. Everyone knows that the issue was premiums, and the public wanted premiums to be stabilized; they wanted premiums to no longer continue to escalate.

When we looked at the various schemes of automobile insurance, it became pretty clear that innocent victims were going to have to give something up, and what innocent victims were going to give up was the right to claim for their pain and suffering if they'd been involved in an accident and suffered an injury that was not serious. That was the whole rationale. We would get rid of those small claims that clogged the system, that were costing insurers an awful lot of money.

1620

It was with that in mind that the Liberal government and David Peterson, who had a very specific plan -- we all remember about David Peterson's comment, "I have a very specific plan." It took him two years to find it, but he had a very specific plan. But that was the philosophy that ultimately the OMPP was built upon.

The OMPP came along and the OMPP raised those accident benefits, and I think realistically, to $600 a week, and it gave people the option to purchase up to $1,000 a week in coverage. It also included an increase of up to $500,000 in medical expenses. Now, we all know that we have OHIP in this province, so that was never a very acute issue, but it was an issue none the less. Those, to me, were the two best things about the OMPP.

The OMPP also came along and brought in, for the first time in the province of Ontario, a threshold, and that threshold effectively took the rights away from 97% of injured innocent accident victims to claim for their personal injuries and their economic losses. If you didn't pass that threshold, you lost your rights.

I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that threshold was a mountain of a threshold. That threshold said that for you to claim, if you're an innocent victim, your injury had to be "permanent, serious impairment of an important bodily function caused by continuing injury which is physical in nature." So it had to be permanent and serious. It had to be for ever serious. It had to be physical. Mental or psychological injuries were now jettisoned. And it had to be continuous. In other words, if you got better, you were out of luck. We all know, people practising on behalf of innocent accident victims, that maybe 3% of innocent victims are getting through that threshold. Only 3% can climb that mountain of a threshold.

And all of this was in the name of keeping premiums down. Well, I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that the OMPP failed in that regard. Premiums have continued to go up, and in fact I would defy anyone in this room, in this Legislature right now, to tell me that the accident benefit portion of their insurance premium has not gone up by 50%. Go and look at your records. Go and see what's happened since June 22, 1990.

At any rate, it was within that milieu that the NDP got elected on the basis of promises to give back rights to innocent victims and promises to hold the line on premiums.

Well, Bill 164 came along and broke those promises, and I appreciate that the minister didn't want to break those promises and he tried to be as benign as he could in terms of how he was going to develop a policy of auto insurance. But the reality is that a very simple procedure could have taken place. The simple procedure could have been to take the structure of the OMPP, and if we took the structure of the OMPP and kept those realistic benefits intact, all we had to do was lower the threshold. All we had to do was ensure that those with serious injuries were not dropping off the table.

But did the NDP do that? Not at all. They raised the accident benefits to unrealistic levels, and there's no question that the motive was good, but the ability to pay for it has not yet been tested. We know that when you increase certain benefits, the cost has got to go up, and the minister can deny that till he's blue in the face, but it isn't going to work. But all that had to happen was that those benefits that had been passed in this Legislature and that were realistic should have remained in place. Instead of the government trying to reinvent the wheel and confuse everybody in the province of Ontario as to what its auto insurance policy meant, all it had to do was lower the threshold.

I suggest, and I suggested it going back three years, all you had to do was take out the comma between "permanent" and "serious" and put in the word "or." Then all you had to do is put the word "psychological" beside "physical." Granted, there would have been, based on what the insurers tell me, about a 7% or 8% increase in premiums to do that, but the fact of the matter is, it's going to be a whole lot less than what we're getting out of Bill 164.

Let me tell you why. You see, the Liberal plan gave innocent accident victims cancer of the left lung, because it took away the rights of 97% of people to claim for their economic loss and for their pain and suffering unless they climbed that mountain of a threshold. If you didn't climb the threshold, you were out of luck. The NDP plan is a little different. They have a threshold, but the threshold applies only to pain and suffering.

If you climb their threshold, which admittedly is less, then you're allowed to claim for your pain and suffering, but your economic loss is totally lost, it's gone. The NDP has effectively given the innocent accident victim cancer of the right lung; they've taken away what is even more fundamental than the right to claim for pain and suffering. They've taken away the fact that people lose money in accidents. They're told by the minister: "We're going to give you a benefit and that benefit is going to replace what your actual losses are even though there's going to be a differential. You can't claim for that differential and the reason you can't claim for that differential is because we need that differential to pay for the negligent drivers who have to be covered under this enhanced plan that Bill 164 offers us."

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: A quorum call.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the table to ascertain if there is quorum.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): A quorum is present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Willowdale has the floor.

Mr Harnick: At any rate, I cannot believe, for the life of me, that anybody could sit down to reinvent the wheel and develop a new policy of auto insurance coverage in this province and take away the right of victims to claim for their actual economic losses, their out-of-pocket expenses. Nobody's saying don't give credit for what the accident benefits pay you, but you're taking away money out of people's pockets. How can't you see that this is wrong? It's inconceivable.

Even the Liberals said, "If you climb the mountain of a threshold, you've got your money for your out-of-pocket expenses." Even the Liberals, in their scheme, did that. Granted, it was a mountain of a threshold that only 3% could climb, but it's inconceivable to think that a government would come along and take away someone's economic losses.

I, for the life of me, would never have predicted in a million years that you could put 74 dippers in a room and they would come out with that solution. It's absolutely inconceivable that 74 government members got into a room together and decided to take away the right of individuals to claim what their actual out-of-pocket expenses were.

Mr Stockwell: It's 71 dippers.

Mr Harnick: It's 71 dippers; I'm corrected. It's inconceivable. It's positively inconceivable.

I tell you, in return they've given certain benefits. And I have no objection; I applaud them. If you get injured in an accident, this plan will pay you up to $1,000 a week. I can't complain about enhanced benefits, but there are areas in this bill that are not enhanced.

If you're involved in a fatal accident -- take the example of an average income earner, a parent in a family who's involved in an accident, who makes $40,000 or $45,000 a year and might be 35 or 40 years old and has 20, 25 or 30 years still to work. The most that family can claim, being the innocent victims suffering the pecuniary loss, is $200,000. That pays for four or five years of income. What are you going to do for the rest of the time?

I've got to give the NDP credit, because when the Steelworkers came in to the committee and I put that proposition to them, they were so well briefed by the minister's staff that they said that was fine. "We'll take the $200,000 even though we've lost $1 million and our families won't be looked after after the four or five years of equivalent income is paid."

1630

I've got to give the NDP a lot of credit. They woodshedded those witnesses better than I could woodshed a witness myself, any day of the week. But the fact of the matter is, economic loss is suffered by that family. That family is going to suffer an economic loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and this bill takes away the right to claim for that actual economic loss.

Let's talk about a child, a child who's an innocent victim of an accident, driving with his seatbelt on in his parents' car. A car runs a stop sign and hits that part of the car that the child is seated in, and the child suffers a head injury or is rendered a paraplegic or a quadriplegic. What happens to that child?

Under this scheme, that child is going to get his pain and suffering. The Supreme Court of Canada says that is upwards of around $240,000. That child may have a whole lifetime of working history to go. He may have 40 or 50 years to work. You know what he gets for his economic loss? Under this plan -- and I worked it out in the committee with lawyer Endicott. I worked it out with him and he agreed, and it's in the record of the committee: $29,000, barely above the poverty line, for the rest of that child's life, even though he might have been an A student, even though he may have been on his way to being the president of the international Teamsters union or a doctor or a lawyer or leader of the NDP. The fact of the matter is, that child is going to get $29,000 and won't have one single luxury to look forward to in his life.

This bill, this bill that all of these people got into the room and concocted, took away the economic loss that this young person was entitled to achieve. I tell the people of Ontario: If you didn't know about this before, get on the phone and call the minister and tell him he's wrong. Maybe he won't implement this bill or maybe he'll come back with some amendments to restore economic rights. But the fact of the matter is, he has taken away the protection from families and from children and from young people and from working men and women across this province to claim for their actual economic losses.

I tell you, Speaker, that I very much wanted to be able to come here and support a bill that was going to give back rights to innocent victims. I know the minister's intentions were benign and good intentions. They were honest intentions. I'm not going to criticize the minister for a bad bill on the basis of his motive. I'm not going to criticize him on that basis. I can tell you that he worked hard with the insurance industry and with the lawyers to try and come up with a threshold that everybody could live with.

Also, he's given me his commitment that there will be an economic loss endorsement provided somewhere in the regulations that aren't yet written. He's given me his commitment that there will be that economic loss endorsement, that it will be available at the time the bill is proclaimed, that it will be a broad endorsement, that it's going to be wide enough to cover the examples that I've pointed out and that it will cover future loss of income, loss of earning capacity, it will cover fatal accident situations, and, on the strength of commitments from the insurance industry -- and I have a letter here which I'm going to quote in a moment -- that it will be affordable.

Mr Stockwell: Do you believe him?

Mr Harnick: My friend from Etobicoke West says, "Do you believe him?" Well, in my heart of hearts I want to believe him because the hole in this piece of legislation is so gaping that you can drive a truck through it, and it bothers me.

It bothers me to think that I've gotten down on my hands and knees to grovel for this after the auto insurance hearings, where everybody, literally every single witness, criticized this aspect of the bill, and the best that the minister is going to do is permit people who are innocent the opportunity to pay an additional coverage for what should be fundamental and a basic part of every auto insurance policy in this province. But if that's the best I can do, it's better than nothing.

I thank the minister for at least listening to the witnesses and at least acknowledging that there's a problem with his bill and saying he is going to do something to try and fix it. It's not the method I would have used, but at least the minister was attentive to it.

It bothers me and it will always bother me to see a threshold, to see economic loss taken away, but those are the realities of the day, I suppose. Those are the realities of the day. I can only tell you that even the insurers have said to me that the bill, properly constructed, can have a lower threshold, it can contain automatic economic loss coverage and it could be cheaper than what the increases of Bill 164 are going to bring.

I might just digress for a moment, Mr Speaker, and tell you that the insurance industry has played a very significant part in, hopefully, the development of this economic loss endorsement and as well in the development of a threshold that I think in some respects will be better than the $15,000 deductible that the government originally proposed. Again, I thank the minister for being attentive and for listening to what other people said and for being flexible enough to make those changes to satisfy some of the so-called stakeholders in this issue.

But I can tell you that I have a letter from the Insurance Bureau of Canada, from Stan Griffin, who is the vice-president of that organization. He says, "The insurance industry continues to be prepared to work with the legal community to develop this endorsement around the concepts as agreed in return for their support for the threshold alternative put forth by the government."

I tell the insurance industry, you've made that commitment. You've made that commitment in return for what you got on the threshold, and I hope, as much as I want to believe the minister, and I'm going to, that I can believe the Insurance Bureau of Canada and the representations that they've made.

In another letter, dated June 22, 1993, a carbon copy of which was supplied to me, it says, "Now that the amended bill has been moved out of committee and will be given third reading shortly in the Legislature, we are eager to commence work on development of the mandatory optional excess economic loss endorsement."

The letter goes on to say, "As you are aware, there are a number of issues to be addressed to ensure that the endorsement provides reasonable cover that is affordable to those who need it. We look forward to working together to develop that product."

I thank the Insurance Bureau of Canada and the legal community for the commitment that they've made, and the minister, and I hope in my heart of hearts that we can proceed to develop that economic loss endorsement. If we don't, I see the fallout from this bill as being something that the people of Ontario will not be prepared to live with.

If you take a look at what this bill in effect does, once it takes away economic loss, it creates a meat chart form of compensation for those who are purchasing, at great cost, auto insurance. It creates a highly government-regulated bill and it creates a situation where the government can ultimately take this industry over.

This bill is the precursor of that day. This bill is the precursor of that day, except that as the bill is structured -- and my friend Mr Kormos, whose heart, I know, is in this issue on behalf of innocent accident victims -- I know that Mr Kormos would not accept this bill on behalf of innocent victims.

But it's a very easy vehicle for the government to make that leap. It creates the meat chart, it creates the highly regulated atmosphere necessary and it creates a situation where, if the insurers can't run it and if profit becomes a dirty word and the profit margins can't be there, then the government can easily take this over. To take this bill over, between that and what it does to innocent accident victims, is a tragedy.

As I indicated earlier, automobile insurance is an issue that's gone very wrong in the province of Ontario. It's gone wrong with the Liberal bill, which took rights away from innocent victims to a degree never imagined: 97% of people taken out of the system.

1640

Hon Mr Pouliot: We're fixing that.

Mr Harnick: The Minister of Transportation makes a very interesting comment. He says, "We're fixing that." Well, indeed you are, because what you're doing is giving back a minuscule amount of rights to about 15% of people and taking away an even larger principle that people need to survive, and you're the government which was going to help people. I can tell you that Bill 164 will not help people.

The Liberals, as well, were the people who came along and were going to be a government without walls. They were going to be a breath of fresh air in the province of Ontario. I remember that election well, because I ran in it and I lost. I remember that election well and I remember that people said: "The Liberal government is going to look after people. They're going to help people."

When my phone rings and people tell me they broke their leg or they broke their arm and they're losing income because of it, I tell them that the Liberal OMPP bill took away their rights. That government that was going to help people, David Peterson's government and Murray Elston's government and Lyn McLeod's government, that government took away rights from people who were badly hurt, people who were injured and people who were suffering. When that happened, I said to people, "You've miscalculated." But at any rate, then the NDP came along. I had high hopes that they were going to give those rights back and they didn't do it.

I find it very regrettable, whenever I have to debate the issue of auto insurance, that premiums are always at the top of the ladder. The reason they're at the top of the ladder as prime importance is because most people don't get involved in accidents. As my friend the member for Bruce said, "If you want something, you've got to pay for it," and it's not until people are involved in an accident that they realize how important it is to be covered, to have the protection that they always had until the Liberals and the NDP took over. My premiums have continued to go up. My coverage has continued to go down.

Hon Mr Pouliot: What about your record?

Mr Harnick: The Minister of Transportation, who still has no conception of what happens to an innocent accident victim, shouts across the floor at me, "What about your record?" I have no idea what this minister is even talking about.

Hon Mr Pouliot: You don't have a monopoly.

Mr Harnick: I have no idea when he's making a speech about a transportation issue what he's talking about --

Hon Mr Pouliot: What a coincidence.

Mr Harnick: -- but today he's really out to lunch.

But when I stand here and speak about something I'm very serious about, and I talk about people who are battered and bruised and can't go to work and can't afford to look after their families, and I have a minister of the crown shouting inane comments at me, I say to myself that these people as a government have no idea of what happens to an injured and an innocent victim, because they don't care.

This is the party that used to say, "We want to help injured workers." Injured workers suffer the same way auto accident victims suffer, and you don't care, you don't care at all, and that's the reality, because you can't take these rights away from people and say that you care about them, you can't make innocent victims subsidize those who are at fault for accidents so that they can get an amount that is absolutely beyond belief.

You know, $600 a week isn't bad compensation, if you're at fault for an accident, so that you can carry on looking after your family. You can even protect yourself under the OMPP for $1,000 week, if that was what your income level was.

But the fact of the matter is that to raise those benefits and take more rights away from innocent victims, to take more rights away from the innocent, is absolutely, positively wrong, and then to turn around and kick those innocent victims in the teeth by saying, "By the way, it's going to cost you 17% more to pay your premiums," is absolutely out of sight. Every person on those government benches who's going to vote in favour of this piece of legislation and in favour of further erosion of rights of innocent accident victims should be ashamed, because you campaigned on a very different issue.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): We don't need any lectures from you, Charles.

Mr Harnick: My friend the member for Oxford says he doesn't need any lectures from me. What I say to him is, with your attitude, you go and you talk to an innocent accident victim. You try and convince him, with your attitude, that you're right and he's wrong, when he can't feed his family or she can't feed her family, when he can't go to work.

You know, it's very funny, when you people were sitting over here, you had the greatest compassion. What happened to you? What happened to all you people? This is an issue that isn't even costing the government money. This isn't, in austere times, an issue that's even hurting the government. What happened to you people? Where did your conscience go? What happened to you all? I think you all took a wrong turn, and I would urge everybody on the government benches to take a long, hard look as to whether you really want to pass this bill and hurt the people you used to profess to stand for. I think you should take a long, hard look, because I am proudly going to stand and vote against this bill.

Mr Kormos: I'm pleased to have this chance, and I express my appreciation to the House leaders for consenting for the division of time to permit me to speak. This is probably the last significant debate about auto insurance that will be held during this Parliament. Indeed, the next government may well have to engage the issue by way of debate, and I'm confident that there will be those who will want to participate in it. I know I certainly will, because the solution certainly hasn't been arrived at.

Look, let me put it this way: If I've got to be involved in a car accident -- and I never, ever thought I'd be in a position to say this -- if I had to suffer the tragic fate of being maimed as an innocent victim, of being maimed by the carelessness or drunkenness or negligence of a driver who doesn't care, I say this: By God, please let it happen before this law comes into effect because I tell you, and I never thought I would ever say this, the seriously injured innocent victim is entitled to more compensation and more justice and more fairness under the Ontario motorist protection plan. Lord knows, I with my colleagues fought OMPP. There were only 19 of us; we were the smallest of opposition parties. We fought no-fault auto insurance. We fought it with all the energy we could muster.

The issue today is about promises and it's about trust, because, you see, we, as New Democrats, promised to people in this province, promised to drivers and to victims and to voters that we would restore to innocent victims their right to full compensation. What could be more basic when you talk about justice? The right of an innocent victim, the person who's not at fault or the person who may not even be a driver, may not even be a passenger in a vehicle, the person who could well be the non-car-owner, the pedestrian, not just on the streets of Toronto but on the streets of any city, town or village in this province, the young person, the student, the senior, the mother, the working woman or man whose right to earn a livelihood is stolen from them.

Our pursuit of that goal of justice for the innocent victim was out of a recognition, as I believed then and as I believe now, that governments and their institutions have to be there to protect people who have things stolen from them, who have things taken from them.

1650

We fought no-fault. We said: "No-fault, no way. No-fault doesn't work," and it hasn't. What I've got here are letters and messages from victims across this province who were victims first of the drunk or careless or reckless or negligent driver and then victims a second time of a no-fault auto insurance system. We fought it, and we fought it with passion, and we fought it for good reason. We promised the people of this province that we'd do things differently.

I suppose I should, and I will, pay tribute to people like Bob Runciman, who engaged in that fight as the critic for the Conservative Party when it was in opposition during the last government; to members like Charles Harnick, who, although not a member at the time, passionately engaged in the fight for the rights of innocent victims; and yes, I'll say it, to Mel Swart, who authored Highway Robbery in 1987 with then Leader of the Opposition Bob Rae, the leading document which outlines what New Democrats believe when it comes to auto insurance. That states unequivocally that real New Democrats are committed to the restoration of the rights of innocent accident victims and their right to use the courts if need be to be compensated.

I appreciate that part of the spin on this bill is a little bit of lawyer-bashing, and yes, I used to practise law, but I want to make this clear: It was criminal law, not personal injury work, though I've learned in my five years here that criminal law is a far more suitable legal background to be involved in politics than is civil litigation. It's oh so easy to talk about, "Oh, yes, the lawyers are in there with their greed," and I've got no real sympathy for lawyers, but you ask David Ripsky, an innocent victim sitting right here, a victim not only of an at-fault driver but then of an insurance industry and a no-fault system that has denied him month after month his right to compensation. You ask him about no fault. Please, don't listen to me if you don't wish. Talk to the victims. Talk to the victims of the drunk and the careless and the reckless and the negligent drivers and then victims of a no-fault system, a no-fault system that, I tell you, is being heightened by Bill 164, because what few rights were retained for innocent victims in Bill 68 are now being stripped away.

It's about promises by people who sought elected office, and then it's about trust, because those same voters and drivers and innocent victims put their trust in New Democrats. It's trite to say that they didn't re-elect Liberals to government; they didn't elect the Conservative Party to government. They elected New Democrats in one of the largest majority governments this province has ever seen. I am hard pressed to know of a single New Democratic Party candidate who, as a part of her or his election campaign, didn't promise the restoration of innocent accident victims' rights.

I tell you, I attended with pride, with the leader of my party, Mr Rae, at some of the largest forums that he or I have ever attended, some of the largest collections of people who were passionate in their support for him because of his fight for innocent accident victims, because of his promise to restore to innocent victims their right to justice, their right to their day in court, their right to be fully compensated.

We're talking here about legislation that is a victory of the guilty over the innocent, legislation wherein the drunk or the careless or the reckless or the negligent driver could well -- and will, I tell you -- see herself or himself in receipt of greater benefits than their victim, than the person they attacked with that 2,000 and 3,000 and 4,000 pounds of automobile.

We're talking about a victory of the rich over the poor, because we're talking about a system -- and this should concern my colleagues a great deal -- wherein the poor, the working women and men and the middle class will be subsidizing the insurance premiums of the wealthy. We're talking about legislation -- and who would have thought, from this government -- that will increase premiums and reduce, notwithstanding all the sophistry that's been engaged in by propagandists over the last six, nine months, a year, benefits for most injured people, whether they're at fault or no-fault. You don't have to look at it a whole long time and look at some of the language and look at the reduction of no-fault benefits to 90% of net from 80% of gross: There's going to be a significant reduction in benefits for most injured people, be they recipients by virtue of being at fault or not at fault.

You're looking at a so-called cap to $1,000, and that means only the very wealthy will ever be able to acquire that cap, because we're talking 90% of net. These are people who are grossing probably in the range of $1,600, $1,700, $1,800 a week. Who's going to be subsidizing their premiums? Who is going to be subsidizing those wealthy people? The women and men from Welland-Thorold who work so hard to earn a living or, as often as not, are denied the opportunity to work for a living.

You see, you don't have to listen to me. Talk to the victims. Talk to the drivers. Talk to the people who have already seen their premiums increase as a result of tax policies. I guarantee you, and the government itself acknowledges, that there's going to be premium increases. I've seen the history of those sorts of low-ball, high-ball scenarios, and I'm convinced it won't be as low as 4% and I'm convinced it might not be as high as 78%, but you can bet your boots it's going to be somewhere in the middle.

This is not a great day for drivers or victims. This is a tragic day for both.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Further debate on Bill 164?

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): It doesn't matter how you look at it; Bill 164 is simply bad legislation. Even if the government chooses to amend it, it will cause irreparable harm to the automobile industry and the whole system in the province of Ontario. Bill 164 will result in higher premiums and lower, less effective benefits. It will give accident victims the right to sue for pain and suffering, subject to a $15,000 deductible, but prevent people from suing for loss of current or future income, and replacement income for accident victims will rise to $1,000 a week from the $600 that's there now.

The minister responsible for this flawed auto insurance legislation recently said that this Bill 164 will push premiums up 4%. Insurance companies want increases, and they'll be looking at 8%. Many of Ontario's six million drivers are not aware of it, but the 5% tax on premiums announced in the spring budget will result in a total of a 17% increase in what motorists pay for insurance. That's the overall increase, which is what's being proposed. This means that some drivers could easily see their auto insurance premiums jump as much as $200 a year.

Under the Liberal/NDP regimes, the auto insurance marketplace in Ontario has been subject to substantial political turmoil. Bill 164 is just one more example of this turmoil. Under Bill 164, consumers will be forced to needlessly spend more money on auto insurance and have less to spend on food, clothing and shelter.

Many people in Simcoe East have told me that Bill 164 will reverse the progress made over the last few years and impose new additional cost burdens on the consumers of Ontario. They know that if Bill 164 becomes law, the price of their premiums will go up substantially. They have told me that Bill 164 would impose a very complex and difficult-to-administer auto insurance system upon the drivers of Ontario.

1700

The message that I'm getting from people in Orillia, Penetanguishene and across the riding in places like Elmvale and Coldwater and in the townships is that they are concerned about the issue of auto insurance. They're concerned enough that they write and they have written many letters. They care and they want to share their views that the current Ontario motorist protection plan has brought a certain amount of rate stability and rate reduction to the drivers of Ontario during a severe economic recession.

People have grown accustomed to it since the OMPP was introduced, and they believe that time must be allowed to demonstrate whatever adjustments must be made to this system, if any are needed at all.

I would submit that the OMPP is not perfect, but don't you think it makes more sense to improve upon that system, make it better, rather than replace the system altogether with a more expensive and complex product?

My caucus colleagues and I have repeatedly urged the government to withdraw the flawed legislation. The previous Liberal government created a massive upheaval of the insurance system. It was an upheaval that changed the very nature of automobile insurance in Ontario and I would suggest that to subject the public to yet another wholesale change is both unnecessary and counterproductive.

I trust you will no doubt recall that when the NDP came to power in 1990 it threatened to nationalize the auto insurance industry and it wanted to establish a government-run auto insurance company to provide the coverage. Well, I remember that. Fortunately for the hard-pressed Ontario taxpayers, the NDP was convinced by strong opposition that doing that would put more than 19,000 people out of work and cost upwards of $1.6 billion, and so agreed not to proceed.

Unfortunately, in the narrow scope of this government's vision it remained convinced that it must still tinker with the auto insurance system; hence we are now confronted by the seriously flawed Bill 164.

I share the concerns of the people in Simcoe East who believe that Bill 164 will increase costs and premiums by as much as 20%; make women and older drivers pay substantially more for automobile insurance due to reclassification of risks that will lead to unfair consumer cost subsidization; eliminate choice for consumers -- what about the victims' rights in all this?; raise operating costs for companies and result in employment reduction and possible bankruptcies; increase access to tort and higher-cost settlements which will unduly increase costs; encourage capital flight; and send a signal to investors that the NDP government's freeze-and-squeeze regulatory framework makes Ontario an unattractive investment.

As far as I'm concerned, the expected increase in auto insurance premiums to pay for these increased costs is an unacceptable and unnecessary expense to the auto insurance consumers in the province of Ontario.

Rather than scrapping the OMPP altogether, the NDP government should improve it to ensure that there's fair and certain levels of compensation for loss of income and the victims who need time to recover; more compensation; fast, efficient payments for the victims when they get it; reasonable legal and administration costs; affordable premiums; and accountability for drivers' actions.

I had a constituent in the village of Elmvale who came to me many months ago with regard to the problems he was having. He couldn't even get his $185 a week that he was trying to get. There seemed to have been some problem with regard to the way the system was working.

As I've said before, we want to improve on what we had. We didn't need a whole overhaul of the system. I would suggest that Bill 164 does not even come close to satisfying the requirements the people have out there. I am concerned that the enhanced structured benefits for economic loss contained in 164 are too rich and likely to become as unsustainable as Workers' Compensation Board benefits.

There should be no doubt in anybody's mind that the PC caucus does not support this bill. Bill 164 is considered by all concerned to be hopelessly flawed in its design and its intent.

Following considerable discussions with consumers and insurance industry representatives, our caucus introduced a few selected amendments to Bill 164, and not to be outdone -- it's the same as normal -- there was not one that was accepted and they were all voted down.

There were many people who are suspicious of the intention of the NDP to use Bill 164 to force the industry out of business so they can go on and have an excuse to introduce government-run insurance, with all the inefficiencies, cost overruns and bureaucracy that implies. I hope that this is not the case.

I urge the government to withdraw Bill 164 and give the OMPP a chance to prove its worth. Do not scrap a system that appears to be working if all you're going to do is replace it with a more expensive and counterproductive system. The bottom line is what I said in the last paragraph.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I originally wasn't going to speak on this item because we do have a number of people who have reviewed this situation very carefully and I think have made some excellent deputations here this afternoon, but I must admit that I did receive a copy of a presentation from a person who has been in the field for a number of years through an insurance agency, Bill Starr, and I was very taken by the concerns that were expressed in this particular presentation of his and I just felt that these were some concerns that needed to be articulated here this afternoon in the House.

The basic summary: I think the minister has indicated that there are additional benefits through this bill, and I guess there's no disagreement in that, but the bill also takes away benefits. So it gives on the one hand and takes away on the other. I think the general summary from most of those who've been involved with this bill is that it takes away more benefits than it adds. But what it does add is additional cost, and the bottom line is that it causes more problems than it solves.

There has been a statement in the press that perhaps this could result in about $200 extra for the motorist in the province of Ontario, and I think if you break that down, that's quite possible. We've already seen a 5% increase because of the retail sales tax. This particular bill the minister has indicated will result in about a 3% to 4% increase in the cost of insurance to the motorist, but those who are involved and have experience in the industry over a period of time say that that quite likely could be 7%. When you add on an additional amount from the industry itself in terms of its particular needs, it's quite easy to see how the average motorist in the province of Ontario could receive an increase in the vicinity of 20%. If you're paying $1,000 today in insurance, tomorrow you could well be paying $1,200. So that's how the $200 would be arrived at.

I think that flies in the face of our general economic situation and our thrust to keep expenses under control, but this is a bill to save face. This is a bill that was concocted because the public insurance concept came forward, it didn't fly, there had to be backtracking from it and there had to be something to fill the void, and this is the bill that does that.

The general impact, though, will be that there will be more cost to those who need insurance and there will be rights, in particular rights of innocent victims to sue, that will be removed.

We're talking about people, for example, a self-employed person, perhaps a painter, who no longer is able to pursue his or her particular profession and they have lost the right to sue, lost the right to seek economic payments, or perhaps a recent graduate who has a whole career to look forward to in the province of Ontario but again the right to seek economic redress has been removed.

A couple of the specific comments that are made in the brief I mentioned that concern me a great deal: One comment that's made in this brief is that income under the Ontario motorist protection plan, the plan that exists today, provides adequate income for the majority of injured victims.

I must say that the brief indicates that the Ontario motorist protection plan has flaws -- there is no question about that; it needs to be addressed -- but Bill 164 is the wrong way to do it.

1710

Difficulties, for example, have occurred in the past because those claiming income benefits have sometimes given information that has been at odds with their income tax statements. In other words, they have built up their last four weeks of income above and beyond the level that is substantiated by their income tax returns, and this, apparently, is to achieve the maximum benefits.

Now, who pays? We might say: "That's fine. If they get a little bit extra out of their income benefits through insurance, who cares? Who cares about that?" But the question is, who pays for the extra coverage that they get? The answer clearly, Mr Speaker, is that you and I and all the other motorists in the province of Ontario who are insured have to pick up that extra cost.

The brief goes on to say that many of these people do not return to work. They visit doctors regularly to support their claim. The doctors receive a regular income from OHIP for the visits and the drivers -- they're talking in this case about taxi drivers -- continue to receive tax-free income. So not only does the cost of the whole auto insurance program suffer, but the cost suffers for health care purposes.

Again, who pays? It's the people of the province of Ontario who are forced to pay this extra amount, both through the health care system and through their auto insurance. Yet seriously injured innocent victims who meet the threshold, who presently can sue for lost income, have that right removed under the bill.

Another area of concern is about death benefits. Again, the right to sue has been removed for economic loss. Careless drivers are treated in exactly the same fashion as are innocent victims. The families of innocent victims are only given a token amount which in most cases would amount to three or four years of income, I gather. But once the money is gone, through the legal system, there is no ability to seek an adequate compensation. That's removed through Bill 164.

It's also interesting to indicate that claims can be made by people from other countries, stating that they are dependent upon the deceased for support. Bill 164 does nothing to address that particular situation.

Moving on to the area of rehabilitation in the couple minutes I have left, the brief indicates that the present cost of rehabilitation of about $500,000 is adequate in most cases and there is a form of redress if that isn't adequate. Since the introduction, I might say, of the Ontario motorist protection plan, there has been quite an increase in the number of rehabilitation services: physiotherapy, psychological services, these kind of services. The cost of these services, although not paid through OHIP, is expected to be paid through auto insurance.

Certainly, as a result of this bill, there will more abuse in these particular areas. There will be a greater cost that'll have to be borne by those who are purchasing auto insurance in the province of Ontario. The insurers must continue to make payment of these services, even though they know that the claim is fraudulent. This will carry on and this particular bill does nothing to address this situation.

In the last 30 seconds, the final concern is with regard to the arbitration process, which today is six months behind the times, where the arbitrators are dealing with issues beyond their control, making substantial claims. They have very little training in that regard and this is something again that this bill does not address but will affect the amount of insurance that you and I will pay in the future.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable minister has reserved a few minutes at the end to sum up. The honourable minister and government House leader.

Hon Mr Charlton: I think what I wanted to say in summing up was to thank a number of people who have played, from my perspective, a very important role in the process over the last almost three years now.

First of all, let me say thank you to Blair Tully, who was my deputy at the auto insurance review, and to all the staff at the auto insurance review. They not only did a magnificent job in terms of the work on this project and one that came before it, but they also now hold the distinction of being probably the only bureaucracy to disappear all on its own at the end of its task and to not continue, therefore, to burden the public purse.

I'd like to thank my parliamentary assistant, Steve Owens, for his very able work on this bill in the House and in committee. He did a magnificent job of dealing with this bill through the committee stage at the same time as he was out learning to drive and getting his licence in this province.

To the members of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs from both sides of the House, to my own caucus colleagues, who aptly represented the government legislation, but to the opposition members as well -- and I should correct the second to last speaker from the third party. There was one major amendment to the legislation that resulted from a lot of work done by the member for Willowdale. That amendment was accepted by the government.

To the opposition party House leader, Mr Elston, for his input and to the critic for the Conservative Party, Mr Tilson, for his input, I thank them. Their comments did not go unnoticed, nor did the amendments they proceeded with go unnoticed.

But especially to the member for Willowdale, although he stood in his place this afternoon and spoke against the bill, which is not only understandable from him, but the member for Willowdale took the time, in spite of his opposition to the legislation, to proceed to deal with two major issues around the bill behind the scenes, which led to amendments that he referred to in his comments this afternoon that will help to make the bill a better piece of legislation as a result.

To the members of my own staff, to Mr Harnick's best friend, Hugh O'Reilly, who is my chief of staff, and to his wife, who was his predecessor in the position, Anne Creighton, who helped me and led me through this process, I owe a lot. To Joy Klopp and Val Fogarty and Brian Donlevy, who helped me through the difficulties and my parliamentary assistant through the difficulties of the legislative process, and to Lucy Rybka Becker and Gene Long, who helped me in all of those difficult scrums with the media, my very sincere thanks.

To all of the people who were interested in automobile insurance reform and who took the time to make their views known to me, a special thanks to all of those activists in the legal community, to a number of people from a variety of victims' groups and to the insurance industry. The input that went into this legislation from all stakeholders, from all sides, was extremely important in building this package of balances between the need for reform and the costs of those reforms and so on and so forth.

Lastly, my thanks to the member for Welland-Thorold for having helped to keep me focused on the issue that he raises so often, innocent victims. There are innocent victims of accidents; there are also innocent victims of each of the insurance systems that we've talked about in this debate, innocent victims of the right to sue, innocent victims of OMPP, and there will be some innocent victims of Bill 164 as well. It's our judgement there will be fewer with Bill 164.

1720

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allotted for third reading of Bill 164.

Mr Charlton has moved third reading of Bill 164. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We have five members standing in their places; therefore we will call in --

Hon Mr Charlton: Mr Speaker, I understand we have an agreement to take this vote at 5:45 along with the vote that's been deferred to 5:50 on employment equity.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent to defer this vote until 5:45? I want all members to realize that we have a vote at 5:55 as well. We will need a five-minute bell for that. Do we have unanimous consent for a recorded vote on the third reading of Bill 164 at 5:45? Do we have agreement? Agreed.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Might I suggest, although we haven't talked about this, that one five-minute bell for both votes would seem to be reasonable. I certainly would agree to that on behalf of the Liberal Party so that the members be called once, that doors be opened just for --

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent for a five-minute bell for both votes with the door being unlocked for a short period of time between votes? Agreed. The vote will therefore be at 5:55.

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 32, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la taxe de vente au détail.

VEHICLE TRANSFER PACKAGE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES DOSSIERS DE TRANSFERT DE VÉHICULES

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 34, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act and the Personal Property Security Act in respect of Vehicle Transfer Packages / Loi modifiant le Code de la route et la Loi sur les sûretés mobilières à l'égard des dossiers de transfert de véhicules.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): I believe when last debated, the member for Mississauga North, Mr Offer, had the floor. Further debate in the normal rotation? Further debate on the government side? The honourable member for St Catharines, official opposition.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this, yet another tax bill, another increase in costs for consumers and taxpayers in the province of Ontario at a time when I believe it's essential to leave as much money as possible in the hands of consumers, who are able to make the appropriate purchases and get the economy moving.

The provisions of these two bills, which are together as a package, essentially make it more complicated for a private transaction. It means that the government is intruding further when people are making purchases of used vehicles. A lot of those that used to take place were not particularly complicated, not particularly costly, but it's obvious that the Treasurer and the government are interested in getting every last penny possible out of taxpayers and that's why they have brought forward this particular provision.

The vehicle transfer package is what I think most people would agree to as a thinly disguised tax grab. The government's handling of the economy has necessitated that it derive more revenue from as many places as possible.

Members will recall the uproar that greeted the introduction of these bills initially, where people are forced to pay far more tax than they had anticipated. If a person wishes to claim a tax rebate, buyers obviously face a jungle of new government red tape. If a buyer believes he or she has paid tax based upon an overinflated assessment, the person must pay to have an appraiser estimate the true value of the car, and then the buyer must appeal to the government for a refund. In essence, the government is forcing buyers to pay more money in order to receive tax money that never should have been taken away by the Treasurer in the first place.

I think this has been a consistent argument against this particular tax. The new tax system is unfair to used car buyers and sellers. I think the new scheme forces the sellers to purchase an unnecessary vehicle transfer package. If it were voluntary, that would be reasonable, but when people are compelled to do so, it seems to me that is unnecessary.

Buyers must pay based upon the past history of a car or truck. When the economy is in a recession, buyers often purchase vehicles at a discount of their historical value. The new system forces them to pay tax not based upon the sale price but based upon past history.

I think that if we look around the province now and see many of the bargains that are out there in terms of what people have to pay for various items, we would recognize that on virtually everything out there, people are able to get a better deal than they could when the inflation rate was higher, when the economy was booming, when there were far more people working and fewer people unemployed. At the present time, people are able to get bargains in various areas, yet the government is saying now that if you can get a bargain for a vehicle, and some people are very much in need of a vehicle, you still have to pay tax based upon the history of the car or truck; in other words, the historical value.

It seems to me that when people are out there trying to get a job, and many jobs require a vehicle and the use of a vehicle, one of the ways we could make it easier -- some people have been unemployed for some period of time and they don't have the opportunity to go out and purchase a vehicle if they've been on unemployment insurance for a long period of time and perhaps have had to go on general welfare benefits. It would seem to me that if they were able to get a car at a good price and pay the tax based on the price they actually paid -- I agree that you need verification for that -- that would be reasonable.

I think of students out there who've had a difficult time this summer, because when the economy isn't booming, it's difficult to get various jobs. Some of those students want to go out to buy a car. Just a little while ago, I was talking to a student by the name of Dean Johnson from the Ottawa Valley. He was mentioning that he had paid, I think, something like half a dozen charges or taxes as a result of purchasing a used vehicle.

We know we have the famous GST, which is the product of the government of Canada. We have the PST, which is the product of the government of Ontario. People are paying gas taxes. They're paying licensing fees which are significantly higher than they were a few years ago. Their insurance costs are now higher. Because of Bill 164, we'll see a higher cost; it remains to be seen just how much. Of course, because of the tax on automobile insurance, we will find that it's going to cost more to operate. I understand from people who know the business that there's a tax on warranties as well now as a result of the budget.

It seems to me that these bills are not supportable because, essentially, they're a tax grab. If you combine them with all of the other taxes we're seeing at this time, and everybody understands you've got to have taxes to run government, we know that in boom times, in good economic times, the ability for the economy to sustain tax increases, although they're never popular, is far greater than it is in difficult economic times.

1730

I had hoped, and I saw certain indications from reading various publications, that perhaps we were pulling out of this recession: not quickly, but slowly and surely moving out of the recession. Now I find that with the new taxes that are coming into effect, people are more reticent to put the money out. In fact, they don't have as much money. We have the companion to this: Income tax increases took effect July 1 of this year where the government will hit people with a double whammy; that is, it's going to try to get the taxes for an entire year in just six months. We will see a substantial amount of money being taken out of the pockets of the consumers of this province, and certainly members of this Legislature fall into that category. Not many people out there watching today are aware that members of provincial Parliament have had their salaries frozen for three years, that in fact the plan is to cut those by a certain percentage and likely freeze them for three more years. I don't expect there's going to be an outpouring of sympathy. I don't expect a lot of letters saying, "Isn't it too bad?" except perhaps some of the members over there, who might write to me and ask what I can do about it.

What I'm pointing out is that if people have less money to spend, there's less of a chance for industry to get going again. Everybody represents areas that need jobs, but I think of the member for Hamilton East, the Minister of Labour, who's in a city that's been hard hit in these recessionary times: The steel industry, which was so important and remains very important, has faced tremendous competition for a variety of reasons. And those who represent the plastics areas that produce plastics, or lumbering, a variety of industries, find that if people have less money to spend at this time, there's going to be less economic activity.

There is a dilemma for government. To be fair to everybody, there's nobody in this House who understands better than those who sit on the opposition, as well as the government, that there is a need for restraint; that any unnecessary expenditures of government must be either postponed or totally eliminated. But what we're concerned about is that we're going to see so much money taken out of the hands of consumers with this tax and a number of other taxes that the recovery of the economy will be delayed -- I hope not killed; I don't think it will be, but it will be delayed. There has been some flicker of hope from south of the border, where for a while our exports were increasing, though I think I noticed some figures that came out yesterday or the day before that said American exports to Canada had increased rather significantly.

Now, I get a face. What's the face for over there? We always get the face on the other side. Every time you say something, there's a face from the member for Middlesex over there. I don't know why you're curling your face up like that.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I want to remind the honourable member to place his comments through the Speaker and it would avoid a lot of confusion.

Mr Bradley: I think you're right, Mr Speaker, and I'll take your advice there.

There is a recognition that if there may be some kind of recovery in the United States, the consumers there may well be in a position to make some purchases which would be of assistance to Canada.

One of the areas where I have some optimism, and I hope there is some considerable optimism, is that our automotive industry may bounce back, because it is exceedingly important. I think everyone recognizes that one job out of every six jobs in this province is related, either directly or indirectly, to the automotive industry. If we could get that industry going again, a lot of the constituencies represented by these members who sit in the House today could see some benefits. Although we've had some closings, and we're quite depressed in our area about some of the closings in the Niagara Peninsula, it would be our hope that we could see some economic activity that would be helpful.

People have to have the money to buy cars, whether they're used cars or new cars, and I have recommended on many occasions that the Treasurer not only not proceed with this tax but that he eliminate the tax on auto workers, which I refer to as a tax on auto workers because it's a so-called gas guzzler tax. When you examine it carefully, you see its very regressive effect on our economy.

As I've stated on many occasions, we have an opportunity, by removing that tax, of accomplishing two things.

First, we have an improvement because people will likely be prepared to purchase new vehicles and get rid of their old clunkers. We have an opportunity, therefore, to have vehicles out there that have (1) better fuel efficiency and (2) are going to have better pollution abatement equipment on them.

Second, if people are purchasing those cars, it tends to stimulate the economy. In this case, not only are they not going to buy new cars -- one of the reasons is that the Treasurer will keep that tax on and people will have less money to spend because of other taxes, but second, because of this particular tax regime, we will find that people won't even have money to spend on used vehicles.

Yet the government has, as I say, proceeded with a number of tax increases which will be extracting money from the economy. I can remember sitting in this House in years gone by when the New Democratic Party has, I think rightly, opposed tax increases which have been proposed by other governments. I admired the stand that members of the Legislature who now sit on the government side took in those days on these particular tax increases, and I wish there would be a revolt among members, the way the member for Lincoln on one occasion stood very bravely and voted against the tobacco tax because he felt it would be detrimental to the farming community in Ontario. I would hope that other members would rise and oppose this particular tax that is going to cost more for people in the province.

We have a tax in addition to this, because we're talking about vehicle taxes, on insurance premiums for automobiles, and we've had Bill 164, the auto insurance bill that has just preceded this in terms of discussion in this House. We have an increase in auto insurance rates that will be directly attributable to the new tax on insurance premiums. Not only do you get it on your household tax at 8%, the premiums on your household belongings and so on, but also the 5% tax on automobile insurance.

So you put all of these together and you find out there's less money out there: less money to spend on tourism, less money to spend on the purchase of vehicles, less money to spend, really, on some of the necessities of life. I know the various large manufacturers are hoping -- they keep talking about consumer confidence -- that consumer confidence will come back, but it can come back only if there is money in the hands of these people, if they don't believe that somehow the money's going to be taken out of their hands by the government.

I also look at whether the taxes are to be used for certain reasons. You find that the public tends to look for two things. They look, first of all, to see if they're getting value for their dollar, and if they are, you tend to see a public that will grudgingly accept a tax increase where there's a direct benefit attributable to the province. We don't see many examples of that, but, for instance, if farmers in our province saw that the money was to be utilized to assist them in times of very difficult competition, some of it prompted by the free trade agreement and some by the proposed NAFTA agreement -- if they could see the kind of support that governments have promised over the years, they might be able to accept the taxes or the increased fees which are found in this particular bill.

But we don't see that. In the Niagara Peninsula, we do not see that the farmers who were promised conservation easements which would allow them to stay on their land and still be producing various products for the province of Ontario -- we don't see that forthcoming. The member for Lincoln, the member for St Catharines-Brock and I would all be aware that the price of cherries is substantially below what it cost to produce those cherries.

You, Mr Speaker, as Agriculture critic for the third party in the House, would recognize that those people have come to you and said that their costs have increased. If they saw a tax increase that could be helping them out, they might be prepared to support it. But they certainly would not see that in this bill.

If, for instance, the government said, "We're not going to proceed with this tax and we're going to cut our advertising budget," they might be happy in that regard, because people think that perhaps some of this money is going to pay for the full-page ads which the government puts in the newspaper on the weekends. I must say that these particular advertisements that I've seen on this occasion are among the most partisan, self-serving ads I've ever seen.

If the Minister of Health puts an ad in the paper and says, "Look, we are removing the following pieces of coverage from you; the following drugs will no longer be covered for seniors," if they're providing that kind of direct information to people, that's hard information that's useful for people to know, and people don't complain about that; the opposition would be on very shaky ground to be able to quarrel with that. If the government is promoting the province of Ontario in terms of tourism, trying to get people here, advertising in the foreign media, for instance, or in other provincial media, one would say, "Well, there may be something productive in that regard." But when it's simply self-serving advertising of the kind we saw last weekend, what I call the Mulroney advertising -- in fact, I don't know whether you've surpassed Mulroney in this, but you've at least equalled him. Because you'd open the mailbox some days and the federal government would have its budget and out would come something from the federal government, and then you get the full page ads on things.

1740

I thought only Mulroney was involved in this because I remember our Premier, when he was in opposition, was a strong opponent of this. He was a person who said this would be a misuse of taxpayers' money, and second, it would be morally and ethically incorrect to do so.

I don't know whether there are any morals or ethics left to talk about in the House because, as I've said in this House on many occasions, I used to count on the NDP to provide that because they used to say all the time that they were ethically and morally above others, and I think they convinced a lot of people in this province. That's why it's most disappointing, not to those who tend to be cynical about all political parties, but to those who are strong supporters of the New Democratic Party, like Michael Davidson who writes in the Hamilton Spectator from time to time or Rob Martin who has had articles in various papers.

I would also like to note that there's something else the government spends money on and that is polls, and if money is going from these taxes to pay for polls, I think that people in this province would not be supportive of that. We've seen examples -- despite the fact it's been raised in the House, despite the fact that the Premier, in his previous incarnation as leader of the opposition and I'm sure federally as well when he was the official spokesperson in the field of finance in the federal House of Commons -- that there was a great opposition to polling: using the taxpayers' dollars to tell the government what the public is thinking so the government can gear its policies to that.

I well recall when the New Democratic Party knew where it stood in every issue, where it didn't have to simply put up a flag to see which way the wind was blowing, a flag in the form of an expensive poll to see which way it was going. So I thought they were going to be different --

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): We know who the experts are in that department.

Mr Bradley: The Minister of Agriculture enters with an interjection, as he did this afternoon, and the point I'd like to make with him is not so much that the government is doing it, but that this was where the NDP was going to be different.

People thought, "Well, they may not be able to run the economy very well," or "We may not agree with their policies," at least the mainstream of Ontario, "but at least we know that ethically they are going to be above others." I think the greatest disappointment for me is not the way that you've, some would say, botched the running of the economy -- I won't be so unkind this afternoon --

Hon Mr Buchanan: The farmers are happy.

Mr Bradley: The farmers are happy, says the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I had some calls at my constituency office this afternoon from cherry farmers who are decidedly unhappy because of the price they're getting for cherries. It's significantly below the price of production, and I'm sure the member for Lincoln, who is in the House this afternoon, would certainly agree with me on that and will be joining me in a fight for the farmers in the Niagara region as he has in the past.

I understand that there's vote taking place in about two minutes, so I will try to wrap up my remarks in this particular case to say that I implore all members of the House to persuade the Premier and to persuade the Minister of Finance, formerly called the Treasurer, to withdraw this tax and other taxes which are punitive to the general population of Ontario and which will have the effect of dampening the economy.

If he were to do so, we in the opposition would rise, I'm sure, in concert to pay tribute to the Premier for making this particular gesture. Being fairminded as we are, I'm sure that he would see that the applause would come from members on all sides of the House.

I believe that the time for this debate as expired and therefore I will --

The Acting Speaker: I just want to remind the member that the time for the debate can go on for 10 more minutes; we do have two votes at 5:55.

Mr Bradley: Ten more minutes. I will be happy to continue then. I appreciate the opportunity then to deal with some of the other issues that are so important to the province on this bill.

If, for instance, the money that is to be derived from this tax were to be used to assist the people in our area, the care givers for Alzheimer's patients, I would be pleased to see that, if they said, "Well, this is what it's going to be used for." But those people have said, "No, we're not getting that additional assistance." People who have Alzheimer's and who have people at home who care for them are going to be more and more on their own, because there are an increasing number of people to serve and the money for it is not increasing. If they said, "We will use this tax money for that purpose and not for polls and not for government advertising," then we might be prepared to be supportive of that. I hope the government has heard this message. I hope they are beginning to see that this need exists.

Or if the money were to be used for hard-to-serve individuals at home, those who have multiple disabilities, who are at home and require a specialized worker to come in to work with those people, there might be some support for that. If I went to my constituents and said, "That's what they're going to spend the money on. It's not going to be on polls, it's not going to be on advertising, it's not going to be squandered on things -- the new WCB building -- that aren't necessary. It's going to be placed where it's going to do the most good for vulnerable people in our province," I'm sure we would have some considerable support for that.

I'm sure that in education, where there are special needs that exist that can't be met with the present allocation, if I were to go to the people and say, "Out of this tax that is being announced and put through by this government, these new charges, these new fees, as a result very hard-to-serve children within the school system are going to receive that additional assistance," people might well say, "That's good news."

Or if the people in the Niagara region, for instance, the regional council, who want to have funds available to be able to carry out water and sewer projects were to have that money available from the province as a result of this tax, they might say, "We don't like new taxes, we're generally not in favour of them, but if you're going to have those new taxes and we're going to see the results of those in terms of new construction of facilities to treat sewage and to upgrade sewage treatment plants," I think you might find that there would be some support at the very least for that kind of tax.

Or if you were to say that municipalities are going to be assisted in meeting their various obligations that they're cutting back so drastically on now as a result of this tax, then I think the municipalities would say, "We don't like these taxes, we don't like the new charges that are suggested in this particular bill, but by gosh, if it's going to improve the quality of life, if it's going to allow us to continue essential services to people in our part of the province, then we might be supportive of it."

I hoped that they would do with this bill what they were going to do with the photo radar. I used to see the photo radar tax, as I call it, listed on the sheet for the remaining bills to be considered. That dropped off. I want to compliment the government, because I want to be a fairminded person, for dropping that off the list under pressure from the opposition. I find out that --

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): What about the tire tax?

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): Tire tax.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Bradley: Mr Speaker, would you bring the government benches to order over there?

The Acting Speaker: Yes. The honourable member for St Catharines has the floor very legitimately. Please allow him.

Mr Bradley: Here I am complimenting the government for doing something, for postponing the implementation of that cash cow called photo radar in this province. When they did that, I said that the government House leader shouldn't --

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Shame on you. It is a safety initiative. Shame.

Mr Bradley: I hear "Shame" coming from the Minister of Transportation, but I know that the government House leader doesn't agree with him, because he has withdrawn the bill.

The Minister of Transportation would see that as a cash cow available so he could derive more money, getting innocent people when in fact the concentration should be on bad drivers on the road who are causing the accidents and not simply a photograph being taken and whoever owns the car being blamed for the speed of that car. That's simply a cash cow.

I want to compliment the government House leader, under pressure from the opposition, on withdrawing that particular bill. The Minister of Agriculture and Food is here, and he would recognize very well on the two-lane highways in his part of the province that it is not very popular when there is a police vehicle sitting there round a bend simply getting innocent people -- nobody on the road, a very safe way to be able to be driving -- and now they can have photo radar. They don't even have to be there. They simply have the photo radar getting those people. I'm sure he has many constituents, as do all the people in the rural areas of this province, who would be concerned about photo radar.

1750

If the money that's to be derived from this bill were to be used to set up a casino in Windsor, then there may be some people who would say, "I don't want to see this go through." Day after day we have asked questions about the proposed casino, which was something that was never found in the NDP platform. In fact, there was great opposition from the old CCF, the people I admired, and the NDP. They did not want a tax on the poor, they did not want a tax on the vulnerable, and now we see them bringing it forward. I'm wondering if some of the money that's to be derived from this bill will in fact make its way into the construction of a casino for gambling.

I noticed on the weekend, and I wish I had it here today -- I don't think I have it in my file -- Pierre Berton in the Toronto Star. Pierre Berton is a known supporter over the years, for the most part, of the New Democratic Party. Pierre Berton said in the weekend Toronto Star that casino gambling wasn't the route to go. He was critical of his party on this, the party he has supported.

Mr Hayes: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know it's not normal for a person to ask someone from the opposition a question, but maybe the member would be kind enough to tell us what he did with all the money they got from the tire tax that they collected over these years.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Bradley: To continue my attack on casino gambling in Ontario, I suspect there are many people on the government benches who have been silent but don't want to be silent on casino gambling. They read Pierre Berton in the Toronto Star, as I know you did, and you are convinced, I'm sure, if you weren't convinced before, when a person such as Pierre Berton opposes it, that in fact casino gambling will not be good for the province.

I suspect that this government already regrets having gone down the road that it has when we look at the consequences of this. If even a penny to be derived from this tax is to go to help establish casinos in this province, I am sure that New Democrats at the next annual meeting will be there to revolt against the leadership of this party.

The Acting Speaker: I want to remind members that we have about two minutes for questions or comments, at which time the Speaker will have to interrupt to move into a vote mode. Questions or comments?

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I want to say how important the remarks of the honourable member for St Catharines are on this very, very important motion. It is important because he raises the spectre of what casino gambling might do to the province. We know, in fact, that casino gambling is a most abhorrent tax on the poor. We know also that such an initiative is going to be totally destructive of the social fabric in Ontario.

I have to say, from the time that I have spent in this House over the last three years, that when the member for St Catharines rises to speak in this House, all the members of this House must take notice. The issues which he brings are issues of great contention and importance to all members of this House. I want to affirm, if I might, in the few minutes that are given to me, that this issue that he has raised about casino gambling and the possible expansion of gambling in the province is a very negative thing.

I want to also say that his raising of the name Pierre Berton is very significant indeed, because Pierre Berton was a person of great importance to the New Democratic Party. He is a journalist who has been able to put forward proper points of view. He has shown the philosophy of the New Democratic Party over the years in the things that he has written, and I must say that when Pierre Berton speaks about the negativity of casino gambling, he speaks with authority.

I want to affirm that the words he has spoken should be taken very well by the members of the government, who don't seem to be listening to those people nor those groups or institutions that are against the expansion of gambling in our society.

I would say thank you to the member for St Catharines for his remarks.

The Acting Speaker: Time has now elapsed. When we next debate Bill 32 and Bill 34, the member for St Catharines will have the opportunity to respond if there are any more questions and/or comments.

We now move to an order of the House from last week, to a deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 79. We will first then vote on Bill 164, as was previously agreed; a five-minute bell. We'll call in the members for both votes.

The division bells rang from 1756 to 1801.

INSURANCE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LES LOIS CONCERNANT LES ASSURANCES

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 164, An Act to amend the Insurance Act and certain other Acts in respect of Automobile Insurance and other Insurance Matters / Loi modifiant la Loi sur les assurances et certaines autres lois en ce qui concerne l'assurance-automobile et d'autres questions d'assurance.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): As previously agreed earlier this afternoon, we will now be voting on third reading of Bill 164, An Act to amend the Insurance Act and certain other Acts in respect of Automobile Insurance and other Insurance Matters. This bill was moved by Mr Charlton.

All those in favour of Mr Charlton's bill will rise one at a time to be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Charlton, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Dadamo, Duignan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard;

Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Ziemba.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Charlton's motion will please rise one at a time and be identified by the Clerk.

Nays

Beer, Bradley, Brown, Carr, Cleary, Conway, Curling, Drainville, Eddy, Elston, Harnick, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Kormos, McClelland, McLean, Miclash, Morrow, Murdoch (Grey), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Poole, Runciman, Sola, Sterling, Stockwell, Witmer.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 61; the nays are 26. I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

We will now ask the sergeant to open the doors for a few moments between votes.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'ÉQUITÉ EN MATIÈRE D'EMPLOI

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 79, An Act to provide for Employment Equity for Aboriginal People, People with Disabilities, Members of Racial Minorities and Women / Loi prévoyant l'équité en matière d'emploi pour les autochtones, les personnes handicapées, les membres des minorités raciales et les femmes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We will now proceed to a deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 79, An Act to provide for Employment Equity for Aboriginal People, People with Disabilities, Members of Racial Minorities and Women. This motion was moved by the Honourable Ms Ziemba.

All those in favour of Ms Ziemba's motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Dadamo, Duignan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard;

Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Ziemba.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to Ms Ziemba's motion will please rise one at a time and be identified by the Clerk.

Nays

Beer, Bradley, Brown, Carr, Cleary, Conway, Curling, Eddy, Elston, Harnick, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), McClelland, McLean, Miclash, Murdoch (Grey), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Poole, Runciman, Sola, Sterling, Stockwell, Witmer.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 65; the nays are 23. I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Justice committee.

The Acting Speaker: The bill shall then be channelled into the justice committee.

It now being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, July 20, at 1:30 pm.

The House adjourned at 1811.

19 juillet 1993