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

November 28, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

TAX INCREASES

CLARENCE MILLIGAN

LENGTHS OF TRUCKS AND TRAILERS

CONSTABLE KIMBERLEY SERRICK

AUTOWORKERS VILLAGE

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

FISHING

COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ANNUAL REPORT, ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON SENIOR CITIZENS / RAPPORT ANNUEL DU CONSEIL CONSULTATIF DE L’ONTARIO SUR L’ÂGE D’OR

ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

RESPONSES

ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

ANNUAL REPORT, ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON SENIOR CITIZENS

ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

ANNUAL REPORT, ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON SENIOR CITIZENS

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONSULTING SERVICES

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

CHILD CARE

COURT FACILITIES

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

MINISTERIAL SPENDING

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

TRAVEL EXPENDITURES

UNATTENDED VEHICLES

CHILD CARE

LONG-TERM CARE

ORGAN DONATIONS

LENGTHS OF TRUCKS AND TRAILERS

CONSULTING SERVICES

PETITIONS

LIQUOR STORES

CHRONIC CARE

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 / LOI DE 1989 MODIFIANT LA LOT SUR L’ACCÈS À L’INFORMATION ET LA PROTECTION DE LA VIE PRIVÉE

INTERVENOR FUNDING PROJECT AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 / LOI DE 1989 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LE PROJET D’AIDE FINANCIÈRE AUX INTERVENANTS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INSURANCE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

The Speaker: Just before I call the first order of business, I beg to inform the House I am today laying upon the table the annual report of the Provincial Auditor of Ontario for the year ended 31 March 1989.

Mr McCague: Where is it? You said you laid it on the table; I can’t see it.

The Speaker: It is in the mail; it is in the mailbox.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Kormos: It is outrageous that yesterday in a press release the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr Elston), the Legislature’s very own Tom Pepper, would suggest that no alternative solutions have been offered to the government with respect to the automobile insurance crisis here in the province of Ontario.

That is bizarre because long before I was here, during the 13-year tenure of Mel Swart, and since, this government has been reminded on an almost daily basis that the alternative is one of a public, nonprofit, driver-owned automobile insurance system like those in the three western provinces which consistently continue to provide automobile insurance coverage at significantly lower rates than that provided in Ontario.

The New Democratic Party, in its policy paper Highway Robbery, offered by the member for York South (Mr B. Rae), the leader, and by Mel Swart back in 1987, had this to say:

“Nor do we consider it necessary or appropriate to impose any kind of threshold requirement. Any threshold limit such as that used in Michigan leads to disputes about the threshold level. In fact, as much time is spent on litigation about Michigan’s threshold level as about settlements themselves.

New Democrats are opposed to the loss of individual legal rights entailed by such thresholds, just as we are opposed to their wholesale elimination by so-called ‘pure’ no-fault arrangements.” We very much believe that a public, driver-owned, nonprofit system can provide auto insurance fairly and affordably while retaining the right to full compensation.

TAX INCREASES

Mr McLean: My statement is directed to the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) and it concerns his government’s taxation and spending policies, which have resulted in a decrease in Metropolitan Toronto’s $2.7-billion-a-year tourism industry. He is sending mixed signals to the taxpayers of Ontario. Earlier this year he hit the people of Ontario with the second tax grab, of $l.3 billion, in as many years. We were hit with higher gasoline taxes, a commercial concentration tax, a new tire tax, a payroll tax and increased land transfer taxes, to name but a few.

How does the Treasurer attempt to justify his tax grabs? He claims his government needs this revenue to pay for new and existing programs for the people of Ontario. But he is wrong. It appears the money is really needed for some pretty creative empire building.

Since September 1985, the government has increased its leased office space by nearly one million square feet. The leased office space costs taxpayers about $60 million. The same government has hired more than 7,000 new civil servants. The Treasurer continues to say the increases and new taxes are needed to assist the people, but I say the money is needed to lease expensive office space, hire an exorbitant number of civil servants and build an empire, all at the taxpayers’ expense.

The Provincial Auditor appears to agree with my assessment of the government’s mismanagement of the tax dollars of Ontario.

CLARENCE MILLIGAN

Mr MacDonald: I am pleased to stand in the House today to acknowledge the efforts of Clarence Milligan. Forty years ago, Clarence started farming and today, at a healthy age of 86. he continues to farm in eastern Ontario.

Attendance at the annual conference of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture is what brings Clarence to Toronto this week. In 1986, the federation recognized Clarence’s dedication to agriculture when it inducted him into its hall of fame. More recently, the federation presented Clarence with a plaque to recognize his 40-year contribution to agriculture.

This resident of the town of Napanee has demonstrated loyalty and commitment. His dedication to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has set an example for all farmers across Ontario.

In addition to his accomplishments in agriculture, Clarence holds the honour of having been, during the Diefenbaker cabinet years. a member of the House of Commons. The former member joins us today in the gallery and at this moment I would like to take time to welcome Clarence Milligan.

LENGTHS OF TRUCKS AND TRAILERS

Mr Morin-Strom: We do not need and we do not want monster trucks on our streets and highways. Our highways are dangerous enough today without the government allowing another two-metre increase in the length of trucks in Ontario.

Just a month ago, the Minister of Transportation (Mr Wrye) said he would not allow the extra-long trucks because of safety concerns, but I guess safety considerations do not matter when the Liberals want to make political points at an annual convention of the Ontario Trucking Association. The minister has no excuse for this flip-flop that is a direct threat to the driving public in Ontario.

When we have transport trailers that cannot manoeuvre on approved city-street trucking routes, when we have highways that are being wrecked by the massive trucks already on them and when we have a two-lane Trans-Canada Highway as our major national trucking route, how can this government propose that the rolling monsters be even bigger? Surely our lives and our enjoyment of life are more important than just how much additional stuff can be jammed on to a tractor-trailer. I would ask the Liberals to just consider the general public before they act.

The Canadian Automobile Association argues that longer trucks endanger the lives of ordinary drivers, the Ontario Provincial Police say they will make a bad situation worse and People to Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere, the organization dedicated to making driving safer, says it is just plain crazy. Is the minister crazy or is he going to come to his senses and do something about making our highways safer?

CONSTABLE KIMBERLEY SERRICK

Mr Runciman: I rise to extend condolences to the family of Kimberley Serrick, an Ontario Provincial Police officer who was struck by a car and killed on Sunday in Petrolia while out jogging. The driver of the vehicle has been charged with impaired driving causing death, along with other related offences. It seems most ironic that she would die in this way, knowing that as an officer of the law she was charged with the responsibility of apprehending such motorists.

This is an extremely difficult time for the family of Constable Serrick. It was only last February that her younger sister was killed in a car accident in Orangeville. The loss of yet another daughter must be very painful for the Serrick family, and I know I speak for all members in saying that our hearts go out to them.

Members will know that Constable Serrick worked here at Queen’s Park for the Ontario Government Protective Service for two years before leaving in September 1988 to join the OPP. She also served in the militia with the Canadian army cadets, where she attained the rank of second lieutenant, a commission she was extremely proud of.

Sergeant Gord Perry of the Petrolia OPP has informed me that all officers in his detachment will be travelling to Orangeville this Thursday to attend the funeral of their late comrade. Sergeant Perry described Constable Serrick as being very proud of her top physical condition. She had taken additional training to assist with investigations dealing with family violence and especially those involving child abuse.

Many members of the community of Petrolia took up a collection for Constable Serrick’s family. It was their way of showing their love and respect for her.

Again I want to express condolences to the Serrick family on behalf of all members of the Legislature.

AUTOWORKERS VILLAGE

Mr Dietsch: I would like to take this opportunity to inform this House of an extremely worthwhile and innovative development.

Yesterday I attended the ground-breaking ceremony of the Autoworkers Village, the project of Canadian Auto Workers Local 199. Autoworkers Village is on its way to becoming a reality after the suggestion was made two years ago to use the 15 acres of property behind the union hall to provide low-cost housing for retired workers.

In addition, after a survey of the city they found that a large number of retirees and surviving spouses were finding it difficult to look after their family homes and many were reluctant to move into apartments.

A further benefit of this project will be that the assets retirees have accumulated in their family home can now be utilized in the enjoyment of their retired life by more recreation and possibly more travel.

This project, as the members can see, has required strong leadership, dedication and a lot of bard work. I would like to commend James Council. Al Bratton and John Clout, the entire retiree housing board and the retirees themselves for their great strides in providing services beyond the workplace and beyond 65.

I am thrilled to see the teamwork and community concern of Local 199, which I feel is a good example for all of us.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Laughren: I would like to quote some comments of a speech by Tom Delaney of the Consumers’ Association of Canada (Ontario) in a speech he made yesterday afternoon. He questioned whether or not no-fault was fairer than tort law, and he said:

“As a means of compensating people injured in automobile accidents, the existing tort system is fundamentally flawed. It does not recognize that many accidents are the result of simple, everyday human mistakes and, by failing to recognize this, it grossly under-compensates many injured people. The tort system can also fail to compensate injured people who for whatever reason, are unable to demonstrate that someone else was at fault. The compensation provided to injured people is not based upon the degree of fault of the negligent driver, nor is it always based upon the injured person’s needs.

Instead, it depends upon the amount of coverage carried by the at-fault driver, the insurance company’s willingness to negotiate, the skill of the lawyer retained by the injured party to negotiate or to litigate and many other factors. It is simply not a fair system.”

Delaney went on to say:

“How much more evidence will it take for the Ontario government to do the right thing by consumers (and by the insurance industry) by not passing Bill 68; but by introducing instead, a bill to create a government-run pure no-fault system for auto insurance in the province of Ontario. There is still no light at the end of the tunnel for consumers on auto insurance. Perhaps it will take an election result to make politicians come to their senses.”

FISHING

Mr Pollock: The Minister of Natural Resources (Mrs McLeod) has increased the four-day fishing licence to $6.50, an increase of 30 per cent, and a seasonal licence to $11.50, an increase of 15 per cent. This is a surprise and unfair. because the Ministry of Natural Resources has not increased its budget for the last three years. They have flat-lined their budget, meaning that they did not keep pace with inflation.

Some anglers were willing to pay for a licence to fish if the revenue went into restocking programs. However, when the minister flat-lined her own budget, they felt that they had been led down the garden path.

At the same time the minister increased the licence, she reduced the quota for sport fish. There is no mention in the newspaper

article that she is cutting back on gill netting in the areas of the Great Lakes. The minister is penalizing the sports fisherman and not putting any restriction on the commercial fisherman. Restrictions and increased cost to the sports fisherman are certainly affecting our tourist industry.

COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX

Mr Reycraft: I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge two important projects of historical significance that have just been completed in my riding.

On Saturday I attended the official opening of the Middlesex county jail restoration project along with my colleague the Minister of Culture and Communications (Ms Hart). This achievement is the result of the tireless efforts of many people to restore Middlesex county’s historical administrative centre.

These dedication ceremonies were also marked by the release of a book outlining the history of Middlesex for the last 200 years, including a history of county government. Entitled Middle-sex -- Two Centuries, it was commissioned by county council and may be the only project of its kind in the province.

The book was the brainchild of editor Edward Phelps, librarian for the regional collection at the University of Western Ontario library. Contributions were also made by John Leverton, Pat Morden, Mike Pizzuti. Joe Sheik and David Hallam.

I would like to congratulate all of these people, as well as Middlesex county warden Charles Corbett and his 28 council colleagues, for two jobs well done. Both of these projects will add tremendously to the historical culture of Middlesex county.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ANNUAL REPORT, ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON SENIOR CITIZENS / RAPPORT ANNUEL DU CONSEIL CONSULTATIF DE L’ONTARIO SUR L’ÂGE D’OR

Hon Mr Morin: It is my honour to table with the House today the 15th annual report of the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens.

This year, council distinguished itself by undertaking province-wide consultations to help determine attitudes towards ageing in multicultural Ontario. This resulted in the production of a major report, titled Aging Together -- An Exploration of Attitudes towards Aging in Multicultural Ontario, which was released earlier this year.

The report addresses such issues as access to

services, housing and long-term care, health care, finances and relationships, and contains a number of recommendations that are now being reviewed by my office.

Au cours de la dernière année, le conseil s’est aussi penché sur les questions relatives aux logements, aux droits des grands-parents et sur la substitution des pouvoirs décisionnels des personnes atteintes d’incapacité mentale. Il a également continué a donner suite aux recommandations présentées dans son important rapport intitulé: La vie, c’est la liberté de mouvement; rédigé en 1987 en collaboration avec le Conseil consultatif de l’Ontario sur les personnes handicapées.

The council also continues to distribute its quarterly newsletter, titled Especially for Seniors, which is now sent to almost one million readers. Winners of an essay competition which asked readers to outline what it means to be a senior were published in Are you Listening? This publication was released by the office during this year’s Senior Citizens’ Month.

The council continues to provide invaluable advice and guidance to the Office for Senior Citizens’ Affairs. I am particularly grateful for the strong support they have given to me.

Chaque membre du conseil possède une connaissance approfondie des personnes âgées de l’Ontario et des questions touchant cet important groupe de la population. Au cours des années, leur dévouement a produit des résultats remarquables.

The work done by council’s outgoing chair-person. Ivy St Lawrence, is deeply appreciated. I wish to thank Mrs St Lawrence for the fine leadership she provided to council during the past four years.

Council’s new chairman is JoAnne Fillimore.

Mrs Fillimore is present in the gallery today, and I am delighted to acknowledge her presence.

ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

Hon Mrs Caplan: On 1 December each year, we are asked by the World Health Organization to observe World AIDS Day.

As Friday of this week approaches, it is appropriate for us to reflect on how the AIDS epidemic is affecting us all. As members may know, the World Health Organization’s chosen theme for AIDS Day this year is youth, and surely our young people are uppermost in our minds whenever we think about AIDS.

This government and my ministry have taken a leadership role in bringing Ontarians much needed information about AIDS and in responding effectively to the AIDS challenge. Through our schools we are talking openly to our children. Through the media we say to people, “Let’s talk” about all aspects of AIDS by using our provincial AIDS hotline.

I am proud, as Minister of Health, of Ontario’s response to AIDS and I want to stress the need, as World AIDS Day approaches, for continued efforts on all fronts against this disease.

To this end, I am pleased to announce today additional funding on two of those fronts: AIDS outpatient clinics and scientific research. I am allocating a total of $688,750 in new funding for four clinics. The clinic at Sunnybrook Medical Centre in Toronto will receive $290,600. The Toronto Hospital will receive $86,850 a year. Ottawa General Hospital’s AIDS clinic will receive $102,500. In Hamilton, the new AIDS outpatient clinic at the McMaster site of Chedoke McMaster Hospitals will receive $208,800.

Ontario’s comprehensive response to AIDS also includes research into new ways of treating the disease. In April 1987 I announced a grant of $1.5 million to the University of Toronto to build a virus isolation laboratory. Construction of this state-of-the-art facility is virtually complete and research will begin shortly into drugs that show promise of effectiveness against HIV. In this connection, I am pleased to announce a further grant from my ministry to the University of Toronto of $250,000 for laboratory equipment.

Just yesterday, I had the honour of officially opening here in Toronto the St Michael’s Hospital AIDS outpatient clinic, for which my ministry has already provided substantial funding.

As members will know, I recently appointed Marnie Paikin of Burlington to chair the newly created Ontario AIDS Advisory Committee and I am looking to her and to the committee for advice on how to continuously improve the effectiveness of our battle against this disease.

I want to take this opportunity to remind members that since the AIDS epidemic began, Ontario has channelled more than $60 million into comprehensive initiatives including clinics, laboratories, drug programs, research, community support and public awareness campaigns. That $60 million does not include, by the way, all the physicians’ services, inpatient hospital care and home care associated with the treatment of AIDS.

I am confident that this strategic approach will lead to the development of a network that will serve us well as we devise ever more effective ways of responding to AIDS and HIV.

RESPONSES

ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

Mr D. S. Cooke: I would like to reply briefly to the statement of the Minister of Health. We in the New Democratic Party join with the government in recognizing 1 December as World AIDS Day. I would like to say to the minister, however, that it would be inappropriate to indicate that services across this province are equally available in all communities.

As the minister will know, there are a fair number of clinics accessible here in Toronto, but clinics do not exist in most areas of this province. There are not adequate hospital services available to the majority of people who are experiencing and living with AIDS on a daily basis. There have been applications for other clinics at other hospitals, one of them I know for sure in my own community, and that clinic to this date has still not been funded.

There are still not adequate services in terms of hospice services. There is one hospice in this province and that exists here in Toronto. It provides an excellent service, but that is not something that is available to the vast majority of people across this province.

Home care and other support services so that people do not have to access hospitals for months upon months are not available uniformly across this province. They are inadequate to meet the challenge of people living with AIDS across this province. So I would say to the minister that in terms of services we have a long way to go in this province.

In terms of prevention, this government over the years has, I think, done a fairly good job in public awareness and advertising and trying to get that point across. That is not to say we do not have more to do and more to learn, but I think the government has shown some leadership in that area.

I guess I would like to finish by simply saying that the slogan “Let’s talk” is one we all agree needs to be done on this issue. I think all 130 of us in this Legislature should once in a while talk about this issue. I continue to be amazed that the whole issue of AIDS is raised so seldom in this Legislature, so seldom in question period, so seldom in debate. I think all of us need to ask ourselves whether we are doing enough talking, discussing and debating on this issue.

ANNUAL REPORT, ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON SENIOR CITIZENS

Ms Bryden: I welcome the publication of the annual report of the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens. It is always full of very good suggestions on how to improve the life and opportunities of seniors.

I am particularly impressed by its discussion of the transportation needs of seniors and the strong recommendations for public funding of transit operators to provide adequate services to seniors, and to the frail, elderly and ambulatory seniors. It points out that there is no adequate sharing of the costs of those things, and that in April 1988 there was a major report on recommendations on how to improve access to all transit for frail and ambulatory disabled persons, but I do not think there has been a great deal of action on this report.

I also note that there is a call for an integrated homemakers program, which is still not available except for pilot projects in the Toronto area or in six areas of the province. We still have a long way to go and we are still looking for a policy on adequate dental care for seniors, which was promised in the 1985 election.

ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

Mr Eves: It is a pleasure for me to rise in support of the statement on AIDS by the Minister of Health in the Legislature this afternoon. I compliment her on the steps she has been taking with respect to clinics and research.

There is just one caution or one note that I would like to bring to her attention, and that is that when we develop these outpatient clinics in hospitals it also puts a tremendous burden on the inpatient services, because sooner or later many of these patients become patients in the hospital as opposed to outpatients at the clinic. I just hope that she and her ministry take this into account when they are determining and assessing hospital budgets, especially those that go out of their way, as many of them in the province now do, to establish AIDS clinics.

I would also be very remiss in commenting on this statement this afternoon in the Legislature if we did not take particular awareness of the Metropolitan Toronto home care program, which has an AIDS component to its delivery of services and is celebrating its 25th anniversary today. They serve over some 7,000 people in Metropolitan Toronto daily and are the oldest in North America. I think they are to be congratulated for their efforts.

ANNUAL REPORT, ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr Brandt: I want to respond to the statement the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs made in the House today in connection with the release of the annual report of the seniors’ advisory council.

Let me first begin by thanking and congratulating Mrs St Lawrence for her efforts during the past year and wish the new chairman, JoAnne Fillimore, all the best in terms of success in the ensuing period for which she will have the responsibility of advising the minister on certain matters pertaining to seniors.

From the perspective of our party, we recognize the extremely important segment of the population represented by our seniors in Ontario. They are rapidly increasing in numbers, as the minister well knows. I think it is paramount that the minister get the maximum degree of input from the seniors’ community and from the advisory council in order to develop programs that are flexible and recognize the substantial increase in population that will occur as a result of the demographics we face in Ontario, pro-grams that are also affordable.

I think the seniors recognize that there are some very real changes coming that are going to be difficult for both the seniors and government to handle. I speak about the fact that in today’s society there are six workers for each senior who are supporting seniors on pensions. That is going to change to about three workers supporting one person on pension early in the year 2000.

Those kinds of dramatic changes mean we have to keep a degree of flexibility and open-mindedness on those programs so that we can assist seniors to have the kind of comfort and lifestyle they have worked for and deserve, and at the same time do it in such a way that it can be afforded by the rest of the population.

I congratulate the advisory council on the release of the report, wish them well in the coming year and offer the minister the co-operation of my party in his efforts to assist seniors in the province.

Mr Sterling: In glancing through the annual report, which I congratulate the advisory committee on, on page 23 the members of the committee regret that the Ministry of Health no longer prints and distributes a pamphlet relating to drug use by seniors. I would advise the advisory committee that our party has recently produced a pamphlet called Check the Mix, dealing with drug use. It is a very excellent pamphlet that we would be quite willing to forward to the committee for its use.

I would like to say in addition that I was glad to see the advisory committee support changes in legislation relating to decision-making for mentally incapable persons. We wrote to the Attorney General (Mr Scott) some six or eight months ago requesting that he bring forward legislation in this regard at a very early time. We think the time has passed for discussion on it and that legislation should be introduced here and passed by this Legislature to deal with this very difficult problem. We are with them 100 per cent on that.

We also appreciate their offer to share in the costs with regard to homemakers. We think it is very generous of the seniors community to make that offer.

VISITOR

Mr Philip: I might mention that one of the outstanding figures in the field of public auditing in the world is our own Provincial Auditor. He and his staff are in our gallery and we might like to welcome him and show our appreciation.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONSULTING SERVICES

Mr Philip: I have a question for the Chairman of Management Board, stemming from the auditor’s report, regarding the contracting of consulting services by this government. The Provincial Auditor in the report tabled today has concluded, “Although government directives discourage continuous reliance on consultants, annual expenditures for consulting services have increased from $86 million in 1985 to $165 million in 1989,” or a 92 per cent increase in the four years this government has been in office.

Can the minister explain why this government has so flagrantly violated its own directives to the extent of expending more than $165 million on hired guns last year?

Hon Mr Elston: The honourable gentleman would like to advise the people of the province that the reason the consulting services are high is that we have had an unprecedented amount of capital construction in this Ontario we so much love. We are preparing for the future.

We are doing more work on highways 416, 407 and 403. We are putting more septic and water systems in the ground than ever before. We are dealing with cleanup of water pollution. We are dealing with the construction of new buildings to accommodate the needs of hospitals and social services right across the province.

We need the people, the engineers, architects and designers of highways to do the work that could have been done before, but was not. We need those people to make sure the services are available not only today for the people of the province, but also into the future. It is critical that we become highly competitive and have an infrastructure that allows that to occur.

lnterjections.

The Speaker: Order. Just before I recognize the member for the supplementary, it would make it much easier for me, and I am sure for all, if one member spoke at one time.

Mr Philip: The auditor has given different reasons for the increase. For example, the Provincial Auditor has pointed out that the consultants’ salaries were approximately 70 per cent higher than the salaries provided to public employees doing approximately the same kind of work.

Why would this government spend 70 per cent more on outside consultants than it would cost to have public servants doing identical work? Is the minister not satisfied with the public servants’ ability to provide the jobs, or does he simply want to float away the taxpayers’ money to his friends in the consulting firms?

Hon Mr Elston: The honourable gentleman would probably want to understand that we do go outside government to get consulting services from time to time because we do not retain on staff people with expertise to deal with certain things, such as architects and engineers. We also go out and get people who have particular expertise to advise us in important legal matters.

We do that because there are people who are not required on staff at all times. We do pay more for those people outside because we do not have them on the payroll and we would not want the taxpayers to carry those people right on through unless they were needed. There are situations where, quite frankly, it is better to retain outside counsel, better to retain outside engineers, better to retain outside architectural help than to have them on the public payroll at all times.

Mr Philip: The minister says it is better to use outside consultants. That is not the conclusion of the auditor. The auditor has concluded that in most instances, “Continued reliance on consultants is uneconomic,” to use his words, and furthermore that it permits a firm to gain a monopoly on a particular area. Over the last few years the auditor chastised many of the government’s ministries over the way in which consulting services then were tendered or not tendered or sent out.

What is the minister going to do specifically to ensure that the work that can be done by public servants is done by public servants, and to deal with the criticism that is given in this auditor’s report?

Hon Mr Elston: The situation ought to be put into perspective. The perspective is that in fact we are doing a good job in Ontario and that we comply with the directives. There is more room for improvement and all of us here would say there can be more improvement, but let us be very specific about what has to be done. When there are special jobs that need to be done, we must retain the best people we can. If they are not inside, we go outside. Where there are situations that we can handle internally, we do that.

With respect to the issue about a firm being able to develop a monopoly, we are quite sensitive about that. It applies not only with respect to people who are developing expertise in engineering and other things, but also with respect to the supply of information technology. We thoroughly review the people who participate incur tender calls at all levels. We also do a very thorough analysis to see who is able to provide the service so that we are not dependent on one particular firm or one particular individual. We have a much broader participation in the consulting world than we have ever had.

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr D. S. Cooke: I have a question to the Premier as a follow-up question with regard to the dealings between York region and developers and politicians. I would like to ask the Premier as a follow-up from yesterday’s questions, can the Premier tell us when a decision was made not to hold a public inquiry, who made that decision and was the Premier involved in making that decision?

Hon Mr Peterson: That was made after the police investigation. There was a thorough police investigation, I believe for 11 months, and then a decision was made that it could not go any further.

Mr D. S. Cooke: The Premier did not give us the date and did not indicate who was involved in making that decision and whether he specifically was involved.

Since it is very clear that the Minister of Municipal Affairs was involved in making the decision and that Gordon Ashworth was involved in making the decision -- a person who did not work in somebody else’s office; a person who worked in the Premier’s office, a person who was high in his office and was responsible for advising the Premier on these issues, responsible for advising him on an issue like this, which the Premier must understand has far-reaching political consequences for his future and the future of his government -- is the Premier telling us today and yesterday that he had nothing to do with the decision not to call a public inquiry?

Hon Mr Peterson: My honourable friend misrepresents the facts in the circumstances. There was a meeting that was reported --

lnterjections.

Hon Mr Peterson: I will withdraw, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Peterson: He is wrong in his

interpretation of the facts, shall I say, a little more charitably? The minister and others have told the members what happened in the circumstances, as have I. There was a meeting last February in the midst of a police investigation. That police investigation carried on to its logical conclusion. It went on for some 11 months and they came to the conclusion that charges could not be laid in the circumstances. Those were the circumstances that happened.

Mr D. S. Cooke: When?

Hon Mr Peterson: There was a press release by the police, I am told, in May or June of that year, saying that a thorough investigation would be done and no charges would be laid.

Mr D. S. Cooke: I guess one of the rationales the Premier has used and his minister has used is that we could not have a public inquiry while a police investigation was going on. It is clear that the police investigation is complete and there are still many questions surrounding the dealings between politicians, the Premier’s government and his donors and Liberal politicians in that area of the province.

Is it not appropriate, now that the police investigation is complete -- he cannot use that as a copout -- that the Premier quit the coverup of the problems in this issue and call a public inquiry into this matter now?

Hon Mr Peterson: There was a thorough police investigation. They came to their conclusions. I can tell my honourable friend that I do not fear a public inquiry. If there are any facts or anything to inquire into, why does he not stand up in this House --

Mr D. S. Cooke: The minister said that.

Hon Mr Peterson: The minister did not say that. The member is factually incorrect again. Just because he stands up and says it and repeats it and shouts does not mean he is correct. That is absolutely wrong, and he can ask the minister and/or the former minister, but I understand people like him wanting to stand up and say something that was not accurate in fact. We are used to that on this side of the House. If he stands up in this House and gives one scintilla of evidence of anything amiss, we will look into it in exhaustive detail.

Rather than just casting innuendo or allegations, he should stand up in this House and tell us what he knows and we will track it down. The police did not find anything after 11 months. He may be a lot brighter than they are. He may know a lot of things they do not know. If he does, he should stand up and say so, but he should not hide behind the immunity of this House casting aspersions on things that he does not know or does not understand. If he has proof, he should stand up and say so.

Mr Brandt: The police said they wanted an inquiry.

Mr D. S. Cooke: It was a recommendation from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

Hon Mr Peterson: That is nonsense.

CHILD CARE

Mr Brandt: I am being encouraged to raise a question with the Attorney General (Mr Scott), which I will save for another moment. My question today is for the Minister of Community and Social Services.

The auditor’s report indicates that up to one third of all day care centres in Ontario are not in compliance with the safety rules and regulations as set down by the legislative requirements of the province. Recognizing that this does cause some degree of concern, quite obviously, among the parents who have children in those day care centres, why is it that the government continues to issue unrestricted licences to those particular establishments, recognizing that they are not in compliance with the rules and regulations that he himself has set down?

Hon Mr Beer: If the honourable member would care to review the statement which I made in the House last week, he will see that we have addressed the major issues and questions which the auditor has brought forward. Indeed, we recognized those earlier this year when my predecessor set up an internal review of all of our procedures. In that statement last week, I set out various checklists and inspection procedures that we have been and are now following which we believe ensure that people can place their children in the day care centres and know that they are properly licensed.

Mr Brandt: Let me quote from the auditor’s report. “Infractions included consistent under-staffing, unsafe supervision of children, unsanitary facilities and substandard meals.” These conditions were identified in 11 out of 24 day care centres; in eight of the 11 problem day cares, conditions have existed for an average of some three years.

The minister indicates that he is going to be taking action on the concerns that are in the auditor’s report, which I am repeating for him today. How can the minister answer the question raised, and the fact that he is already aware of, that his staff have been fully aware of this problem for some time now? This did not just come up during the course of the last seven days, as the Attorney General is well aware. In fact, he could have taken action some long time ago.

Why has he waited this period of time before any action has been taken?

Hon Mr Beer: In fact, and let me be very clear, we have been taking action and have not just begun this process in the last week. When we received the report, we issued directives in terms of specific things that should be done.

Let us just back up a moment and understand very clearly the tremendous growth that has been experienced by the entire child care system. We recognize, with the auditor, that some of that growth has produced problems. One of the things we have been particularly conscious of during this past year has been the need to ensure better management procedures throughout to take care of exactly some of the situations which the member has raised, which the auditor has raised and in fact which have come up internally.

We believe the steps we have taken are going to ensure that this system, which has, as I say, grown at a great rate over the last three or four years, is one where people can place their children and know that they will be in safe and secure conditions.

Mr Brandt: Up to 35,000 children, according to the auditor’s estimates, are being looked after in day care centres in either unsafe or unacceptable conditions at the moment. The minister’s staff has been aware of this for some time.

Why were the day care centres not required in any way, shape or form to advise the parents of these children that the centres they were occupying were not in compliance and that they were not getting the full service as required under the legislation? Surely it would only stand to reason and make common sense that the parents should at least be advised that there is a problem and that the minister is taking corrective action or some steps are being taken. Why was that not done?

Hon Mr Beer: We encourage very highly parent participation in all of the day care centres and operations that we fund. Under the guidelines that we have been working on now through the better part of this year, we are ensuring that everyone is aware of exactly what the situation is in the day care. Previously we sent out a poster which sets out, so that parents may see clearly upon entering the premises, the checklist of all the different things that are supposed to be there and be available.

As I said before, we recognize that in the past, with the tremendous growth, there have been some problems, but we believe we have specific. ally addressed the points raised by the auditor and indeed have taken action on those earlier this year.

COURT FACILITIES

Mr Pope: My question is to the Premier. The 1989 annual report of the Provincial Auditor clearly indicates this government’s lack of commitment to the justice system of Ontario. Two of the worst problems referred to in the auditor’s report involve the lack of safety measures in our courts and the underutilization of existing and new courtrooms. Even in our busiest cities, where the backlog of cases awaiting trial has risen to 15,000 in 1988 and criminal cases awaiting trial for more than 18 months has risen to over 600, our courts in those busy centres are being used for only two and three quarter hours a working day.

How can the Premier justify justice denied to the people of Ontario by delays and, at the same time, the availability of empty courtrooms?

Hon Mr Peterson: I think the Attorney General could help out my honourable friend.

Hon Mr Scott: There is great utility in the Provincial Auditor’s report, because he finally puts to rest the assertion that additional courtroom resources are needed in Ontario. That is a point I have been trying to make to the House and to my friends for four years: what is required is not new courtroom resources but better utilization of the resources.

The practical difficulty here, as the honourable members would know if they would listen, is that the matter of assigning judges to a courtroom or to a trial is not a matter over which the administration of justice has any control whatever. It is a feature of judicial independence, and only judges can assign judges to courtrooms or cases. We are working with the judges in our new regional system to try to improve utilization.

Honourable members will be interested to know that the two drug cases in the district court that were dismissed two weeks ago because of charter delays did not represent a shortage of resources; they represented a failure to assign judges to cases. This is a problem that we have to work with, but it is almost entirely a question of judicial independence.

Mr Pope: Now that we have established that the Attorney General’s answer to the auditor’s report is to blame the judges, the Provincial Auditor finds something very different. He finds that the problem is a lack of commitment of the Attorney General to a proper utilization of our court facilities. Because of that, we have courtrooms being used on average, in our busiest centres, for two and three quarter hours a day.

Not only that, we have the Attorney General with not even a system of monitoring courtroom use or assigning courtrooms more properly, for better usage, for the use of the citizens of the province of Ontario.

The Speaker: And the question might be?

Mr Pope: He had no summaries of information available in his ministry for the Provincial Auditor to detail courtroom use, he had no information available about the lack of security provisions in these courts and he had no way of monitoring their usage. That is the failure. How can the Attorney General justify it?

Hon Mr Scott: The honourable member, as usual, is quite wrong. The auditor has noted that the court security bill passed by the House will take care of the security problems. He makes that observation himself.

The second thing, which I will plead guilty to, is a failure of monitoring. He recognizes that we are moving in that direction. But what I want the honourable members to understand, because they press me about it all the time, is that new courtroom and physical resources are not what are required. The auditor has made that point plainly. If members of the third party keep coming to me asking for more courtrooms for their districts, they can eat the auditor’s report. He has finally made a point I have wanted to make here effectively for years.

In his overall assessment, he says: “The government of Ontario is being satisfactorily administered overall. This view is consistent with that expressed in the past few years.” What he means is the past four years, and what he means is that when those political palaeoliths were thrown out of office, we finally got started on administering the government of Ontario.

Mr Pope: Now we have the Attorney General rewriting the auditor’s report for his own purposes. It is clear when we are talking about the failure of utilization of the justice system, delays in the justice system, he is not telling the opposition members to eat the auditor’s report, he is telling 15,000 litigants in this province who have to wait for a trial that they can eat the auditor’s report; he is telling people who are concerned about 600 criminals awaiting trial that they can eat the auditor’s report.

The failure of the courtroom security system in this province is not the fault of municipalities, whom he foisted the responsibility on, it is the Attorney General’s fault.

The Speaker: And the question might be?

Mr Pope: Between 1987 and 1988, courtroom security procedures declined by 50 per cent, from 216,000 searches in 1987 to 112,000 searches in 1988, at a time when seven times more dangerous weapons were being --

The Speaker: Do you have a question?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Scott: I love these days when the member for Cochrane South (Mr Pope) comes to town. It makes me feel great, and I want to thank him for his questions because they make the week go faster.

As he will want to know, the auditor notes that a new act has been passed that is going to deal with courtroom security for the first time in the history of this province. When I was practising in the courts, we had a government that sat around here for 42 years and did nothing. We have introduced a regional system, a new security act, merger of the courts, and I admit my friend was only Attorney General for six months at the end of the regime, but nothing was done over all that time.

Progress is being made, and if the honourable member wants to know what a political palaeolith is, it is an extinct, historic, out-of-power animal.

The Speaker: Order. Would the members please allow another member to ask a question. Thank you.

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr D. S. Cooke: I would like to go back to the Premier. Since he did not answer the question that I asked a few moments ago, could the Premier tell us today whether he was involved at all in the decision-making process either prior to the 1 February meeting or after the 1 February meeting when the final decision was made not to call a public inquiry into the dealings between York region developers and politicians? What was the Premier’s involvement in that process of determining there would be no public inquiry?

Hon Mr Peterson: After the police investigation concluded, and as I said to my honourable friend, I think that was in May or June, there was a decision made, and I was aware of it, to leave it at that. There was nothing else that could be done in the circumstances, barring some new evidence or some new proof. If the member has any new proof, why does he not stand up in this House and tell everybody about it and we will investigate it?

Mr D. S. Cooke: All we have been saying in the past few days is that we accept the recommendations from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs that there should be a public inquiry. The Premier and his bureaucrats and his minister are the ones that are involved in a coverup not to get the facts out about what is going on up in York region.

Yesterday the Premier indicated that he was not aware of the 1 February meeting. Today in Toronto Star, when Mr Ashworth’s lawyer as asked whether the Premier had been made aware of that meeting, asked whether the Premier was involved in the decision-making process surrounding the 1 February meeting, Brannan, the lawyer representing the Premier’s former employee, quoted Ashworth as saying, “No comment.”

Is it not very clear that what Mr Ashworth is saying is that the Premier was involved in the decision leading up to the 1 February meeting? He was aware of it and his staff had done their job; they had advised him. He was aware of it.

The Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon Mr Peterson: My honourable friend takes licence, he takes liberty, he believes that by standing up in this House he can draw his own conclusions, and I think he is entitled to do that, but just because he says something does not mean it is correct. As a matter of fact, I find a lot of the things he says are incorrect on many, many occasions; fraught with hyperbole and exaggeration and accusation.

Frankly, he is quite wrong in the circumstances. He has got the right, I guess, he is over 21, to stand in this House and say anything he wants, to draw his own conclusions even if he is wrong, which I find frankly he consistently is.

MINISTERIAL SPENDING

Mr Brandt: My question is to the Premier, and I trust that this will not be fraught with hyperbole and exaggeration. I trust as well that the Premier will read page 28 of the Provincial Auditor’s report which states that the expenditures “demonstrate” -- it is at the bottom of the page, to save the Premier some time -- ”a lack of respect for taxpayers’ funds,” which is some-thing we have been saying about this government for some time.

I wonder if the Premier could perhaps inform the House who the ministers were who were engaged in these rather questionable activities: $6,300 for a staff Christmas party, $3,700 for a retirement dinner and $1,100 for a membership of a social club? If the Premier wants more, I have them. I would like to know the answer to those three.

Hon Mr Peterson: The Attorney General tells me he could answer that question.

Hon Mr Scott: I want to tell the honourable member that the Christmas party was a Christmas party held by the Ministry of the Attorney General, parallel to one held by every ministry in government, for which the bill was sent to the minister’s office rather than to the ministry. That bookkeeping error was corrected, and the ministry paid for its Christmas party like any other.

The retirement dinner was a dinner held for the judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario, which was attended by the member for Rainy River (Mr Hampton) and a member of the Conservative caucus, and is one of a series of annual dinners that are given every year, not in respect of retirement, but to the judges.

The last item is the social club fees. The university club fees, where I entertain for the ministry, were billed to the minister’s office and were paid. That was corrected years ago, but it was an oversight; it should not have occurred. It was an invoicing error, and I am grateful that the auditor brought it to our attention.

Mr Brandt: It is so nice to hear the Attorney General fess up once in a while as to what is going on in his ministry.

Since this question has been referred by the Premier to the Attorney General, maybe he could also enlighten the House as to which minister, Toronto-based, was so insensitive as to charge the taxpayers of Ontario over $400 for dry-cleaning bills, when that is clearly in opposition to anything that is ever allowed to any minister. Was that the Attorney General again or was it someone else because, quite frankly, his clothes do not look that good?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I thought maybe it was the Attorney General’s tie the other day.

Hon Mr Scott: Some honourable members may recall that in 1985, when the new government was elected, a poll was done in the press gallery to determine who was the best-dressed member of the House --

Mr Brandt: And it wasn’t you.

Hon Mr Scott: As a matter of fact, it was me.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Scott: I have been in government four years, and I can only speak for the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) and myself when I say that neither of us has had any pressing done in the entire period of time.

But I do want to draw the honourable member’s attention to the useful work the auditor does, and I will speak to the university club fees because that is my responsibility. What should be noticed is that it really is an appropriate observation but not a criticism to say that the ministry’s Christmas party, because it was misinvoiced and the judges’ annual dinner, because it was misidentified --

The Speaker: Thank you.

lnterjections.

The Speaker: Order. New question, the member for Lake Nipigon.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Pouliot: My question is to the Minister of Health regarding the very serious nursing shortage in Ontario. Last week the minister indicated that she felt comfortable with a vacancy rate of some two per cent. With respect, I think the minister is simply playing with numbers, for in northeastern Ontario at present the vacancy rate -- the shortage of nurses -- is in the magnitude of 5.5 per cent and in the northwest it is 5.1 per cent.

As the minister responsible for health care in the province, what specific plans does she have to correct or alleviate to some extent this serious problem in northern Ontario?

Hon Mrs Caplan: As the member opposite knows, I have travelled extensively through northern Ontario on a number of occasions since becoming minister. I know he is aware of my understanding of the issues of remoteness and geography and of the special challenges of delivering health care services throughout northern Ontario.

One of the reasons I established the northern health manpower committee was to look at seeking the advice of people who live in the north as to how we can meet those challenges. I want him to know as well that a number of innovative programs are under way via the underserviced area program which are looking at how we can offer the kinds of incentives for individuals, whether they are in nursing or in other areas of health care, such as physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech pathology, audiology, chiropodists and so forth, as well as others, to offer services throughout northern Ontario.

Mr Hampton: More fluff. The point is that the nursing shortage in northeastern and northwestern Ontario has gone on now for over two years. In fact, the numbers are slightly better, a little bit better. But in northwestern Ontario alone there is a shortage of 59 nurses. The shortages occur most frequently in acute care and critical care.

The minister said she now has the northern health manpower committee. That committee was announced last November. The people appointed to it were not appointed unti1 July and, to our information, it has met only once. What is the minister going to do? Offer us more fluff? These are real shortages. These are people who are going without acute care and critical care because there is a shortage of nurses. She is in charge. What is she going to do?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would say to the member opposite that if he were to look at this situation fairly, he would acknowledge that while there is much to be done, we are making progress. We have got some of the very best advice possible through the northern health manpower commit-tee, which has met. The member knows as well that we have a number of programs to ensure that people of northern Ontario have access to the services they need.

I am not saying there is not more to do. Of course there is. The challenges the north poses to us are challenges of remoteness and geography, and the fact is that we must do much better in overall manpower planning, human resource planning, in all aspects of health care in this province.

I want him to know of my commitment to ensure that we review the needs of northern Ontario, as well as the needs of southern Ontario, as we develop policy initiatives, because of my commitment to make sure the people of this province have equity in access to effective and quality health care as close to home as possible.

TRAVEL EXPENDITURES

Mr Harris: I would like to stick with questions to the Chairman of Management Board on the Provincial Auditor’s report. The Chairman of Management Board will know that the guidelines for rental cars call for the renting of compact and subcompact cars. I wonder if the minister can explain why the auditor’s report turns up, not isolated cases, not the odd one -- by that, I interpret him to mean not just the Ministry of the Attorney General, which the auditor seems to expect to be over on everything and to violate the guidelines -- but numerous instances where Cadillacs, Lincolns, Fifth Avenues and those kinds of cars have been the rule of the day on numerous instances.

I wonder if the minister can explain that. Also, at the same time, on a similar related matter, can he explain why, for hotel rooms, the government rate was not even asked for? I see in here 18 occasions at $100 a night in North Bay, where he would know the government rate is nowhere close to that for any hotel anywhere in my city.

The Speaker: Thank you. Did that include your supplementary?

Hon Mr Elston: With respect to North Bay, I can tell the honourable gentleman that particular rental was for a judge, not a government employee. The member knows that the judiciary is independent. A number of the rentals which have been noted were for members of boards and agencies. That is no reason for us to refuse to look at how we can ensure that people rent proper cars, for sure, but I ask the honourable gentleman just to note that the independent nature of some of our organizations makes it somewhat more difficult to pursue adherence to the guidelines.

However, we are pursuing that. We have seen, for instance, in the auditor’s report that our activity level on that is progressing quite well, beyond where it was when we first came into office. We wish to have accountability not only with respect to the guidelines for rentals of cars but also for the transfer payment agencies about which the auditor says we have done good things.

Just to put this in context for the people of the province, I want to note the auditor has said that we have improved in our administration, that we have taken seriously the points which he has shown to us in the past could be rectified and improved. We are making progress, substantial progress, but we likewise are not perfect; we are working on that, and we are making very good progress on that.

Mr Harris: The minister smiles and the Attorney General (Mr Scott) laughs at some of these expenditures because individually they do not seem large. But the auditor says, “Collectively, then, these findings are significant and demonstrate a lack of respect for taxpayers’ funds.”

Can the minister explain to me why he cannot have a policy that no minister, no member, no employee of this government will ever be reimbursed in excess of the amount of the guideline for a government rate for a hotel, a compact car or a subcompact car? Why can he not have a simple policy that says, “You might have spent more, but we are paying you only the government guideline”? Why can he not do that?

Hon Mr Elston: Lest the people get the wrong impression from the way that gentleman interprets our role over here, we have been very keen to fix up practices which we did not find to be completely acceptable. We have done a revamping of the way in which we tender contracts. We heard about consulting contracts before. We have dealt with the issues about the problem of not providing timely decisions about bringing capital projects into place for sewage and water, for dealing with outstanding issues.

We have dealt with improving, updating and upgrading the guidelines in a manner that is practical and enforceable, and when somebody brings to our attention that we can improve, we agree; we can improve. We have made wonderful, good, grand strides towards improving our accountability. The auditor has indicated that he would rate us as 7 out of 10, and that is good. It is a good performance, but it is not good enough, and we will do better. I can tell the member, we are doing a lot more with the money we are spending on a comparison basis than those guys every thought was possible, and we will continue to improve. We are not perfect but we will enforce our guidelines.

UNATTENDED VEHICLES

Mr Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. In June 1988, a young man by the name of John Wolfe was killed in a hit-and-run incident in Barrie by a person who was driving a stolen vehicle. The vehicle had been left unattended and with the keys in the ignition.

There was an inquest, and a recommendation of the inquest read as follows: “That the Minister of Transportation add the following to the Highway Traffic Act: that it be an offence to leave keys in an unattended vehicle on either private or public property, resulting in the loss of points and a fine.”

My question to the minister is, would he consider this or a similar amendment to help deter future loss of life and property?

Hon Mr Wrye: Very clearly, the incident that the honourable member raises is a very serious and very tragic instance of a really terrible loss of human life through the recklessness of another individual. I have asked my officials to take a look at the issue very carefully, and I thank the honourable member for raising the issue for us so that as we bring forward our next amendments to the Highway Traffic Act, we can determine whether this would be an appropriate amendment.

I think very clearly the honourable member and other members of the House would recognize that there is a measure of not wishing to interfere in terms of vehicles and private property; indeed, not wishing to interfere in an area where to do so really does not enhance, other than in a single situation, the issue of public safety.

I would much prefer to begin to work and continue working on a number of educational programs which are designed to convince the public that leaving keys in an unattended car is very injudicious and very dangerous.

Mr Owen: The family of this young man is very well known and respected in the Barrie area. They feel that their son and brother would be alive today if it were an offence to leave keys in an unattended vehicle. They realize that passing such a law would not bring John back, but they feel it might save someone else’s life.

I agree with their opinion that the kind of person who would steal a car might well be one who would drive that same car in a reckless manner, and I would ask the minister if he could address this particular problem and try to help someone else’s life in the future.

Hon Mr Wrye: I can only say to the honourable member that, as we bring forward further amendments to the Highway Traffic Act, we are going to review the matter and the very serious recommendation that the coroner’s jury put forward. As well, we are going to look at the experience and whether there are precedents in other jurisdictions.

I say to the honourable member that at the very least it is our view that additional education measures are necessary. Certainly at the very least drivers who leave keys in unattended cars are leaving themselves open to theft, a lot of additional heartache for themselves and police work, and at the very most we end up with situations such as the very tragic situation in his own constituency. So we are looking at additional educational efforts.

CHILD CARE

Mr Allen: I want to take the Minister of Community and Social Services back to the Provincial Auditor’s report and the

section dealing with day care.

The minister will know, since he has seen the report and had an opportunity to review it in advance, the auditor notes at one point that “one third of the licences issued were unrestricted even though the program adviser had explicitly identified areas of noncompliance with the legislation.” The report then goes on to cite two cases, and then further on 22 more centres which were not in compliance for periods of three, four and five years even though the noncompliance had to do with quite serious matters.

There were regulations in the past; they were not enforced. The minister sent out a poster last year; he is sending out a letter now that will advise that regulations are going to be tightened up and they will be enforced. But how can we really believe that anything is going to change?

Hon Mr Beer: As my colleague has pointed out, we have instituted new procedures. These are, I think, open and public. There will be plenty of opportunities to ensure that we are following the practices that we have put forward. I certainly want to make that commitment not only to members of the House but to all the people in the province who are using day care facilities.

As I said in answer to an earlier question, we recognize that over the past few years, with the tremendous growth of the system, there have been some problems in terms of the management of the system. One of the things we are trying to address as specifically and clearly as we can is the issues which the auditor has raised and which others have raised to ensure that this kind of situation is not repeated.

Mr Allen: We have heard, as parents have heard, those kinds of commitments from previous ministers in the past. There have been regulations in the past, quite clearly. Presumably the minister made some attempt to get the regulations out into the field so they would be known about and they would be complied with, but they were not and nothing was done for years on end.

Perhaps the minister should tell us, what is his new budget and how much improved is his budget for enforcement and how many more of personnel are going to be thrown into the task of enforcement? What new resources is he throwing into this task so parents can be absolutely clear that the new regulations, unlike the old, will be enforced?

Hon Mr Beer: I think that what we have done in terms of the directives that went out several months ago regarding these procedures -- that they are, in fact, being followed and are being carried out.

In terms of our commitment to a future program, as the member is aware, we are at work now on the second three-year cycle for child care and will be addressing that issue in the new year in the House. But these specific directives which are in the auditor’s report and in the statement I made last week, I think, are our public commitment to everyone in the province that we are going to be following up with each centre to ensure that these initiatives are followed.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Eves: I have a question of the Minister of Health arising out of the Provincial Auditor’s report. The auditor’s report clearly identifies a particular matter at York-Finch General Hospital -- on page 47, to be helpful to the minister -- stating that approximately 15 per cent of all beds in York-Finch General Hospital were occupied by chronic care patients when, in fact, it is designated solely as an acute care hospital. The auditor’s report goes on to point out that this led to a loss of funds for the hospital and a loss of service, in terms of health care, to the community.

Some of those patients, 15 of them to be exact, were chronic care patients that were in York-Finch General Hospital for over a year. How is it that her ministry was unable to find appropriate chronic care placement for those patients?

Hon Mrs Caplan: The member opposite once again displays his lack of knowledge about how the health care system works overall and the relationship between the ministry and the hospitals. He knows, as well, that we have undertaken a review of long-term care and an acknowledgement that in fact there is today a fragmented and uncoordinated approach to long-term care.

He knows that the York-Finch General Hospital provides services as a transfer payment agency and that one of the things that the ministry has undertaken to support hospitals in delivering services is the establishment of such things as central bed registries so that the hospitals will know what services are available in different hospitals across this province.

Mr Eves: In conversation with the auditor’s staff during the lockup, some of our researchers were told that the York-Finch General Hospital situation is not unique. Many hospitals in Metropolitan Toronto, and in fact I believe the exact quote of the auditor’s report is 148 out of 223 public hospitals in the province, have chronic care patients in their systems, when they are supposed to be providing acute care. As the auditor has pointed out, this not only results in loss of funds to those hospitals, but it results in a loss of very basic health care service to the community that those hospitals are supposed to provide.

Well, the minister shakes her head. The auditor disagrees with her. She can tell me I do not know anything about it. Is she going to tell the auditor that he does not know anything about how the health care system works either?

The Speaker: Is that your question?

Mr Eves: Will she not now admit that she has made a mistake? She should reinstate her commitment to deliver those extra 3,000 chronic care beds that the Premier (Mr Peterson) said were necessary during the 1985 election campaign and that the auditor has confirmed again today are necessary.

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would say to the member opposite that the fact that there are people inappropriately placed, whether they are in acute beds or in chronic care beds or in nursing homes or in homes for the aged, is in fact one of the challenges that face us here in the province of Ontario. That is one of the reasons that what we have instituted in a review of long-term care is to start focusing on people and the services they need and all the alternative ways that those services can be provided.

Many, in fact most, of the hospitals in this province experience the frustration of finding services that could be provided in alternative ways, whether they are inpatient services that could be provided on an outpatient basis or those services which could be provided in alternative ways right across this province, and we are working with them to identify those opportunities so that we can use our resources more effectively to ensure that the care the people receive is, in fact, appropriate.

The Speaker: It appears to me that there are quite a few conversations taking place.

Mrs Marland: Well, the answers are so boring.

The Speaker: Order. I did not recognize the member for Mississauga South.

ORGAN DONATIONS

Mr Kanter: I have a question to the Minister of the Health. The issue of organ donations has once again been highlighted by the decision of the family of Olympic swimmer Victor Davis to donate his organs so that others may have a second chance at life. As the minister will recall, last April this House adopted my private member’s resolution to encourage organ donations in Ontario. Could the minister tell us what initiatives have been taken by the government to increase the awareness of the public about the need for organ donations?

Hon Mrs Caplan: First, I would like to commend the member for St Andrew-St Patrick for his efforts to increase awareness in the public on this very important issue. I think all members of the House recognize the importance of increased awareness for organ donations. He knows that the ministry is funding the multiple organ retrieval and exchange program, referred to as MORE. It is expected that this initiative will be operational by January. It will be the first of its kind in Canada, and we are confident that in fact it will help those who need organ transplants in this province.

Mr Kanter: I appreciate the information about the MORE program, which is designed to help in the retrieval of these organs. As the minister will recall, during the debate I made a specific proposal calling on an amendment to regulations under the Public Hospitals Act so that attending physicians would be encouraged to ask some questions to have more potential donors under appropriate circumstances in hospital. Can the minister advise whether she has made any progress on amendments to the regulations under the Public Hospitals Act to encourage the supply of organs for donations?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I want to say to the member and to all members in this House who participated in the debate that we took very seriously the discussion and the debate that took place at that time and that we have proceeded to draft regulations which would provide for the establishment of protocol and procedures in hospitals to encourage the donation of organs and tissues.

I am pleased to inform the member that in fact we are in the final stages of consultation and that the legislative counsel has informed us of suggested revisions. We will be discussing this with the Ontario Hospital Association, the Ontario Medical Association, the staff of MORE itself, the Ontario Nurses’ Association and the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, because we want this regulation to give us the result to improve access to organ retrieval in this province.

I want to acknowledge the contribution that the member opposite has played in this most important issue and say that we hope to see this regulation in place in the very near future.

LENGTHS OF TRUCKS AND TRAILERS

Mr Pouliot: The Minister of Transportation plans to allow extra-long trucks on our over-crowded highways. Officials at both CN and CP are saying that his decision could possibly kill the railways. The Ontario Provincial Police are saying that his decision will make a bad situation worse. Officials at the Canadian Automobile Association are predicting that we shall have more fatalities on our highways and more people will be badly injured.

Last month -- and I have been watching the minister very carefully -- I remember very vividly that the minister mentioned that he was against longer trucks for safety reasons, and now he has changed his mind. Why did he do so? Who got to him?

Hon Mr Wrye: I think it is interesting to hear the point of view that is offered by the honourable gentleman and the point of view that he offers that he suggests some people are saying.

I would only say to the honourable gentleman that the decision we have taken makes Ontario no longer part of what I would call a regulatory island. The honourable member would know that some 35 states already have exactly the same kind of trucking length regulations as we have proposed. The honourable member would also know that the proposal which we are suggesting we will put in place is now present in four western provinces and in the province of Quebec.

The honourable member will further know that since we brought in the safety code earlier this year, the levels of compliance have improved quite dramatically, so consequently some of the safety concerns which existed earlier are no longer present.

Mr Pouliot: Mr Speaker, tell me, why should I take the word of the minister against the word of the Provincial Auditor or the words of a police officer?

The Speaker: Is that your question?

Mr Pouliot: This is what his safety record is:

In 1988, 22 per cent of trucks inspected were removed from the highways. The Provincial Auditor says that. Last week, at one scale station on Highway 400, more than 20 per cent out of 300 trucks were told to get off the highway. The minister cannot even police what he has at the present time, and because of a lobby, with respect, the minister wants to make the situation worse. When will he simply come to his senses, do what is right, consult with those associations and say no to expediency?

Hon Mr Wrye: The honourable gentleman raised a couple of interesting points in the course of his question. He suggested we had, in the course of his first question, an overcrowded highway situation and that this would make it worse, and he suggested that again. I would just point out to him that a number of large businesses which now use the highways with their trucks not only say that there will not be an increase in the number of trucks as a result of this proposed change, they are talking about reductions of the number of trucks that they will be needing on the roadways of 10 per cent to 15 per cent. So rather than going up in numbers of trucks, we are actually going to go down.

As well, the honourable member continues to raise the issue of safety concerns, and I acknowledge that the honourable member and my friends at the CAA and others are quite correct to be worried about ensuring that safety is the absolute, number one result of this change. I can only say to the honourable gentleman that where those same regulations are in place in the United States, in 35 of 50 states, there is no --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Pouliot: That is incorrect.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Let’s relax just a little bit.

CONSULTING SERVICES

Mr Jackson: To the Minister of Health:

Today the Provincial Auditor’s report makes reference to about a 90 per cent increase in the amount of money spent by the government on consulting fees. Could the minister please confirm or deny that she or members of her immediate staff or members of her ministry engaged a consulting firm specifically for the purposes of developing a strategy to combat the exposure of her government’s failure to honour its election commitment for 4,400 new beds in the province of Ontario? Will she confirm or deny whether or not she has commissioned such an activity to assist her to defend against that election promise she has broken?

Hon Mrs Caplan: In fact, I would say to the member opposite that from time to time in a number of different areas we seek advice, as he heard from the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr Elston), to give us the expertise, whether it is in planning for new facilities or for a number of different areas. I cannot specifically mention to the member any or all of the areas of expertise which the ministry goes out to determine for it, but I would be pleased, in fact, to look into his request.

PETITIONS

LIQUOR STORES

Mr Wildman: I have a petition signed by approximately 450 residents of Algoma and Sault Ste Marie. The petitioners are petitioning the Ontario government to continue the operation of existing D-class liquor stores in northern Ontario, particularly in small communities in northern Ontario, rather than replacing them with agency stores. I support the petition and I have affixed my name thereto.

CHRONIC CARE

Mr Dietsch: I have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly from concerned citizens in the Niagara region who wish to express deep frustration to the Minister of Health. The petition outlines some of the long delays in waiting for relocation of loved ones, the chronically ill patients suffering under poor physical conditions at the general hospital, and they request immediate attention to this situation. It is signed by some 5,138 constituents of the Niagara region.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Pelissero from the standing committee on general government presented the committee’s report and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr Pelissero: The report deals with the acid rain abatement programs. On 6 June 1989 a motion directed the committee to review the final progress reports of the Ministry of the Environment with respect to Inco, Falconbridge, Algoma Steel and Ontario Hydro. Subsequently, the committee met on 15, 22 and 29 June and, finally, on 9 November to discuss its findings. I would like to present the report at this time.

On motion by Mr Pelissero, the debate was adjourned.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 / LOI DE 1989 MODIFIANT LA LOT SUR L’ACCÈS À L’INFORMATION ET LA PROTECTION DE LA VIE PRIVÉE

Mr Elston moved first reading of Bill 84,

An Act to amend the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987 and certain other Acts in respect of Confidentiality Provisions.

M. Elston propose la première lecture du projet de loi 84, Loi portant modification de la Loi de 1987 sur l’accès à l’information et la protection de la vie privée et de certaines autres lois en ce qui concerne les dispositions qui ont trait au caractère confidentiel.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Hon Mr Elston: Very briefly, this bill is required under the legislation and in fact has not only bad substantial input from the various ministries involved with freedom-of-information issues around confidentiality but also has come out of a process of consultation with the committee of the Legislature and I think substantially complies with recommendations given.

There may be one or two areas that we will have other discussions about, but generally speaking, I think we have complied with the wishes of the committee, and I look forward to having some time with it to study the areas about which there may still be some minor disagreements.

INTERVENOR FUNDING PROJECT AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 / LOI DE 1989 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LE PROJET D’AIDE FINANCIÈRE AUX INTERVENANTS

Mr Chiarelli moved first reading of Bill 85,

An Act to amend the Intervenor Funding Project Act, 1988.

M. Chiarelli propose la première lecture du projet de loi 85, Loi portant modification de la Loi de 1988 sur le projet d’aide financière aux intervenants.

Mr Chiarelli: At the present time, the Intervenor Funding Project Act provides that public interest groups may apply for intervener funding for Ontario Energy Board and Environmental Assessment Board hearings. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to extend application of the act to public interest groups appearing in major Ontario Municipal Board hearings and to include municipalities as eligible funding sources.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INSURANCE STATUTE LAW 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: The member for Leeds-Grenville, I believe, was in full flight on the previous occasion and may wish to continue.

Mr Runciman: I have had some time to calm down now, so it may take me a few minutes to get into full flight again, but I certainly appreciate the opportunity to continue with my comments with respect to Bill 68 and express the concerns certainly of my party, the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, with respect to this legislation and, I hope in any event, the growing concerns among the people of Ontario.

The member from Oakville is not present. I was talking about my understanding of the dilemma that insurance companies in this province find themselves in with respect to insurance initiatives undertaken by this government in the past number of years. It has been a rather chaotic situation, to say the least, where the government really has had no agenda, no vision of where it wanted to go with respect to auto insurance, let alone a number of other issues that I could raise as well.

But we are dealing with auto insurance specifically under this bill, and I simply want to once again suggest very clearly that this government, up to this point in time, has really had no idea of where it wanted to go. It had an ill-thought-out, off-the-wall kind of promise made by the leader of its party, the member for London Centre (Mr Peterson), during the September 1987 election, and then it fell upon the shoulders of the bureaucracy to try to come up with some way of meeting that promise.

Of course, as we now realize, that was an impossible task to assign to anyone. We have seen increases in auto insurance over the past two years in the approximate area of 20 per cent. We have seen insurance companies lose significant amounts of money because of the activities of this government, the speculation on the changes earlier this year where insurance companies lost in the neighbourhood of $150 million to $450 million. Those are the figures that I have heard bandied about.

So again I am expressing some degree of understanding of the industry’s support for this no-fault initiative introduced by the government. We know that the industry is going to gain a significant amount of money: tax and OHIP relief in the neighbourhood of $150 million and other benefits that will flow to the insurance industry, in the neighbourhood of approximately-according to Professor Jack Can of the University of Toronto -- $630 million. That is using the 90 per cent figure in terms of the threshold that the government is standing by.

But Mr Can and others believe that, in effect, close to 95 to 97 per cent of accident victims in this province will not be able to pass the threshold outlined in this piece of legislation.

In effect, the real windfall to the insurance industry in this province would be perhaps more in the neighbourhood of $1 billion. I guess that we can appreciate the industry being relatively quietly supportive of this, because obviously it does not want to go running around the province saying this is the greatest thing since sliced bread, because insurance industry spokespersons are not generally received too well by the population at large. If they come out too vigorously in support of this measure, perhaps the population at large may be more cognizant of the concerns with respect to whether or not this is indeed in the best interests of Ontario consumers and motorists.

But again, as I said, the industry currently is dealing, as we all are, with a large majority government that is going to be in office for approximately another two years. They are the guys whom we have to deal with, whom the industry has to deal with. They are going along with this in a rather comfortable way, but I have suggested to them that they do not let down their guard. This is a government and this is a party that will have no reluctance whatsoever to move to government-run auto insurance if they think it is in their political interest. In short-term interests that may be the case.

We have seen so many instances -- not only auto insurance; we can go down through a host of issues -- where the government has acted in what it views as its short-term political interests and, “To hell with the long-term interests, we’ll deal with them when they arrive.”

That is indeed unfortunate. We certainly see it in the growth of the province’s debt. And I am not talking about annual deficit; I am talking about the growth of the debt which this government, in unprecedented economic good times, has not reduced, has not cut into, but instead has built up over the past four years.

I was trying to urge the industry especially to be cautious, to continue to be on guard with respect to this government. I was, members may recall, pointing to the tendencies of this government and certain key players in this government to be supportive of intrusive legislation, legislation that will enable the government to intrude in a significant manner into the private sector, as they have done in auto insurance with the establishment of the rate-setting board back in the fall of 1987 and as they have done in a host of other areas. They have no reluctance whatsoever to intrude in a significant fashion into the private sector.

This government is interventionist. We have a socialist party sitting off to my right, but I guess perhaps, in the most generous way I can, I can describe the current Liberal government as a quasi-socialist party. They have no reservations, as I have suggested to the Attorney General (Mr Scott), a former fund-raiser for the New Democratic Party. We have a range of members sitting on the back benches who have served loyally and for a long period of time for the socialists of this province.

I mentioned the member for Oakville, and I want to be fair to her. I suggested that when she ran for the Liberal nomination there was quite a tug of war at the time between the NDP and the Liberal Party as to whom she would be a candidate for. She came over to me afterwards when the House adjourned and said that at some point a prominent Liberal by the name of Marc Lalonde had suggested that she might be a good Conservative. I want to put that on the record, that she has apparently been accused of being supportive of all three parties at some point in her life. I regret that the member is not here so that she could hear me putting that on the record.

The Deputy Speaker: Well, it is all related to Bill 68, is it not?

Mr Runciman: Just give me time, Mr Speaker; I tend to tie these things in as I go along.

I am pleased to read and hear over the airwaves that the minister has consented to public hearings on this bill. We have certainly, along with the official opposition, felt that was critical. We have had some objections expressed in respect to public hearings.

I said the member for Oakville and I want to clarify this. It is the member for Oakwood (Ms Hošek). I correct the record.

With respect to public hearings, we had some arguments presented earlier by the minister, that perhaps this was not necessary, that we had to get on with the task. But the reason, as I said, we are in this dilemma, this crisis with respect to auto insurance and the continuing loss of private companies operating in this field and continuing outflow of consumers from the private insurers into the Facility Association fund, is really because of the bad management, the crisis management of the government with respect to handling this whole matter.

We felt that it was critical. We are having a significant change that is going to impact on most Ontarians and it is important not only that people across this province have an opportunity to be heard and to express their view, their concerns, perhaps their support for this legislation, but also that the people of the province generally have a better opportunity to appreciate and understand the implications of this legislation. Obviously, I can only gauge this by the response in my own constituency office. There still is not a great awareness out there among members of the public about what the government is up to with this legislation.

No doubt that fits in with their agenda quite well. They are hoping that this is going to go by as a minor blip in terms of public awareness, that there is not going to be any great appreciation of the fact that what is happening is that they are going to see a reduction in benefits with an increase in rates. That is the reality. There are certainly some positive elements to this with respect to speeding up benefits, etc, but they are very much minor factors when you look at the total package, the total impact that this is going to have upon drivers and the consumers of this province.

The member for London North (Mrs Cunning-ham), because of illness in her own family, is unable to be here this week and perhaps may not be here next week as we move towards conclusion of second reading on this bill. I simply want to say on her behalf that she is very strongly opposed to this legislation because of her own personal experiences, the unfortunate accident that her son was involved in some time ago.

Because of the current system, although it is not perfect, she was able to provide the necessary rehabilitation for her son. When one looks at the rehab benefits that the government is moving towards in this legislation, anyone who has really had an experience with the current system, despite all its blemishes and flaws, will indeed stand up and say: “Minister, I much prefer the current system. Let’s make some minor modifications. Let’s make some changes” -- and we have suggested tort reform, which the government is doing -- “but let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater.” That, in essence, is what this government is doing.

As Justice Coulter Osborne said, we should be an exporter of insurance systems, not an importer. We have perhaps the finest system in the world currently in existence in this province. As Justice Osborne pointed out, some changes are required, some changes are needed to address the affordability question, to address a number of other issues -- fairness, etc -- but let’s not throw out what is indeed perhaps one of the finest systems in the world.

The government in its ad hoc fashion has rejected the recommendations of Justice Osborne, which, by the way, cost the taxpayers in excess of $1 million, and has rejected the recommendations of its own Ontario Automobile Insurance Board, which over its brief life cost the taxpayers in excess of $10 million to have virtually all of its recommendations rejected by the government, a thing that certainly should concern taxpayers of this province.

But the message in many instances is not getting out, for reasons I am not quite sure of, but I guess that is one of the frustrations that goes along with being a member of an opposition party, when you recognize wrongs are not being addressed by the government and in fact are not even being recognized, for whatever reasons, by the public at large.

I wanted to put on the record the very serious concerns of the member for London North about the way the government is moving with respect to the provision of a no-fault plan based on her own experiences.

Hopefully during committee hearings, or if indeed we get into debate on third reading -- and I suspect we will -- the member will at that point have an opportunity to very clearly put on the record her own very unfortunate experiences with respect to the accident that occurred to her son and with the insurance industry as a result of that accident and perhaps give all of us a better understanding, a first-person understanding of someone who has been down the road, who has really experienced the kind of situation where the current system, despite some time delays, has been clearly of benefit to her and to her family and, most important, to her son.

I also note, by looking at some of the clippings -- which are increasing, I must say -- with respect to the government’s proposal, that the Consumers’ Association of Canada has come out strongly in opposition to this measure. I do not necessarily share their reasons for opposition to this. They tend to be more supportive of the position taken by the New Democratic Party, which is for a government-run program, a pure no-fault program where everyone loses the right to access to the courts, which, I guess, is not only pure no-fault but pure socialism.

In any event, I have had some difficulty. I have a lot of good feelings about the Consumers Association of Canada and the efforts it undertakes on behalf of the consumers of this province, the consumers of this country. I think members will note that over the past number of years it has experienced a significant reduction in contributions by the public. One of the reasons, I think, is that the consumers’ association is regrettably becoming more and more politicized. In some respects, they could be accused of being -- I will not use the word “mouthpiece,” but certainly taking positions that have striking similarity to the platform planks of the New Democratic Party.

Mr Pouliot: Nice pink shirts.

Mr Runciman: Yes, as the member for Lake Nipigon says, “Nice pink shirts.” I think he is not just referring to mine; he is referring to the ones that the members of the consumers’ association are wearing these days.

I have expressed those views to the members, and I think they are sensitive to it with respect to their problems with fund-raising. It is one thing to take the position that is supposedly in support of consumers, but I think that perhaps they should be reflecting upon what is really in the best interests of the people at large rather than a particular segment of the population and trying to persuade them of the wrongness of their political views. Essentially, in many instances that is what we are getting into with the recommendations of the association.

I thought more important, from my perspective in any event, than the consumers’ association’s criticism the fact that Ralph Nader, who is the consumer champion of the United States, if you will, has come out foursquare against the government’s proposal. Although one would accuse him, I suppose -- certainly some American Republicans would accuse him -- of being to the left of the political spectrum.

I think that Mr Nader, in my view anyway, as best he can with his association, tends to be apolitical, tends to, for the most part -- I am sure there are perhaps some instances when that could be changed -- truly represent the concerns of consumers in the United States. I think it is significant that he has gotten himself involved. We have seen a host of other associations, groups and organizations also start to get involved in this effort to get the attention of the government with respect to the drawbacks that are inherent in this legislation.

Again, I am not optimistic that anything is going to occur. In one of the articles that I read recently it indicated that the minister was not about to change his mind, and I suspect that is indeed the case. I have been down this road for a number of years now as the critic for Financial Institutions. I went through the Bill 2 hearings process, which established the rate-setting authority with the massive intervention into the private sector, and witness after witness testified at those hearings with respect to some of the shortcomings of that legislation and the problems it was going to create down the road.

But none of that testimony was listened to, nothing of significance changed with respect to the bill as it was introduced.

We had one amendment, dealing with discrimination, introduced by the NDP which was supported by the government members. Our party did not support it because we knew at that time, and the testimony before us clearly indicated as well, that it was going to result in good drivers in the province being penalized while bad drivers would benefit and we would see groups like senior citizens facing rate increases in the neighbourhood of 80 and 90 per cent. That is what happened.

My point in all of this is that despite that testimony, despite reports commissioned by the ministry through a company called Mercer telling the government that this was going to happen, all of this testimony was completely ignored. So when the minister says now, before we even get into public hearings, that, “Nothing is really going to change. I want to get this thing on the books by spring of next year, get the insurance companies wound up and into this thing by the summer of 1990, 50 do not look for any significant changes,” I give the minister credit. At least he is being honest up front that this public hearing process, for all intents and purposes, is going to be nothing but a charade.

But we are used to that. We can go through all kinds of legislation that we have had to deal with in the past two or three years where we have gone through this kind of process. The court security act is a recent one that comes to mind, where all kinds of witnesses are appearing before us, telling us about the problems inherent in this legislation. Those concerns are completely ignored and the government forges ahead, much to the detriment of the people of this province.

That is what lies ahead with respect to this initiative. It is a clear indication of this government not having any agenda, not having any clear vision of where it wants to go, of what it ultimately hopes to achieve. It has been dealing with this on a crisis-by-crisis basis, trying to come up, as I have called it, with an overnight, scat-of-the-pants, ad hoc answer that will cool the political heat for a period of time. Then when the heat level begins to rise again, they will jump at some other short-term answer or solution.

They are hoping and praying that they are going to hit it lucky, that there is going to be some panacea out there with respect to placating the consumers of this province, but it is not going to happen. No-fault is not that panacea. It certainly is not. It is going to create all kinds of problems.

I gather that within the inner sanctum of the Liberal government the way they approach this is: “As long as this gets us over the hump, as long as this gets us past the next provincial election, maybe we can fool the people again. We fooled them in 1987 and maybe we can fool them again. This will not raise its ugly head again until after the election, and with any luck we will return as a majority government.”

I have to assume that is the reasoning behind this latest initiative. You look at the fact that Mr Justice Coulter Osborne at a cost of $1 million plus recommended against this. You look at the fact that the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board at a cost of close to $12 million of taxpayers’ money recommended against this.

We hear rumblings -- I find this somewhat difficult to believe but we hear rumblings -- that the Attorney General is quite unhappy with this piece of legislation. He has been meeting with lawyers’ groups across the province and has been indicating that be was ganged up on in cabinet, that he was mugged in the cabinet corridors and that he has a great deal of difficulty with this legislation.

I take that with a grain of salt because we know the Attorney General is one of the perhaps three key people in the cabinet. If he was strongly opposed to this initiative, based on the recommendations of the board and Justice Osborne, I think his opinions would have had a little more weight than he suggests they had when he is meeting with groups concerned about this legislation. So I am taking this with a grain of salt.

I hope that the Attorney General is being honest and upfront with the groups he is meeting with, and that he is not saying one thing to lawyers and advocates for the disabled and something else when he is sitting within the caucus room of the Liberal Party of Ontario. Who knows? When we are talking about a piece of legislation that has such a significant impact on the people of this province, I would think that if the Attorney General feels as strongly as he is suggesting, or as I am hearing rumours he is suggesting, to private interest groups, to private sector groups, he should be stepping out of cabinet. That is my view.

He should not be sneaking around in the back rooms and meeting rooms of this province saying: “I do not agree with what my government is doing. I do not agree with what the cabinet decision was with respect to automobile insurance. I think this no-fault program is all wrong. It is going to hurt the people of this province. It is going to hurt the disabled. It is going to hurt innocent accident victims. It is going to hurt a multitude of people.” If he feels that way, he should not be sitting in that seat any longer. He should be removing himself from the executive council.

If this were a minor matter, I could understand of the executive council remaining in a member’s seat and keeping his opinions to himself -- cabinet solidarity. But we are talking about a significant issue that of course impacts on the lawyers, both defence and plaintiff lawyers, the group that he is among other things representing in this House as the chief law officer, as the Attorney General. It seems to me it is the kind of matter he should be expressing his views on publicly.

In any event, I am only suggesting that if that is the case and those are the views of the Attorney General, in my view it is incumbent upon him to make those views known publicly and I think that at that time it would perhaps also be incumbent upon him to resign his seat on the executive council. We do not see that happening and there is no question that sort of action would take a great deal of courage on his part.

We will just have to wait and see as this argument festers over the next month and a half and as more information comes to light. If his views are as we have heard, perhaps the committee may want to call the Attorney General as a witness. I do not think that is unheard of. If the Attorney General has some concerns and if the Liberal members of the committee that will be dealing with this in a public hearing process are so confident about the Attorney General’s views, then they would have no reluctance whatsoever to see the Attorney General appear as a witness.

That would be most interesting. I am getting some affirmative head-shakes from across the aisle. I may be holding the parliamentary assistant to his head-shake. That was a yes, was it not? That was a yes.

Mr Ferraro: Whatever you want to call it is fine with us.

Mr Runciman: I want it on the record that the parliamentary assistant is being most cordial today and indicated that if the opposition is interested in hearing the Attorney General’s views, he would probably have no difficulty with that.

Mr Ballinger: I thought he was just scratching his head.

Mr Runciman: No, he was not scratching his head, but I thank the member for his contribution to the debate anyway.

I want to talk about a couple of things the minister has well said in this press release, this press article. I want to put this on the record so that it is there in case the minister tends to contradict himself in the next few months and that certainly would not be unprecedented. He has clearly indicated that there will be no interim rate increase.

I do not know about that. If the minister is truly concerned about the health of the industry in Ontario and wants to maintain a viable private sector with respect to the provision of automobile insurance in this province, that is something he may want to take another look at. I am not sure. This certainly has not been caucused or discussed by our party, but again we have some sympathy with the situation some members of the industry have in this province in terms of the shortfall in revenues, in terms of trying to meet the costs that are inherent in the provision of automobile insurance in this province.

I was told by an industry representative that his company alone would be losing in the neighbour-hood of $14 million to $15 million, simply by a delay in this plan coming into being, if it was not allocated increases prior to the particular date that was earlier suggested; I think it was 1 March 1990. It will be interesting to see what transpires over the next period of time and whether the minister is able to keep that promise. He has to step aside from the political implications of any such initiative and take a look at it. If he is committed to maintaining a viable private sector in this province, perhaps he will have to review that decision, that comment, that commitment.

I talked at length about it two weeks ago, I guess it was, when we discussed this and I have also mentioned today my understanding for the position taken by the industry and its rather low profile on this issue, and the fact that if it could be publicly as supportive as it privately feels, that would in no small part, I suspect, lead to growing concern among the electorate of the province.

I want to talk again about the savings the industry is going to receive. We are using the figure of $1 billion of windfall to the industry. I know some of them will take issue with that, but I am basing it on a study by Professor Jack Can from the University of Toronto. As we know, on the record, the OHIP and tax savings are going to be in the neighbourhood of $140 million. In our view and the view of most experts, including Osborne and including the auto insurance board, this plan, the threshold introduced by this government, is going to restrict access to the courts to probably 95 to 97 per cent of accident victims.

I know that some of the savings to insurance companies Professor Can outlined, the $630 million which could be closer to $800 million, will flow out to what we would have considered in the past to be at-fault drivers, rather than going to innocent victims or flowing to innocent victims. About a fifth of that, if I recall my figures correctly, will be outflowing to at-fault drivers.

I want to reiterate our difficulty with that as a principle and the whole concept of no-fault. We have a problem with the idea of individuals not being held responsible for their actions. That in essence is what no-fault is all about, an individual in society not being held responsible for his or her actions. As a party we have a great deal of difficulty with that concept. It certainly is a growing one in society and one that causes many of us concern. Everyone seems to have growing rights and diminishing responsibilities.

In essence, that is what we are doing with the auto insurance sector, removing responsibilities with the no-fault element and allowing the bad drivers, the bad actors in society to escape, if you will, responsibility for their actions. One of the ways they do not escape their responsibilities under the current system is through the rate structure and through the fact that the rates would increase significantly if there were bad actors on the highways and roads of this province.

A concern that is growing, one the minister has dismissed out of hand, is clearly identified in the Quebec experience and in a number of American jurisdictions, and that is the question of highway traffic safety. The study in Quebec I cited last week showed the incidence of highway traffic accidents increasing significantly, and perhaps more importantly, the incidence of highway traffic deaths increasing significantly under a no-fault process.

If we transpose the results of the Quebec experience into Ontario, we could be looking at an increase in deaths in this province in the neighbourhood of 100 additional deaths per year because of the encouragement, if you will, of the bad actors, the bad drivers in society to get back out on the road because of no-fault auto insurance, a lowering of premiums for those bad actors, a lessening or a reduction or a complete elimination in many instances of responsibility for their actions on the highways and roads.

That is a very significant concern, one that has been ignored by the government and one that the minister suggests is going to be handled by the addition of X number of new OPP patrol officers and a few other provisions that they are hoping to deal with in terms of highway safety. Increasing fines is one of those provisions, which I gather we are going to see legislation on shortly, but that is another ruse to increase government revenues. I am not sure that is going to have much impact on highway safety, if you look at the government’s record with respect to increasing virtually every licence fee it can get its hands on in this province.

We can look at the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario. They have increased fees across the board and all the licensing through the consumer and commercial relations branch in the neighbourhood of 400 or 500 per cent. Now they are going to do the same with highway traffic fines and they are going to say, “We’re doing this in the interest of safety in the province.”

What they are doing is that they are really interested in lining the pockets of this government, if you take a look at the way they have increased taxes 105 per cent in the past four years. We have talked about the way they have increased licence fees, the way they have increased all these various fees associated with government by 400 to 500 to 600 to 700 per cent.

The groups out there, such as the small legion groups that are trying to get special occasion permits, know what is happening and hopefully -- from this side of the aisle I guess I have to say “hopefully” -- that sort of thing is going to build up resentment among the people of Ontario that will ultimately result in the defeat of this Liberal government.

We want to talk a bit about the $450-a-week provision. That $450 is the maximum payment for loss of income under this plan if someone is involved in an accident and is unable to work for a period of time. We have some difficulty with that provision as well. I want to just use an example in Toronto.

A TTC driver in Toronto -- a bus driver or a subway driver -- earns in the neighbourhood of $48,000 a year. Under the government’s program, he is going to make $450 a week, which is some $23,000 or $24,000 a year; I do not have my calculator with me. What we are going to see is that particular individual, who may have a heavy mortgage, who may have a family to support on his income, have that income reduced to about $22,000 or $23,000 a year. What is going to happen? Where is that money going to come from? How is he ever going to hope to recover the $20,000 he is going to lose? How is his family going to survive? How is he going to keep up his mortgage payments?

There does not seem to be any appreciation or understanding by this government of that kind of dilemma that is going to confront so many Ontarians, no appreciation, no recognition. They are simply turning a blind eye to that sort of situation and hoping against hope that people out there are not going to notice that this no-fault plan could very seriously impact on me and my family if I happen to be an innocent victim of a car accident. I could lose my home. I could have to declare personal bankruptcy.

That is a reality if you have someone like that living in Metropolitan Toronto, for example, with the high cost of living, trying to survive with a family and make mortgage payments or high rental payments. He or she loses about $20,000 a year because of an accident that he or she had no responsibility for, and there is no recourse, no way of recovering those lost moneys. Why does the government not address that kind of situation and tell us how that individual is going to be helped by this program? They are not going to be helped by this program.

If you use the current system, you would certainly have every opportunity to recover those lost funds, but recover significantly more for pain and suffering. Not only the victim himself or herself, but family members as well would have the opportunity for some recovery through the current tort system that exists in this province. That is all being tossed out the window. That is the kind of message that has to get out to the people of this province. They have to really begin to appreciate the risks that are involved in this initiative the government has committed itself to.

I want to put on the record a couple of comments that were in an

article in the Globe and Mail just last week, on 24 November. This had to do with a group advocating for the disabled in the province, expressing concerns. I am going to read this into the record and I will provide Hansard with a copy afterwards.

“One inexcusable element in the government’s proposal is the arbitrary $1,500 monthly limit on expenses for long-term care. Insurers need not pay if they can persuade an institution (many of which are totally or substantially government subsidized) to admit the accident victim. In a province that institutionalizes disabled people at an unprecedented rate and provides virtually no community support, this limit represents a ‘life sentence’ for many disabled people.

“It is highly ironic that this limit should be announced a few weeks after the Supreme Court of Canada compelled auto insurers to support community living for accident victims. Despite government policy to respect the wishes of disabled people and their families for community living, the government’s plan will increase the rate at which Ontario residents wind up in institutions.”

There is another element that I want to put on the record from this same article.

“Another intolerable provision of the plan is that accident victims or their families must first ‘incur expenses for rehabilitation and long-term care before payment will be considered by the victim’s insurers. This removes these benefits from the reach of many accident victims. As leading long-term care expert Jane Staub has said, ‘The need for families to spend their own money will create undue hardships, especially for poor families whose breadwinner may well be the injured claimant.’”

That is an important ingredient of this and an element that I talked about last week: the impact on the poor of this province. I have talked about and I quoted concerns in respect to the disabled, and that is an element we have to be very concerned about, but I am also very much concerned about its impact on the poor of this province.

Mr Speaker, I am glad to see you back in the chair. As a member representing the same area of the province as I represent, and I have brought this matter to your attention before, I want to again raise it in the House; a study done by the federal government a couple of years ago which showed that in our region of eastern Ontario the highest percentage of families existing on less than $10,000, and the highest percentage of families existing on less than $5,000 per year reside in eastern Ontario.

So, Mr Speaker, when we are talking about the impact of this legislation on poor fa