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

May 28, 1990

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

TIME ALLOCATION

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

VANDALISM OF JEWISH CEMETERIES

DON LAUGHTON

DRUG ABUSE

GREATER TORONTO AREA RAPID TRANSIT

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

SKI CHAMPIONSHIP

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ENVIRONMENTAL PURCHASING POLICY

ST JOHN AMBULANCE

RESPONSES

ST JOHN AMBULANCE

ENVIRONMENTAL PURCHASING POLICY

ST JOHN AMBULANCE

ENVIRONMENTAL PURCHASING POLICY

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOLID WASTE REDUCTION

DEREGULATION OF TRUCKING INDUSTRY

CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

HOSPITAL FINANCING

DISTRICT HEALTH COUNCILS

GREATER TORONTO AREA RAPID TRANSIT

TOURIST INFORMATION CENTRE

RENT REGULATION

DRUG BENEFITS

LAND REGISTRATION

PAY EQUITY

INVESTIGATION INTO MUNICIPAL ELECTION

DRIVERS’ LICENCES

TIMBER LICENCES

CLOSING OF CAMPGROUNDS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1990

MUNICIPAL FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1990 / LOI DE 1990 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L’ACCÈS À L’INFORMATION MUNICIPALE ET LA PROTECTION DE LA VIE PRIVÉE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INSURANCE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

ROYAL ASSENT

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Deputy Speaker: Before we proceed, I would like to ask all members to join me in welcoming the third group of pages to serve in the spring session of the 34th Parliament, 1990:

Natasha Allard, Port Arthur; Susan Cargill, Muskoka-Georgian Bay; Nicholas Chan, Wentworth North; Tricia Fuerth, Essex-Kent; Priya Ghandikota, Oriole; Meghan Graham, Wellington; Jennifer Grandy, Parry Sound; Sean Haberle, Leeds-Grenville; Celia Hatton, Hamilton West; Michael Johnson, Scarborough-Agincourt; Tamara Kordiuk, Parkdale; Mélisse Lafrance, Nipissing; Jennifer Logan, Durham West; Anne Marie MacDonell, Windsor-Walkerville; David Mariai, Willowdale; Karen McGlone, Lincoln; Thomas Medland, Simcoe West; Christina Milan, Renfrew North; Paul Pacitto, York Centre; Grant Poulsen, Mississauga North; Natasha Poushinsky, Essex South; Justin Rodney, Huron; Mark Wilson, Lambton; Yee Fun Wong, Riverdale.

Please welcome the pages

TIME ALLOCATION

The Deputy Speaker: Furthermore, I would like to read a ruling that has been overdue, dating from a request on 23 April.

On Monday 23 April 1990, the member for Ottawa West raised a point of order as to whether the participation of the member for Welland-Thorold in the debate on government notice of motion 30 constituted such an abuse of the privileges of members that the Speaker would intervene and call upon another member to speak.

In his argument, the honourable member raised the privilege of freedom of speech and made reference to citation 77 in the sixth edition of Beauchesne’s Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada, which states that, “Freedom of speech does not mean that members have an unlimited or unrestrained right to speak on every issue. The rules of the House impose limits on the participation of members and it is the duty of the Speaker to restrain those who abuse the rules.”

First, let me say that the privilege of freedom of speech is the most important privilege of members.

Section 37 of the Legislative Assembly Act provides that, “A member of the assembly is not liable to any civil action or prosecution, arrest, imprisonment or damages, by reason of any matter or thing brought by him by petition, bill, resolution, motion or otherwise, or said by him before the assembly or a committee thereof.” However, while a member enjoys this immunity necessary to perform his or her parliamentary work, the privilege of freedom of speech is subject to the power of the House to regulate its own internal proceedings by establishing rules of procedures or standing orders.

The statement in Beauchesne cited by the honourable member is accurate as far as it concerns the House of Commons of Canada. The rules of that Legislature specifically provide for time limits on most speeches in the House and its committees and, therefore, do not permit “an unlimited or unrestrained right to speak.” The situation is different in Ontario. Except in very limited circumstances, our standing orders do not impose time limits on speeches. I remind the House that our rules were only very recently extensively amended, and there was a conscious decision by the House not to impose general time limits on members’ speeches.

In such circumstances, the Speaker is not in a position to impose time limits on members’ speeches or otherwise restrain or prevent members from speaking to a matter at length, provided that there is otherwise no breach of the rules or practices of the House.

The member for Ottawa West also cited a case at the House of Commons at Westminster. On 2 February 1881, Speaker Brand terminated a debate on his own responsibility --

Mr D. S. Cooke: Are you doing this by recollection?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Yes -- after a continuous sitting from 31 January to 2 February 1881, lasting 41.5 hours, during which Irish members had deliberately protracted the debate on the motion for leave to introduce the protection of person and property bill for the purpose of obstructing the business of Parliament.

An hon member: Bunch of Irish nationalists.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

In this instance, Speaker Brand declined to call upon any more members to speak, even though Irish members still wished to continue the debate and proceeded to put the question after saying that the “dignity, the credibility and the authority of this House are seriously threatened, and it is necessary that they should be vindicated.” It is important to note, however, that his action was supported by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and that the following day a resolution was adopted augmenting the Speaker’s powers.

In 1882, closure was embodied in the rules. Therefore, the precedent as cited is not useful to us in this House. Although the situation upon which the point of order raised by the member for Ottawa West was based is now a moot point, I felt that it was important that I make this statement for the future guidance of the House.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Farnan: Did the Premier lie to the people of Ontario when in Cambridge, just three days before the last provincial election, he said, “I have a very specific plan to reduce auto insurance premiums”?

Premiums will continue to go up despite the government’s massive subsidy of the auto insurance industry. It is becoming virtually impossible even for good drivers to get auto insurance, and more and more drivers are being forced into Facility insurance at exorbitant rates. The only thing reduced is benefits, and these have been radically reduced.

Yes the people of Ontario are looking at the facts, and they are asking questions: “Did the Premier keep his promise with regard to auto insurance? Can the word of David Peterson be trusted? Did he know what he intended to do when he made that promise on 7 September 1987?” If he did know, then surely the facts must lead the public to conclude that the Premier lied to them simply to win votes by means of promises he did not intend to keep.

The people of Ontario are left with the fundamental question, “Can we trust the word of David Peterson?” Based on his track record on the auto insurance industry, the answer is no, no, no. At least the voting public will have learned how much stock to put in the promises of the Premier which he will make in the upcoming provincial election.

The Deputy Speaker: I would like to advise the member that his language was very close to being unparliamentary.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I will invite the member to be more cautious next time, please.

VANDALISM OF JEWISH CEMETERIES

Mr Cousens: On behalf of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, may I express to the Jewish communities in this province and throughout the country our shock and revulsion at the vandalism which has taken place in some of their cemeteries.

We were appalled by recent reports from France and England about the desecration of Jewish cemeteries, but we are even more horrified to realize that the same thing is happening in Canada. Three times over the last few weeks, cowardly vandals operating under the cover of darkness have committed acts of hatred against this minority group.

We deplore what has happened. At the same time we must take positive steps to educate people and try to eliminate the prejudice that leads to such actions, for if one minority is threatened, we are all threatened. Acts of hatred and prejudice demonstrate lack of self-confidence when persons must establish their self-worth by attacking others.

We do not know the culprits. Perhaps they acted out of ignorance or were influenced by the prejudices of others. Whoever they are and whatever the cause, we must make sure that the full weight of society’s disapproval comes down on them. Such behaviour will not be permitted.

It has been said that it is easier to smash an atom than a prejudice, but that does not mean we should stop trying; after all we finally did succeed in smashing the atom. We must do the same thing with racial prejudice.

DON LAUGHTON

Mr Sola: Don Laughton has been named Mississauga’s citizen of the year for 1990. I would like to congratulate the four-member committee for this excellent choice. It is nice to see the Gordon S. Shipp Memorial Award given to this exemplary citizen of my riding, Mississauga East.

Actually, it is hard not to run into Don in Mississauga, as can be seen from his activity in the following institutions, to name but a few: Community Living, the United Way, the Canadian Autistic Society, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Parkinson Society, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Dixie-Bloor Neighbourhood Centre, Bethesda United Church, St Luke’s Bethesda Refugee Committee and Bethesda Concert Series.

Community Living is a perfect example of Don’s commitment, serving as a volunteer for 14 years, 11 as a board member and three as president. His dedication to helping refugees goes beyond belonging to committees. He has taken many under his roof and has sponsored many more.

A lifelong resident of Mississauga, Don grew up on his family’s farm in the area, where he learned that you get out of life what you put into it.

As the Mississauga News aptly put it, “Volunteerism is a way of life” for Don Laughton.

DRUG ABUSE

Miss Martel: It is a sad fact that Ontario has to send people to private clinics in the United States to attend drug rehabilitation programs. So much for the rhetoric of the Minister of Health, who claims care should be available as close to home as possible. The millions of dollars spent in the US should be used to provide treatment programs and facilities in Ontario. The need is evident.

In Sudbury, Pinegate Addiction Service runs an adult program which operates at full capacity but is badly understaffed. The service provides day and outpatient treatment programs in a non-residential setting in the city. A Significant Others program is also offered weekly to teach spouses, adult children and friends how to deal with and help chemically dependent family members. The target population is adults with actual or potential dependencies.

In 1986 and 1989, Pinegate submitted funding proposals to the district health unit, but in that time the Ministry of Health has not called for proposals to be submitted so permanent funding has not been provided.

Pinegate has run the adult program for three years with moneys from the Sudbury-Algoma Hospital Foundation. This funding expired 31 March 1990. The Ministry of Health provided one-shot funding for a worker for one year to keep the program going. When this expires, the service will close due to lack of permanent funding.

If we are going to stop sending people to the US for treatment, then programs and facilities are needed in Ontario. The adult program at Pinegate should be supported on a permanent basis.

GREATER TORONTO AREA RAPID TRANSIT

Mr Cousens: There has been an uneasy silence since the announcement by the Minister of Transportation regarding transit initiatives for the greater Toronto area. We know that a number of projects have been announced and that a transportation committee has been established to set up an implementation schedule.

However, there are a number of things that the public does not know and has a right to know. For example, who are the key decision-makers on this committee? What is their frame of reference for determining which projects are undertaken first? What are the criteria for private sector involvement? What plans are in place should Toronto become the host city for Expo 2000, which is to be announced some 17 days from now, or for the 1996 Olympics, to be announced 113 days from now? How much weight is being given to these events?

The minister’s hesitation in clearly defining his priorities is leading to confusion and frustration. There have been signs of serious infighting between certain municipalities in competing for their community’s projects.

Tomorrow I will be making a brief presentation to the ‘TTC board of commissioners. There are a number of concerns which my party is committed to addressing as we chart a course for transportation in Metropolitan Toronto and the greater Toronto area.

The public will be underwriting these expensive ventures. They have a right to be kept informed on a regular basis and to be given an opportunity for input. Our party will continue to work towards ensuring that this will be the case.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Ballinger: On Friday evening I was extremely pleased to be invited to attend the annual volunteer awards night in my hometown of Uxbridge.

Well over 300 volunteers and staff were in attendance to pay tribute to some very special people who were being honoured by their peers for their outstanding contribution to their community.

I would like at this time to pay special recognition to seven volunteer firefighters who were collectively honoured for their many years of competent service in the protection of the citizens of Uxbridge.

Each of these volunteer firefighters has held down regular jobs as well as meeting the demands on a daily basis that come with the responsibility of working as volunteer firefighters.

Fire Chief Norm James has been a firefighter in Uxbridge for 38 years; Harvey Acton, an old friend, for 36 years; Murray Taylor, 29 years; Pete Catherwood, 29 years; Jack Gordon, 30 years; Bob Noble and Earl Yake, for 20 years.

At a time when society’s demands on governments at all levels are increasing, it is great to represent a riding such as Durham-York where there are still many volunteers like the seven I have just mentioned who have put the needs of their community first and foremost time and time again.

I salute those volunteer firefighters for providing such an essential service and I am sure the awards they received from both the federal and the provincial government will be displayed proudly and hopefully recognized by them as outstanding achievements.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Hampton: The government’s auto insurance charade continues. Over the past 12 months the government has been telling consumers in Ontario that, all other factors being equal, the annual insurance rate increases are limited to 8% or less, and insurance companies cannot suspend individual auto insurance contracts without a valid reason. But what is happening out there to consumers of auto insurance shows that, once again, the Peterson government’s actions fall far short of its promises.

Recently, an elderly gentleman from the community of Rainy River came to me with his 1989 insurance policy and his 1990 insurance policy. He has a 30-year, clean-driving record. He drives a car that is over 10 years old. But in his 1990 insurance policy the insurance company tried to increase his rate by over 50% -- no explanation, no reason, just that the 1990 policy was going to be over 50% greater than in 1989.

The consumer and my constituency office objected to the increase and, after a long list of apologies, the insurance company reduced the rate. But these kinds of increases and abuses are going on all across the province of Ontario. The minister in charge of insurance has very little to say about it; in fact, he wants to ignore it. We have little to show us that the third new government attempt is going to be any better; in fact, it could be a lot worse.

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr Brandt: Tomorrow the Association of Municipalities of Ontario will make its annual submission to cabinet. Traditionally, this is when cabinet listens to Ontario’s municipalities and works with them to deliver the best programs possible.

There has been, however, a drastic change over the past five years. What was once a good working relationship has turned into a battleground where the province is passing on program after program to the municipalities. The government is saying, “You must deliver courtroom security, pay equity, social assistance reforms, the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement and a dozen other provincial initiatives, and you must pay for them out of your own pocket.”

The latest setback for municipalities came in the budget. The two new crown corporations for water and sewers and property assessment will charge municipalities for their services. Local governments have no choice now but to raise taxes or cut programs. Taxes are going up in Essex county by 25% this year because of inadequate provincial transfers. In London, the Premier’s backyard, half of the entire tax increase is directly attributable to the offloading policies of this government, and in some areas blue box programs and road repairs are being cut as a direct result of these provincial problems. The taxpayers at the local level cannot afford any more taxes.

SKI CHAMPIONSHIP

Mr Kozyra: It is an honour for me to rise in the House today to announce that the city of Thunder Bay has just been chosen to host the 1995 World Nordic Ski Championships. Thunder Bay’s bid for this major winter sports event was approved on Saturday by the Fédération internationale de ski congress held in Montreux, Switzerland.

More than 500 athletes from 30 countries are expected to compete at the World Nordic Games, which will involve 10 days of ski-jumping, cross-country skiing and nordic combined competitions at the world renowned Big Thunder National Ski Training Centre.

The government of Ontario is delighted to join forces with the federal government, the Canadian Ski Association and the good people of Thunder Bay to bring the ski championships to this province. The Ministry of Tourism and Recreation will provide up to $5 million in support of the event. In turn, the games will promote Ontario as a major tourism and sports destination and will bring $35 million in economic benefits, including more than 125 person-years of employment to northwest Ontario.

The games will leave a legacy of improved facilities for Thunder Bay residents and visitors. They will contribute to the athletic and personal development of our athletes, but they will also add to the skills and experience of a great many coaches, officials, administrators and volunteers. We can count on those very people to help make the event a milestone in amateur sport in the province, and that, in turn, will encourage Ontarians, particularly northern residents, to participate in recreation activities.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ENVIRONMENTAL PURCHASING POLICY

Hon Mr Ward: This government shares with the people of our province a profound concern for the wellbeing of our environment. We want to make decisions and choices that will help ensure a legacy of clean air, clean water and clean land for our children. Recent decisions by our government have reflected that concern: protecting the Temagami wilderness, preserving the Rouge Valley, committing ourselves to reducing waste disposal by 25% by 1992 and 50% by the year 2000, creating an internationally renowned blue box program, adopting a waste-cutting program for the civil service.

Today we are unveiling a new weapon in the battle to protect our environment: our government’s purchasing policy. Each year, the Ontario government purchases more than $2 billion worth of goods and services. That represents enormous purchasing muscle. My ministry, the Ministry of Government Services, has a leadership role in setting the policy that determines how that money is spent. We believe the purchasing policy of our government represents a powerful tool for promoting waste reduction, reuse and recycling, conservation and the development of environmentally beneficial products and industries.

Today I am very pleased to announce a new environmental purchasing policy for Ontario, a policy that makes our province a leader in the field. To protect our environment, to promote the wise use of resources and to provide a role model for the broader public and private sectors, supplies, equipment and services purchased by our government will now support the 3Rs of waste management -- reduction, reuse and recycling -- and the conservation of energy and water.

To implement this initiative, specifications and selection criteria for the purchase of supplies, equipment and services will take into consideration the 3Rs and minimize the use and disposal of environmentally harmful materials. Ministries will now give consideration to suppliers who recognize our environmental concerns in the provision of their goods and services. Suppliers whose products or services meet our quality standards, are priced competitively and are also environmentally sensitive will enhance their opportunities to win government contracts.

We want to use our purchasing practices to encourage and support those suppliers of goods and services who advance the intent of our policy. We will move ahead in this regard with some carefully planned measures.

First, we will establish mandatory standards for designated products which contain specified levels of recycled content from post-consumer waste. Second, we will eliminate overspecification and unnecessary restrictions on goods and services that hinder the implementation of this policy. Third, we will use, where applicable, product specifications that are consistent with the national guidelines in minimum recycled content specifications issued by Environment Canada under the Environmental Protection Act,

section 8.

To further support our new environmental purchasing policy, our government will designate goods and services which further the 3Rs of waste management and the conservation of energy and water. An interministerial steering committee on procurement, chaired by my ministry, will have responsibility for making recommendations to the government on the designation of mandatory environmental standards for these goods and services.

In support of this new purchasing policy, we will build a list of goods and services that lend themselves to the application of environmental considerations; we will establish and maintain minimum acceptable specifications for designated goods and services in conjunction with other jurisdictions; we will build a list of suppliers who are capable of providing designated goods and services and we will establish and maintain collective purchasing agreements for designated goods and services that must be used by all ministries.

Our new purchasing policy is effective immediately. It will be implemented as quickly as reasonably possible. Our ability to buy green immediately will be directly related, in many cases, to the availability of products.

Private industry in Canada has already begun to recognize public concerns about the environment. Many forward-looking businesses supply products and services for environment-conscious consumers which may well be appropriate for purchase by our government. For example, there is a wide range of products available that can substitute for products harmful to the environment, such as those made from or containing CFCs or such as toxic cleaning compounds. Appliances and fixtures are increasingly available to conserve water and energy, from energy-saving lightbulbs to water-conserving washroom fixtures.

Waste-reducing products on the consumer market include double-sided photocopiers and packaging-reduced goods. Products that encourage recycling include recycled fine papers, retreaded truck tires and re-refined lubricating oil for cars and trucks.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Hon Mr Ward: I am especially pleased to note today that my own Ministry of Government Services is already well involved in environmentally sound practices. We are actively promoting the use of recycled products in the Ontario government workplace. Our collective purchasing

section has established contracts valued at nearly $7 million in 1990-91 for the supply of recycled paper products such as printing stock, envelopes, photocopy paper, hand towels and tissue paper.

In addition, we have introduced a line of environmentally sensitive products for use in our offices. These items are being distributed under the name “Greenline” through our office products centre, the central supply service for the government.

Today, some 70 Greenline products are available, with many more to come. The Greenline includes a wide range of paper products, such as bond paper, envelopes, memo pads and folders, all containing at least 50% recycled paper. Another Greenline product provides an excellent example of waste reduction: The use of rechargeable toner cartridges for laser printers will eliminate the need for truckloads of bulky plastic cartridges that would have to be hauled away for disposal.

Another example of waste reduction will curtail the use of polystyrene cups here in the Legislative building and in government offices at Queen’s Park and in Downsview. Starting this week, some 11,500 government employees will receive these recycled glass coffee mugs bearing a message promoting recycling. By eliminating disposable cups in those offices, we will save some 2,000 cubic yards of garbage each year.

Since we launched our waste management program last October, the practice of workplace recycling in Ontario government offices has expanded from Metropolitan Toronto to provincial buildings across the province. Province-wide, government employees will divert some 1,500 metric tonnes of waste away from disposal this year.

Our list of examples goes on. We are now recycling phone books and directories. We are setting a good example of reuse with our surplus office furniture and equipment. This year, our surplus assets management

section will redistribute $2 million worth of these goods. We are even embarking on a pilot project in the largest government cafeteria in the Macdonald Block to collect food waste and sell it as livestock feed. Every little bit helps.

Our government is pushing ahead on the largest fronts and the smallest fronts in this most important battle of our times, the battle to protect our environment. It is my hope that, through our actions, we can demonstrate to the public and to the corporate sector the wisdom and profound importance of environmentally sound policies and practices.

ST JOHN AMBULANCE

Hon Mrs Caplan: Today, I would like to pay tribute to St John Ambulance on the occasion of its celebration of St John Week in Ontario. This week, 70 branches throughout Ontario will be participating in events marking the Order of St John’s sterling history of service and dedication.

St John is renowned as the oldest charitable organization in the world. The order’s symbolic white cross has been present in Ontario since 1884, when its first recorded class was held at the Royal Military College in Kingston. Since then, St John in Ontario has trained about 2.5 million people in first aid, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, better known as CPR, and health care. The Volunteer Brigade of St John has helped more than three million residents in Ontario, from healing blisters to saving lives.

St John’s volunteers sprang into action in the aftermath of Hurricane Hazel and at the Mississauga train derailment, and they have even assisted at forest fires in northern Ontario. There are more than 7,000 such unpaid volunteers in Ontario providing emergency first aid services at community events across the province. Last year, nearly 3,000 St John certified volunteer instructors trained more than 190,000 Ontario residents in first aid and CPR. That is a remarkable achievement.

The Ministry of Health provides training grants to St John to assist in its training program. This year, the ministry grant is $347,000.

Marching with the times, St John Ambulance now has an industrial training program to reduce on-the-job accidents.

I am sure the members of this House join me in commending St John Ambulance on its long, proud history and its contribution to the people of Ontario.

RESPONSES

ST JOHN AMBULANCE

Mr Reville: The New Democrats enthusiastically join in the tribute paid to the St John Ambulance and the more than 7,000 volunteers who work tirelessly in our communities and now in our plants. But I noticed that 10 minutes were left in the time allotted to ministerial statements and I cannot believe that the Minister of Health did not stand up and say something about the Ajax and Pickering General Hospital, where elderly people are being hosed down in broom closets because the government has not got on with the expansion that is so desperately needed.

I do not know why they do not use the time that they have allotted; perhaps tomorrow.

ENVIRONMENTAL PURCHASING POLICY

Mrs Grier: We welcome the statement today by the Minister of Government Services and we think it is high time that this government had an environmental purchasing policy for Ontario. We had, of course, read about today’s announcement in the Toronto Star and we were well aware of it before it was announced in this House.

I think it is significant to remind the government that it is not exactly a world leader in this regard. Over 20 United States jurisdictions have developed procurement policies favouring recycled goods and material. In 1987, 60 per cent of the paper purchased by New York state contained recycled material. In Maryland, the policy is that 40 per cent of the state’s paper purchases contain 80 per cent recycled content. I am very glad that Ontario is finally getting around to putting in place an environmental purchasing policy.

I hope we will not spend years and months reinventing the wheel and may perhaps be open to learning from the experience in other jurisdictions as we begin to build the list of services and goods that the minister has said will have to be built before the policy becomes totally effective.

While the minister says that the purchasing policy is effective immediately and will be implemented as quickly as possible, there are an awful lot of things in this statement that yet have to be done, such as building a list of goods and services, establishing and maintaining minimal acceptable specifications, building a list of suppliers and establishing and maintaining collective purchasing agreements.

All of the preparation could have been done over the last five years that this government has been in office. They are very slow in getting around to doing this and I regret that, having finally got around to doing it, they have not included in the statement any specific target. We do not know from the minister’s statement today how much waste is going to be reduced by this policy. We do not know the time frame within which he hopes to reach a certain target.

This is a voluntary action on the part of the government. We in this party agree that voluntary actions to reduce waste are necessary, but we also feel that it is essential to put in place a regulatory framework so that all agencies, businesses and industries will be required to reduce waste. We sincerely regret that this government refuses to put in place that framework and seems to be relying entirely on voluntary participation. Not everyone perhaps will be as environmentally sensitive as the Minister of Government Services. I am glad today that he at least is.

ST JOHN AMBULANCE

Mr Eves: I would like to rise and join in commending the St John Ambulance society which has worked very hard in this province for over 100 years, and I would like to join with the minister and the member for Riverdale in extending our commendation to it.

It is always a dangerous thing to do, I can see, agreeing with the member for Riverdale, but I think that his advice to the Minister of Health is well taken on this occasion and that perhaps she should spend her time in ministerial statements in the next few days addressing the very real problems of the Ajax and Pickering hospital and also addressing the problems of some other volunteer organizations, such as the Red Cross and the Victorian Order of Nurses, that have to come to the minister on bended knee every year to ask her to bail them out so that they will not go bankrupt, so that they will not have to stop delivering their services; if the minister would kindly address their budget problems once and for all.

ENVIRONMENTAL PURCHASING POLICY

Mr J. M. Johnson: I would like to congratulate the Minister of Government Services in taking this initiative and suggest, as the member from the opposition has suggested, that the government should have been doing it for years.

I am a little puzzled at the comment in the second

section where the minister says, “To provide a role model for the broader public and private sectors, supplies, equipment and services purchased by our government will now support the 3Rs of waste management -- reduction, reuse and recycling.” Why not now? This is rather late to be starting. I guess it is better late than never, but the government should have been working at it.

On his first page, the minister says, “Each year, the Ontario government purchases more than $2 billion worth of goods and services.” That certainly represents an enormous, as he calls it, purchasing muscle, but it also represents a lot of spending. Maybe he should take into consideration the first R of reduction and not spend so much money and not buy so many services that use resources.

The minister sent over the news release and he also sent four pages to go along with it. Maybe he could emphasize reduction, and that would solve some of the problem. Anyway, he is to be congratulated for doing something even now, and certainly the 11,500 government coffee mugs will be of some benefit to employees. Maybe he could send them to the 130 members as well.

Mrs Marland: I would be more impressed had this statement been on recycled paper. It does not say it is on recycled paper, so I have to assume it is not.

The one thing I would like to say to the minister on this subject is that this paper is imperial. I understand that the government has now thrown out the requirement for metric. Is that correct? There are a lot of trays all around the constituency offices and government offices in this province, which all converted to metric, and now we are back to imperial. I think it has been an interesting exercise and one which obviously the minister has done with some wisdom and without any fanfare, because nobody has heard about it officially.

I think that perhaps, Minister, when you get an opportunity to speak later on this afternoon, you might like to hold up the mug that I saw sitting on your desk. I recognize that in the speech you were supposed to say, “These recycled glass coffee mugs,” and I am sure you were supposed to hold it up. I am just helping you out here because --

The Deputy Speaker: The member will address the Speaker, please.

Mrs Marland: Sorry, Mr Speaker. I thought the minister would not want to miss that opportunity.

From the standpoint that I attended a three-day meeting in Washington as one of two representatives of this province at a North American meeting on the subject of the environment, I think it is very significant that this government is just now looking at energy-saving lightbulbs. We had a very enlightened presentation by the government officials in Washington who now are demonstrating the use of energy-saving lightbulbs. I am glad that if this government cannot lead, at least it can follow.

I also want to say, on the idea of collecting food waste from the government cafeteria and selling it as livestock feed, perhaps that is chicken feed at best. But I also hope that the Premier will get an opportunity to say that he really was not serious when I said that I was going to start eating everything so it would not be wasted and he said that he thought I ate everything now. I would like to tell the Premier that I am now a prime star candidate on the Nutri System, so he will not be able to say that much longer.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOLID WASTE REDUCTION

Mrs Grier: My question is for the Minister of the Environment and it concerns waste reduction. I regret that the minister was not here to hear me applaud his colleague the Minister of Government Services on taking at least a step towards waste reduction. I am sure the minister is aware that in a Gallup poll published today, 85 per cent of the population does not think that governments are doing enough to ensure a clean environment and I am sure he knows that high on the list of concerns is the whole question of what is to be done about our garbage.

This House last December supported unanimously a resolution of mine calling on the government to get serious about waste reduction. On 17 May again all parties supported a private member’s bill, the member for Hamilton West’s, putting into practice the tone of that resolution of last December. But when I asked the minister on 17 May whether he would support regulations to reduce garbage, he replied that he found it a little difficult, when there is voluntary action, to come in with a sledgehammer and hit people over the head and say, “Now you have to do this, you have to do that.”

Does the minister really believe that voluntary action is going to be successful in reaching the target he has set himself of reducing by 25% the total garbage going to landfill and incineration by the end of 1992? What assurance can he give us that voluntary action will reach that target?

Hon Mr Bradley: What we have seen in Ontario in terms of the response that people have had to various programs which have been designed to divert waste from either incineration or landfill is rather phenomenal. We have seen the kind of response that many people would not have predicted in terms of public participation in these efforts. Many of them have originated from individual groups and organizations within communities and some of them within the municipal councils themselves, and they are having a very significant impact on the amount of material that would go to either landfill or incineration in this province.

It is difficult. I know the member would like to regulate, and there are times when one has to regulate, but with the financial incentives that this government has put out for municipalities and for others to participate in reduction, reuse and recycling in this province, I think we are really going to achieve this. As I have said on numerous occasions in the House, many other jurisdictions are looking at what we are doing in Ontario with a view to emulating it because they see how successful it is.

The member is familiar enough with the environmental scene -- I know she has been concerned about it for a number of years, as a municipal councillor and now as a provincial member -- to know that if one talks to people in schools and people in various service clubs and organizations, all of them are making efforts to contribute to a solution to this problem. I certainly commend the people of Ontario for doing so.

Mrs Grier: The minister is at best guilty of painting an overly rosy picture of the situation. I agree that there has been a phenomenal response from individuals who want to reduce the amount of garbage, but there has not been a phenomenal response from industry and business. I do not share the minister’s conclusion that the response from individuals has had a significant impact on the amount of garbage going to landfills.

Let me show the minister graphically if he does not quite get the words that I sometimes use. The minister’s target is 25% reduction by the end of 1992, and 2% is what the minister’s voluntary effort has achieved. We are now one and a half years into the minister’s four-year program of reaching 25% reduction. How is he going to get from here to there using voluntary effort?

Hon Mr Bradley: I never use this word in the House because I am not one who does, but the socialist approach to things, which is overly regulated -- I know the Conservative Party would find that attractive perhaps -- is constant regulation and telling people what they must do. We see an evolution away from that around the world. In various jurisdictions we see people moving away from that to areas where we see some enthusiastic response to incentives that are put out there.

Mr Wildman: Why do you let Nixon stomp on you like that?

Hon Mr Bradley: Let me tell the member for Algoma, for instance, that we have two million households in Ontario that are on the blue box program. We have already achieved that and it is increasing all the time. We have already achieved at least a 14% diversion of waste in terms of the household waste we see.

The member will be aware that the new thing that is really taking off in Ontario, again on a voluntary basis, is composting: either a community effort or individual efforts on composting. This is working some rather significant reductions. In addition to that, through our industrial 3Rs program we provide incentives, suggestions and technical assistance to people in the business, commercial and industrial fields who are attempting to reduce, reuse and recycle. That is beginning to have a substantial impact and will grow like a snowball this year.

Mrs Grier: When the minister falls back on saying that regulation equals socialism equals something his government would not do, I think it shows how devoid of policies this minister is. We can say to people, “Don’t park on a certain street.” If we find it does not work, we put a regulation to make sure that desirable social objective is achieved.

What the minister is admitting, and what I want him to admit, is that with the target he has set himself -- it is not my target, it is his target, 25% reduction by 1992 -- he has no clear and specific policies that will get him to that target. I want to know, in addition, whether he has contingency plans so that when he has not reached the target by 1992, he will then begin to regulate. Is he preparing those contingency plans?

Hon Mr Bradley: Once again, the member is dwelling very heavily in this specific area of regulation. Certainly she and I would agree. I would not quarrel with her on the parking situation that she mentioned and the need to regulate in that regard.

I think, though, to be hypothetical, if you had a situation where people voluntarily did not violate that and were enthusiastically not violating that, then of course you would not have to regulate. There are instances where people are really enthusiastic about this, and I actually believe this is going to work. I am much more confident that the people of Ontario are prepared to respond in this way on this basis with enthusiasm than the member is. I have a lot of confidence in the people out there.

I know there are people in the business field, for instance, who are making a good business now out of the 3Rs, who are being very innovative, who are investing many thousands upon thousands of dollars in this particular business. We are seeing a reduction taking place, we are seeing a lot of reuse and we are seeing a lot of recycling. I wish the member would be as enthusiastic as the people of this province in this regard.

DEREGULATION OF TRUCKING INDUSTRY

Mr D. S. Cooke: I have a question to the Minister of Transportation, regarding his efforts last week to completely pass the buck to the federal government on his responsibility and the responsibility of the provincial government for the problems the truckers are experiencing in this province and across the nation.

A few years ago his government said, when the national government was negotiating free trade, that one-sided free trade would be totally unfair and would result in lost jobs in Ontario. Is it not true that through the deregulation of the trucking industry at the provincial level by his government, truckers lost protection and that jobs have been lost to the United States, and that is one of the bottom causes of last week’s demonstration?

Hon Mr Wrye: No.

Mr D. S. Cooke: I think people across this province know better than that. We saw the efforts by this government a couple of years ago. Publicly they said they were opposed to free trade, but here in the Legislature they threw up their hands and they could not get the deregulation bills on trucking passed quickly enough.

Our critic at the time, the member for Sault Ste Marie, predicted exactly what was going to happen. “The bill’s key test,” he said in the Legislature, “was a proposal to replace the present entry test in the Ontario trucking business from an examination of the need for additional services to an examination of the fitness of the applicant.” In other words, even if we did not need the competition in trucking, we got it in Ontario.

The minister knows there is a double standard as well. Truckers here in Ontario who go to the United States are not facing deregulation in every state; it has not been done state by state. Therefore we have to play by one set of rules over there, and the truckers who come here to Ontario play by a completely wide-open system.

The minister promised action. Is he prepared to revoke his deregulation bill so that our truckers are protected?

Hon Mr Wrye: What I am prepared to do and what we have been doing is continuing to lobby both at the federal level and at the state level for the kind of level playing field that I think all members of the House want. As recently as a week ago, my senior officials met with senior officials in the state of Michigan and raised once again the fact that the liberalization of the regulatory environment in Michigan, while welcome, does not go far enough. As well, we have continued to discuss these matters with the federal government.

But my honourable friend, I think, would want to acknowledge, and I would have thought would have been the first to acknowledge, the significance of the federal involvement in all of this. I just want to read, if I might, a short

section of an

article in last week’s Windsor Star, which obviously my good friend the member for Windsor-Riverside missed. It is about Bill Bondy, the owner of Bondy Freight Lines. My friend will know Bill quite well.

He said: “The issues raised by the truckers leave out the real problem with the Canadian industry -- the value of the Canadian dollar. A strong dollar coupled with deregulation to cripple the industry....

“‘Unless the dollar drops to levels of the mid-70s, the industry will continue to suffer,’ Bondy said.”

Mr Pouliot: What about the gas tax?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Hon Mr Wrye: That combined with high interest rates, combined with the huge spread in the Canadian and American interest rates, and not the issues my friend raises, are the real issues in this matter.

Mr Farnan: This government has cosied up to Mulroney on free trade, on the goods and services tax and now on the trucking industry. Reports indicate that 5,000 jobs have been lost in the last 18 months. David Bradley, the vice-president of the Ontario Trucking Association, guesstimates that this could be 12,000 jobs by the end of this year. We are losing Canadian jobs and Canadian companies to the United States.

What assurance will the minister give to the Waterloo region, one of the most significant centres of the trucking industry in this province, and what assurance will he give to the province as a whole, that he will not continue to sacrifice jobs in the trucking industry by his continuing cosying up to the Mulroney government?

Hon Mr Wrye: I am always amused when I hear from that side comments about cosying up to the Mulroney government on free trade. I always try to reflect back to those days in 1988 when we waited for Ed to speak out on free trade. We waited and we waited, but nothing ever happened.

The honourable member would want to know that this government has recognized, notwithstanding that many of the issues are federal, the importance of the jobs that are being lost. Indeed, under the direction of the Premier, we set up a trucking industry adjustment committee over a month ago on which Mr Bradley sits.

I note that an editorial last week, and I am sure my friend the member for Cambridge would not have seen it, said: “So far, only the Ontario government has recognized these high stakes. The province has already formed a trucking industry adjustment committee, including representatives of the industry and government, to examine the problems.”

So we are taking action to see what can be done in this jurisdiction and to press the federal government to improve the economic situation and the economic climate for truckers in the province.

CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

Mr Harris: l am troubled that the Premier either was not or did not feel that he was in a position to report today on his talks with the Prime Minister over the weekend.

The Deputy Speaker: To whom is your question addressed?

Mr Harris: Given the seriousness of the constitutional crisis, Premier, I believe Ontario must provide clear, united, nonpartisan leadership to help resolve it --

Mr Ballinger: What do you think we have been doing for the last six months?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Harris: -- and I have only one question for the Premier today. There are three party leaders representing 130 members of this Legislature, all of whom love the nation, all of whom want to work to ensure that it remains strong and united after 23 June. I believe it is imperative that all three party leaders meet immediately to enable Ontario to speak with that strong, united, non-partisan voice. Will the Premier convene immediately a meeting of the three party leaders to see if we can work together on that?

Hon Mr Peterson: The answer is that I would be very happy, if the member would like, to meet and I could bring him up to date on what is happening. As he knows, there are a number of meetings the Prime Minister has convened with the premiers to try to determine where the common ground is. If my honourable friend is interested, I think I can tell him more where I think the differences exist at the present time.

The strategy in dealing with this is in the hands of the Prime Minister at the present time. He chose to have this series of meetings with the premiers. It is a distinct likelihood, I suspect, although I cannot speak with authority on this matter, that there will be a meeting of the first ministers in the not-too-distant future to finally resolve the question.

I know my honourable friend has more supplementaries and I would be happy to respond to those, because there are lots of things I would be happy to share with him.

Mr Harris: Thank you, Premier. I do have the opportunity for supplementaries. I actually was hoping that it would not be necessary.

I truly believe it is important that we meet on this issue. I suggest to him that I do not think this is the time to dredge up all our solutions over the last three years; I think we are beyond that now and I think he would agree with that. He obviously did not feel that it was appropriate to share, by way of statement, the discussions. I accept his view on that and I do not question that.

However, in view of that, I would think it is important that we meet immediately. I tell him that I am prepared to clear my

schedule today; I am prepared to leave right now to start those discussions. I am sure the leader of the New Democratic Party, who I understand is in Ottawa today, would be prepared to join us at the earliest possible time. I understand that would be this evening. Should the Premier wish to wait until this evening, I would be prepared to do that if he feels the three of us should be together for the first meeting. I just do not believe that we have any time to waste in this Legislature and I am offering that in a very non-partisan way on behalf of my caucus.

Hon Mr Peterson: I would be happy to meet with the honourable member and the Leader of the Opposition as well. As the member knows, the resolution to this matter will not be among the three of us; it is going to be among the various provinces which have different views on this question at the present time.

I repeat what I said earlier to my honourable friend: I think they are narrower than most people would imagine in this circumstance, particularly on the question of the Senate veto and on the question of the distinct society. I have not had any reports as of this moment on the meeting of Mr Bourassa and Mr Mulroney. I still think there is some flexibility in the system, but it is not going to be easy. I agree with my honourable friend that there is not a lot of time in which to resolve this question.

One of the things that has characterized the debate in this province is that in this House I think there has been, with very few exceptions, a great deal of commitment to this country and great sensitivity for the other regions and the other provinces -- Quebec, but the other regions as well. I think that overwhelmingly at the top of everyone’s personal and political agenda has been how to build a stronger and more united Canada. It has not been an easy debate; it is not an easy debate for any one of us.

It has been divisive, it has been tough on a number of parties, particularly our party and the New Democratic Party; perhaps less so on the member’s, even though there are divisions. We understand that.

But this is probably as important a debate as we will ever be involved in our whole political lives. I do not want to be overly dramatic, but I believe that the decisions that are made by the first ministers -- and the legislatures, because it is all of us together -- will probably have more influence on the future course of our country than, shall we say, the ordinary debates in which we are involved.

I welcome my honourable friend’s ideas or suggestions. I am sure he probably has a number of contacts across the country and friends with whom he could talk and try to persuade that, in the final analysis, we have to put the national interest at the top of every single person’s agenda. We also know that it is going to take some reach, it is going to take some accommodation and an enormous amount of sensitivity. But I would be very happy to meet with my honourable friend if he would like to discuss the matter, and certainly when the Leader of the Opposition is here perhaps the three of us can sit down and think through the matter.

Mr Harris: I agree with the Premier: I do not believe there is anything more important that I see on the horizon that we as political leaders in this province can be involved in. So I assure him that is foremost on my agenda. As I said, we are prepared to clear our schedules completely. I commend the Premier for agreeing to the suggestion and I indicate to him that I have not been able to have discussions this morning with the leader of the New Democratic Party. I would encourage the Premier to do that.

I indicate that I do believe it is important that he, as Premier of this province, is able to speak with a unified, strong, non-partisan voice while representing all 130 of us. I am prepared today, right now or as soon as possible, to work towards that.

Hon Mr Peterson: I appreciate the constructive view of my friend opposite, and may I say that I enjoyed that relationship of trust with his predecessor, the member for Sarnia. I did take him into my confidence on a number of occasions, and it was a confidence extremely well placed, just as I have done with the Leader of the Opposition in the past.

I agree with my honourable friend. It is important. Because Ontario is the largest province, I think it behooves us to be as sensitive as we can to the others, to try to speak with a united voice. May I just say in a very personal way that I have always felt that I had the confidence of my colleagues in this enormously complicated debate, because I know at the end of the day of the enormous generosity of all the members of this House and how much they love their country.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr Eves: My question is to the Minister of Health. The minister undoubtedly will be aware that Queen Elizabeth Hospital, a chronic care facility in the city of Toronto, estimates that it will have to close some 50 beds next month due to the limitations put on its funding as a result of the Treasurer’s budget on 24 April. Despite the fact that they were promised 100 new chronic care beds in the minister’s announcement of May 1986, and despite the fact that they have over 1,200 people on their waiting list for chronic care beds, they may in fact have to close an additional 50 beds.

How can the minister justify a situation in the province where a chronic care hospital such as Queen Elizabeth is faced with closing 50 beds when it has 1,200 people on its waiting list?

Hon Mrs Caplan: The member, I am sure, will remember the discussion that we had in this House last year around this time, and through the course of last year, when we acknowledged that, as part of a traditional approach to hospital funding, during a transitional time there were some special challenges being faced by the chronic care hospitals in the province, that the ministry was very responsive to this and was working with the hospitals to resolve those issues during this transitional time.

I would tell him that we have not received a budget plan and proposal; however, we are expecting to do so shortly, and we will be monitoring this situation and working with the hospitals to resolve their issues.

Mr Eves: Officials from that hospital, and in fact from the Ontario Hospital Association, estimate that there are about 3,000 people on the waiting list for chronic care beds in Metropolitan Toronto.

We also have seen the situation very recently with elderly and chronic care patients at the Ajax and Pickering General Hospital, another hospital that the minister promised 70 new chronic care beds to, on 14 May 1986. Included in those expansion plans were shower stalls. These people are now being hosed down in a closet that is used to store maintenance supplies. That is the way that the elderly and chronic care patients in our province are being treated. Does the minister agree with that treatment? How can she justify that over four years after she made these commitments for these new chronic care beds?

Hon Mrs Caplan: The situation that the member refers to is clearly unacceptable. In response to a question from the member for Durham West just a few weeks ago, I identified Ajax-Pickering hospital as a priority not only for the region, as identified by the district health council, but for the ministry as well. I am pleased to tell the member that in fact the ministry officials met with the hospital as early as last Friday and that we expect the matter to reach conclusion of the planning process and an announcement to be made within a very few weeks.

Mr Eves: This construction, according to the hospital spokespeople she is talking about, whom she recently met with, was supposed to start in November 1989. They claim it is the ministry dragging its feet at every step of every approval process for the last four-plus years, that this is the reason why these people are still being showered with a hose in a maintenance closet. I do not find that acceptable. A nurse who has worked there for some 17 years says it happens every day. I find it very undignified that we have to treat people this way.

Where has the minister been for the last four years, why did she not meet her November 1989 deadline and why are these people not being treated in a more humane manner four years later?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would say to the member opposite that I think he is aware, as I am, that one of our priorities is both the comfort and the convenience of patients in the hospitals across the province. As an important part of our capital planning framework, we have identified infrastructure renewal and an opportunity to respond not only to the occupational health and safety issues, but to the comfort and convenience of patients.

I would say to him that the ministry officials have met with the hospital officials. We have been working diligently on this since March 1990. The Durham district health council is very much involved, and in fact there has been an agreement to do everything we can to fast-track this process since Durham is part of a region in this province which is experiencing rapid growth, has a very young population and experiences some special challenges.

DISTRICT HEALTH COUNCILS

Mr Hampton: My question is for the Minister of Health as well. On several occasions in this House when the minister has been asked about the funding of particular health care proposals for particular communities, she has responded that district health councils rank priorities and forward them to the ministry and the ministry then funds the priorities that have been identified by the health councils.

How does the minister explain that the district health council for Kenora-Rainy River has ranked an intensive care unit for the hospital in Fort Frances as a number one priority for the last two years, her ministry has refused to fund it, and yet other projects that were well down on the list -- and some of them not on the list -- have been funded? How does she explain it when the district health council ranks a priority for her, puts it as number one, her ministry ignores it, and yet she tells us in here time after time that the way to go, the way to proceed, is through the district health council, “Put your proposal to them, have it ranked, and then it will be funded”?

Hon Mrs Caplan: In fact, I am very aware of the situation in Kenora; my colleague the member for Kenora has been very diligent in making sure that I am aware of the situation. I want to say to the honourable member that the district health councils have been undergoing a renewal of their mandate and that the ministry has established areas of provincial priority. We have been working very closely with the district health councils in areas such as dialysis. In fact, we have seen tremendous expansion of services in the Kenora area.

In other areas of priority we have moved forward, and we continue to consult with the district health councils to provide us with helpful advice as we move forward to ensure that the people of northern Ontario and right across this province receive the most appropriate care.

Mr Hampton: One of the doctors who sits on the Kenora-Rainy River health council had this to say about the ministry’s work. He said, “In northwestern Ontario the government is funding its political priorities while the real health care needs, as identified by the district health council, are ignored.” That is what the doctors who sit on the health councils have to say.

Let me give the minister an example. In 1979 the hospital in Dryden submitted a proposal for the redevelopment of that hospital. In 1984 funding was received for the phase 1 development, but since then the minister has ignored that hospital. She has placed them on hold, with a population of 15,000 and growing. At the same time that she has ignored them she has funded other projects that have not in any way been recommended or, if they were recommended by the district health council, have been well down on the list. How does the minister justify that? She says the system is rational.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Hampton: How does she justify that when the health councils do not recommend these projects and she funds them and others do not get funded?

The Deputy Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon Mrs Caplan: The member opposite is not only incorrect; he is absolutely wrong in the approach that he has taken. We have a capital framework which has been applauded by all of our partners in health care across this province as a rational and important approach to capital funding. We have established priorities in the areas of innovation, specialty care and infrastructure renewal as well as meeting the demographic changes of this province. I can tell him that we seek advice from district health councils and that we have moved in a manner which is consistent and fair, and is seen to be consistent and fair, as we meet the needs of the people of this province.

GREATER TORONTO AREA RAPID TRANSIT

Mr Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. Like many people, I am looking forward to Toronto being the host city for Expo 2000 and for the 1996 Olympics. Time is rapidly approaching. In 17 days we will learn where the host city will be for Expo 2000. In 113 days, we hope to learn that Toronto is the chosen site for the Olympics. How involved has the minister or his ministry been in supporting these bids, and what specific action is he committing to undertake to help make it happen?

Hon Mr Wrye: I thought I heard the honourable member’s statement earlier today, and right within that statement was an indication of the kind of commitment that I have put forward on behalf of the government. I think a commitment of a $5-billion improvement to the public transportation system in every part of the greater Toronto area is a commitment which is quite unprecedented, not only anywhere in Canada but anywhere in North America. That is a firm commitment on the part of the government.

The implementation committee, as the honourable member knows, is moving forward and is working very well together. I expect that by the fall we will have a game plan in place for the staging of all of those projects. In the meantime, I can advise the honourable member that on a number of these projects the preliminary work is already under way so that from the time the implementation committee reports there will be no undue holdups in getting the projects under way, because, as my friend says, many of them will have to be ready for 1996.

Mr Cousens: It is the undue holdups that keep worrying us. Typical of the concerns that people are having in and around the greater Toronto area, is a cartoon in our local media this weekend having to do with road improvements which shows a picture of the minister made up as a turtle, and then the driver is dressed as sort of a rabbit. It could be any one of us there, really quite angry. But the minister is the turtle. Everyone else is in a hurry to get something happening, and the old rabbit says, “Would you please get a move on?” Compliments of A. Mair of the Markham Economist and Sun.

Mr Neumann: You know who won the race, don’t you?

Mr Cousens: I am not a turtle. If the member really wants to talk about being turtles, he should stop talking about my haircut.

I think there is something going on around here. Words are cheap. Here is the minister who is going along saying, “Well, something’s happening.” We want to know what is happening. We want to see the Olympics come. We want to see that Expo 2000 is a success. We know that they are important events for Ontario and we want to see that there is a significant amount of weight and importance from the minister and his ministry to help make it happen. What commitment is the minister prepared to make to make it happen in time for the people to enjoy the roads and services they desperately need?

Hon Mr Wrye: I noted from the cartoon, if I could see across the aisle, that the turtle was still ahead. At the end of the day, I say to my friend, it was the turtle who won the race. I have been called worse.

I can only say to the honourable member -- and I know his great concern about the matter -- that we have a very, very ambitious agenda. We are, as of today, on target with that agenda. We will be able to move forward in dramatic fashion, in a fashion never before seen, certainly in Ontario, never before seen in North America, to put in place the finest rapid transit system anywhere on the continent. That will demand the co-operation of everyone in the months and indeed in the years to come.

I can say to the honourable member that I have been extremely encouraged by the tone of the early discussions of the transit implementation committee, by the willingness of all of the partners on that implementation committee to get on with the job, and I expect that to continue.

TOURIST INFORMATION CENTRE

Mr M. C. Ray: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. The minister will know that the city council of Windsor recently approved the site plan for the proposed new Ontario government tourist centre in downtown Windsor at the Detroit-Windsor tunnel exit. Could the minister advise when construction will begin on this project which has been delayed now for over three years?

Hon Mr Black: I am pleased to respond to the member because I know of his ongoing interest in the tourist information centre in Windsor. That interest began when he was a councillor in the city of Windsor and it has been ongoing and supportive ever since.

I want to say to the member that I was pleased, as he was, to know that the Windsor city council has in fact approved the site plan. We are pleased that a spirit of co-operation is in place and we are working together now. I will be consulting with my colleague the Minister of Government Services in the next few days to see how quickly we can move this project forward.

Mr M. C. Ray: “In the next few days” is the surprise. I thought that there had already been serious consultation between the Minister of Tourism and Recreation and the Minister of Government Services. Do we have the assurance of the minister that he will do everything in his power to impress upon his colleague and his other colleagues in cabinet the importance of this project, not only for Windsor-area tourism, but also for tourism generally in this province because this is a major port of entry to Canada for millions of automobile passenger tourists in this province?

Hon Mr Black: I want to say first of all to the member that there has indeed been ongoing consultation, as he would know, with several ministries of this government in an attempt to move that project forward. However, we were not able to make that happen until such time as the city of Windsor had in fact approved the site plan. Now that has happened, we will be renewing our efforts to bring the project to fruition.

I also want to say to him and to all members of this House that we are very conscious of the important role that Windsor plays in terms of being an entry point for visitors from the United States to Ontario. We are very anxious that this project should proceed and we are going to be working to make sure it happens at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr D. S. Cooke: I am sure we will get the tourist centre at the same time we get the courthouse and the hospital the Liberals promised, during the election.

RENT REGULATION

Mr D. S. Cooke: I have a question to the Minister of Housing.

The minister will be aware of the buildings that have been mentioned in questions in the Legislature twice now, the Parkdale buildings at 96, 109 and 166 Jameson Avenue. The tenants in those building went to court. They received a temporary injunction to stop the unnecessary luxury renovations, but the injunction was a temporary injunction. They now have to go back to Toronto city council and ask for $50,000 to put down as a bond to get a permanent injunction.

Is that the kind of rent review system and protection of tenants that the minister supports, where tenants have to go to city council and, out of property tax dollars, get the financing to protect themselves because Liberal rent review legislation is so weak and ineffective?

Hon Mr Sweeney: I would obviously disagree with the editorial comment by my colleague that our legislation is weak and ineffective. I think the facts clearly point out that it is very effective for a very, very large number of tenants in this province. The honourable member will also be aware of the fact that an application has been made for a rent increase but no rent increase has yet been granted.

Mr D. S. Cooke: The fact of the matter is that the landlord is replacing appliances, making major renovations, walking into units without the approval of tenants when they are not home, carrying out major renovations that have not been approved by the tenants and will go to rent review. The minister knows that as well as I do. The only option the tenants have had is to go to court and get an injunction, because this government’s rent review legislation does not protect them.

What is the minister prepared to do? If he is not prepared to change the rent review legislation, as we have suggested and the Federation of Metro Tenants’ Associations has suggested, is he at least prepared to bring in a program that will properly finance tenants so that it will not be on a matter of whether they can afford it or not but every tenant across the province will have access to the courts for the protection, because obviously the minister is not providing the protection?

Hon Mr Sweeney: My honourable friend is well aware of the fact that under the landlord and tenant legislation, for which the Attorney General is responsible, there is a prohibition from landlords simply walking into a tenant’s suite, as he says, any time they feel like it. This has to be an agreement between the landlord and the tenant as to when they can go in. There are remedies under the legislation to deal with that particular situation.

DRUG BENEFITS

Mr Villeneuve: To the Minister of Health, Mr Speaker. I wrote the minister about a year ago concerning a kidney transplant patient in my riding having serious trouble paying for his drugs on his part-time job -- over a year ago, and nothing has been done. What is the policy of this government, to force people into welfare to get adequate drug treatment coverage? Is that this government’s policy?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I think the member knows that the Ontario drug benefit program provides prescription drugs to people over the age of 65 and those in financial need and receiving social assistance from the province. He knows as well that there are some particular programs that this government has announced in the area of cystic fibrosis and thalassemia. As well, all drugs provided on an inpatient basis within the hospitals are presently funded.

We are always reviewing the drug benefit program to determine how it can be improved. We established the Lowy drug inquiry. I expect to have those recommendations in very short order, but at the present time he should know that there is no universal approach to all drugs in this province and anyone on an individual case-by-case basis who has problems can apply to the Ministry of Community and Social Services for assistance.

Mr Villeneuve: Even though a transplant followed by treatment is much cheaper and preferable to the use of a dialysis machine, this patient still has to pay a very excessive amount of money to cover his drug costs. The Lowy inquiry made recommendations to the minister over a year ago. We cannot use that as an excuse any more. My constituent needs a real answer. Because he is a kidney transplant patient and needs heavy, heavy medication, can the minister confirm today that she will provide support to these particular patients, kidney transplant patients?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I can tell the member opposite that if his constituent meets the criteria of Comsoc for financial social assistance, that financial assistance is available so that no one in financial need is denied access to the drugs. At the present time, the criteria for the Ontario drug benefit program are for those people over the age of 65 and those who are receiving financial social assistance benefits in the province. With the few exceptions that I mentioned around some drugs available in special disease cases through hospital programming, I can tell him that that is the situation that exists today.

LAND REGISTRATION

Mr Tatham: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and concerns the province of Ontario land registry information system, better known as Polaris. As the minister will know, there has been a Polaris pilot project up and running in Oxford county for some time. In his answers to previous questions raised by myself and others in this place, the minister has informed us of the progress of the government in bringing this important technological advance on stream province-wide.

Will the minister tell the House whether his ministry has yet been able to negotiate an agreement with those who will be working in partnership with the province to bring this project to reality, and, if not, why not, and when he thinks he will finally be successful?

Hon Mr Sorbara: Actually, I have some very good news for my friend, as he knows, because he is very interested in this question. My friend from Oxford has in fact helped me to understand Polaris more directly by conducting a tour of pilot projects that we have down in the Woodstock area.

Very recently, we have entered into negotiations with Real-Data Ontario, known as RDO.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Hon Mr Sorbara: That was after careful scrutiny, the most careful of scrutiny, between two proposals, one from Real-Data Ontario and another from its competitor. After careful scrutiny, we have chosen Real-Data Ontario as the negotiating partner and we expect that within a few weeks a detailed agreement will be reached, so progress, very important progress, is being made.

Mr Tatham: The Polaris pilot project in Oxford county has shown just what sort of potential this technology holds for the municipalities of this province. One of the concerns that has repeatedly been drawn to the minister’s attention concerns the ultimate availability of this information and technology to the municipalities. By way of supplementary, would the minister please tell the House what specific plans he has for ensuring that the sort of co-operation that has existed between his ministry and Oxford county will in fact be passed on to other municipalities once the private sector partners are involved?

Hon Mr Sorbara: My friend from Oxford has hit on a very important aspect of this strategic alliance; that is, the alliance between my own ministry’s land registration division and a private sector partner which will join forces with the ministry and actually create the database so that we can have a databased land registration system far more quickly than were we to do it alone.

The availability of that sort of information to municipalities forms one of the cornerstones of the agreement that we will be negotiating. Obviously, our responsibility is to make sure that all those users of this sort of data utility have access to the information contained in the data utility and they have access to it at a reasonable cost. The municipalities will be one of the prime users of that information, and we are going to make sure as we design not only the computer programs but the delivery of those data that they will be available to them at a cost that is reasonable.

PAY EQUITY

Mr Allen: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I have asked the minister several questions about the continuing bad record of his government and ministry with regard to pay equity settlements relating to community-based agencies, particularly in the context of divestment of a service from government-sponsored to community-based operations.

Once again an institution for the developmentally handicapped, the Prince Edward Heights institution, is being divested. The staff is in the first stage of pay equity, as the minister may know, and if the pay equity settlement is not followed by the new board, the salary gap between the equivalent government workers and those in the new community agency will leap from around 20% to slightly over 30%, something contrary to policy that the minister has been trying to implement regarding that very gap problem.

Why is the minister not prepared to assure these workers, under the Crown Agency Act, which provides for such things, that all their benefits, rights and privileges, including the pay equity settlement, will be honoured by the new board?

Hon Mr Beer: As the honourable member is perhaps aware with regard to that transfer, in working both with the new agency and those who had been working at the existing facility we have said that their various rights and privileges would be respected. The actual terms of that will be worked out in the first contract, but certainly we have an interest to ensure that in fact they are treated fairly and properly and are remunerated at the levels they are currently receiving.

Mr Allen: The minister speaks in terms of fairness, and yet he seems to speak continually on this subject with a forked tongue.

Let’s shift the scene, for example, to Frontenac-Kingston and the children’s aid society there, where he is in breach of the Pay Equity Act. The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal has ruled that the government is the employer of the CAS staff in that place and that the minister must complete a pay equity settlement with that staff. Once more, he is running away from his own legislation, not only refusing to negotiate pay equity in its completeness but challenging the tribunal’s decision and refusing to pay the amount ordered by the tribunal while the challenge is heard, as required by the act.

Why will the government, as the funder of these agencies, not acknowledge that it is the de facto employer and follow the requirements of its own pay equity legislation?

Hon Mr Beer: As the honourable member would know, in terms of the question of the employer, we have community-based boards and agencies which in fact look after the dealings of those various societies or agencies. In our view, we fund those agencies, which then in turn set up their own policies with respect to the individuals whom they would hire. It is for that reason we are reviewing the situation. As the honourable member knows, that is currently being discussed and is on appeal. We feel that it is important to maintain that community element to the direction of these boards and agencies and that they in fact are the employer of record.

INVESTIGATION INTO MUNICIPAL ELECTION

Mr Sterling: I would like to ask the Solicitor General if he is involved in the investigation of Mayor Jim Durrell, who is the mayor of the city of Ottawa. There are allegations of his breaching the Municipal Elections Act and I wonder whether the Solicitor General or the OPP are involved in the investigation of those matters.

Hon Mr Offer: It is a matter which I am not aware of but certainly will look into and report back on.

Mr Sterling: As the Solicitor General knows, Mayor Durrell happens to be a commissioner of the Ottawa police, which is undertaking an investigation of this matter. Does he think it is right and proper that the police should be examining or investigating an alleged breach of the law by one of the commissioners of that very same force?

Hon Mr Offer: I cannot comment specifically on the issue, as I have undertaken to provide that information to the member and report back, but in dealing with investigations generally I think we would all recognize that it is both right and proper for police officers to be involved in any investigation of any matter for which it is their responsibility to so investigate, and to act accordingly.

DRIVERS’ LICENCES

Ms Poole: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. On Saturday the Toronto Star carried a story stating that the Ontario government is considering a plan to raise the minimum age for licensed drivers to 18 from 16. As a member of the government, I was quite surprised to hear this. According to the Star, under this proposal 16-year-olds still could get a driver’s licence as far as a learner’s permit is concerned, but they would be severely restricted. I would like to ask the minister whether this story is indeed true.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Hon Mr Wrye: I can tell the honourable member that my eyebrows raised just a touch as I read the

article in Saturday’s Star. I believe in answer to a question earlier from my colleague from Nepean I indicated that we had no plans to raise the driving age from 16 to 18, but rather that we were taking a look at and had plans to introduce a form of graduated driver’s licence such as is in place in states such as Maryland and California. That is still the plan and we are currently reviewing the options that are available to us in terms of the graduated driver’s licence.

Ms Poole: I am certain my 15-year-old son, who will be reaching that magic age next year, will be delighted to hear that. I am not sure I am, but he certainly will be.

The other part of the

article that surprised me was that an assistant deputy transport minister had said that inexperienced drivers, young drivers, usually still in their teens, are greatly overrepresented in our accident statistics. I am unaware of any study which shows the difference in accident statistics from a 16-year-old as opposed to an 18-year-old. I wonder if the minister would enlighten me whether any such study exists.

Hon Mr Wrye: Each year we compile statistics, very detailed statistics involving all accidents in Ontario, and one of the factors we look at is age. I can share with the honourable member a very discouraging statistic that shows that one out of every six persons who is licensed at the age of 16 will have an accident at the age of 16. That number in the middle-age bracket drops as low as one out of every 20. Very clearly, those statistics are somewhat alarming and very discouraging.

It has been the experience of other jurisdictions that by putting in place a driving licence which is somewhat limited in its application, the so-called graduated driver’s licence, which may limit the right of younger drivers in their first years to drive at certain times of day or with numbers of people or on certain roads, those statistics can be improved in a range of 10% to 15%. I think all members of the House would want to see that kind of improvement. Indeed, the honourable member would particularly. That is the proposal we are looking at presently, and we hope to come forward in the next short while with firm legislative changes.

TIMBER LICENCES

Mr Wildman: I have a question to the Minister of Natural Resources regarding the reports in the press that the government has decided against transferring timber licences to a proposed buyer for the G. W. Martin Lumber mill in Harcourt. About 125 workers will remain out of work, as they have been for the last 10 to 12 months.

Can the minister assure the assembly that this decision was not the result of political pressure put on her or any of her cabinet colleagues from owners or principals in mills in the area who wish to obtain those timber licences?

Hon Mrs McLeod: I appreciate the honourable member’s question and I would provide an absolute assurance that our decision in this case was reached after a great deal of deliberation and was reached solely on the basis of our concern about our analysis of the wood supply situation in the Algonquin district.

We have a very clear description from our district manager and our forest resources group that the wood supply situation in the Algonquin district has been under significant stress for many years as a result of a continuance of what would be described as essentially high-grading practices, that the forest is in need of significant renewal and that we have undertaken to carry out an analysis of future wood supply needs and the availability of crown wood to meet those needs and have decided not to reallocate those particular crown licences until that study is completed.

That was the sole reason for our decision in this case.

Mr Wildman: The minister’s reply seems to indicate that there are in fact too many sawmills for the amount of timber in the area. If that is the case, or if the minister is indicating that the wood supply is stressed, why is it that the ministry did not follow the suggestion of Peter Hattin, who was running the G. W. Martin mill prior to its shutdown, that all mills in the area should have to slow down production rather than denying one mill any timber?

Hon Mrs McLeod: The honourable member may well be aware that there are a significant number of mills operating in the Algonquin district. I think there are in total some 200 mills. Many of those mills are operating with what is essentially a private wood supply rather than primarily with crown wood. All the mills in the area are operating at below capacity because of the restricted availability of wood.

The indication was made to the G. W. Martin manager that we would in fact be prepared to issue a mill licence so that the mill could be operated once again using private wood sources and that we were withholding the crown licences and would not be reallocating the crown wood which had formerly been allocated to that particular mill until our study was completed. Our study will look at the needs of the total area as well as -- and I would stress this -- crown wood availability, which is what we of course have to manage and distribute.

I want to point out, of course, that this mill was part of the larger groupings of G. W. Martin Holdings. All those mills were closed and had been closed for a period of over a year. The Ministry of Natural Resources has worked very co-operatively with the people of G. W. Martin in order to ensure that, with the exception of this one mill, all others are now operating either as individual enterprises or through a consolidation.

It was only in this one particular ease, because the mill was not in fact operating now, that we felt it would not be responsible for us to make commitments of crown wood with a transfer of ownership, with starting the mill up again, when we could not ensure without a study that the crown wood would continue to be available in those volumes.

CLOSING OF CAMPGROUNDS

Mr Villeneuve: My question is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. As the minister knows, the parks season is now open. We have four parks in the St Lawrence area that are not open because of closures earlier this year. A request has come from the standing committee on public accounts regarding whether it is in the mandate of the St Lawrence Parks Commission Act for it to close parks.

Can the minister report to this House whether it is his opinion that the mandate includes the closing of some of our St Lawrence parks?

Hon Mr Black: Mr Speaker, as you know, the St Lawrence Parks Commission has responsibility for the operation of the parks in that area --

Mr Villeneuve: That is right: operation. That is right.

Hon Mr Black: I am sure the member wants to hear the answer or he would not have asked the question.

We believe that includes the decisions as to which parks should be open at which times and which parks may not be open at other times. That is a responsibility that has been given in legislation to the St Lawrence Parks Commission. The people on that commission are people who live in eastern Ontario, who have concerns about eastern Ontario and who act responsibly in trying to make decisions and ensure that the taxpayers’ money is well spent. We believe they are doing a very fine job of that.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Mr Elston moved first reading of Bill 169,

An Act to amend certain Acts Relating to Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, I do have another bill, which I have misplaced at the moment. I will have to stand that one down meantime.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1990

Mr Chiarelli moved first reading of Bill Pr60,

An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Motion agreed to.

MUNICIPAL FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1990 / LOI DE 1990 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L’ACCÈS À L’INFORMATION MUNICIPALE ET LA PROTECTION DE LA VIE PRIVÉE

Mr Elston moved first reading of Bill 171,

An Act to amend the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1989.

M. Elston propose la première lecture du projet de loi 171, Loi portant modification de la Loi de 1989 sur l’accès à l’information municipale et la protection de la vie privée.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further introduction of bills? If not, orders of the day.

Hon Mr Ward: The first order. Also, Mr Speaker, there has been agreement that the time should be split among the parties, so I would seek unanimous consent to do so.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to do so?

Agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INSURANCE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Mr Elston moved third reading of Bill 68,

An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Insurance.

Mr Ferraro: It is with great pleasure that we finally come to this position where, indeed, I can put on the record some final and short comments pertaining to the process and, indeed, to Bill 68. Initially, I want to, if I may, thank the minister for the faith and the privilege that he gave me in helping to participate in the process. He has been criticized on many occasions for the fact that he has left the carriage of the bill, to a large extent, in my hands and I just want to say publicly to him that I am grateful for that faith and that confidence.

As well, it would be wrong of me if I did not thank the members of my ministry, the staff, the people who have nursed -- certainly in my case -- me along through a very, shall we say, trying and challenging experience. I said a couple of weeks ago, and I say it to my friend from Algoma, that I describe the whole process of Bill 68 as a very penitential experience and, indeed, it was.

I do not know if God lets politicians into heaven, but if he does I am sure members of my own government on the committee have garnered quite a few points when he is going to consider the final decision. I want to, as well --

Interjections.

Mr Ferraro: I mentioned them, but I also want to thank the members of the opposition. They were on some occasions outrageous. They were on some occasions very challenging, but I would say, quite succinctly, they were certainly committed to their points of view.

To the members of my party who were on that committee, they endured some very difficult presentations and deserve all the credit that I can give them from the fact that they not only participated, but participated in a very positive way. I am grateful, as I am sure all members of our party certainly are.

I want to talk briefly about why we have to deal with Bill 68, why it is here, and to dispel to some degree some of the myths created by members of the opposition and others pertaining to the fact that we were not listening, that through the whole process we had our minds made up, that that was it and that no changes came about. That is categorically wrong.

Members will know, I am sure, that the reason we got into this whole debate on auto insurance in the province of Ontario was precipitated in large part by the cost factor. As everyone will know, in 1986 the average insurance premiums rose by 24%, followed in the subsequent two years by rate controls by the government.

Obviously, we not only had a problem dealing with the price, the affordability, but the availability situation became serious. We had price controls on and insurance companies pulled in their horns. Even to this day some people are in the Facility Association who should not have been there. I would like to think, and I believe, that with the passage of Bill 68, many of these wrongdoings and wrongs would be put right.

Members of the opposition said that we tried to ram this legislation through, that we have not talked about it. I would point out to the members that, certainly in my case and I am sure in the case of many people in this House, we talked about auto insurance in the province of Ontario in 1985 during the election; in 1987 during the election. We had a number of reports later; Osborne, the auto insurance board hearings. As everyone in the House will know, it culminated finally in first reading for Bill 68 on 23 October last year. Second reading, the House will know as well, occurred on 14 November 1989.

During that period of second reading, 26 members spoke during five days of debate. There were 20 days of public hearings in five cities: Toronto, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Windsor and Ottawa. There were four days for clause-by-clause consideration, one day for debate on adoption of the report from the committee, two days in committee of the whole and 18 days debating the motion for time allocation. I would say, quite clearly, the allegation that we are ramming this through is totally unfounded.

During the public hearing debates, in particular, we had without question a lot of people who made presentations. They were sincere presentations; they were certainly enlightening. But in my view, the vast majority of people who made presentations, or certainly a majority of them, will be better off under Bill 68 than under the present legislation. Indeed, many of their concerns and apprehensions, in my view, were somewhat unfounded.

I am mindful of the fact, and I am sure most reasonable people are, that there is never going to be a perfect piece of legislation. There is going to be a requirement, an adjustment period required, and we are going to hear some horror stories. Hopefully, with the new insurance commissioner and with the new legislation and tougher regulations in place, we will be able to address them in a quick and reasonable fashion.

Let me be a little more specific in regard to, as I indicated, some of the changes that were made to the bill from its inception.

I will digress a little bit. I want to say again to the House that it is regrettable that much of the discussion, first, got into a debate dealing with litigation and lawyers, and that was where predominantly a lot of the opposition came from. I understand that, but to suggest that the judicial system, that the process of tort was the main reason for Bill 68 -- and indeed that is where most of the opposition came from, mindful of the fact that we are still allowing tort in serious cases -- to me was unfortunate.

I point out that auto theft alone amounted to a cost to insurance companies which passed that cost on to the insureds of this province, the 6.2 million people, of half a billion dollars last year alone, which is in excess of the legal costs that lawyers would get dealing with tort actions. I mention that because, again, most of the discussions unfortunately were centred in that area, and it is a much broader problem. Subsequently, we had to deal with it in a much broader perspective, and deal with it I think we did.

To be a little more precise -- and I apologize, I really do. I feel badly that some members, particularly of the opposition, have had to resort to innuendo and mistruths and accusations, accusing not only members of my party but I think in a direct way all members of the House of having vested interests and of being in the pockets, if you will, of insurance companies. In my own case, in the last election I received $700 from insurance brokers.

I received as well at the same time over $2,600 from lawyers. So if indeed I am in the pockets of the people who support me legally during an election, obviously I am somewhat misdirected.

The opposition said we did not listen to the public. The bill that is before us today for third reading has a variety of changes, and indeed most of those changes are a direct result of what we heard and indeed what the committee heard. I have a long list of changes, but if I might, I will just pick out a few.

We have

section 242k that provides for a biannual review of the no-fault benefits schedule, to some degree a quasi-sunset review on its own.

Section 208c forces insurers to be fairer in their underwriting practices.

Section 231 a was a change that the cyclists of this province told us they wanted in order to provide them better protection. Indeed, we have accommodated them, again as a direct result of their presentation and solicitations during the public hearing process. Subsection 86(2) gives better protection to those in the motor vehicle accident claims fund, a situation that has developed as a result of the insurance crisis that in our view will be alleviated substantially as a result of the passage of Bill 68.

I could go on pointing out a number of other changes, particularly in this regard, but I would end this part by dealing essentially with one more, and that is

section 208a. This amendment requires insurers and brokers to give motorists fair and full notice of their intentions to change or not to renew a contract. I do not mind saying that this particular amendment was supported by just about everyone on the committee, and indeed was put forward initially and very strongly by the member for Welland-Thorold. So obviously when the member for Welland-Thorold speaks, to some degree we listen. Let’s look at those changes that matter most or that perhaps people can identify with more readily, and those are the changes dealing with the no-fault benefit schedule.

Indeed, we have made some substantive changes as a result of the input during the public hearings and elsewhere.

The first one is that the weekly indemnity for loss of income has been increased from $450 a week to $600 a week, an increase of, I believe, 329% over the present no-fault benefit schedule. The $600, as most members of the House will know, is the equivalent of approximately $39,000 of income in the province of Ontario, and that figure, I am told by Statscan and by my capable staff, will encompass approximately 85% of the wage earners in the province of Ontario. So a substantial portion of people will be covered in a very direct and positive way, and indeed a tremendous increase over the original no-fault benefit

schedule amount of $450.

The monthly cap on the long-term care benefits was originally $1,500. We were told by many presenters that indeed it was insufficient; that if someone needs a long-term care benefit, $1500 a month will not satisfy his needs. Indeed, the people involved in the accidents who need that care would be at a loss for appropriate attention. We reacted by increasing it -- in fact, doubling it -- to $3000 a month. So indeed we have listened on this occasion, as well, in particular dealing with the long-term care benefit amount.

Persons injured in the course of employment will now be eligible for no-fault benefits if they elect to sue in court. The no-fault insurer will pay no-fault benefits, pending a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal over entitlement to workers’ compensation. In other words, the injured will get ready and quick access to rehabilitation, something that many doctors, therapists and psychologists say is a necessity if people are to get the appropriate rehabilitation they need.

Changes have been made to the way income replacement benefits are calculated for small businesses and farmers, something we talked about during clause-by-clause. They will not be required to deduct ongoing expenses such as rent when calculating their income. Of course, this will increase the level of benefits that are paid to them. I know my friend the member for Wellington, who has been an advocate of that particular area, will be pleased with that change.

Psychological services and physiotherapy are now specifically recognized under the medical rehabilitation benefit.

The term “psychological adviser” has been specifically recognized for the purposes of providing a statement that medical rehabilitation services are necessary and furnishing a certificate as to the nature of an injury.

The provision that insurers do not have to pay for services provided by OHIP has been modified to require payment where the services are not reasonably available. This will prevent insureds from being forced to wait or travel to a different locale to receive necessary services.

As well, a provision has been added to include payments for damage to clothing as a result of the accident. Some of these are minor changes, but indeed important changes none the less. I could go on and on with the changes, but my time is somewhat limited.

My friend the member for Welland-Thorold had a telethon the other day. Let me dispel concern that has been expressed to me by some people, which is that if you are heading to Florida or the United States, you had better not get in an accident, because you will not be covered. You will be standing in a foreign country without any protection. That is pure horsefeathers, totally unsubstantiated.

Under the Ontario motorist protection plan, there will be no effect on the rights of Ontario drivers. In fact, the only change will be that Ontario residents insured here will be able to collect increased no-fault benefits even if they are injured in the United States.

I also heard my friend the member from Welland-Thorold, kindly referred to as the Jimmy Bakker of the back benches, say that you will have to use up all your income replacement and sick leave benefits at work before no-fault benefits kick in. That is an unequivocally wrong statement. No-fault benefits will pay up to 80% of the pre-accident income, but most income replacement plans cannot touch that. So even if a plan is in place, no-fault will top up the existing plan. In the case where an insured admittedly has the option not to use sick leave benefits, the entire 80% will be applied to the income replacement.

When permitted, in eases of collective bargaining agreements and so forth, that individual can indeed take leave without absence so that the sick leave benefits will not have to be utilized.

I could probably spend an afternoon, quite frankly, with a filibuster of my own trying to dispel many of the pieces of misinformation and innuendo as alluded to by members of the opposition. I respect their right to give their point of view. In my view, and I say it to the 6.2 million drivers and potential drivers in Ontario, this is a very comprehensive, important and dramatic change in the way we do the business of auto insurance in Ontario.

Again, most people will not fully understand it, notwithstanding all they read about, or if they were watching the debate here in the House, if indeed you could call it a debate. They will not really understand it until, God forbid, they get into an accident themselves or when they renew their insurance.

But I say to the people of Ontario without hesitation again, that they should remember why we are in this in the first place, and that is the price problem. If the government of Ontario did nothing, if Bill 68 were not passed, not only will we have an availability problem but, on average, and most rational people will accept this, everyone’s auto insurance premium will go up at least 30%. As it is, with the passage of Bill 68 -- and you take the government to task -- on average, we will be looking at 8% increases in the Metropolitan Toronto and Hamilton-Wentworth areas and 0% increases everywhere else. Again, those are average increases.

Finally, I want to address something that has bothered me personally, quite frankly, not to the extent that I am losing any sleep, but to the extent that being a member of Parliament often puts different thoughts in individuals’ minds. The one thought that bothered me was: “Well, you have got a very large majority. There are 93 Liberals, and indeed the opposition has much smaller numbers. Indeed you are arrogant, you are not listening and you are going to do whatever you want.”

Being an advocate of the underdog and indeed, being an advocate of the underprivileged, it bothers me when I hear that type of remark made. I acknowledge, and certainly this government acknowledges, and I know my colleagues would be supportive of this, the fact that we have been given a very large majority, a trust that we appreciate in the belief that indeed the people of Ontario wanted change, that they wanted us to do what is, quite frankly, not arrogant, although the perception, the optics of it are that because we have such a large number, no matter what we do, it is arrogant. I do not believe that in dealing with Bill 68 my government has been arrogant.

I would say in conclusion, finally, that if the optics and the perception are that we have an overwhelming majority, 93 members, and that by allowing all the debate we have on this issue and having come up with time allocation we are giving the perception of being arrogant, of being too forceful, that is unavoidable and, unfortunately, a reality. But the greater shame, in my view, and the greater reality perhaps, is that by not doing finally what we were elected to do, by not passing legislation that is in the best interests, in our view, of the people of Ontario, we are letting those people down, and there is a greater shame in not fulfilling the mandate we were elected to fulfil.

I say to the members of the House, to the people of Ontario, to the insurance companies and all the drivers and the passengers, I truly believe that Bill 68 will result in a fairer, more affordable, more equitable and indeed better way of driving and acquiring insurance and, God forbid, dealing with those who get into an accident.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Cureatz): I would like to thank the honourable member and remind everyone that under the time allocation proceedings, if I might refer it to you, as of Wednesday 9 May 1990, after the first paragraph, “That one further sessional day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill,” that is, the bill before us, Bill 68. “At 5:45 pm on such day, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further amendment or debate.”

I wanted to bring that to everyone’s attention because, of course, we have the opportunity for questions and responses. But, if members will recall, we ran into similar difficulties a couple of weeks ago. If we go into questions and responses, it then takes away from, or is added to, that time that each party is allocated for this afternoon’s discussion. Does the parliamentary assistant follow me?

Mr Ferraro: We have agreed, Mr Speaker. There is no question.

The Acting Speaker: Then upon direction of the House, is it agreed that the time shall be divided as is and that there will be no questions or responses? That is what I wanted to clarify.

Mrs Marland: Yes.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you very much. The member for Cambridge.

Mr Farnan: It is very important that we realize the situation right here. We must get the facts straight. And the fact is simply this: The insurance industry bought this legislation from the Liberal government. There is hardly a Liberal member in this House who has not received funding from the auto insurance industry, and hardly a member of the committee that dealt with Bill 68, all of them, again, receiving funding.

Not only did the Liberal members receive funding, but the auto insurance industry during the last election actually put a piece of literature into the mailboxes of every riding in which a New Democrat was running and had the opportunity to win the election. The auto insurance industry put this into every household. Basically, they distorted the facts. They sank a great deal of money in printing and mailing costs to get this literature into the homes of every household and, in so doing, to ensure the election of the Liberal government.

I say, in all due respect, that it really does not matter to the auto insurance industry whether it is the Liberals or the Conservatives that form the government. Members will be well aware that the Conservative Party in power took very good care of the auto insurance industry, and premiums escalated just fine during that period of time. But when it became clear that the Conservatives were on their way out and that they would be replaced, it became very important to the auto insurance industry that they be replaced by an equally willing puppet.

Therefore, they put their trust in the Liberals, who they were sure they could trust, because once you take off the blue tie and put on the red tie, nothing else changes. They will continue to look after their friends in the business sector.

Indeed, this was an investment by the insurance industry, a very nominal investment on its part, literally hundreds of thousands of dollars. But when you think of the payoff, when you think of what they are getting today, they are getting in this legislation more than they even asked for. The auto insurance industry investment has come back in spades.

Ontario drivers will be paying out more and getting less. Consumer advocate Ralph Nader described the Liberal scheme as selling half a loaf for more than the original cost of the whole loaf.

This Liberal scheme will not provide adequate benefits for accident victims. In fact, their so-called no-fault plan would limit the right of over 90% of car accident victims to sue. A victim would have to be dead, or very close to it, before he or his family could sue. Those with less severe injuries will receive benefits that are inadequate. While other no-fault plans also limit the right to sue, accident benefits are high enough to properly compensate the victims. Under this Liberal plan, benefits are inadequate and will deteriorate over time because they are not indexed to inflation.

This is a bonanza for the insurance companies, which want to keep benefits as low as possible. No wonder the insurance industry is delighted with this Liberal proposal. No wonder they are happy with the investment that they have made in the Liberal Party. No wonder that today they are already signing the cheques for the next election to ensure the return of Liberals who will do the bidding of the auto insurance industry.

Members should remember too that the new insurance commission to be set up under the Liberal plan will not have the power to set rates but only to review them -- another major concession to the insurance industry, and it will cost consumers dearly.

If this not enough, there is a further $143-million giveaway to the auto insurance companies. Auto insurers will no longer have to pay $46 million to $48 million for medicare annually or the $95 million for the 3% tax levied on insurance -- all of this to get an agreement from the insurers not to raise rates any higher than 8% in 1990. We are talking about a history of escalating rates over the last three years since this government obtained power.

On 7 September 1987, the Premier -- in Cambridge -- said, “I have a very specific plan to reduce auto insurance premiums.”

What sort of plan is this? Premiums have taken off, benefits are now being cut. We are being told that premiums will continue to rise, and not just by 8% in the Metropolitan Toronto area. You can talk to the people at the Cambridge market. What is happening with their auto insurance premiums in 1990, if they can get auto insurance? They are going out of reach.

What will happened to rates in 1990? They will continue to escalate, and the pressure to increase rates will resurface in 1991.

So there is no affordability within the system, and there are no regulations that will keep some sense of order on the insurance company, because there is no power to restrict. The insurance commission can only review the increased rates and not interfere with them.

The reality of the matter is that the people of Ontario dearly want to trust their politicians, but the people of Ontario, in reality, are becoming even more cynical, because unless you can correlate the word of the politician with his actions, then the people of Ontario have to say to themselves, “Where is the trust in this relationship?” When any politician faces the public and says, “This is where I stand; this is what I will do when elected,” the people have the right to expect that is indeed what will happen.

When the Premier, who should be the role model for all politicians at the provincial level, stands in front of the populace and says, “I have a very specific plan to reduce rates,” and then does exactly the opposite, then of course the people of Ontario have the right to be cynical, to distrust, not to place their confidence in a premier who would make such statements and fail to deliver upon them.

I suspect there is a collective wisdom in these chambers that we are about to embark on another election, and during that election the Premier will be dressed up in red and he will go around the province flipping hamburgers and it will be the same approach: You can talk to Dave; open, accessible Dave; honest Dave. The Premier will make promises, but what trust can the people of Ontario have in this man with his tie undone and his sleeves rolled up as he flips the hamburgers and makes his promises? What trust can the people of Ontario have when a promise like this, so clearly stated, is broken totally and absolutely?

We are coming to the payoff. If this legislation is enacted, the auto insurance industry’s investment in the Liberal Party will result in millions of dollars in increased profits, and these profits come from the lower benefits for accident victims as premiums continue to escalate.

The old axiom of “He who pays the piper calls the tune” is very much in evidence throughout this whole process. The people of Ontario see it very clearly. The Liberals have been greased financially by the insurance industry, and in return we have the legislation today emanating from the Liberal government majority that will in turn grease the auto insurance industry. It is very straightforward. The auto insurance industry looks after the Liberals, the Liberals look after the auto insurance industry, and the group that pays the price for this particular bondage between big business and the Liberal government is the driving public of Ontario.

It is a sad day for Ontario, but rest assured, Mr Speaker, there is a political price to pay. As you will notice, they are not wearing their red ties today because they are probably a bit embarrassed by this legislation. But when they go t