role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

November 15, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

NURSES’ PARTICIPATION IN HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT

EMPLOYER HEALTH LEVY

ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES

OFFTRACK BETTING

CRAIG SHERGOLD

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

BERLIN WALL

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

NURSING CO-ORDINATOR

RESPONSES

NURSING CO-ORDINATOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

AGRICULTURAL LAND

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

PASSENGER RAIL SERVICES

ST MARYS RIVER WATER QUALITY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

HEALTH SERVICES

NORTHERN AIR SERVICES / SERVICE AÉRIEN DU NORD

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICE WORKERS

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETITIONS

DIRECT GRANT PROGRAM

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES

BICYCLES AND SKATEBOARDS

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INSURANCE STATUTE AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

ROYAL ASSENT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

NURSES’ PARTICIPATION IN HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT

Mr Reville: Members may remember that last spring the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) rose in her place and with much fanfare announced that she was going to solve the nursing crisis in the province of Ontario once and for all. Of course, what she did was to say, “I am going to change the regulations to the Public Hospitals Act so that nurses can finally have some say in how their workplaces are run,” and she then pointed a finger at the hospital administrators of the province and said, “Ye shall do this thing by 30 September 1989.”

As my colleague from the third party and I have pointed out, many a time the minister’s fiat is not always obeyed by hospitals, although we cannot imagine why. Today in the press we see that a head nurse, Glenna Cole Slattery, has said that only one of the province’s 222 hospitals has complied by the 30 September deadline and that, of course, has set in motion a huge argument with one of the administrators of a hospital who says: “No, no, she is wrong. There are two hospitals.”

Well, whether it is one or two, one or two out of 222 is a very poor score. When do members think that the government will really take action to improve the problems in nursing in the province?

EMPLOYER HEALTH LEVY

Mr Jackson: I hope the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) takes the time to review what a coalition of Ontario small businesses had to say this morning about his employer health tax. The coalition made a forceful case against the tax on the grounds that it is not revenue-neutral, that it is a hidden tax which will ultimately be paid by employees, that it could hurt business development in Ontario, that it will create huge amounts of extra paperwork and a larger civil service.

I would think that a Treasurer who yesterday released a forecast projecting higher unemployment rates, slower growth and fewer new jobs, would want to reconsider the wisdom of imposing a tax on job creation. At the very least, the Treasurer should add some meat to the bones of his government’s rhetoric on the importance of the small business sector by following the recommendation made this morning by the coalition and earlier by this party that the bill be amended to provide for a small business exemption.

Such an exemption would greatly reduce the complexity of the new tax system but encourage small-business job creation and move the new tax closer to revenue neutrality thereby relieving our employers of having to pay additional tax on account of this government’s mismanagement of the health care system.

If the Treasurer turns a deaf ear to these recommendations and to others which will be put forward during public hearings on the employer health tax bill, I fully expect to see him back in this chamber in the not-too-distant future trying to undo the mischief caused by this most destructive new tax.

ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES

Mr Adams: While every Parliament is representative in the sense that every individual and group in the province is involved in the electoral process, no Parliament has ever been a true cross-section of the people it represents. It is healthy for a Parliament, from time to time, to think about its makeup so that members become more conscious of biases which might develop in it.

We can think of representativeness in all sorts of ways. For example, the average age of members in this House is 49 years. This is somewhat younger than the last Parliament, but it is higher than the average of the general population. The 18-to-34 age group of electors is very poorly represented here, with only 2.6 per cent of the members representing 20 per cent of the population. The over-65 age group is also poorly represented, with just over four percent of the members representing more than 10 per cent of the population.

Around 80 per cent of members have some post-secondary education. This is certainly not representative of the province as a whole and indeed may be very unusual for the parliaments of Ontario, as only 10 years ago at least one quarter of the members had finished their formal education with high school or less. It is very important that, from time to time, we become conscious of our biases.

OFFTRACK BETTING

Miss Martel: In mid-July of 1989 the federal government amended the Criminal Code to permit provinces to regulate teletheatre betting of harness racing. In no small way the problems being faced by Sudbury Downs, northern Ontario’s only racetrack, prompted this action. With the federal government on side, it is now up to the provincial government to agree to offtrack betting so that Sudbury Downs will be able to attract the population base that cannot now be attracted due to the great distances of northern Ontario.

According to the Sudbury regional development corporation, Sudbury Downs plays host to 800 people, on average, on racing nights. Of these, 15 percent are out-of-town visitors and up to 18 customers served in the dining lounge are from outlying communities. The track employs 165 full-time and part-time employees, with a payroll of over $500,000. Additional revenues are generated in the surrounding area with the provision of goods and services to the track itself.

In the past 14 years the Downs has generated some $2 million in municipal taxes. However, the track has continued to incur financial losses and will only be able to turn the tide with the advent of teletheatre betting. Many of us have written to the Premier (Mr Peterson) and to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr Sorbara) to encourage this legislation.

On 18 August, the Premier advised he would embark on discussions to obtain the necessary information to make the decision. On 11 September, the minister responsible promised more of the same. On 25 October, the Premier again promised to research the matter and make a decision. To date, there has been no response. It is time the government stopped stalling and established teletheatre betting in this province.

CRAIG SHERGOLD

Mr McCague: I want to bring to the attention of fellow members the plight of a very brave young man living in England. Just 10 years old, Craig Shergold is fighting a battle with cancer. Determined that his illness will not stand in the way of making his mark on the world, Craig has decided to enshrine his name in the Guinness Book of World Records.

He will do this by receiving more than 1.25 million get-well cards. With the help of thousands of strangers from around the world, Craig has just about realized his dream. With a little help from the members of this Legislature, he is bound to go over the top of the goal post.

Together, we represent nine million people. As members, we have networks that reach into every corner of this province. We can use those networks to make Craig’s wish come true. In a race where time is our only adversary, we can come together to help Craig cross the finish line.

I urge all members to make this brave young fellow’s wish their own and play their

part in making it come true. On behalf of Craig, reach out to the people of Ontario and urge them to send a get-well card to Craig Shergold, 232 Kent Street West, Suite 4, Lindsay, Ontario, K9V 6A4.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr D. R. Cooke: Yesterday, once again, the House celebrated in unanimity the excitement and the drama that is sweeping eastern Europe. We are witnessing changes that are revolutionizing, not just that part of the world, but the whole world. These changes will have profound effects on world trading patterns. Yet the west does not seem to be grasping either the duty or, frankly, the opportunity.

The dream was started in Poland and in Hungary. It was started there, in part, because these two great nations are in very, very tough economic straits. They have opted for open free markets but they desperately need our help.

Poland is Canada’s greatest debtor nation. While it was ruled by communist dictators, we lent it $2.3 billion, more than we have lent any other nation in the world. Surely now that it is taking the giant steps to convert itself in record time to a free enterprise economy, it is the time to come to its aid.

Lech Walesa’s humour will be sad if we do not respond. He likened western support to offering a beautiful necktie to a corpse. Let us do better. If Ottawa cannot be more generous in dealing with Poland’s debt, and they should be more generous, let our government at least take the lead in trade ventures wherever we can.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Hampton: The government calls its proposed insurance scheme a creative initiative designed to keep insurance premiums in this province at a minimum. However, the government is not so quick to point out that over $141 million of taxpayers’ money will be handed over annually to subsidize the insurance companies of this province.

It is not enough that under the government’s auto insurance scheme accident benefits will be savagely cut and rates are to increase at a minimum of eight percent, but if the government has its way, the people of this province will be supporting the pocketbooks of the insurance industry through their tax dollars as well.

I have no doubt that Ontario’s insurance companies are more than pleased with the Liberal government’s proposal. However, the government’s auto insurance scheme does a grave injustice to Ontario drivers and Ontario taxpayers.

Rather than hide the increases in insurance premiums with a $141-million subsidy for the insurance companies, the government should admit its auto insurance scheme does not produce substantial savings for Ontario’s drivers and if the government is willing to admit this, it will very soon find the support is totally lacking for its so-called new auto insurance proposal.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Wiseman: As we all know, the cost of vehicle registration fees goes up substantially this year but the Minister of Transportation (Mr Wrye) has yet to tell us how much money will be collected through this measure. However, with an increase of from $54 to $90 in the greater Toronto area, coupled with a smaller rise outside, it is surely to be a hefty amount.

As well, the minister has declared war on those who exceed the speed limits through his plan to double speeding fines but we would like to know what the minister is doing with this windfall.

Is he, as we hope, planning to use this money to continue extensive reconstruction which is badly needed on our local roads? Does he understand the very real dangers involved in driving on some of our rural highways?

My own riding of Lanark-Renfrew has several projects which are in dire need of assistance and I offer one example of county road 18 from Port Elmsley to county road 1 as just one of the examples of the work that should be done in eastern Ontario.

I would urge the minister to do what he can to ensure that the money collected through these initiatives stay within his ministry to be used to maintain our local roads and keep our people safer.

BERLIN WALL

Mr Daigeler: Last weekend’s historic opening of East Germany’s borders brings deep joy to all nations. For the first time in over 50 years of totalitarian rule, East Germans and, it appears, others in eastern Europe are free to travel as they wish.

We who have grown up in western democracies take the right to free movement for granted. Seeing so many people enjoy for the first time in half a century a quiet stroll in West Berlin or other parts of West Germany -- these signs of people’s new-found freedom -- warms our hearts, but it also makes us thankful for our own privileged situation where civil liberties have never been seriously threatened.

As history unfolds in eastern Europe in dramatic new beginnings, let us hope that they will usher in an era of freedom, peace and prosperity for all. May we never again witness the building of a wall that divides families and nations into two physical and ideological blocs.

As Prime Minister Mulroney prepares for his forthcoming visit to the Soviet Union, I call on all Canadians to help eastern Europe with moral and economic assistance in this difficult period of transition. I also invite all levels of government to open our own borders for those who wish to find a new home in Canada where freedom of speech and freedom to travel have always been the cornerstone --

The Speaker: Thank you. That completes the allotted time for members’ statements.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

NURSING CO-ORDINATOR

Hon Mrs Caplan: Further to my announcement two weeks ago regarding our government’s initiatives to improve recruitment and retention of nurses, today it is my pleasure to announce that the key position of nursing co-ordinator for the province has been filled.

Pat Bethune, the president of the Ontario Nurses’ Association has been appointed to the position effective 1 January 1990 following completion of her term as the Ontario Nurses’ Association president.

I want to emphasize again how important the enhancement of job satisfaction among nurses is to the future of our health care system. Ms Bethune will be a vital link between the ministry and the nursing profession in accomplishing this goal. She will report to the ministry’s assistant deputy minister for planning and programs and will have two nursing policy advisers assisting her.

Ms Bethune comes to the ministry with a wealth of valuable experience. She has been a staff nurse at North Bay Civic Hospital since 1967, and during her nursing career, has been involved in a wide variety of continuing education programs. She has also been an active member of provincial and local labour relations committees and, in addition to her involvement with the Ontario Nurses’ Association, has been affiliated with the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario.

As co-ordinator, one of her tasks will be to work with the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario to develop workshops to assist and advise nurses who have been appointed to hospital committees. I think we have found the ideal person to advise the government on what steps will best enhance the work environment and the role of nurses in this province.

Ms Bethune will be co-ordinating some of our major nursing initiatives. She will have input into decisions regarding the $5-million nursing innovation fund, the $1 .5-million bursary program, restructuring and broadening the membership of the Advisory Committee on Nursing Manpower, and the $400,000 funding for research in quality of work environment issues which I recently announced.

Ms Bethune’s election to the presidency of the largest nursing organization in Ontario speaks to the respect she has won among her peers. Ms Bethune represents their views and we, as government, expect to learn a great deal through the interchange.

Nurses play a crucial role in our health care system. I feel that the appointment of a nursing co-ordinator is an important step toward finding solutions to a number of the challenges facing nurses and the nursing profession.

Ms Bethune is in the gallery today and I would ask members of the House to welcome her.

RESPONSES

NURSING CO-ORDINATOR

Mr Reville: It had to happen. I knew that if I stayed in this House long enough, the minister, who is wont to make many a statement, would eventually make a statement that would leave me speechless, or worse still, it would render me congratulatory.

I would like to congratulate the minister on unusual sagacity in this appointment. Clearly, Ms Bethune is eminently qualified for this post and while the minister acknowledges that she believes the government will learn a great deal from Ms Bethune, I suspect that the government will learn a great deal more than the minister may now suspect.

Her first job, I understand, will be to work with the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario -- I see the executive director here today and I welcome her -- to develop workshops to assist and advise nurses who have been appointed to hospital committees. We suspect that at the moment the staff-student ratio will be very high. As I understand it, job one of Ms Bethune will be to try to convince the 221, or perhaps it is 220, hospitals in the province that do not have nurses on any of their committees. That will be an important and worthwhile job, and I wish her well in that connection.

I am not going to use my full time today, which is another unusual experience, but as I stand here a wallflower, I must point out to the House that everybody always wants to dance with the minister.

Mr Brandt: On behalf of our party, we would like to congratulate Ms Bethune on the appointment and also, with some reluctance, congratulate the minister as well on her very appropriate appointment.

Certainly we recognize, I think, as do all members of this House, that we can improve very substantially on nursing services in this province by developing a better relationship and a better level of understanding between nurses through their input on these various committees than perhaps has been the case in the past. So we want to take this opportunity to join with our colleagues in the official opposition to wish the former resident of North Bay the very best.

I know that if my colleague the member for Nipissing (Mr Harris) were here, he would want to extend a congratulatory word or two on behalf of his own local constituency and on behalf of our party, but I am pleased to have the opportunity to so do.

We will be very interested in working with Ms Bethune in any way that we can as well, co-operatively, to see if we can in fact entice some of the nurses who have left the profession back into the field, if we can in fact overcome some of those very real problems that our professional nurses have identified, such as working conditions, such as the salary structure, such as a whole host of problems that we have to come to grips with if we are going to improve the level, the standard, the quality of health services in this province. In anything that can be done in that respect, the minister has our undying co-operation, I assure her.

The Speaker: That completes the allotted time for ministerial statements and responses, so in the same congenial mood, I call for oral questions. The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr B. Rae: Mr Speaker, in the same congenial mood in which you called on me, I will address my question to my dear friend, the congenial Treasurer.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

Mr B. Rae: I wonder if the Treasurer could -- I hope he has before him a copy; I thought he might have brought it in with him -- turn to page 101 of the Economic Outlook and Fiscal Review for 1989. There the Treasurer will find a list of tax expenditures, that is to say, tax revenues that are forgone, under the heading of “Retail Sales Tax Expenditures.”

I was interested, as I am sure many other Ontarians were, in the apparent negotiations that took place during the first ministers’ conference saying that there was going to be a new period of negotiation among the treasurers with the Minister of Finance with respect to the future of the goods and services tax.

My question for the Treasurer is this. He will see from this sheet that Ontario forgoes well over $10 billion in revenue, money not taxed, some of which would be taxed under the GST. Can the Treasurer tell us, is part of his desire for negotiation based on the fact that if there were a combined tax participated in by Ontario, it would mean that the retail sales tax would apply to many services and many things upon which Ontario citizens are now not taxed?

Hon R. F. Nixon: I do not believe the honourable member is correct when he tells the House that there is some sort of resumption of discussions with the Minister of Finance for Canada, the other treasurers and myself about the proposed new tax. There is no indication of that at all. I should say that Mr Wilson has called a meeting of the treasurers for, I believe, 6 December in Ottawa, but there is no indication whatsoever that there will be any discussion of the tax at that time.

Mr B. Rae: Perhaps I could ask the Treasurer this. Can he tell us, are there any circumstances in which he can foresee that Ontario would participate with the federal government in a combined, double-whammy, GST-retail sales tax escapade? Are there any circumstances in which he can see such joint participation?

Second, we have indicated that we do not like the way they propose to tax the municipalities, universities, school boards and hospitals. We think they should be zero-rated. Our criticism of the tax has been put forward not only in public but for the honourable member in times past.

Mr B. Rae: I think what we have just heard is a prelude to a change of heart on the part of the government of Ontario. That is what I am hearing.

I want to ask the Treasurer to again look at page 101 and table 3. Professional services: He is forgoing now $4 billion. Commercial services: He is forgoing now $2.2 billion. It does not require a great deal of imagination to say that Ontario could even lower its own retail sales tax ever so slightly, join in with the GST and look at the --

Mr Neumann: Is that what you are recommending?

Mr B. Rae: No, it is not what I am recommending. It is what I am warning taxpayers is going to come, a double whammy, participated in fully by the Ontario government, in which consumers who have not been paying tax in Ontario on all these items will suddenly wake up one morning and find an agreement with the federal government in which the taxpayers have literally been taxed to death. That is what we are warning Ontario taxpayers about.

The Speaker: Are you asking if the Treasurer agrees?

Hon R. F. Nixon: The honourable member is tilting at windmills. This is the sort of thing that is typical for the honourable member to undertake. If he thinks that we are going to undertake the taxing of farmers, for example, or fisherpersons -- did he notice that listing, fisherpersons? -- hospitals, religious and charitable, disabled persons -- this is the list he is talking about.

As a matter of fact, there was a time under the bad old former government when production machinery was taxed. That is no longer taxed, because obviously the Legislature believes that we have to see that the means of production and making jobs is as tax-free as possible, fostering the economic development of this jurisdiction and the jobs that are associated with it.

Mr B. Rae: All I can say is that when I asked the Treasurer whether there were any circumstances in which the government would not participate, he was not able to answer the question directly.

Hon R. F. Nixon: What is this coda that he adds on to the question?

Mr B. Rae: The minister has a prelude; I have a coda. That is all right.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions. One of the little-recognized sections of the bill which the minister has proposed on car insurance contains some draft regulations with respect to the way in which the no-fault plan would work. Can the minister tell us what kind of care he thinks a person disabled as a result of a car accident can receive for $1,500 a month?

Hon Mr Elston: In addition to the benefits which are prescribed under the regulations, as the member indicates, of course there will be litigation to determine the personal needs of a person who is disabled as a result of the car accident, so I cannot describe for him fully what each individual will require. That is why we have retained access to the courts for those serious situations.

Mr B. Rae: I can tell the minister, and he may not be aware of this, that you can get injured in an accident, you can even get killed in an accident and it can take years and years for that litigation to be settled. The minister has made that even more assured because of all the loops and hoops that he has required people to go through.

I want to ask the minister, what does he think is going to happen for the four or five years? Assuming that there was litigation and assuming that it was allowed, what is going to happen to the person who has to survive in terms of long-term care needs on $1,500 a month? Can I ask the minister specifically this question: Why is he forcing people who are going to be injured in these accidents to spend the first four or five years after an accident in an institution? Why is he going to be doing that?

Hon Mr Elston: That is not the case, as the honourable gentleman knows, because what he failed to recognize was that in addition to the $1,500 a month, which he has segregated apart from the rest of the benefits, there is in addition $450 per week as income replacement. There are monies available also for supplementary medical care and rehabilitation costs. When you put all of those items together, in fact, there are a number of dollars which are made available.

I have to say as well to the honourable gentleman that he has rightly put his finger on one of the problems with our current situation, that people are left high and dry without any sustenance, at least, hardly any sustenance at all, to allow them to maintain their lifestyle, to allow them to support their need for rehabilitation, except by dipping into their own personal reserves, going into debt, for instance, to help them recover and be rehabilitated in a timely manner.

That is why the benefits which we have, by regulation and otherwise, made available for the people are going to be a vast improvement over what we have now. He has rightly identified the long delay in litigation and that is what we are going to overcome by this new, balanced product.

Mr B. Rae: The minister should know this -- he is a former Minister of Health; the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) knows perfectly well -- and if he does not, I will tell him. It is impossible for somebody who is seriously disabled to be cared for at home on other than a purely temporary basis for $1,500 a month. If the minister does not understand that, I will tell him that it cannot be done. In terms of the seriousness of the disability, it cannot be done.

The net effect of what he is doing and proposing by setting a limit, a cheap, cheesy limit of $1,500 a month, is that he is forcing these people into institutions. Why is he doing that? Why is he bringing in an insurance scheme that is forcing people into institutions? That is exactly what he is doing by capping the benefit for long-term care at $1,500. Do not ask them to rob their children’s food in order to pay for long-term care.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Elston: The honourable gentleman has taken a lesson from the book of the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr Kormos). He is not telling the whole story. This gentleman knows very well that in addition to the very good and very well managed medical system that we have, there is $1,500 more for long-term care, there is more money available for rehabilitation services and there is available $450 per week to help replace the income.

On top of that, we have home care programs both for acute and chronic care patients. We have assistance for homemakers put forward through the auspices of the member for Oriole, the Minister of Health, and from the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Beer). We have a program which now is, in a comprehensive manner, able to keep people in their homes in a way in which they have never been able to be kept in their homes before. We have a program which will help sustain people over the long haul that is required to sustain them while they process their litigation.

They will have a better chance of having an evenhanded decision made about the litigation. They will be able to prosecute their litigation to the fullest extent, to allow them have their personal needs looked into.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr Brandt: My question is to the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet as well. I hope that I can get the Chairman to give, perhaps, a somewhat more concise answer than the last series of responses.

I want to ask the Chairman of Management Board, in view of the statements made by the Treasurer (Mr R. F.

Nixon) where he has indicated, in anticipating a slowdown in the provincial economy, that in order to maintain or to keep the deficit at the current level, increased taxes or a reduction in services or a cut in certain programs will be necessary -- that is what the provincial Treasurer has said with respect to his economic forecast relating to what he anticipates will be a slowdown in the economy -- in view of those facts, why is it that over the past four years his government has increased the leased space which he is renting in the Metropolitan Toronto area by some 750,000 square feet?

How can he justify that kind of increase?

Hon Mr Elston: I am not sure exactly where the honourable member wants me to get a concise answer to a question as verbose as that. He went on for a long time, but basically I will answer him this way. He is on his feet daily telling us to do more in making available more programs and making available more money for more people. On every other day, he stands up to the people outside and says to them, “Cut back.” Today is his “Cut back expenditure” day. And that is an important item for him, because on an interim basis he is planning, perhaps, to run for leader, so he wants to be fiscally responsible today.

But I will tell him we have not added one square metre of space more than we require to deliver the programs that he is telling us to deliver. We are not adding one more square metre of space than is required to assist the people in a way which he and his members day by day advocate in front of the Minister of Health and the Treasurer, in front of the Attorney General (Mr Scott), in front of the Minister of Education (Mr Conway), in front of the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr Patten). We take into account what is needed. The people of the province expect us to deliver and we are delivering the programs.

Mr Brandt: I have to say to the Chairman of Management Board, with the greatest of respect, that the 750,000 square feet I am talking about are not programs for people; they are offices for staff. That is what they are, offices for staff who are working at desks. They are not field representatives.

That represents, I might add, only Metropolitan Toronto. It comes to a cost of some $60 million. Can he justify the Treasurer saying that he is going to either increase taxes or cut back programs when he has allowed his real estate leasing to expand at a rate that is probably comparable to the other nine provinces combined in this entire country? How can he justify that kind of irresponsibility?

Hon Mr Elston: First of all, there is no irresponsibility here at all. In fact, the minister in charge of our real estate portfolio, the Minister of Government Services (Mr Ward), is managing in a very prudent way and in fact making sure we have the space that is available at the best price and located in the areas which allow us to efficiently administer the programs.

One would think the member for Sarnia, who used to be, in a previous incarnation, a minister himself -- a ministry that was very badly managed and unable in fact to deliver the necessary assessment of the environment that was required -- would be upon his feet applauding to know that the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley) currently has been able to put in place more staff people to take care of the problems that he left -- that is, the member for Sarnia left -- before his demise as Minister of the Environment.

We have put together a package of programs which is an efficient housing of the people who work very diligently to deliver the services to the people of the province. You cannot deliver services without people being employed to do so. He knows that. And that is what we have done, put together a real estate management package which lets them deliver those programs efficiently and effectively.

Mr Brandt: The estimates that I have shared with the minister do not include the costs of moving, the costs of renovation for those offices, the costs of desks or telephones or expenses relating to those employees or computer terminals. None of those costs are included in my estimate of some $60 million in new leased space which he has taken on.

Why does he not admit openly to the people of Ontario it is because he has hired 7,000 additional civil servants, many of them here in the Toronto area? My estimates do not even take into account the expansions throughout the rest of the province. Why does the minister not try something unique and cut some of his costs instead of constantly and incessantly raising taxes?

Hon Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, I told you the member for Sarnia would be telling us to cut costs. This is his “Cut costs” day, and I appreciate that. I can tell the honourable --

Mr Brandt: That is not programs. Don’t mislead the people. I am not talking programs. I am talking expenses.

Hon Mr Scott: Get real.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Sarnia. Order, the Attorney General. I think it is time to pause and I would ask all members, when they are addressing the House, to address their remarks through the chair.

Hon Mr Elston: I know there is a lot of pressure on the member for Sarnia to run and I can appreciate that he wishes to tell people that he does not think that there is any relation between the number of people who work for the government and the delivery of programs, but there is. In fact, one of the important things that he fails to tell the people of the province is that we have expanded our presence in many northern locations to house people who are delivering services much closer to the people than they have ever been before, in Thunder Bay, Sault Ste Marie, North Bay, a number of areas.

Yes, we have had new leases put in place in Metropolitan Toronto, and does the member know why? Because sometimes there has been an expansion of the number of people who work for the members in this Legislature which has required us to move offices into new locations. There is accommodation required there.

But I will be quite clear: There are more people working for the civil service in the province of Ontario. Some of those come to us because we are required to deliver federal programs like the Young Offenders Act requirements --

The Speaker: Thank you.

lnterjections.

The Speaker: Order.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Brandt: My question is for the Attorney General, but I see someone sitting in his place with a bow tie on. If the Attorney General is in fact here today, my question relates to an issue that has been raised in this House on many occasions. That is the backlog in our court system. I want to ask the Attorney General, if I might, if he is aware of the length of delays that is the current situation in the Peel court system at this particular point in time. Would he share that with us?

Hon Mr Scott: If I was here, I would tell the member that I am aware of that.

Mr Brandt: Since the Attorney General was not able to make it today, perhaps he wants to give the question to someone else. My supplementary, and I want to be of help to the Attorney General and he knows this, is that with respect to Peel, the latest information I have been able to receive is that it is experiencing about a six-month backlog. It is something in the order of April 1990 when it will hear the cases that are brought before the courts at the moment.

In speaking today with the chairman of Peel region, Frank Bean, he indicated with respect to the Sunday shopping issue that without stores being fined they are going to continue to defy the law. The Attorney General is aware that not only were stores open last week, the major grocery stores in particular, but also today in some of the Toronto newspapers there are full-page advertisements indicating that they intend to defy the law again this coming Sunday.

Is the Attorney General prepared now to take what we consider to be the appropriate action, to seek an injunction to stop those openings from occurring so that he can put an end to this particular problem before it gets completely out of hand?

Hon Mr Scott: The honourable member asks about the delay in the provincial criminal court in the county of Peel. The delays there have, for almost a decade, been very substantial. We established, a year or so ago, a delay reduction committee under the leadership of Senior Judge August and, as the honourable member notes, we have brought delay times significantly under control. The problem is not solved, but enormous headway has been made in Peel county with existing resources and additional new resources which will shortly be on stream to address the problem.

I want, while I am here, if I am here, to simply pay tribute to the work of the bar in the county of Peel, the crown attorneys, the judges and the administrators who are in stressed times doing everything they can to make this system work much more effectively than it has since the late 1970s.

With respect to the Sunday closing question, the honourable member will know that the region of Peel is applying to the court for an injunction with respect to Sunday shopping problems in its jurisdiction, and I am advised that application will be heard on Friday of this week.

Mr Brandt: The Attorney General knows full well that my question related to the delays and how they are going to have a negative result in relation to the Sunday openings and the concerns that the regional municipalities have in bringing their case effectively, efficiently and quickly before the courts.

I ask the Attorney General, in view of the fact that the chairman of Peel region has indicated his concern not only about the cost but about the delays and that other chairmen in other regions are having similar problems, does it not make sense, since he has the responsibility, which he can take up under

section 8 and which we brought to his attention yesterday, to seek an injunction to stop this matter from growing as it is going to grow, since other stores are going to follow the lead that has now been taken by the grocery chains? Why does he not take the action and responsibility that is part of his office?

Hon Mr Scott: I have already tried to make it plain to the honourable member. The region of Peel has already commenced or will very shortly commence proceedings, I am advised, to exercise its powers under

section 8 of the act in order to seek an injunction. Therefore, the problem is being addressed in the very way the statute contemplated.

The role of the government is to provide prosecutorial services in respect of charges. As I indicated yesterday, as a result of activity last weekend, almost 100 charges have been laid, and I repeat that we intend to take those charges seriously. We intend to prosecute to the limit of the law. We intend to ask for maximum fines and we intend to invite the court to confiscate any profits that are achieved if this conduct is judged illegal.

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mr Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food about his comments to the Niagara Federation of Agriculture recently to the effect that protection for Ontario farm land might be eased and land made available for development, comments quoted in the St Catharines Standard on 31 October. Why is the minister preparing to abdicate his obligation to fight for the interests of agriculture and to protect farm land from the epidemic of urban development? Is the government so deep in the pockets of urban developers that it cannot stand up for agriculture in this province?

Hon Mr Ramsay: I am pleased to answer this inquiry from the member for Algoma. I wish the member had been there at the meeting in Niagara. Obviously the Niagara area land use policy is just about the number one agricultural issue in that particular region of the province. It is a region of the province where we have some of the most valuable agricultural land and at the same time have tremendous developmental pressures.

Soon the member will be seeing that this government will be coming down with a land use policy. This policy will be stronger than the land use guidelines adopted by the previous government in 1968. I feel the member will be satisfied with that policy.

Mr Wildman: This government’s food land preservation policy statement was issued in 1986, almost four years ago, for comment and the minister now says it will be available soon. Where is it? Where are the new government’s financial support programs that are needed to encourage new agricultural techniques and adaptation for farmers and to help cut farm debt in Ontario? Who protects Ontario farmers from this minister?

Hon Mr Ramsay: The joy that is expressed in this chamber overwhelms me. Where is the policy? It is with myself at this time. As the member is very well aware, after considerable consultation, which I think was in great need because it is a very complex issue, we are now in the final stages of discussion of this policy. The government has many issues to discuss with regard to this. When the member refers to financial programs, obviously we are now considering, in the next budget cycle as it commences, what appropriate programs might be initiated or continued in the next budget year, and those things will be announced in the spring.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mrs Marland: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship. Last week, I gave the minister the opportunity to demonstrate that he has the same integrity and ethics as his predecessor. I asked him about certain correspondence regarding a former employee of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The minister offhandedly said that that letter was six months old, was in the past. He said all matters had been fully investigated. He said I had had an opportunity to answer and ask those questions in committee.

I ask the minister today, now that he knows that what he said last week was in fact not the facts, that that letter has not been investigated, that I have not had an opportunity to question the former employees of the OHRC, will he once and for all guarantee that we can have a full and open public hearing into the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s hiring practices?

Hon Mr Wong: In response to the honourable member’s question, let me point out once again that the minister and the minister’s office were not charged with the responsibility of investigating interpersonal allegations or facts pertaining to specific cases. Rather the standing committee on government agencies was charged with the responsibility of looking at the Ontario Human Rights Commission and determining in specific terms how it could strengthen its performance in the future. That is where the honourable member should be addressing the particular concern she has.

If the member feels that the correspondence which she brought to my attention would be relevant, I would recommend that she present it to the chairman of the standing committee, who is a member of her own party and sits a few feet away from her.

Mrs Marland: It is incredible that this minister thinks everybody else is charged with the responsibility for what goes on at the OHRC except him. In fact, that committee, with six Liberal members, has already voted down the opportunity for former employees to come before it and answer these questions.

I ask the minister once again, based on the fact that we now know that Mr Amin and Mr Gordon, when they did appear before the committee to answer questions on their interministerial government review of the OHRC, in fact gave -- I cannot use the word “misled,” so I will say they gave -- inaccurate information to that committee. Is the minister not at all concerned about the fact that his government is stonewalling this whole issue and wants it swept under the carpet?

Hon Mr Wong: The standing committee has a certain responsibility. At their agenda-setting meeting, they determined which people they wanted to hear from and which ones perhaps were not necessary to hear from. I understand the honourable member was not even present at the meeting that determined which people should attend the meeting.

Again, let me turn to the positive. I believe we should be looking at how we can strengthen the Ontario Human Rights Commission so that we can help it to maximize the equality of rights and opportunities for all people in Ontario in accordance with the mandate --

Mrs Marland: If I was the president of any company in this province which that commission came in to investigate, I would tell them to clean their own house first.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Mississauga South.

Mrs Marland: What is it you are afraid of? The truth?

The Speaker: Order. Just let the members waste the time if they wish.

PASSENGER RAIL SERVICES

Mr Neumann: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. The minister is aware that his federal counterpart, the Honourable Benoit Bouchard, announced major cuts to Via service in Ontario. In particular, he announced that the most popular, well used, early morning trains from London, Kitchener, Peterborough and Kingston into Toronto would be cut because he considers these as commuter trains.

Today I released the results of a survey of passengers on one of these trains, train 662 from London to Toronto. Results show that two thirds of these passengers are not daily commuters. Does the minister accept Mr Bouchard’s argument that these well used passenger trains are a commuter service and therefore a provincial responsibility?

Hon Mr Wrye: I appreciate the fact that my colleague the member for Brantford has conducted such a thorough study and that he took the time to do this survey, which has, I think, in terms of exact numbers of responses -- and I understand the response rate was over 90 per cent -- shown what this government has said consistently, and that is that these are indeed intercity runs.

It is interesting to note that because the distances are over 50 kilometres, by Statistics Canada’s own definition, these are intercity runs, but the survey results, as I understand them, indicate that 34 per cent of those using the trains are commuters but that the other 66 per cent, two thirds of those surveyed, are business people on their way to and from Toronto for the day, people coming in to do shopping, to attend to other matters.

These are indeed the kinds of intercity passengers that the federal government has historically had a constitutional responsibility to serve. I intend to press the federal government, and to continue to press the Prime Minister along with members of the government, to accept these constitutional responsibilities and restore these services.

Mr Neumann: The fact is that we are facing the elimination of these trains on 15 January. The Prime Minister said, “Use it or lose it.” Yet his minister is cutting the most heavily used trains on the runs I have mentioned. Will the minister meet with Mr Bouchard and convey to him our concern that by cutting these heavily used trains, he may be seriously jeopardizing what will be left of Via after January 1990?

Hon Mr Wrye: I was in Ottawa last week with the Premier (Mr Peterson) at the point at which the premiers of Ontario and Quebec made a commitment to the mayors of the corridors to continue to support the kind of intercity travel that we need.

I can tell the honourable member in the House that I intend to meet with Mr Bouchard on Tuesday next and I intend at that point to press this government’s case to put a moratorium into effect so that we can take a good, long, hard look, using the royal commission or other vehicles, at the future of rail transportation services in Canada and most specifically in Ontario. That includes not only those important rail transportation services in the southern corridor but also the transportation services which are so vital to northern Ontario and which we play such a crucial role in already.

ST MARYS RIVER WATER QUALITY

Mr Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. With regard to concerns that he has expressed in the past about inaction in the United States on environmental matters, I would ask how he would respond to the fact that he has received letters, for example, from Congressman Robert Davis from the state of Michigan, with regard to inactivity by the province of Ontario in carrying out its role under the water quality agreement between the United States and Canada to protect and enhance the Great Lakes and, in particular, inaction on the remedial action plan on the St Marys River.

The Ontario Ministry of the Environment has the lead role in developing the remedial action plan, and to this point has not met its target of September of this year to provide the initial draft of that plan.

The Speaker: Question.

Mr Morin-Strom: I would ask the minister why he has not taken his ministry in the role of the lead on this RAP in providing a draft plan that would ensure the cleanup of the St Marys River.

Hon Mr Bradley: I usually say, “Thank you for the question.” In this case I will because it allows me to address an issue I was addressing in Detroit, Michigan, on Monday of this week when I was speaking to the Soil and Water Conservation Society. They had representatives from the state of Michigan, from Ontario and from other jurisdictions.

One of the things I mentioned was where I thought the Canadian performance and the American performance were not good and were good, and one of the areas where I want to see some considerable action and improvement is in fact the area the member has identified and is personally familiar with. We are eager to move forward in that regard.

We are eager to do it in the right way as well. When you have a very careful consultation with the local people, one of the problems is that it takes a little longer to do it, but I have found that when you do consult widely with the local people, who know the problems in the area intimately and can make some good recommendations, you get a better product in the long run.

I am as anxious as I know the member and his colleague from across the border are on this particular issue, and I am confident, as I mentioned in estimates when I was discussing this matter, that we will see some rapid movement in this area and in other areas in the very near future.

Mr Morin-Strom: I find it disturbing when we get letters from a right-wing Republican congressman of the United States saying that Ontario is holding up the process on the St Marys River remedial action plan. One specific recommendation that came from the bi-national public advisory council that the minister has just referred to was for an independent monitoring program for the Algoma Steel plant. That has not been acted upon by his ministry to this point.

We have another letter here from a United States Senator, Carl Levin, expressing concern that Ontario agreed to take the lead in drafting this RAP since most of the river pollution derives from Canadian sources.

The Speaker: Do you have much more there?

Mr Morin-Strom: He is expressing the displeasure of the United States at the slow rate of progress on the St Marys River RAP and Ontario’s failure to meet the promised September deadline.

The Speaker: Question?

Mr Morin-Strom: Will the minister tell us what he is going to do in order to provide a

schedule for the completion of the RAP, and can he assure us that he will meet the final deadline, not only for the draft but for the final completion by June 1991?

Hon Mr Bradley: I know, for instance, that on 28 November of this year, which is not far off, there is a meeting scheduled in Sault Ste Marie at which I hope a lot of these matters will be resolved. It will be beneficial in that it deals with the goals that are to be set for the remedial action plan -- the remedies, the timetables and the various commitments -- and I think that meeting will be very helpful.

I am always interested in hearing from people from other countries, particularly when I look at their voting record in the Congress on all environmental issues. I am always interested to hear what their comments are on this, so I will certainly be pleased on this specific issue to once again see Ontario in co-operation with Michigan. I must say that this does not happen in every jurisdiction, but we do have joint remedial action plans that we are working on with the others, and as I mentioned to the member, I like to gather as much of that information as possible so that we do a good job.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Bradley: I am confident that the 28 November meeting will be very beneficial and I know that the member is looking forward to the resolution of this matter in a manner that he --

The Speaker: Thank you. We will try the next questioner now.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Jackson: I have a question for the Minister of Education. The minister will be aware that teachers and school boards are now beginning to realize that they are going to be forced to subsidize the no-fault car insurance scheme proposed by his government. He is also aware that 90 per cent of automobile accident victims will not meet the proposed pain threshold set out in Bill 68 and therefore will have no redress in our courts. If a teacher is in an accident that does not result in death or permanent serious disfigurement, he or she will defer not to the courts but to the no-fault benefit schedule.

Under

part IV, weekly benefits, of those draft regulations, a teacher will have to use up his or her sick leave credit gratuity, which many teachers have worked up to 20 years to accumulate, prior to receiving auto benefits. The same teacher could have a heart attack a year or two later and be completely wiped out.

My question is this: Can the minister explain why he personally is supporting this piece of legislation that in the event of an auto accident requires teachers to exhaust their benefits package entirely, which both they and the school boards have helped to fund?

Hon Mr Conway: I am pleased to support my government in the very progressive initiative that is currently before this House. I do not have any difficulty whatsoever in following the able leadership of my friend the member for Bruce, the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr Elston), who has explained to this chamber at length several good components of the government’s insurance policy. As far as the impact upon teachers is concerned, I am sure that if there are specific aspects of the government’s insurance policy that teachers wish to take up with the government, they will not be reluctant to use the well-established means for bringing their concerns to my attention.

Mr Jackson: The minister’s defence of his colleague is admirable. Equally of concern to the citizens of this province should be that the impact of this legislation on school boards should be better known to him and of greater concern to him.

We know this bill is going to have an impact with school boards having to come up with additional moneys, in their already strained budgets, to compensate employees who are in automobile accidents. Since the provincial share of educational expenses does not account for this increased access to this benefits package, it is ultimately going to fall on local taxpayers to fit the bill.

Now that the minister has made the statement about access to resolutions of this matter, will the minister publicly support public hearings so that school boards, teachers and employee groups can assemble the information and report back to this House so that we will understand the financial impact this will have on employees, on school boards and on local taxpayers?

The Speaker: Order. We do not need all the reasons.

Hon Mr Conway: It ought to come as no surprise to the House that I support my friend and colleague the member for Bruce in his position and the government’s position with respect to the insurance policy currently before the House. It might, however, come as a surprise for the House to know whether the member for Burlington South supports his colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr Runciman) in the latter’s view on insurance policy.

I simply want to say to my friend the member for Burlington South that it is hard to take seriously the witches’ brew of fantastic, hypothetical possibilities he has trotted out here this afternoon, which I cannot believe he takes seriously.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr McGuinty: My question is for the Minister of Health. I have a copy of a letter from one Michael Hurley, the president of Local 870 of the Canadian Union of Public Employees. Mr Hurley has written regarding the quality of care at the Perley Hospital in my riding. He has indicated that budget cuts at the hospital will have a negative effect on the quality of the lives of the patients at the hospital. It has been stated by the Perley Hospital administration that the budget cuts required could result in the closure of 36 beds. Can the minister assure this House that the budget of the Perley Hospital will not be cut so that 36 beds will not be lost?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I want to assure the member that the answer to his question is yes. I know he is interested in the following information: There have been no budget cuts at the Perley Hospital. The Perley Hospital’s budget was $7.3 million in 1985-86 and this increased to over $9.1 million in 1988-89. This represents a 26 per cent increase in three years. This year’s budget is over $9.5 million.

I want to assure the member that essential services will be maintained at the hospital and that chronic care beds will not close. He knows my priority is always the quality of patient care. If there are any specific concerns that anyone has, regarding quality patient care, I will ask my staff to investigate. I want to assure him I will use the powers given me under the Public Hospitals Act to ensure that quality patient care is maintained.

Mr McGuinty: The minister will be aware that a number of my constituents are concerned about the waiting lists for chronic care patients to enter institutions in the Ottawa area. Can the minister indicate what she plans to do for those who need chronic care services?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I want to acknowledge my colleague’s concern in this extremely important area. He knows that I am working with my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Beer), my colleague the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mr Morin) and also the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Ms Collins) as we develop a comprehensive system of long-term care that will include individuals’ independence and family and care giver support, as well as in-home services for those who can stay home.

He knows, and I know he would agree, that there are some chronic care patients who need to be in institutions, but I know that he supports, as I do, the fact that it is important for us not to institutionalize our senior citizens unnecessarily.

NORTHERN AIR SERVICES / SERVICE AÉRIEN DU NORD

Mr Hampton: My question is for the Minister of Northern Development. Last spring, the minister announced a tentative proposal to sell norOntair’s Dash-8 airplanes, which provide vital passenger services across northern Ontario, to Air Ontario. Last week on 14 November in the Thunder Bay Times-News, the vice-president of Air Ontario said that Air Ontario still has an outstanding offer to purchase norOntair’s Dash-8 airplanes. Can the minister tell us, is he still considering the sale of norOntair’s Dash-8 airplanes to Air Ontario at this time?

Hon Mr Fontaine: I would like to thank the member for Rainy River for his question. First of all, those negotiations are being done between the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission and Air Ontario. To date, I have not received any news about the last negotiation between Air Ontario and ONTC. I was in Thunder Bay last week. Dash-8s are still flying in the area and they will continue to fly until there is a sale. We all know about it, but there are some conditions on that sale. If Air Ontario does not meet those conditions, there will be no sale.

Mr Hampton: I appreciate the minister’s answer but I want to ask the minister this: Why would he continue negotiations with Air Ontario for the sale of norOntair’s Dash-8s when Air Ontario has already indicated that if it purchases the Dash-8s it will discontinue service into Kenora and Fort Frances? It has already discontinued service into places like Geraldton and Terrace Bay. Why would the minister sell those Dash-8s to Air Ontario when, based upon past experience, it already has that bad record? In view of what has happened at the Dryden air crash inquiry, why would he still be considering selling those airplanes to Air Ontario?

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Pour en revenir à la question de mon ami le député de Rainy River : premièrement, je ne peux pas comprendre pourquoi il parle en dernier de l’écrasement de l’avion à Dryden ; ça n’a rien à voir avec les Dash-8.

First, I want to tell the member that, as I told him in my last answer, if Air Ontario does not meet the proposal I asked, that it serve Fort Frances, there will be no sale. Second, last year I told the member in this House that I was trying to sell those airplanes with the lines I had in mind, Fort Frances and all that, to get money to buy new airplanes to serve the smaller centres. That is the bottom line.

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Mr Villeneuve: To the Minister of Agriculture and Food: The minister will be aware of examples in the United States that clearly demonstrate that the use of alcohols in automobile fuels reduces harmful hydrocarbon emissions and ozone creation. Alcohols, because they contain oxygen, result in more complete burning of fuel, and fuel ethanol of course can be produced from the distilling of grains. Why did this government last February pass regulations that lower the amount of oxygen fuels can contain and therefore eliminate one use for substandard grains for fuel ethanol?

Hon Mr Ramsay: I think the member’s interest in this, obviously, is to increase the opportunity for our agriculture industry in Ontario to grow alternative crops, and in this case, crops that could be developed and processed into alternative fuels to replace some of the hydrocarbon fuels we use today.

Some of the considerations that have to be made in making these decisions is the total energy used to produce these crops, such as corn which is obviously a high demander of energy as one of its inputs to produce the crop. I am very interested in alternative crops for Ontario agriculture and we have many projects under way through research in Guelph and other places that are always looking at this.

Mr Villeneuve: We must be interested not only in alternative crops, but also in alternative crop uses. It is interesting that in the United States, Colorado in particular requires at least two per cent oxygen in fuels for clean burning because of the altitude, but here in Ontario we are ready to impose fines on anyone who has more than one half of one per cent oxygen in the fuel. Can the minister tell us what sort of role alternative crop uses and fuel production from crop production will be coming forth in his plan oriented towards the year 2000?

Hon Mr Ramsay: This is the type of discussion my ministry has with the Ministry of the Environment. I have spoken to the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley) about this and I am glad to have encouragement from the honourable member to pursue this sort of discussion.

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr D. W. Smith: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The federal government has just released a green paper, which is a discussion paper entitled Growing Together, regarding the future directions of Canadian agriculture and food policy. As I read through this document, it appears that they seem to be moving away from a supply management approach to subsidization towards a stabilization approach.

Mr Villeneuve: David, you’re reading between the lines.

Mr D. W. Smith: l want to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food what role, if any, the minister plays in developing this document and what were the minister’s views on the federal green paper?

Hon Mr Ramsay: I was very interested in the reaction from the third party to the asking of this question in referring to reading between the lines. I certainly do not want to prejudge the discussion paper the federal government has published. For them, it is a catalyst for policy discussion, somewhat similar to the priority planning policy meetings we have had across the province. I attended the last one we had, last night in Ridgetown, and the critic for the third party was also there.

To further answer the question, I would say to the member that our ministry had some input in trying to discover some of the challenges facing this industry in the next decade.

Mr D. W. Smith: The federal policy review has stimulated considerable discussion with our Ontario farmers. As well, as I have read through here, I would hope that the minister in his discussions, whether they be at a first ministers’ conference or wherever, would not develop our policy ahead of the United States or European Community because it will put our farmers in a very difficult position if we have to move in ahead, and yet the other countries, these huge superpowers, are going to stay protected. What actions will the minister be taking to ensure that the interests of Ontario farmers are well represented?

Hon Mr Ramsay: We have been in touch with the federal department about this planning conference. I have been invited and have accepted to co-chair a policy session in Ottawa on food safety, an area of interest I am looking forward to becoming very highly involved in. I think it is very important that we have these meetings in concert with our federal colleagues and also other provinces. It is very important we have that input in these discussions that are going on internationally, at the binational panel in the United States with regard to some of the free trade disputes and also at the GATT discussions going on in Geneva.

ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICE WORKERS

Mr Allen: I have a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services with regard to the provision of service by adult protective service workers, particularly in the Durham region.

The minister will know that adult protective service workers provide an invaluable service to developmentally handicapped adults around the province in a direct service and in an advocacy fashion. He will also know there has been a major problem in the Durham region inasmuch as a pay equity settlement in the municipality with the adult protective service workers there has created a major financial problem for the region which only the minister can solve.

Given that through his ministry he has raised some questions about the importance of this service and the problem created by the refusal to fund to meet the additional costs of a pay equity settlement, would the minister please explain his intentions with regard to the adult protective service workers in Ontario and in this particular case?

Hon Mr Beer: As my honourable colleague mentions, there have been some concerns around the adult protective service program in Durham, and officials from the area office of my ministry have been working with Durham region around that. We had some concerns in terms of the salary settlement that was made that other factors beyond pay equity came into that and were beyond the budget we had been able to provide for that year.

What we are looking at is whether we can continue that service with the region of Durham or whether it would be more effective to do that through a community-based organization. That is where the discussions are at the moment.

Mr Allen: We come back to the old runaround on the question of community devolution of services. It would appear that what the minister is going to do once again from that ministry is to offload an important service out of the municipality on to a community-based independent agency with the effect that the salary base levels will be worse, the advocacy service will probably be constricted and the overall service provided by the adult protective service workers would be significantly reduced, in spite of a major study which has been laid before cabinet which indicates the critical importance of this service.

Would the minister himself meet directly with Durham officials to discuss this question but also in the light of the future of the adult protective service workers’ role in Ontario so that we can sort this question out and get it back at the level of delivery where it ought to be?

Hon Mr Beer: I think that our goal in terms of this program is to provide as extensive a service as we possibly can with the funds available. In working with Durham and some other centres in providing this program, we have said that we want to look at some of the models that exist in other parts of the province where we have been able to offer this service in an effective way and through community-based organizations.

If after the discussions between my officials and those of Durham it appears that there would be some usefulness in my becoming more directly involved, I would be pleased to do that. But from what I am aware of at this point in time, I think that it is best if the discussions continue the way they are going. I am optimistic that we will be able to resolve this issue before too long.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Mr Ward moved that notwithstanding standing order 94(

h) the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item 29.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS

DIRECT GRANT PROGRAM

Mr Wildman: I have a petition signed by 24 residents of the very small township of Thompson in Algoma district. It is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“That the population criteria for the Ministry of the Environment’s direct grant program for private water systems be forgiven.”

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr Adams: I have a petition from a number of people in the Peterborough area. It is properly addressed and it reads:

“That in the interest of ‘real reform’ of pension arrangements those teachers who retired before June 1982 now begin to receive a pension based on their best five years under the same formula as those who retired after June 1982.

“That in order to encourage full partnership between teachers, organizations and government, the Superannuated Teachers of Ontario have a representative on the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Board, which will replace the Teachers’ Superannuation Commission.”

ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES

Mr Adams: I have another petition from people in the Peterborough area. This one concerns resolution 62.

“We, the undersigned Ontario citizens, are opposed to private members’ resolution 62, which reads, ‘That the government of Ontario through the Minister of Natural Resources should bring forward legislation to prohibit the use of dirt bikes and all-terrain vehicles on conservation authority lands.”’

BICYCLES AND SKATEBOARDS

Mr Adams: I have a petition here on behalf of my friend and colleague the member for Durham East (Mr Cureatz). This too is properly addressed and it reads:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

“To remove bicycles from public sidewalks, downtown cores, highways under city and town jurisdiction and to prohibit bicycles on school grounds or designated school areas; and,

“To designate skateboards in public areas dangerous and illegal, to be used only on private property or on specific recreational areas.”

The Speaker: You have signed them all?

Mr Adams: I have signed them all, Mr Speaker.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Laughren: I have a significant number of petitions, too numerous to read, all dealing with the French Language Services Act.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INSURANCE STATUTE AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 68,

An Act to amend certain Acts respecting insurance.

The Speaker: Checking Votes and Proceedings, I see that the member for Welland-Thorold adjourned the debate. Would the member have any further comments to make?

Mr Kormos: Very briefly. I am not going to be lengthy; I am going to try to sum up. There are a couple of new things that have to be mentioned, and I am going to try basically to sum up what I spoke about yesterday. I know there are other members of the opposition who are going to be addressing yet other aspects of this legislation and pointing out the horrible impact this is going to have on people across Ontario -- drivers, all people from all walks of life, from all parts of the province.

I will tell you, Mr Speaker, and this is perhaps by way of benevolent warning to the government, to the Liberals sitting here in this Legislature, there is concern being expressed across the province about how the Liberals are managing this horrible little piece of legislation, this Bill 68, this new auto insurance regime that was written by the auto insurance industry in the boardrooms of that same auto insurance industry, albeit right here in Ontario, but which was designed to make profits for that auto insurance industry that those companies have never seen before in their histories. It is a payback, and I am going to talk about that once again in a few minutes.

There is a groundswell of public opinion. I am looking at an editorial in the Hamilton Spectator yesterday, and it calls for a debate on the so-called no-fault plan. We discussed yesterday that no-fault was really a misnomer because there are lots of faults that one can find with this legislation. Indeed, it is as faulty a bit of legislation as has ever been presented in this Legislature. In fact, calling it no-fault is a little bit of fluff and puffery on the part of the Liberals here, because really it is a threshold scheme.

Yesterday we talked about what Mr Justice Osborne said about threshold schemes. He made it quite clear that what they are there for and that their impact is not to get the seriously injured people into the system but to keep injured people out of the system. That is what Mr Justice Osborne concluded while, at the request of this government, he was performing his investigation of auto insurance and its delivery here in Ontario.

Perhaps it is useful to discover once again that Mr Justice Osborne said conclusively in his report in 1988, “I reject threshold no fault.” That is the very sort of system we are talking about right here: threshold no-fault. Mr Justice Osborne, after consideration of it, said no, it is bad, it is wrong, it is going to hurt people. All it is going to do is pad the pockets of the private auto insurance industry in Ontario. It is not going to help drivers. It is not going to create affordable insurance.

It is not going to create insurance that is provided fairly to drivers of both genders, of all ages, from all parts of the province. That is why Mr Justice Osborne said no, “I reject threshold no fault.” That was in the performance of his inquiry into motor vehicle accident compensation here in Ontario.

But look again at this editorial in the Hamilton Spectator, which calls for a debate on what the government calls, albeit it is a misnomer, the no-fault plan. The buttons we are wearing are very polite; you have got to concede, Mr Speaker, that these are polite buttons. I thought of a number of slogans that could go on a button and none of them was as polite as this one, which says: “No-fault? Well, no thanks.” As I say, that is about as polite as one could ever get when you consider the horrible impact this legislation is going to have on people across Ontario and when you recognize that this legislation is a payback.

This legislation is a payback to the auto insurance industry; it is a payback of the debt that this government and the Liberals here in this Legislature have to the auto insurance industry. It is a debt that is documented -- it is no secret, quite frankly -- and that makes fridges and paint jobs look like kids’ stuff or small fry in the total scheme of things. We are talking about big bucks. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars. That is the kind of debt we are talking about.

The editorial in the Hamilton Spectator yesterday, 14 November 1989, called for a debate of the no-fault plan. Let us recognize that if all this, all of what we have been able to point out, is not enough, this government has no intention of letting people in Ontario comment on the legislation and the way it is going to impact on their lives.

Sure, after some pressure, the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr Elston) with a wink and a nudge -- and I guess the old saying is, a wink is as good as a nudge to a blind man -- says, “Oh yes, we’ll have hearings.” But what he has not said yet is that we will have committee hearings to consider this legislation, to hear from people in Ontario; that they are going to make sure that the folk from North Bay are going to be heard as thoroughly and as completely and as readily as the folk from Welland-Thorold down in the Niagara Peninsula.

The minister has not yet said that the committee is going to be allowed to hear from people across Ontario in communities, cities, towns and villages, from the north to the south, from the west to the east. He has not said that. Why has he not said that? Because he does not want to hear from these people.

Quite frankly, if he thought he could get away with it, I have no doubt that he would rather this whole process were quite a secret one and without any comment or debate at all. Indeed, the speed with which these people want to ram this legislation through generates, and should generate, a great deal of suspicion. That was emphasized when the Minister of Financial Institutions made his comments yesterday.

He is talking about speeding this whole process up, ramming this through, just slipping it past the public, because he knows, as the rest of this government knows, that the more and more that people across Ontario become aware of how bad this legislation is, the more they will realize how dangerous and cruel it is.

We talked yesterday about how cruel it is, because we talked about fairness; we talked about what fairminded people would tolerate. I know that you, Mr Speaker, among others here yesterday, sat as a fairminded person and, I am sure, shuddered at what this legislation holds in store for drivers and people of all shapes and sizes across the province of Ontario, recognizing that it is designed, not to help least of all innocent injured accident victims but to generate profits never before seen by the private corporate auto insurance industry.

Among other things, we know that we are talking about a gift here, an involuntary gift from the taxpayers of Ontario. We are talking about in excess of some $140 million that is being handed over, if this legislation passes, to the private corporate auto insurance industry here in Ontario. That is taxpayers’ money. Where is that coming from? We know where it is coming from. In this bill the government advances the first $90 million, give or take a few. When these guys talk about bucks, to say give or take a few million really seems nothing.

I have nothing against drunks or sailors, but quite frankly, these people, the Liberals here in this government, often can spend money like drunken sailors, especially if it is not theirs, if it is taxpayers’ money.

Indeed, they are doing it with taxpayers’ money here. They are picking the taxpayers’ pockets of Ontario, first of all, to the tune of $90 million and change and giving that as a gift, a freebie, to the auto insurance industry; and then there is the scam in the OHIP system for another $40 million or $50 million. So the total figure is up around $143 million. We will not really know how painful it is going to be until after it happens, but that is why we are here: to make sure it does not happen because fairminded people in Ontario will not let it happen.

The editorial in the Hamilton Spectator yesterday, 14 November 1989, called for a debate of the no-fault plan. The author of that editorial knows the minister has no intention at this point of letting that committee hear from people across Ontario.

He has no intention of letting all those people who want to comment on this legislation speak out at the committee in response to the legislation -- no more so than the government had any intention of having a consultative process in gear when it came down to Bill 162, the workers’ compensation legislation which it rammed through this Legislature a little while ago, and no more so than it had any intention of having real consultation with the Canadian Bar Association, the Advocates’ Society and the Criminal Lawyers’ Association when it came down to Bills 2 and 3 being in the standing committee on administration of justice.

The Hamilton Spectator speaks for a whole lot of people when it says to debate the no-fault plan. I will read this for members because it is only yesterday’s paper, and I know that not all of us here have a chance to get the Spectator, but it is written in that editorial, “Premier Peterson’s government, understandably” -- you bet your boots, “understandably” – “is in a hurry to rush through the no-fault car insurance law.” Sure they are in a hurry to rush it through. They are in a hurry to rush it through so that the outrage that is experienced by every single person who comes to realize what this legislation is about will not be allowed to ferment and develop in communities across Ontario.

They are in a hurry to rush the no-fault car insurance law through so that it can be in force in the new year. But with the wisdom that is so obvious, this same editorial states, “But it would be a mistake to pass flawed legislation just for the sake of speed and bookkeeping convenience.” You had better believe it that it would be a mistake, and you had better believe it when we talk about this legislation being flawed. The editorial in yesterday’s Spectator says “it would be a mistake to pass flawed legislation just for the sake of speed and bookkeeping convenience.”

The editorial goes on to praise the leader of the third party: “Andy Brandt, the Conservative interim leader, is right to demand a committee study the plan” -- just as we have all along, Mr Speaker, and the editorial mentions “hearings to collect evidence and comments from people across Ontario.” The editorial says, “That would be a wise investment and a safeguard.”

It is a long-standing, traditional safeguard, so fundamental a democratic safeguard, yet the Minister of Financial Institutions has no interest in seeing that safeguard put into effect because we have not had the pleasure of hearing the minister indicate yet that he is going to let people across Ontario comment on this badly flawed legislation. We have not heard from the Minister of Financial Institutions yet that he is going to let the committee process operate fully and democratically and hear from people from every city, village and town in Ontario.

My vision of the Minister of Financial Institutions is of him sitting over there with his jackboots on; that is about how much respect he has for democracy when it comes down to this bit of legislation.

I join with the editor of the Hamilton Spectator in calling for hearings to collect evidence and comments from people across Ontario. That is so basic. How could any fairminded person not agree that is what has to take place before legislation like this is dealt with in its finality here in the Legislature?

The editorial goes on to say, “On the face of it, the no-fault system” -- this Liberal government no-fault system – “appears attractive.” It goes on in the next paragraph to say:

“However, some worrisome questions have been raised, mostly by lawyers. They admittedly have substantial self-interest in insurance legislation, but that alone doesn’t blunt the points they’ve raised.

“One is that the compensation

schedule for lost income due to accident injury is inadequate and would drastically lower living standards for the disabled.”

The editorial in the Hamilton Spectator recognizes what we have been saying in this Legislature for some time now. It recognizes that no working person in Ontario will be permitted to receive his or her full wage replacement, even if he or she is an innocent injured accident victim; even the innocent. No single innocent injured accident victim in Ontario will be permitted to receive his or her full wage replacement -- and he or she has been injured at the hands of a drunken, reckless, careless, negligent driver -- because of the legislation that the Liberals want to ram through.

That is one of the worrisome questions, that it is inadequate. Quite frankly, the ceiling, the maximum -- the complete, absolute, total maximum -- is $450 a week, and we know that $450 a week for a family of four here in the city of Toronto is below the poverty level. So we have a scheme here that oh so clearly favours the auto insurance industry, that is going to force families, that is going to force little kids, into poverty, the families of innocent injured accident victims. Innocent people are going to be forced into poverty at the hands of this government and its scheme, which is designed to put big profits into the pockets of the auto insurance industry. Shame.

The editor writes, “One” -- worrisome point -- “is that the compensation

schedule for lost income due to accident injury is inadequate and would drastically lower living standards for the disabled.” He goes on, “Another is that many people might not be able to afford supplementary income protection insurance.”

That is something the minister has been tossing about more than occasionally here in the Legislature. He is as much as conceding the gross inadequacy of this legislation, the absence of any real protection for innocent injured accident victims when he says, “Yes, but you can buy extra insurance, extra coverage for all sorts of things.” That puts the big L for big lie on any suggestion that rates are going to be controlled even to the extent that the minister appears to suspect, because we have not heard any concrete terms in that regard.

In fact, rates are going to climb and climb, and the minister is conceding, confirming and guaranteeing that what people are going to have to pay for insurance coverage is going to be just out of this world. It is going to be sky high. It is going to be like something in their worst nightmares that they have never dreamed of.

You will recall, Mr Speaker, I presented to the minister some comments by Don McKay, the general manager of the Facility Association, to the effect that the ranks of the Facility Association are going to increase, are going to expand, especially if this legislation was passed as it now stands. Why? Clearly, first of all, the Facility Association ranks of Ontario drivers have more than doubled in the last year.

The Facility Association, as we know, is that pool for high-risk drivers, but by virtue of having doubled in the last year in identifying many of those drivers who have been forced into Facility, which costs thousands of dollars -- not hundreds of dollars, but two, three and four times what insurance costs in the regular market -- we know that good drivers have been forced into Facility.

We are told by Don McKay, the general manager of the Facility Association, that it is going to get worse, not better, if this legislation is passed. Why? Because as he explained to us, the insurance industry is going to start using avoidance techniques for certain classes of drivers, especially for certain occupational classes of drivers like seasonal workers, like self-employed people, like senior citizens, like so many of those people who constitute the volunteer armies here in Ontario.

Let’s talk about that for just a minute. Let’s talk about what this is going to do to the hundreds -- not hundreds, thousands; no, not thousands -- to the tens of thousands of dedicated, committed, hardworking volunteers here in the province of Ontario who give so freely of their time and energy and skill in communities across the province and in causes from A to Z.

As the members know, many times those volunteers happen to be senior citizens who are retired, who do not have jobs. It is the fact that they are enjoying the pleasures of retirement that permits them the time to engage in this volunteer activity. That is, quite frankly, the typical volunteer. Those people are among the classes of people who are going to be denied insurance coverage by the auto insurance industry here in Ontario once this legislation is passed.

Do you know why, Mr Speaker? I am going to tell you why. I know you know why, but you have got to be the Speaker and I am the one doing the speaking.

Mr Ballinger: Is that what you call it?

Mr Kormos: I know you know why, Mr Speaker. Gosh, do you know what I did today? I hear the member for Durham-York (Mr Ballinger) cackling again.

Now, I tell members, the Liberals have got a big majority, and they can play around with the public right now with that big majority, but there is going to be a general election at some point in this province, and the people of Ontario are not going to forget -- least of all for people like the member for Durham-York, who won by a mere plurality of 482 votes back in the general election of 1987. I tell the member for Durham-York he better mind his P’s and Q’s because he did not enjoy that healthy a plurality, did he? A mere 482 votes; he should be a lot more careful. Listen --

Mr Ballinger: Do not worry about me. I will be back.

Mr Kormos: If I were a betting man, I would give odds on that -- healthy ones, healthy ones. We are talking about volunteers who are going to be turned into victims because of what the Liberal government and the private auto insurance industry is doing to them with this bill, Bill 68, right here, right now; turning volunteers into victims. Forcing those good people, who volunteer for hundreds of causes -- do I have to list them?

I mean the Red Cross, volunteers who transport cancer victims to and from treatment, people who deliver meals on wheels to the elderly, Big Brothers, Big Sisters, people who volunteer with minor hockey, baseball, basketball teams and leagues in communities across Ontario.

These volunteers are going to get turned into victims. These volunteers, as often as not, will be among those classes of people upon which, as we were told by Don McKay, the general manager of Facility Association, the private corporate auto insurance industry, once it gets its way with this legislation, is going to start using avoidance techniques. The volunteers being turned into victims; it is a shame.

Small business people, and we talked a little bit about this yesterday, small entrepreneurs, people who work hard, people who, as often as not, do not work 40-hour weeks or 50-hour weeks but work 60- and 70- and 80-hour weeks, and who make significant contributions to the economies of their communities; communities like the ones I come from, Welland and Thorold in the Niagara Peninsula; communities like the ones every single member of this Legislature comes from. Small entrepreneurs are going to become victims if this legislation is passed.

Why? Because they are among the classes of people upon which the auto insurance industry, if it gets its way with this legislation, is going to be using avoidance techniques. Just as Don McKay said, the general manager of the Facility Association, in his third quarterly newsletter, October 1989: “They are going to contribute to that ever-accelerating swelling of the size of the Facility Association that has more than doubled in the last year and is going to continue to grow and grow and grow with good drivers who are being denied insurance coverage by the regular private automobile corporate insurance industry.”

Well, to carry on with the editorial, because the last statement that I had referred to in the editorial was the comment by the author to the effect that many people might not be able to afford supplementary income protection insurance and that that is backed by the Facility Association which insures the hard-to-insure at high premiums.

The next paragraph is an interesting comment. It warns this government, “Before locking Ontarians into a new system that may contain some nasty surprises” -- nasty surprises, deadly surprises – “The government should open up the proposed no-fault program for public examination and discussion.” What a simple and basic request, what an essential and integral part of the democratic process and what an affront to the democratic process for this government to deny the right of people across Ontario to be involved in a public examination and discussion of this legislation.

Well, there is good reason for it; you better believe that, Mr Speaker. There is good reason for it because this legislation is not designed to withstand the scrutiny of drivers and members of the public across Ontario, of course not. This legislation was designed to be forced through this Legislature as quickly as possible before people found out what was happening to them and what was going to happen to them so that the big payback to the private corporate auto insurance industry could take place.

I say that it is a shame and it is sad, and it is a sad day for the province that democracy and a traditional long-standing democratic process like open, public committee hearings should be ground under the heel of a Minister of Financial Institutions who does not want to serve the public of Ontario but very clearly wants to serve the interests of the auto insurance industry here in Ontario.

The editorial goes on, “Before locking Ontarians into a new system that may contain some nasty surprises, the government should open up the proposed no-fault program for public examination and discussion.”

The editorial in the Spectator goes on to read, No doubt, the exercise would slow down the government’s schedule.” That is conceded, but haste in this instance is not what is going to serve the interests of people in Ontario.

“No doubt the exercise would slow down the government’s

schedule and risk another round of steep premium increases.” Now, I have to comment on that. Steep premium increases, holy cow, because there was a freeze on premiums back in 1987 -- a freeze -- yet this editorial for some reason says, what? -- ”another round of steep premium increases.” Well, that is what this freeze by this government has been all about, a whole succession of steep premium increases. Reflect back, Mr Speaker: 4.5 per cent, another 4.5 per cent, that comes to 9.2, and now 7.6 and then to boot you have the old premium shuffle work in there, the old premium flip.

The owners of apartment buildings have been doing it for a long time now so now we have auto insurance companies here in Ontario pulling off the very same scam. Scottish and York: Thousands and thousands of drivers insured by Scottish and York are being told, “Well, your policy isn’t going to be renewed,” and this government has not got the guts or wherewithal to enact legislation to make sure that the insurance is available to people and drivers here in the province of Ontario. It says: “Your policy is not going to be renewed, but I will tell you what we are going to do.

Just walk this way, walk down the hall because we have got an insurer for you called Victoria,” and lo and behold the premium that Victoria is charging to the very same driver for the very same cars is 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 per cent higher than what it was under Scottish and York.

My goodness, it is an entirely effective way to circumvent the so-called 7.6 per cent cap or premium increase freeze. And do I have to say the punch line -- I guess it is inappropriate because it is not funny; it is sad -- the punch line is that Victoria Insurance just down the hall from Scottish and York has the very same owner, the very same president, the very same signature, the very same address, the very same secretary, but a far cry from the very same premiums.

What a slick move. It is the premium flip and it is being done to thousands of drivers here in the province. It has been done to thousands of drivers here in the province of Ontario. This government knows it has been done to them. This government has condoned and tolerated that it has been done to them, and it is going to keep happening. It has made a mockery of any prospect of premium or rate freezes.

The authors of the editorial in the Hamilton Spectator know that full well when they write, “No doubt the exercise” of democracy, public examination, public comment and public discussion on this scheme, this new regime being proposed by these government members on behalf of the private corporate auto insurance industry, “would slow down the government’s schedule” -- and this, as I say, is so pithy an observation on the part of the editor – “and risk another round of steep premium increases.”

These guys are not fooled -- 4.5, 9.2, 7.6, darned right, those are steep premium increases and they all occurred during the so-called freeze. Wow. But the editorial goes on to read, “But that might be cheaper and safer in the long term than exposing people to ruin through flaws that the government didn’t notice or fully evaluate.” Editorial writers sometimes have to be careful because the editorial writer here says people are going to be ruined “through flaws the government didn’t notice or fully evaluate.” I will add one more to that -- and did not care about.

But the editorial goes on to say, “At least the questions raised by the new plan’s critics should be answered in an impartial forum.” That is exactly what the minister wants to avoid. That is exactly what he will go to any lengths to avoid doing, to having wide-open, full, public hearings at the committee level about this legislation.

I tell the members, that is all I ask of the government at this point, to participate in that gesture of confirmation of a long-standing, democratic process -- the committee; the committee that travels across Ontario so that people from the farthest north and from Toronto as well, from the farthest east and from Windsor as well, can look at this legislation, talk about it, think about it and tell the government about it through its committee. That is all we are asking for.

Obviously, when we ask for that, we are not alone, when there are those in the government like the Minister of Financial Institutions, who declined to do it, notwithstanding that people are going to be ruined through the flaws inherent in this legislation. Is that hyperbole? No.

Let’s use once again -- I know the government does not like it when we talk about small business people and how they are going to be ruined by this legislation -- but we talked yesterday about the small businessman who, after years of hard work, was making $50,000 a year income, but who was injured at the hand of a drunken, reckless, careless or negligent driver -- take your choice -- but was an entirely innocent victim suffering, let’s say, broken legs or a broken back. He is prevented from working in his business for a recovery time of a year or a year and a half.

Notwithstanding that he clearly earned an income of $50,000 a year from his business that he had worked so hard to develop and establish in his community, and notwithstanding that his inability to work at that business for the year and a half constitutes a loss, a real loss, a genuine loss, a measurable loss, a pecuniary or economic loss of $75,000, what compensation is there going to be for that person through the insurance companies’ scheme?

For the pain and suffering of broken legs or a broken back that takes a year or a year and a half to recover from, compensation under what this government wants to impose on the people of Ontario for pain and suffering is not a cent, not a nickel, not a dime, not a penny. Zip, zero is how much compensation that businessman or businesswoman is going to get for what is an unenviable and, for so many of us, an unappreciable level of pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life; not a nickel.

Economic loss: $75,000 of income, a year and a half recovering that he or she has not been able to work at that business. Are they going to get $75,000? They are innocent. They did not do anything wrong. They were victims. Are they going to get a single penny? They will get the maximum $450 a week and not a penny more, notwithstanding that their actual loss is $75,000.

You will recall, Mr Speaker, that same business person suffered, as one could expect -- and that is why I say this is an entirely reasonable illustration; incidents like this are happening regularly across Ontario, across all of Canada, incidents of a person who cannot work in his business, because we are talking about small business people here, the types of entrepreneurs that we in this party, the New Democratic Party, have always supported and encouraged, small business people.

When you are a small business person, being out of commission for a year and a half can and so often would lead to the bankruptcy of the business. This same person, this innocent injured accident victim, gets not one penny for his broken legs or his broken back suffered at the hands of the drunken or reckless or careless or negligent driver, who receives less than one half of his real economic or pecuniary loss, then suffers a bankruptcy.

He or she has to spend the next five years recovering from that catastrophe, that disaster, and it takes another five years before that young, or whatever age, business person restores his or her business status in the community back to the point where he or she is making that same income. Is there any compensation for that lost income over that five-year period? You guessed it, Mr Speaker: not a penny, not a cent, not a nickel, not a dime, zero, zip.

A question to be asked is, is that fair? Is that humane? Is that the sort of standard we have in our society? Of course not. Only the most mercenary approach could ever result in a scenario like the one I have just described. I tell you, Mr Speaker, it has to be something akin to blackmail. I do not know what it is that the insurance industry has on this government but, boy, is the insurance industry ever pulling the strings. That is so apparent.

This editorial is one of what will be many editorials across Ontario calling for this government to engage in a little bit of democracy, a little bit of consultation with the public, a little bit of making sure that people in cities, towns and villages across Ontario have an opportunity to comment on this legislation.

You know what, Mr Speaker? If the minister would pass me a note right now that said, “Of course, this committee is going to be permitted to travel and hear from as many people as want to address it,” on the understanding that he would get up and announce it right now, I would say, “Let’s get on with it.”

I tell members that what is going to happen if this government gets its way is that the committee is going to sit here at Queen’s Park for a day, two days, maybe three days, the same type of consultation that took place with Bill 162 and the workers’ compensation legislation, the same kind of consultation that took place with Bill 2 and Bill 3 in the court reform legislation. Consultation, my foot. It is called ramming it down the throats of the public and the drivers of Ontario.

We talked a lot about the legislation really being not no-fault but threshold legislation. We talked about what the Honourable Mr Justice Osborne had to say about the Insurance Bureau of Canada and its request, its proposal. We know that what the insurance companies wanted is not as much as what the government is prepared to give them, that indeed the insurance companies, through the Insurance Bureau of Canada, requested and proposed a threshold that would exclude, in their submission, 92 per cent of innocent injured people from receiving any compensation here in the province of Ontario.

We have learned that that threshold, being the threshold that is applied in Michigan, indeed excludes 94 per cent in the state of Michigan. The threshold being proposed as an incredible gift to the insurance industry by this government, being more onerous, more rigid and more restrictive than what the insurance industry itself asked for, is going to exclude in excess of 94 per cent and perhaps as many as 95 per cent to 99 per cent.

Let me tell members once again what Mr Justice Osborne said. Mr Justice Osborne is the one who said in his report, “I reject threshold no-fault.” Mr Justice Osborne said this: “It is plain that the IBC (Insurance Bureau of Canada) threshold is designed to keep claimants out of the system for cost reasons, not to let the seriously injured in.”

He said that after thorough examination and consideration of that system. It is the very kind of system that this government wants to impose and wants to force on people here in Ontario right now. We talked about a whole lot of people who are going to be hurt real bad under this new regime being imposed on people in Ontario.

Let’s talk about some more people who are going to be hurt real bad. Let’s talk about some more people who have a strong interest in having an opportunity to participate in a very simple and basic democratic process, the process of participating in committee hearings sitting in communities across Ontario.

We can go through a little bit of a list now, because I know that the minister would love to be able to comment on these classes of people. The minister knows that union members are going to be hurt real bad by this legislation. Union members are going to get a screwing that they have never had before in their lives from this government, or from any other government; I tell you this, Mr Speaker. It is true. I am not sceptical.

Unions represent large numbers of industrial workers and other workers here in the province of Ontario and have negotiated substantial income replacement benefits for those workers, their membership and pension benefits for those same members. What happens in this new regime, this scheme that is being imposed upon drivers and the rest of the public in Ontario by this government and by the private auto insurance industry, is that the benefits that workers have earned and struggled for, really a part of their earned pay package, are deducted from the no-fault benefits that they would be accorded.

This is remarkable, just a little bit more subsidy. These guys have spread the great myth for so long about subsidization of insurance systems, a myth when it comes down to driver-owned, public, nonprofit auto insurance systems out west but a reality right here in Ontario when it comes to private corporate auto insurance systems. This is going to be the most thoroughly and completely subsidized auto insurance system in all of the western world, and it is a private, corporate auto insurance system.

Subsidies? Let me tell members, unionized workers in the province are being told, “You are going to have to subsidize your insurance system with your income replacement benefits and pension benefits, part of your earned pay package.”

And you know what, Mr Speaker? What we are talking about in this regard is the so-called no-fault benefits, the ones that really cannot be called no-fault because you can find so much fault with them it is just remarkable.

But what Osborne noted is that in places that have this kind of no-fault -- and we have experienced it here in Ontario from 1972 on, when we have had

schedule C,

section B benefits, so-called no-fault benefits -- there is a considerable amount of first-party litigation. What that means is litigation -- litigation is suing -- in which an ensured person sues his own insurers, usually over the nonpayment of the no-fault benefits.

You know what, Mr Speaker? It is a long time overdue that they have been increased from $140 to $450, and if you think insurance companies were reluctant to pay those no-fault benefits out to injured people before, when they were only $140 a week, just watch when they are up to $450 a week. I said yesterday that the insurance industry is notorious for its short arms and deep pockets.

Union members are going to be hurt real bad by this legislation, and they are the people who want an opportunity -- a very basic, fundamental, simple opportunity -- to address the legislation before a committee that travels across Ontario permitting them to appear before it. That is all that is being asked for, a little bit of democracy here.

Union members, workers in general, all working people in Ontario are going to suffer, going to be hurt real bad, going to be hurt cruelly by this Bill 68, by this insurance companies’ legislation, because we know that nobody is going to get more than 80 per cent of his lost earnings, and even that is up to a maximum of $450.

Let’s talk about the worker who makes $700 a week, who is injured and unable to work and who, the government would have us believe, is going to be entitled to speedy no-fault benefits, just as long as he does not have to litigate for them, as Mr Justice Osborne said happens in other regimes, other jurisdictions where you have the same type of system.

Let’s talk about the worker who makes $700 a week, who cannot work, who has lost his earning ability as a result of a motor vehicle accident. That worker will lose $250 a week for as long as he or she remains disabled, because this is not wage or income replacement; this is a ceiling, $450 a week. The worker who earns $700 a week will lose $250 a week, week after week, for as long as he or she remains disabled.

Now, the Minister of Financial Institutions, it seems to me, is talking through his hat when he suggests, “Well, folk like that worker who earns $700 a week should be buying extra insurance.” Once again, so much for the so-called eight per cent that we are told insurance is going to increase for drivers here in Ontario this year as a result of this new plan. Horsefeathers, Mr Speaker, because that certainly does not take into account that extra insurance he has to buy, does it?

Even at that, no insurance company will sell that person insurance to cover his full loss of earnings, and as we clearly know, that extra coverage that he might choose to buy will cost that person an additional premium. It will cost him an arm and a leg, Mr Speaker.

I know we talked about this yesterday, but we talked about how that $140, the

schedule C,

section B no-fault wage replacement has been in effect in this province since 1972 and was upgraded to a $140-a-week wage replacement. That part of it was upgraded to $140 a week in 1978. It remained $140 a week in 1979, 1980, all the way up to the present. That is what it is, $140 a week. The one distinction about that and what the government wants to ram down people’s throats is that the worker who loses his or her ability to earn income, regardless of fault, gets that $140 a week, but can then, if he or she is an innocent victim, look to the negligent, drunken, careless, reckless party to make up the difference.

What this government is doing with the legislation that it is putting before this House right now is protecting that same drunken, reckless, careless, negligent driver by saying that he or she, the drunk driver, the reckless driver, the careless driver, the negligent driver who breaks people’s backs and legs, will not be liable for the shortfall in wage replacement.

Had that $140 been indexed so that automatically every year, based on a legislated formula, it increased to a figure that was a proper figure, an adjusted figure for taking into consideration inflation, we know that figure would be reasonably close to $450 right here and now, today, in 1989. But the government did not index the $140 back in 1978, did not index the original figure back in 1972. As was said yesterday, that could have been oversight. It could have been purposeful and cruel, but to give the benefit of the doubt, it could have been oversight.

It certainly is not oversight in this instance, because the government has been reminded of that shortcoming of the old

schedule C,

section B benefits, the $140 a week no-fault wage replacement that has been here since 1972, time after time. Do you think it is indexed now? Not on your life. So, within literally months of this legislation becoming law -- a sad day that will be -- that $450 is going to become less and less as the months and years progress.

Let’s talk about another group of people here in the province of Ontario who are going to be hurt real bad by this legislation, who have real good reason for wanting this government to engage in just a little bit of democracy; not just democracy, a little bit of decency, letting people in cities and communities across Ontario make comments to a committee that travels across the province to hear those people make submissions about this legislation.

Another group of people who are going to be hurt real bad are school teachers, Mr Speaker. Let me tell you why. School teachers, it is a fact, have substantial sick pay plans. Under this legislation that the auto insurance industry wrote and that the government is trying to ram through this Legislature, sick pay plans have to be used up before the no-fault insurance pays anything.

Members might recall that yesterday we talked about the teacher who had accumulated, through her hard work and through not having exhausted the sick days, some 40 weeks of sick days and was seriously injured, an innocent accident victim of a drunken driver or reckless driver or a negligent or careless driver. That school teacher was forced to use up every day of that 40 weeks of accumulated sick leave.

What we know is that to accumulate 40 weeks of sick leave, you have to invest more than a little bit of time in your profession as a school teacher, and when you have exhausted it, you no longer have that bank of sick days that will accommodate you in the event of a serious illness or in the event of heart attack. This scheme really attacks, assaults schoolteachers and people like school teachers, because sick pay has to be used up before the no-fault insurance pays anything.

We talked about the schoolteacher who had accumulated 40 weeks of sick pay. Let’s talk about an injury to a teacher who is an innocent injured accident victim, who is off work as a result of that injury for six months. That teacher who uses up the six months’ accumulated sick pay receives nothing in no-fault benefits. An innocent victim of a drunken driver, off work for six months, gets not a cent because that person has had to use up the sick pay that he or she has earned in the course of doing his or her job and doing the job well.

Now let’s suppose that same teacher then goes back to work, misses time because of, as I indicated, the flu or a heart attack or any one of many illnesses that we all should be concerned about. That teacher had used up all of his or her accumulated sick pay because of an accident that was somebody else’s fault; that same teacher will get no pay during his or her absence from work due to sickness. I ask you, Mr Speaker, is that fair? No, we know that is not fair. There is not a fairminded person in Ontario who is going to say that is right, that is proper, that is the way it should be.

We have talked about how self-employed people, small business people are assaulted by this legislation, how they are hurt real bad by this new insurance regime that the Liberals are trying to impose on drivers and the public of Ontario, how they are hurt real bad by legislation that, “Oh, yes,” the minister says, “It is made in Ontario.” You bet your boots it is made in Ontario. It is written in the boardrooms of auto insurance companies in Toronto, Guelph, London and wherever else they might be situated.

Let’s talk about small business people, entrepreneurs. Oftentimes, and we know this, small business people will put their profits back into their business and the income that is taken out does not really represent what is being built there, what is being earned on an annual basis. Now if a small business person, even as an innocent victim in a motor vehicle accident, is disabled from working as a result of that accident, all he or she gets is 80 per cent of the gross weekly income. We know if it is a new business, he or she may have no income from it yet.

In that case, what does that person receive out of this no-fault scheme -- this no-fault scheme that really is not a no-fault scheme, because you can find lots of fault with it -- what does that small business person get? Nothing, not a cent, not a nickel, not a dime.

We talked about the business person who is off and unable to work for a year and a half and who loses the business. Once again, this scheme that the Liberals are trying to ram through this Legislature in the most undemocratic way, the one that they do not want to go to committee -- Mr Speaker, they do not want this legislation to go to committee. They do not want this legislation to be commented on by people across Ontario. If they did, they would say so.

If they did, they would stand up and say: “This legislation is going to committee and that committee is going to hear as many submissions as there are submitters to appear before it.

That committee is going to travel across Ontario so that people from every part of Ontario can comment on this legislation.” Unionized workers who are going to be hurt real bad by this legislation, schoolteachers who are going to be hurt real bad by this legislation, small business people who are going to be hurt real bad by this legislation, in a democratic system, should all have an opportunity to address the committee in their home town and let the government know how badly this legislation is going to hurt them and their famili