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

October 12, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

INSURANCE LEGISLATION

ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

INSURANCE LEGISLATION

ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD AMENDMENT ACT

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

COMMERCIAL CONCENTRATION LEVY

HOSPITAL FINANCING

TEENS AGAINST CRACK AND COCAINE

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

NURSING HOMES

PETERBOROUGH THEATRE GUILD

EMERGENCY HEALTH SERVICES

TAX INCREASES

LANDLORDS’ RESTRICTIONS ON PETS

ESCAPE OF INMATES

ORAL QUESTIONS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

HOSPITAL SERVICES

ST LAWRENCE SQUARE/ATARATIRI

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

CONTAMINATED SOIL

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

ESCAPE OF INMATES

DRUG ABUSE

CONNAUGHT LABORATORIES LTD

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

CRIME PREVENTION

PETITIONS

WASTE DISPOSAL

CHRONIC CARE

COMMERCIAL CONCENTRATION LEVY

COUNTY OF SIMCOE

NATUROPATHY

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

CITY OF GUELPH ACT, 1989

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION LABOUR DISPUTES SEULEMENT ACT, 1989

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

The Deputy Speaker: May I bring the following to the attention of the members this morning: As you are aware, we have some new standing orders. For the benefit of the members, I shall read standing order 94(c).

“The time available for debate on each item of business under this standing order shall be apportioned as follows:

“(i) 10 minutes for the member moving a motion;

“(ii) a period of 15 minutes to be allotted in rotation for a representative or representatives of each of the recognized parties in the House. The mover of the motion may speak a second time during the time provided for a representative or representatives of the party of which he or she is a member;

“(iii) two minutes for a reply by the member moving the motion.”

As all members are aware of the new standing orders, I just thought I would repeat that for their benefit, especially for this first time.

INSURANCE LEGISLATION

Mr Furlong moved resolution 20:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that existing insurance legislation has not undergone a comprehensive review in many years and that the realities of international competition require the updating of statutes to ensure both consumer protection and fair competition in the insurance field, and recognizing that the breakdown of the so-called four pillars necessitates the updating of our statutes to ensure continued confidence in Ontario’s commercial marketplace and that continued discussions concerning insurance issues at both the federal and provincial levels are necessary, and further recognizing the desire by the banks to enter the field of marketing insurance products, the Minister of Financial Institutions should immediately embark upon a comprehensive review of existing insurance legislation to ensure consumer protection and continued competitiveness in the marketing of insurance products in Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Furlong has moved the private resolution standing in his name. Pursuant again to standing order 94(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Furlong: To say that insurance is a vital part of our modern society would be an understatement. For most residents of Ontario, the availability of insurance makes it possible to own property, to own and operate a vehicle and to run our businesses without risk of serious financial loss. As the Insurance Bureau of Canada puts it: “Insurance substitutes certainty for uncertainty.” It makes it possible to substitute a small but definite cost, the premium, for a large and uncertain loss.

Insurance companies as well as other financial institutions have been among the most highly regulated industries in Canada. The reason is simple. This industry has played a vital role in Ontario’s economy and has been required to maintain a financial trust on behalf of ordinary consumers. In 1988, there were 558 insurance companies licensed to operate in Ontario. Combined, they wrote over $14 billion of premiums. The industry employs approximately 76,000 people.

Consumer and investor alike have used the Insurance Act as a security blanket. Very strict rules on ownership and restricted investment opportunity gave the impression of a blue-chip security net. The Insurance Act provided investment security even in the construction of wills and trusts. We must now, however, reflect on this security blanket. Is it still there?

For years, financial services in Canada have been provided through the traditional four pillars: banks, trust companies, investment dealers and insurance companies. A change is occurring. The ongoing breakdown of the so-called four pillars necessitates the updating of our statutes to ensure continued confidence in Ontario’s commercial marketplace and consumer protection.

I want to take a moment to briefly review what has been happening in the insurance industry. Recent federal changes in the regulation of financial institutions indicate that federally regulated insurance companies operating in Canada will be allowed to be involved in a broad new range of activities in the future. The banking industry has made it clear that it wants expanded powers which include the retailing of insurance products. Perhaps the federal government may deal with this matter through its update of the Bank Act.

However, if the revised legislation does not preclude all involvement of banks in the marketing of insurance in the future, it may become necessary for the province to address the issue in order to ensure that consumer protection is well served. It will be necessary for Ontario to ensure that its residents are provided with appropriate consumer protection. This must be addressed by way of information disclosure and education, fair marketing practices and distribution systems and access to just remedies and redress.

The ongoing challenge is to ensure that insurance is available to consumers who contract for it and that insurers are financially capable of paying claims of policyholders. In December 1986, a policy paper entitled New Directions for the Financial Sector was tabled in the House of Commons. The purpose of the policy paper was to provide a framework for new federal legislation designed to extend powers, to change the ownership provisions, to provide tougher regulation and a more effective supervisory system and to clarify rules on foreign participation of and for banks, trusts, loan and insurance companies and other federally regulated financial institutions.

The key objectives behind the policy paper are to promote competition and innovation, thereby enhancing options available to consumers and broadening sources of credit for individuals in business; to ensure the soundness of financial institutions and improve consumer protection; to control self-dealing; to guard against abuses arising from conflict of interest; to promote international competitiveness; to foster world-class institutions.

In 1987 Ontario reacted with the passage of Bill 116,

An Act to revise the Loan and Trust Corporations Act. Our province acted as a leader in introducing modern legislation governing loan and trust corporations. This massive financial deregulation threw open the province’s stock and investment business to banks, trust companies, giant foreign corporations and other interests. This act was the product of years of consultation with legislators, industry members, professional groups and other governments. This act is considered to be the most comprehensive of its kind in Canada. It has served as a model for other jurisdictions.

The new provincial act balances the need for change in today’s economic climate with the need for control of areas that could lead to unsound business practices. It strengthens, for example, areas related to depositor protection while at the same time providing the corporations with greater latitude in investment choice.

One might argue that the enactment of Bill 116, along with the federal government initiatives, spells the final collapse of the traditional four-pillars approach to regulating financial institutions, in which stockbrokers, banks, trust companies and insurance firms were prevented from invading each others’ businesses. I might note in passing how quickly big banks moved in to acquire large brokerage houses after the passage of this act.

The expansion of the powers of the various financial institutions recognizes that different types of financial institutions are now offering similar products, structured differently, due merely to regulatory constraints. The removal of the barriers between the various types of financial institutions and restrictions on common ownership is contributing to the disappearance of the four-pillars concept and may allow for the implementation of full-service financial supermarkets in Canada.

The change in the financial structure of insurance companies and other financial institutions has been significant. What then is the impact on the insurance industry and the insurance consumer? What details should be included in the provincial legislation governing financial institutions? Should financial institutions other than insurance companies be permitted to retail insurance products? If the answer is yes, then how do we address competition, service to customers, potential customer abuse, conflict of interest and confidentiality of information?

No one can dispute that there is a demonstrated need and a demand for a comprehensive review of the Insurance Act. Although there have been numerous amendments to it over the years, they have been done on an as-needed basis. The Insurance Act has never been comprehensively reviewed since its enactment over 50 years ago. There are a number of antiquated provisions in this legislation. It is not well organized and it does not include a modern corporate governance framework for the operation of insurance companies. In addition, the financial regulation, market distribution and consumer protection areas require a policy review and legislative overhaul.

The insurance industry itself has acknowledged that a major revision of the Insurance Act is necessary. In 1985 the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association Inc made a submission on the revision of the Insurance Act. This summer the Ministry of Financial Institutions called for consultation on proposals for life insurance agent reform. This model for qualification on licensing of life insurance agents is presently out for public review and input. Current standards have been in practice for over 40 years.

An insurance review would help to ensure that issues such as this are adequately studied. With the changes in the financial services industry, the nature of the insurance business is changing rapidly and insurance review could help to develop a new definition of insurance to provide a focus and direction for the regulation of insurance services in the future.

If the banks are permitted to network the sale of insurance, it may be necessary for the province to introduce consumer protection measures to ensure sufficient consumer disclosure, fair competition and consumer choice.

In addition to the Insurance Act, the insurance division of the Ministry of Financial Institutions also administers seven other statutes. All of these statutes need to be analysed to determine whether they are still required, whether they require updating or overhaul and whether they could be incorporated into an omnibus insurance bill.

It is clear that Canada is in the midst of a number of important changes with respect to the regulation of financial institutions. Insurance companies operating in Ontario will be allowed to be involved in a broad new range of activities. This will result in many new and challenging opportunities. I urge members to support this resolution.

Mr Kormos: I have no hesitation in supporting this resolution. I am going to vote in support of it and I am hoping that as many members of this Legislature as can be present will do so, because the issue of consumer protection, when it comes to insurance, has been foremost on our party’s agenda for a long, long time now and certainly has been the subject matter of much questioning and debate right here in this very Legislature.

Indeed, it was the government’s own minister back in the spring of 1987, when he announced what was heralded as some sort of, albeit half-baked, resolution to the ills of the auto insurance industry, which was going to be some relief for consumers in that regard, who said the auto insurance industry is treating consumers shabbily in this province. The government, as a result of the pressure put on it by the opposition, because this was still during the period of the accord, made a number of promises.

Those promises, of course, peaked in the three days before the general election in 1987 when the Premier (Mr Peterson) promised that he had a specific plan to reduce auto insurance premiums here in Ontario. So we are very concerned about the protection of auto insurance consumers and indeed think that a major overhaul is necessary if drivers in Ontario are going to be protected and treated fairly.

I have to give some examples of the sorts of things I am speaking of. Let me tell members once again about a young man, 24 years old, from Thorold, Gino Pasquariello, licensed for eight years, works as a letter carrier. He had been insured with Commercial Union for two years -- no claims, no Highway Traffic Act violations, no accidents -- but had the misfortune in March 1989 to strike a child who was at a school crossing, a child who according to the police investigation ran out past the school crossing guard.

This situation was indeed unfortunate. We are told there were some very minor, readily treated injuries to the child, but one in which the Niagara Regional Police held there was no criminal or Highway Traffic Act liability on Mr Pasquariello’s part. No charges were laid, no writ and no notice of any pending action were served on Mr Pasquariello. It was an accident for which it would appear, according to the observations of all reasonable people, that he was not at fault and for which there was going to be no claim made against his insurer or against him.

The young man, with eight years of driving experience and two years with that insurance company, had been paying premiums in the range of $600 or $700 a year for the one vehicle that he was driving at the time of the accident, and he was told by his broker that as a result of that, Commercial Union was not going to cover him any more.

We are not talking about a person who has had a plethora of claims made against him or who has demonstrated bad driving. The option that was given to him was very limited, because he was told that his new premium was going to be $2,964, certainly a dramatic increase, some 400 per cent over what he had been paying mere weeks earlier. Here is a young man who feels completely betrayed by the absence of any consumer protection for drivers here in Ontario.

He contacted me and I raised this matter here in the Legislature with the minister on 7 June. I raised it again with the minister in committee on 19 June. The minister assured me he would use his offices to come to the aid of Mr Pasquariello. The impression one got was that he, the minister, recognized this as an injustice and an abuse by Commercial Union, in this case an auto insurer, but that he, the minister, would come to Mr Pasquariello’s aid. At the time, I certainly appreciated that.

I told young Mr Pasquariello from Thorold that the minister was going to help him, that the minister had told me that he, the minister, was going to help Mr Pasquariello and that it was a simple matter of being patient and waiting.

That was back in March of this year, but as recently as yesterday, Jack McKay, a 40-year-old driver from Albany Avenue here in Toronto called me and was quite disturbed. He operated a 1985 Honda Accord, was insured with Wawanesa Insurance since 1981 and was buying from a broker here in Toronto. His current renewal date is November 1989. Last year he paid $717 for his insurance.

Once again, Mr McKay, a 40-year-old driver with some significant years of driving experience, had not acquired a highway traffic record. He had made some claims against his policy for vandalism and theft from his vehicle. As far as he was concerned, that was why he was paying premiums, so that if there was damage done to his vehicle or contents were stolen through no fault of his, he could seek compensation. He acknowledged that he recently was involved in a traffic accident, a collision. There was no personal injury and he told me the property damage was modest.

He was told that as a result of that final claim, Wawanesa will not renew his policy in November of this year when it becomes renewable. He had been paying a premium of $7 17, one that he realized was a considerable premium but none the less one that he had budgeted around.

It was not a matter of Wawanesa’s saying, “Look, you’ve made a number of claims and now you are going to suffer surcharges as a result of having made those claims.” It was a matter of Wawanesa’s saying, “No, we are not going to insure you any more,” basically dropping Mr McKay like the proverbial hot potato.

The shocking thing was that his broker, H. Later and Co, shopped around for him, as brokers tend to do, and found coverage for him, very much like Mr Pasquariello, who ended up being quoted a price of almost $3,000. Mr McKay was quoted the best price they could find: $2,586; again, almost a 400 per cent differential between what he had been paying and what he was expected to pay.

What the broker did not tell him at first instance was that this was not an insurance company, this was Facility Association, just as with Mr Pasquariello; that indeed Mr McKay was not going to be able to buy insurance from a regular insurer at definable rates -- never mind reasonable, we are long past that -- but at definable rates.

What we find is that the Facility Association has enjoyed huge increases in the numbers of drivers that it insures. Indeed, in January 1988 there was a value of premiums in the range of $13 million by Facility Association. In 1989, for the same month, it had increased to $21,622,000; a significant differential, a significant increase, and obviously a reflection of the numbers of people who are no longer allowed to be insured, who are being turned down arbitrarily and without notice by regular insurers.

Once again, having heard of the minister’s willingness to assist, I wrote yesterday to the minister outlining Mr McKay’s dilemma, his being forced into Facility Association, his being forced into a premium range of 400 per cent greater than what he had been paying previously, premiums jumping from $717 to $2,586; again, a good driver, one who has not suffered a plethora of at-fault claims, one who has conducted himself responsibly, one who is being abused -- no two ways about it -- as so many others in this province are, by the auto insurance industry.

I sent this letter to the minister, hoping he would show the same enthusiasm as he did back in the early part of this year about Mr Pasquariello, but my optimism has become somewhat feckless, because indeed the response to Mr Pasquariello’s difficulty down in Thorold has been -- well, it has been less than promising. No two ways about it, the word processors were in gear and were pounding out the typewritten material.

In July, the minister wrote to me thanking me for telling him about Mr Pasquariello, and indeed writing to Mr Pasquariello indicating that I had written to the minister and that he, the minister, was going to look into it and that he was referring the matter to his superintendent of insurance. Quite frankly, my impression of the minister, my appreciation of him increased -- albeit momentarily, because the net result in September of this year was a big zero. Indeed, Mr Pasquariello got what is the standard form letter from the superintendent of insurance, which basically says : “Too bad, so sad.

You’re on your own, pal. You’ve got your problems with the insurance industry. We know we’re the superintendent of insurance, but we’re not going to get involved. As I say, too bad, so sad. You’re on your own.”

What this means is that the consumer protection agency, in effect the superintendent of insurance, failed Mr Pasquariello totally. As toothless as an agency could ever be, it gummed the issue for a while and then spat it out back into Mr Pasquariello’s lap.

So indeed we do need legislation in this province that protects consumers with respect to auto insurance. We need legislation that ensures that people can obtain insurance affordably, which ensures that people will not be arbitrarily denied insurance, as so many tens of thousands of people in this province have been in the recent past. The farthest thing in the world from meeting those requirements is the new so-called Ontario motorist protection plan. It is just incredible that the government, that the minister, would try to pass this off as some sort of protection plan.

This is the most offensive bit of legislation to pull the rug out from underneath drivers, as if they needed that at this point in our auto insurance history.

We are talking about legislation proposed by this government that means that most people will get nothing, absolutely no compensation for pain and suffering. It means that most people who are employees will be unable to recover their full loss of wages. It means that those people who are self-employed and who are innocent victims of motor vehicle accidents, self-employed people, small business people, will be unable to recover any loss of profit and any losses associated with the disruption of their businesses.

These are the sort of people who will end up losing their businesses, be forced into bankruptcy and be entitled to recover nothing, albeit they are innocent victims of bad drivers, of drunk drivers, of careless drivers, of negligent drivers. That is what the government’s new legislation is doing for small businessmen who will be the innocent victims of these types of bad drivers.

We are talking about legislation which will guarantee that people will be unable to recover any compensation for many serious physical injuries, including broken bones, scarring, torn muscles and the pain and suffering that accompanies these and other injuries. This is legislation that tells you that you cannot, you will not, you are not going to be permitted to recover any compensation for emotional or psychological injuries, such as depression, shock or anxiety.

This is legislation that guarantees -- some guarantee -- that no matter what you earn, the most you can recover is $450 per week, notwithstanding that your income or wages could be higher than that and notwithstanding that your expenses, your cost of living, your mortgage payments, what it takes at the supermarket to put food on the table for your family, for your wife and kids has not been reduced. This legislation is going to guarantee that even you as an innocent victim in a motor vehicle accident will not be able to cover your actual loss in wages.

This is the last thing in the world that could be called a motorist protection plan. Indeed, as I say, it is offensive and completely unacceptable. We know what it is. It is the arm-in-arm dance with the auto insurance industry here in Ontario. What the government is telling the auto insurance industry is, “We’ll give you, the auto insurance boys, everything you ever wanted,” and what it is telling the drivers of this province is, “You’re going to get screwed once again.”

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member’s time is up.

Mrs Cunningham: I would like to congratulate the member for Durham Centre (Mr Furlong) on his resolution before the House today. For certain, it is a resolution that the Progressive Conservative Party will strongly support.

When we are looking at a comprehensive review of Ontario’s insurance legislation, in order to ensure consumer protection and continued competitiveness in the marketing of insurance products in Ontario, the member for Durham Centre has brought to all of our attention, I think, a lot of issues that do affect the marketplace and do affect people’s lives directly. It is much deeper than just looking at what the insurance industry is all about and what the role of the provincial and the federal governments is all about in the marketplace. It is one that directly affects the lives of families.

In taking a look at the history that is changing so rapidly before our eyes as we look at the four financial pillars in this country -- banks, trust companies, securities dealers and insurance companies -- and the move to global financial markets over the past decade, we are looking at a challenge that has presented opportunities for Canada’s financial services industry and continuing challenges for government.

The four financial pillars are governed by a myriad of federal and provincial legislation. Over the summer, many of us watched the activities of just the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario as it tried to present its concerns before the House of Commons finance committee chaired by Mr Blenkarn. As the other activities came to the light of the public over the summer months with regard to the selling of insurance by banks, we know that the public indeed needs our help in coming to some solution, given these changes.

Under a series of decisions at both levels of government, the structure of Canada’s financial industry has changed dramatically, more quickly than legislation has been able to respond. Canada’s banks are now owners of brokerage firms, and insurance and trust companies are being forged into financial conglomerates often owned by nonfinancial companies. The system has certainly taken a different road.

Before deregulation, the four pillars were restricted to their core business, and cross-ownerships, of course, were not permitted. As the different institutions’ product lines merge, the federal and provincial governments clash over who should regulate what. We should be taking a very strong position on this deregulation -- or reregulation, as some prefer to call it.

The matter is of special importance to Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, homes to Canada’s largest financial markets. Approximately 65 per cent of Canada’s savings deposits come from Ontario.

Speaking in the Globe and Mail on 20 March 1989 about Ontario’s patchwork of rules and regulations governing its financial sector, Ontario’s Deputy Minister of Financial Institutions, Robert Simpson, said, “When you make sense of all this, give me a call.” How cryptic. There are conflicting and overlapping rules which are leading to inefficiencies in the system and reducing the abilities of companies to compete internationally.

For example, Quebec charter firms operating in Ontario cannot buy commercial companies, lend money to affiliates or buy affiliates’ shares even though Quebec laws allow such transactions. And the stage goes on.

Continued efforts are needed to better harmonize the approaches of the federal and provincial governments and their supervisory bodies to a broad range of issues in the financial sector, issues such as ownership of financial institutions, conflict-of-interest rules, ethical standards, and levels of adequacy to protect institutions and their depositors.

The Economic Council of Canada has urged the federal and provincial governments to harmonize rules and establish minimum regulatory standards for all financial institutions, and I underline minimum. The council proposed a system similar to Europe’s 1992 open-borders plan where nations can agree on minimum standards on issues such as solvency but also mutually recognize each other’s rules and differences.

It is really important, as we get into new, meaningful legislation, that we do not make it more difficult for Canadians and Ontarians to be competitive.

In securities regulation, there could be a national framework on standards for capital adequacy, disclosure, prospectuses and other matters. And as mentioned in the resolution of the member for Durham Centre, banks are very eager to enter the field of marketing insurance products in Ontario.

I will refer back to my opening comments as we talked about the events from 17 May right up until the end of June. The Toronto-Dominion Bank announced in March, of course, its plans for a joint venture with the Simcoe and Erie General Insurance Co to market home owners’ products to the bank’s customers, something new in Ontario, something that the consumer was not aware could be supportive or not supportive with regard to conflicts of interest down the road with their own finances. And in May, the Bank of Nova Scotia announced a joint venture with the Canada Life Assurance Co to mass market home owners’ products to the bank’s customers.

Our existing insurance legislation has not undergone substantive review in quite a number of years. The Guardall and Coulter insurance fiascos are a sign of underlying problems in Ontario’s regulation of the insurance industry. We have innocent victims, who are called consumers, because we do not have legislation in place to protect the people we represent.

In closing, a review of the statutes with respect to consumer protection and fair competition provisions is long overdue, and the Progressive Conservative Party will in fact be supporting the resolution of the member for Durham Centre this morning.

Mr J. B. Nixon: I too would like to congratulate the member for Durham Centre, as I know him. He has brought a resolution to this chamber which I think is important and relevant and which deals with very significant issues.

The matter of legislation governing insurance companies is important to every consumer in Ontario. Unfortunately, in Ontario, the legislation which companies and consumers must deal with was written in the 1940s; indeed, some of it goes back to the previous century. In fact, I can tell you that federal laws are just as antiquated, just as out of date. Business pays millions to comply with outdated federal financial acts. The 57-year-old insurance act in Ottawa requires companies to keep their records on paper. The same act does not allow boards of directors to conduct meetings by way of telephone. So in fact we are dealing with out-of-date legislation not just in Ontario but in Canada.

The fact is, the legislation does not reflect the modern day realities of corporate law, it does not reflect the modern day realities of global markets and it does not reflect the realities of the revolution that is taking place in our capital markets.

In the past, the capital markets and financial institutions have been orderly, structured; they have been compartmentalized; they have been heavily regulated; and they have been protected against overlap and intrusion by foreign owners. Rules were erected to protect domestic companies within each of the four separate pillars.

The banks were restricted to deposit-taking and lending; trust companies were restricted to fiduciary activities; the insurance industry was restricted to offering insurance protection; and finally, securities dealers, the fourth pillar, were restricted to underwriting and securities trading.

In fact, what is happening today is a revolution in the financial markets. The four pillars are merging. Many say the four pillars are crumbling. For instance, in Ontario and Canada, banks can now own securities dealers, and they are taking up that opportunity. Insurance companies can now own securities dealers and, for whatever reason, they have not taken up that opportunity. There are many other examples.

One of the attractive attributes of this merging of the pillars, the crumbling of the pillars, that is promised to us as consumers is the opportunity for one-stop shopping, where we can buy our securities and our insurance, we can do our banking and our trust activities in one shop, under one roof, In fact, the market is leading in this respect. Large financial groupings are being built in the United States. Prudential-Bache and American Express are one example, Aetna is another example. In Canada, Trilon Financial Corp and the Laurentian Group Corp in Quebec are taking up that opportunity to offer one-stop financial shopping.

The deregulation and the merger of these four pillars none the less is being driven by the industry. There is very little evidence that there is consumer demand and that the deregulation and the new ways of offering services are being driven by consumer demand.

So we have this deregulation and merging of the four pillars occurring. At the same time, the regional and local markets in the financial institutions industry are being subsumed into one global market. The globalization of the financial markets is being fuelled by developments in electronic communications, computerization, interlisted securities, interlinks between markets and securities markets, investment mobility -- capital can move just about anywhere on this planet now -- and incredible surplus imbalances between countries, Japan being a good example.

The net result is that we have got a global market of one-stop financial offerings. What does this all mean, and has the industry benefited from the partial deregulation which has occurred to date and the merger of the four pillars? I suggest that the benefits may not have been as great as they were thought to be.

For instance, look at the federal scene after three major policy proposals, a set of draft legislation and five national studies. One remembers Barb McDougall’s green paper and Tom Hockin’s blue paper and the papers that went on and on, and draft legislation that has been put before us with the goal of breaking down the barriers among banks, trusts, insurance and securities companies in order to bring them up to date with the global market, planning to give consumers more competition and convenience of multiple financial services under one roof. Very little evidence of that reality is available on the street for consumers.

In fact, after all the studies and the draft legislation, very little change has taken place at the federal level, partially because the government has been changing its mind so often. Key issues of corporate concentration, commercial linkages and who will sell insurance have not been answered at the federal level where the leadership on this issue should be. For consumers, the regulatory morass renders a complex industry even more complex. For the industry, I think it is fair to quote Tom Di Giacomo, president and chief executive officer of Manufacturers Life Insurance.

When he talks about deregulation, his comment is simply, “It’s a mess.” The state of deregulation is at best in limbo and at worst in chaos.

I suggest to members that so far the industry has not benefited from partial deregulation. I next ask, “Has the consumer benefited?” I think I have already indicated my bias. The consumer has no apparent benefit to date. None the less, important issues are being raised, questions like who should sell insurance. Should the banks sell insurance or should the brokers sell insurance? I suggest that we have to think about whether banks should be selling insurance, because banks have never sold insurance before. They do not know the insurance product. They do not know what advice should be given to a consumer.

They may have a valid argument, but we have to answer the question first and we have to be concerned about the interests of the consumer.

In any event, the deregulation that is taking place has produced a regulatory quagmire, creating a very perplexing, complex financial system with different rules in different provinces. Quebec rules on ownership and corporate practices for insurance companies vary greatly from Ontario’s, as do the rules in British Columbia and in Ottawa. There is no harmony. What this means is between provinces and between businesses that carry on business in different provinces there is incredible confusion as to who can do what, who cannot do what and what these institutions should be doing.

The bottom line is that the consumer is not being well served at this point. For that reason, I urge the government of Ontario to get on with the review of the insurance legislation. I agree with the motion of the member for Durham Centre. I urge everyone in this House to support it.

The Deputy Speaker: The official opposition having used up all of its 15-minute period, and seeing no member of the third party present to speak, the rotation will then proceed to the member for Guelph.

Mr Ferraro: Somebody asked me when this session started what I thought it was going to be like. I said, “Well, from the Liberal government’s point of view, we want to adopt the Blue Jays philosophy.” He said, “What’s that?” I said, “Well, we’re going to try to remain hitless in crucial situations.”

I would say to my good friend the member for Durham Centre, who brought forward this motion, that keeping in line with that philosophy, if he was a pitcher for the Blue Jays, he just threw the NDP a lob and the Rickey Hendersons over there took a good cut at it.

All one has to do is mention the word “insurance” and members of the opposition -- and I do not blame them quite frankly -- will seize the opportunity and talk almost entirely on auto insurance. I will refrain from making any comment about their position vis-à-vis auto insurance and the position of Rickey Henderson from the Oakland Athletics by saying that they do not necessarily both exist in left field, but close.

History may be made today as well in that this may be the only time this session where we may have a unanimous vote on an issue dealing with the word “insurance.”

But to get to the point of the member for Durham Centre’s motion, and I think it is an important one, it is essentially a much-needed and good resolution. I will refrain from dealing essentially just with auto insurance because the motion itself is dealing with the insurance industry in general, and as commented by the member for York Mills (Mr J. B. Nixon) and others, the whole atmosphere or environment of financial institutions -- insurance companies certainly are included, being one of the largest pillars -- is changing dramatically.

I might say that the government recognized initially that the dependence upon the government to oversee insurance companies, trust companies, the stock exchange, credit unions and so forth is much more demanding. For that reason, I might point out, this government created a separate ministry. That of course is the ministry I am involved with under the capable leadership of the member for Bruce (Mr Elston), and it is the Ministry of Financial Institutions.

There is no question, for the benefit of some people who might not know this, that there are 558 insurance companies that do business in our province, and like trust companies, if you are going to do business in Canada or Ontario, you can be either federally incorporated or provincially incorporated. Of the 558 insurance companies that are doing business in Ontario, approximately 100 of them are provincially incorporated; what that means, of course, is essentially the place you go to in order to get a licence so you can do business.

There are reciprocal agreements, I might point out. If you are federally incorporated, you can do business in any province. If you are provincially incorporated you essentially start doing business, in this case in Ontario, and there are reciprocal agreements whereby you can do business in other provinces. There is a lot of day-to-day interaction, not only between federal and provincial regulatory authorities, financial institution ministries and so forth but also between the provincial institutions.

There is no question, it is very difficult to come up with standards, if you will, and to do away with some of the red tape, if you will. It has been obvious to the ministry that we have to do something in this regard. As we know, the lnsurance Act has not been changed in 50 years. The ministry has created, for the first time to my knowledge, a project review team. There are approximately 12 people in the ministry now who essentially devote most of their time to updating and looking at updating the Insurance Act.

Some people will say, “Well, how come it takes so long that you have to wait 50 years and indeed you have to develop your own project review team?”

I would point out that there has been some change in regulation. For example, we have dealt with and are dealing with issues now dealing with auto insurance. We have dealt with some issues pertaining to life and health and casualty regulation, but we have done it essentially on a need basis, and that is just the reality that politicians have to deal with. When there is a problem in the auto insurance industry, we as politicians have to do what we do best, and hopefully that is to regulate and look after the general good of the public we represent.

We have this group that is actively and, I might point out, very capably looking at the situation. We anticipate that we will have next year, I might point out, a consultation paper on changes to the insurance industry. Indeed, those people interested in this particular area can look forward to that.

I want to emphasize again that our main concern is dealing with consumer protection, as alluded to by other speakers; we are concerned indeed about the marketing practices of insurance companies. Certainly there is going to be much discussion as to whether or not insurance companies and/or in the context of banks changing their mandate, if you will, and client services, there will be a lot of discussion in that regard. I should also point out that another area of significant concern for the ministry is one of corporate governance. In essence, we have to modernize and update our regulatory control over the insurance companies.

I commend the member for Durham Centre for his motion. I think it is timely. I think it was long overdue. I only say, as a friend and colleague of his, we will look forward with anticipation to his involvement in those discussions.

The Deputy Speaker: I repeat, as the official opposition has used up its 15-minute period and there are no members of the third party wanting to complete their 15-minute allocation and the 15-minute period for the government party is completed, we shall now proceed with a windup from the member who moved the resolution.

Mr Furlong: First, I would like to thank the members who spoke in support of this resolution: the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr Kormos), the member for London North (Mrs Cunningham), the member for York Mills and the member for Guelph (Mr Ferraro). I cannot say that I was surprised that the member for Welland-Thorold would devote most of his time to auto insurance -- perhaps it was a lob, as my friend from Guelph indicated -- but I would like to thank the members for their thoughtful consideration and participation in this debate.

I believe that the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr Elston) should embark on this comprehensive review to pay particular attention to the issues that I raised previously and to some other issues that I did not have time to mention, such as simplification of insurance contracts, federal-provincial jurisdictional issues and, last but not least, the potential impact of the free trade agreement.

I believe that the review is necessary. I believe that only with the review will we ensure consumer protection. At the same time, I am mindful of the fact that our insurance companies must be competitive in the marketing of their insurance products but, as I have mentioned before, I do not think that it should be to the detriment of those who support these industries by purchasing their products.

As we have indicated, with the banks getting involved in the insurance industry, if that regulation is not in place, then as I mentioned before, I fear for such things as conflict of interest and confidentiality of information. If the banks get into auto insurance, what if they get into auto leasing; what conflicts would come out of that?

I believe the review is timely. I am glad to hear that the ministry is working towards this goal, and I certainly hope that it will be concluded within a very short time.

The Deputy Speaker: This completes the discussion for the first ballot item.

ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Mr Charlton moved second reading of Bill 59,

An Act to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act.

The Deputy Speaker: According to this new standing order 94(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes to make his presentation.

Mr Charlton: It is a pleasure once again to participate in the private members’ process here in the House, but I have to say right at the outset that it is somewhat frustrating to be dealing in October 1989 with the same bill that I debated here in the House last 24 November, a bill which was defeated by the government members on the basis that the minister, in very short order, was going to be bringing in a comprehensive package of amendments to the Power Corporation Act, the Ontario Energy Board Act and a number of other pieces of legislation dealing with the operations of Ontario Hydro and that comprehensive package has not materialized from this government a full year later.

I want to take a moment to emphasize the frustration that I feel because this is not just one year we are talking about since last November when we last debated my bill. It is, in fact, three years and four months of delay and dithering on the part of the government. It was July 1986 when the select committee tabled its report here in this House, a report that contained a number of recommendations, supported unanimously by the members of that select committee from all three parties.

During the debate last November I read into the record a number of those recommendations that dealt specifically with the piece of legislation I had brought forward. I am not going to take the time of this House to read those recommendations into the record again. Suffice it to say that those recommendations were carefully considered by the select committee after extensive testimony over a number of months in the spring of 1986 from expert witnesses who were brought in from all over the continent, expert witnesses who have experience in the matters at hand that do not exist here in the province of Ontario.

Bill 59, as this bill is known this year, was known last year as Bill 184, and it had another number the year before. A full year after the select committee report was tabled, having given the government one year to come forward with its position on those recommendations, I introduced my first version of this bill. A year later I introduced Bill 184, which we debated last fall. This year, unfortunately, I have found it necessary to reintroduce this bill yet again, because we still have not seen the comprehensive package from the government and from the Minister of Energy (Mrs McLeod).

This bill is a bill that is designed to do what the government says it wants to do, to make Ontario Hydro more accountable, to open up Ontario Hydro processes to public review and to bring Hydro processes more closely under government control and regulation. This bill proposes to change the Ontario Energy Board Act to give the board the authority, first of all, to regulate Hydro’s rate-setting. Presently, each year the Ontario Energy Board reviews Hydro’s rate proposals for the coming year, and each year the Ontario Energy Board makes a series of recommendations to the government.

It is interesting to note that the vast majority of the recommendations that the Ontario Energy Board makes are never complied with because they are simply recommendations; they do not have the authority to regulate.

Members of the House understand that Ontario Hydro’s rate structure is a rate structure that has been a matter of controversy in this province for some 20 or 25 years now. It is in fact a rate structure that imposes counterincentives to those that we profess should be in place. The rate structure of Ontario Hydro does not promote energy conservation in the province but in fact promotes energy waste. It forces those who use the least electricity to pay the highest rate and those who use the most electricity to pay the lowest rate.

This government has professed its desire to put in place programs to deal with the promotion of energy efficiency. One of the programs that could first and best be put into place is a serious alteration of the Ontario Hydro rate structure to promote energy efficiency in the province.

The bill goes on to suggest that it is time as well that we had review mechanisms in place in Ontario to look at matters other than just the rate structure, which the Ontario Energy Board now does, other matters being the relationship between demand and supply of electricity and the options around demand and supply questions.

Those are issues that deal with all the topics that have been current and controversial in the electrical energy sector, issues like energy conservation; energy efficiency; private parallel generation by small and medium generators across the province where that is economically viable and feasible; industrial cogeneration where industries are already consuming large amounts of very valuable and sometimes even polluting energy sources in their industrial process, but where there are all kinds of waste heat losses involved that could be used to generate steam and electricity with that steam.

There is the need to look at matters around Hydro’s short-term and long-term planning, around questions like whether or not the massive capital investments Ontario Hydro has been making over the last 20 years, and will soon be proposing to make over the next 20 years, in large capital-intensive structures like the Darlington nuclear plant are in fact the cheapest, the environmentally soundest, the most socially appropriate and most economically viable approaches to fulfilling our electrical energy needs in the province of Ontario in the near-term future.

During the course of the debate last year, there were two government members who spoke to Bill 184, which was the bill that parallels this one in its past life. I want to make a couple of comments quickly about changes I have made in this year’s bill, changes that do not change either the intent or the scope of the bill, but that will hopefully make this bill a little more understandable to some of the backbenchers on the government side of this House, since their comments last year seemed to indicate they did not understand what the scope or intent of the bill was.

Members will notice in

section 1 of this year’s bill, Bill 59, a

section that amends

section 13 of the Ontario Energy Board Act. In subsections 13(7) and 13(8), I have changed the words. Subsection 7 now reads, “The board has the power to investigate electricity demand and supply options, short- and long-term planning criteria, avoided costs and the adequacy of supply from sources from outside Ontario.”

Those words have replaced some very legalistic words in last year’s version with words that, I guess, reflect the jargon in the energy sector in 1989. They do not change at all the reality of this bill or its scope, but perhaps hopefully members can better understand that this bill is a bill whose time has come. We are running out of time in terms of making the decisions around the mechanisms that the government says it wants to control Hydro.

I will have further comments during the rotation.

Mrs Cunningham: For the second time this morning, I find myself rising in support, in support of Bill 59 and the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr Charlton). Off the top and looking at the history around the efforts of the member for Hamilton Mountain, I certainly congratulate him and recognize his perseverance and his commitment. I think this bill to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act is long overdue.

Looking over the statements that have been made by my colleagues, who are not able to be here this morning, the member for Durham East (Mr Cureatz) and the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr Runciman), they would of course very strongly support Bill 59 if they were able to be here.

I can only say, in looking over the select committee’s recommendations in 1986, that they clearly supported recommendations the member has incorporated in his bill. I want to say that giving the energy board the power to set the rates would be an effective mechanism to establish public control over Ontario Hydro, as it would, and I will quote from the report, “establish control over Ontario Hydro’s costs, provide a check against the power of Ontario Hydro’s board of directors to establish capital budgets, and to co-ordinate the planning and decision-making linking the critical functions of planning and rate review.”

There is no question of what is needed with regard to Ontario Hydro. In the eyes of the public and the people who have spoken to us in our office in London North, and certainly in my colleague’s office, they have brought to our attention that they are very concerned about the very large bureaucracy and that the government seems to be having a very difficult time coming to grips with the operation of Ontario Hydro.

When we take a look at the issue of debt management, approximately 50 per cent of Ontario Hydro’s revenues are now going to service debt. It does not seem to be a problem as far as management is concerned, and that is of concern to us. It does not seem to be a problem in terms of the impact on the province’s credit rating, obviously, simply because they are guaranteed payment by the province, and that of course should be of great concern for the citizens of Ontario.

We are not going to take a long time speaking to this bill this morning because we have been on record so many times in supporting these amendments. I can only say that l think the changes the member made with regard to the wording in subsection 13(7) and subsection 13(8) make his former bill even more inclusive.

When we take a look at the board having “the power to investigate electricity demand and supply options, short- and long-term planning criteria, avoided costs and the adequacy of supply from sources from outside Ontario,” we are taking a look at just what we think our responsibility should be in representing the public of Ontario and making that particular institution -- I will call it that -- more accountable to the public for what it does with our money.

We take a look at the investigations under subsection 7 and the idea or the responsibility, if this act should become law, that the investigation should be reported to the minister with recommendations. I think the member for Hamilton Mountain has strengthened the former bill which he presented in June 1987, Bill 101, and I think that

section strengthens the intent of the member. We support it strongly.

Subsection 35(1) of the said act is being amended by “authorizing and requiring the board to fix rates pursuant to a public hearing held under

section 37 and prescribing the conditions and circumstances when the board shall fix rates pursuant to a public hearing.” It is not only responsible but necessary.

In the view of our party, we think far too many investigations, far too many private consultant reports, far too many recommendations on rates have been provided at the expense of the taxpayers of Ontario. Ontario Hydro has not taken the recommendations of those commissions, sometimes at tremendous expense, and of persons who have come to us and done the work and who are tremendously credible.

Certainly, we think this bill will make Ontario Hydro more accountable to the public and we think we can go back to the public we represent, given this kind of legislation, and say that we ourselves have taken the responsibility we should have taken very many years ago.

It is with commendation for the member for Hamilton Mountain for his perseverance and commitment that on behalf of the Conservatives I offer our remarks on this debate.

Mr Lipsett: It is a pleasure for me to take

part in this debate during private members’ public business this morning. I would like to begin by thanking the member for Hamilton Mountain for the continuing interest he has shown in energy matters.

Ontario’s energy future is a matter of great public interest and we are considering all ideas that will help us to diversify our supplies of energy, increase our energy efficiency and our ability to conserve energy, and deal with the increased demand for electricity in today’s society. The Ontario Energy Board may well have a greater role to play in future in some of these areas. I would like to begin my remarks by reminding the members of this House of the present powers and duties of the OEB.

The board has jurisdiction in a number of areas. It has played a particularly high-profile role in dealing with questions about natural gas and has the power to review many energy-related questions. It also plays an advisory role that can be quite extensive on many matters relating to energy. For example, in 1988 the board conducted public hearings and reported to the government on the matter of natural gas supply to Ontario.

The Ontario Energy Board Act defines the composition and duties of the OEB and the procedures to be followed by it. The act also gives the board jurisdiction that includes fixing rates for the sale, distribution, transmission and storage of natural gas. The board also has authority to deal with underground storage of gas, with certain aspects of the costs of drilling for gas and oil and the benefits of gas and oil production. Those are the main areas in which the OEB has jurisdiction.

In its advisory role, the board provides advice on the boring, drilling or deepening of wells in natural gas storage areas. The OEB also has an advisory role to play in examining and reporting on Ontario Hydro matters that are referred to it by the Minister of Energy. Such matters include Ontario Hydro’s existing or proposed rates and principles for power costing, service reliability and system expansion. The OEB holds public hearings in conducting any such review. It is also of pertinent interest that the OEB examines and reports on any energy question the government may refer to it.

Over the past few years, there has been increasing interest in amending parts of the Ontario Energy Board Act. The developments that have encouraged the government to look at possible amendments to the act have included changes in utility ownership, the transition to a deregulated natural gas market and concern over Ontario Hydro’s responsiveness to public attitudes and priorities. In fact, in October 1986 the Minister of Energy introduced a bill to amend the act. That bill died when the Legislature was prorogued in 1987 and the ministry is now reviewing the entire act.

Currently, the OEB has a review and advisory role in the setting of Hydro’s wholesale rates. There are options for strengthening that role, some of them requiring amendments to both the Power Corporation Act and the Ontario Energy Board Act. I would like to remind the House that this government already is making changes to some legislation. The Power Corporation Act is being amended to give the government the power to obtain plans and reports from Ontario Hydro.

This, together with the memorandum of understanding with Ontario Hydro, would enable the government to be apprised of Ontario Hydro’s activities in relation to system planning, operational plans and programs for meeting objectives of parallel generation and conservation.

The government has also made a commitment to have a public review of Ontario Hydro’s demand-supply plan. We hope the member for Hamilton Mountain will use that opportunity to present his views on the planning options.

Finally, the Ministry of Energy has established a policy for parallel generation of electricity. A key aspect of this has to do with Ontario Hydro’s avoided costs and the government is committed to a review of the criteria and methodology for determining these costs. Such a review will provide for input by interested parties and by the public at large.

Once again, I would like to thank the member for putting forward his ideas and point out that I would like to get as much public discussion and public comment as possible on all aspects of Ontario’s energy policy before we move forward with specific amendments to the Ontario Energy Board Act. Let us first conduct an extensive review of the jurisdiction and advisory roles of the OEB and then develop a comprehensive plan that meets the needs of the future.

Therefore, I will not be supporting second reading of Bill 59 in the House today.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Breaugh): Further debate? The member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore.

Mrs Grier: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me congratulate you on the elevation you have achieved. I am sure it will be exercised impartially and with dignity.

Mr Pelissero: That’s right. He didn’t give Sam’s speech.

Mrs Grier: Oh, is that Sam’s speech?

An hon member: When you said “elevation,” were you talking about his feet?

Mrs Grier: No, I will leave the word “elevation” and let members interpret it as they will.

To the matter at hand, I was disappointed in the conclusion of the remarks by the member for Grey (Mr Lipsett) that he was not going to support this piece of legislation that is before us today, before us not for the first time. I take from his remarks that what we are faced with is another extensive period of review, examination and study before we have any prospects of getting to some action on amendments to the Ontario Energy Board Act.

The member was of course correct in his enunciation of what the act does and the control that the Ontario Energy Board has over the natural gas sector of our energy supply system. I do not think he emphasized quite enough that while the board could have some power over Hydro, that is conditional upon matters being referred to it by the government. We have not seen any indication that the government is prepared to refer to the OEB matters of substance such as DSPS, which we have said some time ago ought to be reviewed by the Ontario Energy Board.

It is interesting that of course, while in opposition, the Liberal Party supported making Hydro accountable, supported bringing it before the Ontario Energy Board and indicated that bringing Hydro under control was going to be a first priority of that government. Now we find ourselves, almost five years later, still talking about more study and an in-depth review being needed before we can make any changes.

There has been study, in-depth review and legislative committees, all of which have said that the kinds of changes the member for Hamilton Mountain is proposing in his bill are long overdue and ought to be put in place. There has even been agreement by government members on those committees that those changes were needed, because the reports of the select committees have been unanimously agreed to.

In fact, when the second select committee under this government was reviewing Hydro’s DSPS, we asked for an update of progress on implementation of the recommendations of the previous select committee. It is interesting to find that in those recommendations concerning the Ontario Energy Board, the progress reports we got all said that the matters were being considered and that amendments to the Ontario Energy Board Act were being planned. We have not yet seen those amendments.

One of those recommendations was that the Ontario Energy Board should be empowered to hold biannual public reviews of Ontario Hydro’s resource development plan and publish a public report with recommendations to cabinet. The select committee last year was told that this matter may be considered in the Ministry of Energy’s review of the Power Corporation Act and the Ontario Energy Board Act. We are still waiting.

Recommendation 17 of that original select committee said: “The Ontario Energy Board should conduct a public review of the results of Ontario Hydro’s demand and supply options study. This review should take place at least 60 days after a final report on the options and all supporting documents have been issued. Recommendations should be made to cabinet in a public report.” “Being reviewed” was the response that we got in 1989.

A further recommendation with respect to the Ontario Energy Board was that the Ontario Energy Board Act should be amended to give the board the powers to regulate electricity rates. The response we got last year was that the matter could be addressed in the Ministry of Energy’s review of the Ontario Energy Board Act.

So what we constantly get is delay, more study: “We’re looking at it, but the time for action is not yet.” Regrettably, what we also find is that we appear to be having the same kind of rotation of ministers of Energy under this government as we found of ministers of the Environment under the previous government. Every time a Minister of Energy comes up to speed and may perhaps begin to understand the very complex issues involved in power planning, there is a cabinet shuffle and a new Minister of Energy and the process has to start all over again.

The member for Grey has just mentioned the fact that the government is, as he puts it, “committed to a review” of the avoided costs, a very critical element in making decisions about the future role of Ontario Hydro, but the previous Minister of Energy promised last spring that that review would be done this fall.

There was no indication in the remarks we have heard today of what the criteria for that review will be, what the mechanism for that review will be, or when we can get on with that particular review. All of this leads me, as I say, to the conclusion that this government is very reluctant to come to grips with putting Ontario Hydro under control, with putting in place a publicly respected mechanism in which the public can have some confidence, where the affairs of Ontario Hydro will be subjected to cross-examination in a rigorous process that gives us all some sense that the recommendations are ones that are not done based on the data supplied by Ontario Hydro itself.

That has been one of the most difficult features of trying to come to grips with Ontario Hydro’s planning: All the data are controlled by Ontario Hydro. There is no independent agency that has the resources to adequately review the submissions that Ontario Hydro makes to the government. The Ministry of Energy acknowledges that it does not have that expertise. The Ontario Energy Board would be a very good repository of that kind of data, if it were only allowed by this government to get further into the business of reviewing Ontario Hydro, reviewing Ontario Hydro’s rates, reviewing Ontario Hydro’s planning and subjecting Ontario Hydro to very critical and independent evaluation.

That is what the piece of legislation before us today would enable the Ontario Energy Board to do. I think it is very appropriate that the member for Hamilton Mountain has updated this piece of legislation so that it says very specifically and very clearly what we want the board to do.

I hope that the attitude that is being displayed in this debate today, and the fact that there seems to be at this point no indication of a willingness to move forward in this very critical area of public policy, is an attitude that will quickly change and that we can at last do what the Liberal Party said so many times it wanted to do, if only it was given the power by the people of this province; that is, to bring Ontario Hydro under the firm control of the Legislature and of the government. That day is not as far ahead as it seems to be from the remarks of the member for Grey and the attitude of the current Minister of Energy.

Mr J. M. Johnson: I rise to lend my support to the bill presented by the member for Hamilton Mountain.

The purpose of the bill is to give the Ontario Energy Board additional powers to regulate electricity rates and to investigate matters such as demand and supply options, short- and long-term planning and avoided costs. I think we should all support that type of initiative, because for many years it has been quite apparent that there seems to be a very serious problem between the Ontario Energy Board and Ontario Hydro in resolving some of the outstanding issues, such as setting of rates, etc.

I think the bill presented by the member will lend accountability and credibility to the process and help to ensure that the customers are better served by this very giant corporation. I think many members on all sides of this House have expressed concern for many years that Ontario Hydro was so large and extensive that it is extremely hard to control this giant corporation.

In conclusion, the Ontario Energy Board’s report on the proposed rate increase for 1989 stated that what is required is a firm and clear statement by the government of Ontario of its policy with respect to Hydro. I think that is one matter that could be cleared up and, as I mentioned earlier, made more accountable by the passage of Bill 59.

If the government is not prepared to accept Bill 59, then I submit that it should certainly look at accepting the principle of the bill and bringing in amendments of a similar nature that would achieve the same purpose. I am sure the member who has introduced this bill would be quite prepared to accept some suitable amendments, as he has been presenting a similar piece of legislation for the past several years and quite likely will have to continue to do so for the foreseeable future unless the government will change its mind.

At this time, Mr Speaker, I would just like to take a brief moment to congratulate you on your new office. I know you will perform it with the highest priority for the benefit of the members you serve so well.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further debate on the bill?

Mrs Sullivan: I welcome the intervention of the member for Hamilton Mountain and his proposals on the role of the Ontario Energy Board which he has put forward in Bill 59. Indeed, I am glad to see it in the Orders and Notices paper so early in the session.

The member has been a diligent and effective member of the select committee on energy. During my short time on that committee, I have noted his participation, and certainly before my period on that committee.

When I first began to attend meetings of the select committee, I discovered I had to learn a new language, a special shorthand and jargon that included peaks, which I discovered had nothing to do with mountains; load forecasts, which had nothing to do with trucking; end-use models, which had nothing to do with landfill sites; and cogeneration, which had nothing to do with family gatherings. The member was, of course, familiar with all of these issues, as well as the jargon, and he may have found it frustrating for the newer members such as myself, along with many others, to catch up.

But indeed we did catch up and we came to our own individual assessments, if not conclusions, relatively quickly.

Last summer, the select committee reviewed the DSPS, the proposals for a demand/supply planning strategy for Ontario Hydro into the next century. The conclusions of the committee relating to that review have been placed before the House. Our emphases, I should underline, were on conservation and efficiency, environmental protection and keeping our supply options open. I certainly found that period of last summer to be an enervating time with the serious issues and choices and questions being clearly delineated.

Some of our discussions during that period included Hydro’s reporting-consultative roles and its accountability for its performance and its decisions. That really is the heart of this bill. I notice, and the member has indeed mentioned in his remarks, that this bill differs from his two earlier bills on the same general areas relating to the Ontario Energy Board. Frankly, I feel that the changes in Bill 59, as compared to those in Bill 101, are indeed significant.

Bill 101 suggests that the board should be able to investigate the capacity reserve margins and other liability criteria and the adequacy of supply from sources outside Ontario. The new bill would provide broader scope and more authority to the OEB in giving it “the power to investigate electricity demand and supply options, short- and long-term planning criteria, avoided costs and the adequacy of supply from sources outside Ontario.” I think there is a substantial difference, and the proposals really do require a major public debate that is not a matter of short-term debate, which has been suggested.

It strikes me that since last summer, when the committee was working diligently on the DSPS review, many changes have been made and will be soon made as a result of changes that have been put forward in Bill 204 since our deliberations of last year. Bill 204, which has just completed the committee stage, brings forward significant amendments to the Power Corporation Act and entrenches a memorandum of understanding between Ontario Hydro and the government. Those Power Corporation Act amendments will bring a refreshing change to Ontario Hydro/government relations, I believe.

No minister should again be able to complain that he has been mugged in the corridors of power, and I think that if a minister could make that complaint, then it is clearly the political will in this House to make future changes. I believe that the situation we have today, partly as a result of this government’s action, is a far cry from the days of Adam Beck, who I understand was quoted on his deathbed as saying: “I had hoped to live to forge a band of iron around Hydro to prevent its destruction by politicians. Watch what they do when I’m gone.”

I think we should look at some of the initiatives that this government has taken. I remind members about the Dr Kenneth Hare commission report reviewing the safety aspects of Ontario Hydro’s nuclear program. That was released publicly and Dr Hare appeared before our committee. Additionally, there has been a technical panel with independent expertise from Canada, the United States and France examining Canada’s Candu nuclear cost estimates, and that report was released publicly. A technical panel has scrutinized the demand/supply planning strategy, which has also been reviewed by an interministerial committee, and those reports as well were scrutinized by the select committee on energy.

The Ministry of Energy has introduced an advisory panel on parallel generation that is working away diligently. The Power Corporation Act amendments, which I have discussed, present a new government-Hydro relationship. We will all remember the introduction of the Energy Efficiency Act by the then Minister of Energy, the member for Fort York (Mr Wong). The regulations are now being drawn by people who know their fields, who know what is possible, what is achievable and what should be achievable.

The government has adopted a “conservation first” policy, and I want to remind the House that the member for Fort York, when he was Minister of Energy, was not prepared to accept Ontario Hydro energy efficiency and parallel generation targets. Hydro said that 5,500 megawatts was available. The member for Fort York said they could do better and they have been instructed to find more savings there.

We have a commitment that is public to review the avoided cost and buyback rates and we expect an announcement -- I certainly am expecting an announcement -- on the nature of that review very shortly. The Ontario Energy Board role is being reviewed now in a regulatory framework, and this government is prepared to adjust as necessary.

I think we are all aware of the need for public attitude changes regarding conservation of energy. We have seen public opinion surveys and I am pleased to see some initial steps by Ontario Hydro being taken in joint ventures, in energy audits and in advertising and promotion to ensure that the public is well aware of our conservation needs and targets. There has been much action in a relatively short period of time.

We know that Ontario Hydro’s preferred plan is due this fall. We will expect a thorough review of the technical, social and environmental aspects of that plan. That review will include a public review, a review by experts and a review in the Legislature. I am hoping it will include an additional review in the select committee,

We have seen changes in the words and the action of accountability. I believe that the bill of the member for Hamilton Mountain is a useful intervention. I think that we need more dialogue and consultation, particularly in relation to the preferred plans which are going to be before us this fall. I think the government has had a commitment to position Ontario Hydro to respond effectively to the current realities and to new and evolving government and legislative priorities. I think we have work to do as legislators and I am pleased to be able to do it in the context of the select committee.

Mr Charlton: It seems to me there is somewhat of an echo here in the House. It would appear that not only my own comments are probably an echo of things that have been said here in the past but that the response from the government is a very clear echo as well. I would like to pick up on the comments from the member for Halton Centre (Mrs Sullivan) and the member for Grey, and by way of perhaps using some quotes from the government members who spoke in last year’s debate, make the point of the extent of the echo that is happening here.

Let me start out by saying to the member for Halton Centre that this bill does not advocate a short-term review. The review has been under way for three and a half years now in terms of the government’s position on amendments to the Ontario Energy Board Act, or at least that is what we have been told by successive ministers of Energy in Ontario. According to the parliamentary assistant and the member for Halton Centre, that review is still ongoing, but we are running out of time.

We all know what the legislative process here in this chamber and the committees that are associated with this House are. The government has all the data and understanding of the situation that it needs. Either that is the case or they have not been straightforward with us in terms of the review that has been ongoing for the last three and a half years.

If it is passed today, this bill can be referred out to a committee. That committee has the authority to add the one dimension that supposedly has not happened yet in terms of the questions that are contained in this bill, and that is the whole public hearings process on the issue of regulation of Ontario Hydro and review of Ontario Hydro’s planning processes. The government has spent three and a half years looking at the question and obviously is having some difficulty deciding what decisions are the appropriate decisions. Perhaps a public hearing process can help them to reach those conclusions, allowing the public of Ontario to have its say.

Last year, during the course of the debate on Bill 184, the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr South), who was then the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Energy, spoke first on that bill, as did the member for Grey, the new parliamentary assistant, this morning. I would like to quote for a moment from his comments here so that, as I suggested, we can perhaps begin to understand the extent of the echo that is happening here.

“This government wants Hydro to go further than it has indicated. To support this bill now, though, would be to thwart the extensive, methodical process this government has set in place. We would like the Legislature to review the comprehensive package that we will be bringing forward in the very near future. The goal of this package is to enshrine structural changes in Hydro’s planning process and to make Hydro more receptive to government and to public concerns.”

That was a year ago. The former parliamentary assistant, the member for Frontenac-Addington, stood in his place in this House last year and said precisely what the parliamentary assistant is telling us again this year.

The changes that are required to create a regulatory and review process around the operations of Ontario Hydro will be of little value for the next 20 years if those changes are not in place before Hydro’s preferred plan for the next 20 years is approved. We are all aware that that plan will be tabled this fall.

The former minister, the minister who was there at the start of this discussion and process, promised that the review of the question of avoided cost, for example, would happen this fall. We are running out of time on that question as well. But the avoided cost question is a question which has to be dealt with, resolved and answered because that fact, that information, has to be part of any review of Hydro’s preferred plan if that review is going to mean anything.

The member for High Park-Swansea (Mr Fleet) was the second member to intervene on the government’s behalf in the debate on my bill last year and I would like to quote from his speech as well.

“There are a number of problems with the resolution, but one of the things I would like to touch upon is what is not dealt with. The government wants to encourage Hydro to act as a powerful force for the economic good of Ontario. One of the key government priorities has been to encourage the people of Ontario to use electricity far more efficiently and to conserve electric power.”

The member goes on to say, “As a result, Hydro set targets to conserve 35,000 megawatts of electric power by the turn of the century.”

I want to say that the member for High Park-Swansea was seriously in error when he provided that information to the House. If Ontario Hydro had committed itself to 35,000 megawatts of energy savings in Ontario, then every energy advocate in this province would be jumping and screaming with great joy. The reality is that he was out by nine times; in other words, the real reality is that Hydro has committed itself to 10 per cent of what he quoted to this House last year: 3,500 megawatts, not 35,000.

This bill is designed to put in place a review mechanism to deal with the very kinds of issues that were raised by the member for High Park-Swansea. As I have said, the time has come for us to proceed and not to stall any longer.

I believe I have two minutes to wrap up now, Mr Speaker?

The Speaker: Is that correct? Two minutes. Yes.

Mr Chariton: As I have said, the bill is a bill that deals with issues that have been outstanding for some three and a half years now. The bill deals with issues that are crucial to the decision-making that will go on over the next 18 to 24 months.

The government has had three and a half years to review these issues. If this bill were to pass second reading today, which I encourage all members to consider seriously, there is an opportunity in committee for full public hearings to deal with the questions around regulating and reviewing Hydro’s processes. There is an opportunity for the government to put its position that flows out of its internal review, a review which it will not tell anybody anything about; but as I have said, a review, though, which is extremely crucial to the decisions we will be making in Ontario over the next two years.

I implore members to seriously consider supporting this piece of legislation, if for no other purpose than to provide the catalyst to force the government to stop stalling and bring forward its proposals around reform of the review and regulatory process that Ontario Hydro is subjected to.

All of the rhetoric around energy efficiency, parallel generation, industrial cogeneration and the other things that the government claims to be committed to mean nothing without the mechanisms in place to ensure that the rhetoric in fact becomes reality in electrical energy issues in this province.

INSURANCE LEGISLATION

The Speaker: Mr Furlong has moved resolution 20.

Motion agreed to.

ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD AMENDMENT ACT

The House divided on Mr Charlton’s motion for second reading of Bill 59, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. R., Cooke, D. S., Cunningham, Grier, Johnson, J. M., Kormos, Philip, Pope, South, Sterling, Wildman.

Nays

Adams, Brown, Callahan, Cleary, Curling, Daigeler, Eakins, Elliot, Fawcett, Faubert, Ferraro, Furlong, Hošek, Kanter, Keyes, Lipsett, Mahoney, Mancini, Matrundola, Miclash, Neumann, Nicholas, Oddie Munro, Owen, Pelissero, Poole, Ray, M. C., Reycraft, Roberts, Sola, Tatham, Velshi.

Ayes 15; nays 32.

The House recessed at 1155.

The House resumed at 1330.

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

COMMERCIAL CONCENTRATION LEVY

Mr Philip: Members will recall how I pointed out in this House that as a result of the economic apartheid financial policies of the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) of this province, residents and businesses of the greater Toronto area are being charged higher taxes than those in the rest of Ontario.

I have already pointed out that the commercial concentration levy has created real problems for the larger hotels in Etobicoke which are competing for convention business with other cities. Today, I will be tabling a petition signed by employees of these hotels.

I would like to point out, however, that the hotels are not the only businesses affected by this particular tax. Jet-A-Way Airport Parking in Rexdale will be required to pay an additional $775,000 a year in taxes as a result of the Liberal government’s singling out the Metropolitan Toronto area for additional tax burdens.

This business, established in 1985, employs 75 staff, with a payroll that exceeds $1 million. The owners claim that this commercial concentration tax levy will force them out of business. Mr Nixon, Mr Peterson, your actions are forcing the closure of viable businesses, resulting in a great loss to many families who work and live in Rexdale, as well as a loss to the clients who have enjoyed the service provided by this business. Once again, I urge you to reconsider your ill-thought-out policies.

The Speaker: Before I recognize the next member, I want to remind all members that when we refer to another member of the House, we refer to him not by surname but by riding or ministry.

Mr Philip: Mr Speaker, if he didn’t interrupt me so often, then I would remember who he was.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Burlington South.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr Jackson: I hold in my hands a Liberal government news release that was dated back on 14 May 1986, by the then Minister of Health. In it, we read the pre-election promises made by the member for Bruce (Mr Elston) in which he announced an expansion of 4,400 hospital beds.

These beds were to have been financed by an $850-million capital allocation to Ontario’s hospitals, an allocation billed then as the largest in the history of Ontario,

This government has decided to review whether or not it should go ahead with those beds as promised to the voters. We know from past experience that when this government says “review,” it really means “cancel.”

Three years ago, it was announced that 3,000 of the 4,400 beds were for chronic care patients. This included 90 chronic care beds for Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital in Burlington. It is now abundantly clear that the government intended all along to break this important election promise. Not only has this government not delivered on its promise for more beds, it is taking already existing beds away. According to recent Ontario Medical Association statistics, 700 beds have in fact been cut in the Toronto area alone, with a total of 2,000 beds that have been cut across Ontario,

The recent tragic event in Midland where a dying woman could not have her life saved only indicates that the situation has grown worse. The citizens of Burlington want to know: When are the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) and her government going to exercise some decisive leadership and responsibility with respect to what is happening to our health care delivery system?

TEENS AGAINST CRACK AND COCAINE

Mrs LeBourdais: I rise today to inform the House of the activities of a group of young people from my riding of Etobicoke West who are taking an active role in the war against drugs. Teens Against Crack and Cocaine was founded last February by five teenagers in a Metropolitan Toronto Housing Corp community on Willowridge Road. These young people had become tired of having their home continually associated with the negative publicity generated by the area’s reputation for drug abuse and drug dealing.

In the eight months since the group’s inception, their membership has skyrocketed to in excess of 1,500 people. Just as astonishing is their success at raising funds. To date, this group has brought in donations that total in excess of $60,000. Success and dedication of this nature must be applauded, particularly when these efforts are directed at one of the most menacing problems in our society.

The group has taken a very realistic approach in its efforts. Instead of trying to eradicate the drug dealers from their community, a job they feel is best handled by law enforcement agencies, they have instead decided to use their organization to provide positive alternatives to young people. Included in these efforts will be the eventual establishment of a treatment facility and a series of drug education programs.

The group’s executive committee and its adult co-ordinator, Marvin Wolfe, are with us here today in the gallery. I would ask them to please rise so that they can be recognized by the House.

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

Mr Wildman: Some members will know that today a study has been made available to the Ministry of Natural Resources which was funded by the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines and carried out by Crandall A. Benson and Associates for the Teme-Augama Anishnabai.

This study on the forest stewardship plan in the Temagami area indicates that Ontario is at a crossroads with regard to the conservation and management of old-growth forests. The question is conservation and management, as opposed to continued exploitation. The study shows that the Ministry of Natural Resources has failed to manage white and red pine forests on a sustained-yield basis, that there has been insufficient regeneration of these forests. The planned harvest levels of white pine will lead to drastic reductions in the amount of white pine timber available in the future and the loss of the old-growth pine in general.

Harvesting on a sustained-yield basis is the only realistic production policy. It must involve a holistic approach, a forest stewardship plan, which takes into consideration the needs of wildlife, recreation, hunting, fishing and cottages, as well as timber demand.

This government must now make a commitment to a sustained yield, sustained employment and sustained stewardship of the forests in the Temagami area. The government must consider now, at last, a moratorium on further road construction and lobbying until it has assessed the findings of this study.

NURSING HOMES

Mr McCague: I am sure the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) is aware of the problems Christie Park Nursing Home has been experiencing with one of its psychogeriatric patients. Her ministry has investigated the recent death of a resident of the nursing home, who died after she was beaten by a patient at the nursing home. Her ministry has determined that the nursing home handled this case properly.

The ministry decision was correct, because the reason for this tragic incident rests with the ministry. For several years now, the Ontario Nursing Home Association has been arguing that it cannot give its patients the proper programming because the resources its members need to provide protection for their patients are not forthcoming from the ministry. Nursing homes have not been given the resources to establish secure floors or rooms for psychogeriatric patients where they can be kept away from other patients. They have not been given the resources to provide one-to-one care for these patients.

Psychogeriatric patients are being turned away from psychiatric hospitals and forced upon nursing homes that are being refused the resources to ensure that another incident like this one at Christie Park does not happen.

When is the government going to start providing nursing homes with the resources that are really necessary?

PETERBOROUGH THEATRE GUILD

Mr Adams: A quarter of a century ago, small theatre groups in the Peterborough area combined to form the Peterborough Theatre Guild. The new organization built a theatre in the burned-out shell of a church. Today, an audience of 236 can watch a performance in this beautiful theatre. The Guildhall can be used while adjacent rehearsal rooms and workshops are in full use. Sound and lighting facilities are of excellent quality.

The guild typically produces six or seven shows a season, including a children’s play and a musical. Over the years, it has featured a number of works by local authors, as well as scores of established shows. Peterborough Theatre Guild productions have won highest honours at regional, provincial and national festivals.

For many years, the guild has been effectively self-supporting. It has over 2,000 paid-up members.

To commemorate its 25th anniversary, the guild plans a full year of special activities, including Silver Sundays, an open house, special performances and a birthday party. In addition, a book written by Mabel Smith on the theatre guild is to be published. This will be an account of one of the most successful volunteer organizations in the province’s history. I recommend the volume and the guild to members of the House as outstanding examples of creativity in the communities of this province.

EMERGENCY HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Morin-Strom: On numerous occasions, we have brought to the attention of the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) the catastrophic situation facing our health care system because of cutbacks in funding, staffing and services. This is nowhere more apparent than in emergency health care services. The recent cases in Sault Ste Marie and Midland again show the failure of the system to respond immediately to medical emergencies, situations where time lost may well have meant the difference between life and death.

On 22 June, the Minister of Health proudly announced the province-wide program to enhance the quality of emergency health services in the province. The minister claimed, “Implementation of the guidelines will ensure that emergency care is available at all times and that emergency patients will get priority over elective cases.”

This did not happen when lack of staff and extreme demand prevented a London trauma team from responding to a Sault Ste Marie emergency last week. This was the first breakdown in a service that had been working very well for a number of years. The minister’s new integrated trauma program could not access the medical escort that was a critical issue in this case. Ministry officials claim that medical escort is not a part of their mandate, even though it is essential to transfers from northern Ontario.

A complete investigation is needed into the tragic death of John Jagger in Sault Ste Marie. The minister has failed us to this point.

TAX INCREASES

Mr Harris: Yesterday, the government tabled Bill 60, which will implement the last component of its 1989 tax grab by hiking the personal income tax rate for the fourth time in five years and for the third time in less than two years.

This must be some sort of modern-day taxation record. Some suggest maybe the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) should be tested for steroids. The taxpayer, both literally and figuratively, has a very hard time keeping up with this government. It has hiked personal income tax by two percentage points in 1985, a double whammy in 1988, jumping the tax one point for last year, an additional point for this year and now, in 1989, another tax increase for next year. Of course, these are only a few of the some 30 tax levy increases this government has imposed on the people of Ontario since taking office in 1985.

That record makes tough talk of the Premier (Mr Peterson) on the federal goods and services tax ring rather hollow, given the performance of his own government. I would just as soon ask an Al Capone to lead the war on crime as to ask the Premier to lead the war on a tax revolt in this country.

The introduction of Bill 60 serves to remind us that this government is responsible for two of the largest tax grabs in Ontario’s history. The people of this province can only wish that they had a premier who was as quick to practise the principles of moderate and fair taxation which he is so eager to preach to the federal government.

LANDLORDS’ RESTRICTIONS ON PETS

Mr Faubert: Over the summer, many tenants in my riding have expressed to me their concerns about the effects of the district court case of Cassandra versus Ryll regarding pets in rental properties. It appears from this ruling that, rather than look to the behaviour of the pets in question, judges may only look primarily to the terms of the lease when deciding whether to issue a writ of possession.

Pets play an important role in the lives of many of us, and there are many people in our society who rely on their pets for companionship and comfort. Some pets provide safety and security for their owners and some are the only sole companionship for a person.

Clearly, amendments are required to the Landlord and Tenant Act regarding the so-called pet clause. A landlord should not be able to evict a tenant simply for owning a pet unless it can be proved that the pet infringed upon the reasonable enjoyment of the premises by the landlord or the tenant.

This government has demonstrated in the past, through such legislation as the Rental Housing Protection Act, that it is committed to ensuring that tenants are protected and their rights are maintained. I encourage the government to continue to demonstrate its commitment to tenants by amending the Landlord and Tenant Act to allow a tenant to have a pet despite any terms contained in his tenancy agreement, and I would urge all members of this House to support Bill 51, entitled

An Act to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act, tabled in this House by my colleague the member for St Andrew-St Patrick (Mr Kanter) on 20 July 1989.

ESCAPE OF INMATES

Mr McCague: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It came to our attention that there was a break from the Niagara Detention Centre this morning by three very dangerous people, one of whom was charged with attempted murder. I am wondering if the minister has any intention of making a statement today in order that the people of the Niagara area can rest comfortably over the weekend.

The Speaker: The member rose on a point of order. That is not a point of order. The member will have the opportunity, right away, as soon as I call for oral questions, to ask the minister that question.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr B. Rae: I was told that the Premier was going to be here today, but in the absence of the Premier --

Mr Haggerty: The Deputy Premier.

Mr B. Rae: No, I do not want to speak to the Deputy Premier (Mr R. F. Nixon). I can talk to him anytime. I want to ask some questions of the Minister of Labour.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr B. Rae: We have been told by the House leader that the minister is planning to introduce or begin to speak today about Bill 208, which the minister will know is legislation that we have been waiting for for many years in this House, dealing with workers’ health and safety.

The minister will be aware of the widespread public speculation, including many articles in the newspapers, statements that have been made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr Kwinter) where he stated in the Toronto Star recently, “‘We had a breakdown in communication’ when cabinet approved the legislation,” and that in his view, “‘We have a window of opportunity with a new minister who can bring in a fresh, unbiased approach,’ since he is not the author of the legislation, Kwinter said.”

I want to ask the Minister of Labour, there are widespread rumours that the government is planning changes to this legislation involving the health and safety agency --

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr B. Rae: -- involving the right to refuse work. Can the minister tell us whether it is, in fact, true that the government is contemplating changes to this legislation?

Hon Mr Phillips: I will have a chance to go over it in some more considerable detail actually in a few hours, I expect, but I am very pleased to reassure the Leader of the Opposition, and all members, in fact, that we will be proceeding with Bill 208. We will do nothing that violates the principles of Bill 208. It will be the most progressive piece of health and safety legislation in this country.

lnterjections.

Hon Mr Phillips: Perhaps I could follow up in my supplementary.

The Speaker: If there is a supplementary.

Mr B. Rae: I was interested in the minister’s answer. He obviously chose his words very carefully. I asked him whether the government was contemplating changes in particular sections of the bill relating to the right to refuse work and relating to the right to stop work.

Perhaps I can focus specifically on the question of stopping work, since this has been one of the critical questions that has been criticized so heavily by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Can the minister tell us, is the government going to be asking the committee to consider changes relating to those sections about the power of working people to be able, at long last, to stop work when their lives and their health and safety are in fact in danger? Yes or no?

Hon Mr Phillips: A very important element of the bill is to ensure that no one is forced to work in an unsafe environment. We are very much committed to that principle. One of the key concerns has been that particular issue.

We are not asking the committee to change that provision. We are not directing the committee to change that provision. We are, however, asking the committee to take a look at that, recognizing there still is a dispute among the parties about what is the best approach to do that. We are not directing the committee to change it; we are, however, or we will be shortly, asking the committee broadly and on a wide-scale basis to take a look at that issue and come forward with its best suggestion on how we achieve that.

But in answer directly to the question, no, we are not directing the committee to change that.

Mr B. Rae: We all know how this place works. The Liberal Party backed the insurance industry 100 per cent. When the insurance industry said “Jump,” the Liberal Party jumped. When the employers in this province said, “Jump on workers compensation,” the Liberal Party jumped. And it is now perfectly obvious that when the employer community objects to a bill protecting workers’ health and safety, the minister is going to be asking his members on that committee to jump, and everybody is going to be seeing how high. That is exactly what he is telling us today.

The Speaker: Is that your question?

Mr B. Rae: Is the minister aware that if the committee ends up making changes -- and it has a vast Liberal majority on it. Does the minister understand the impact that a Liberal retreat and a Liberal caving-in to the employers of this province is going to have on the industrial relations in the province of Ontario? Does he understand what he is doing?

Hon Mr Phillips: I think it is extremely important, on this particularly important matter, that no one prejudge it. We are committed to Bill 208, we are committed to proceeding with Bill 208 and we are not retreating on it. To prejudge it is a gross injustice. I suggest we all work through it carefully, ensure that we move forward with the bill and do not prejudge it. Believe me, the Leader of the Opposition will find in the end that this will be the most progressive piece of health and safety legislation in this country.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. New question. To which minister?

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr B. Rae: To the Minister of Health. At the end of July the minister will have received a letter that was directed to the Premier (Mr Peterson) from a Romas Velyvis, who is someone who had a very severe heart condition and wrote the Premier, wrote me and wrote the leader of the Conservative Party about his health condition. He described his condition in the most direct of terms. He said: “The heart is pumping at 50 per cent capacity. The bottom portion of the heart is dead. I have breathing problems, frequent chest pains and I can barely walk 100 yards. I feel that I cannot survive that long wait.”

The minister wrote Mr Velyvis back, and Mr Velyvis’s widow received the minister’s letter five days after Mr Velyvis died of a heart attack. She wrote him a three-page, boilerplate, bureaucratic answer, which I am sure is the standard answer she gives to every one of these letters she receives.

Does the minister not understand that her failure to respond, the failure of the government to respond, to the needs of people on waiting lists in fact means that they are dying while they are on these waiting lists?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that we all want people to have access to the care they need when they need it. We rely on physicians and hospitals in this province to ensure that people, whether they are in emergency situations or categorized as needing urgent care, receive priority.

I would say to him that whether we are talking cancer care or, as we were yesterday, talking about an emergency situation with a woman attempting suicide, we must make sure that the information presented in this House is factual and accurate. And I would say to him that in fact services are available and in fact were made available.

I would say to him that I received a letter from the Toronto Hospital and I will quote to him because it is important that the information in this House be accurate:

“The Emergency Hot Line for use by physicians around Ontario ... staffed 24 hours was not used nor was the trauma team consulted ... but all have confirmed that the patient would have been accepted had they been contacted as part of the normal procedure that is in place for patient referrals.” Services were available in the province and physicians used their best judgement to determine who should have priority care.

Mr B. Rae: The minister has given me an answer which is the same answer that she gave to Mr Velyvis in the letter which his widow received five days after he died. In that letter she says: “I encourage you to discuss your needs with your physician. Cases which are determined by physicians to require urgent attention are given priority.”

What we have here is a situation where Mr Velyvis’s physicians are dealing with several urgent cases, not just one but with dozens of them, and the minister is saying, “They are the ones that have to decide whether we treat him or her or him, and it is the physician’s responsibility.” I say to the minister that she cannot deny the problem of a lack of resources. She cannot deny the problem of a lack of nursing staff. She cannot deny her responsibility to ensure that services are available which do not put physicians in this position and do not put patients --

The Speaker: The question?

Mr B. Rae: -- and their families in this most tragic of situations --

The Speaker: Question?

Mr B. Rae: What is the minister saying now? Speak directly to Mrs Velyvis, who was waiting for the minister’s letter, whose husband was waiting for her letter for six weeks, and who was waiting for seven weeks for an appointment to see a doctor. What does she say --

The Speaker: Thank you. Order.

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that anyone who has experienced a death in the family always receives my deepest sympathy. I would say to them that I understand, because I think all of us experience that and it is very difficult.

We get the very best advice from physicians and experts as to what our capacity should be in the province for the delivery of services. We appointed, as the member knows, a co-ordinator, we developed a provincial working group, and enormous resources have gone into the system to expand capacity right around the province. In the meantime, we are working with the physicians to ensure that standards and common

definitions are developed to help physicians as they make those important decisions and to ensure that people have access to treatment on a priority basis and that those who are in emergency and urgent situations are treated first.

Mr B. Rae: How does the minister feel about the fact that since she has become the minister, waiting lists have gotten longer, not shorter? Whether you are waiting for radiation treatment at Princess Margaret Hospital, whether you are on a waiting list for serious cardiac surgery, the hard fact of the matter is that since her party has taken power and since she has become Minister of Health, people have had to wait longer and their care has suffered as a result.

What is she going to say directly, not just to Mrs Velyvis but to the thousands of other people whose length of time on waiting lists has grown longer under her ministry, has grown longer under her administration? What does she say to those people?

Hon Mrs Caplan: In fact, waiting times vary across the province depending upon whom you choose to have as your physician and which hospital you choose to go to. People must know they have those choices and can ask for referrals to a centre where there is a shorter waiting time. One of the things we know is that we all want people to have access to the services they need when they need them, and we rely on physicians to use their very best judgement to ensure those people who require care urgently receive priority.

I received this letter from the Toronto Hospital today and they said, “It is the policy of the Toronto Hospital that no patient urgently requiring the services that are available within the two divisions should be denied care.” I have contacted every hospital that was involved in the situation we heard about yesterday, so that they could provide accurate information on what accurately occurred and outline their policy, that says that people requiring urgent admission -- but it is very important that we have accurate information available so that people will understand that the services are available in this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Sarnia is waiting patiently to ask his question.

Mr Brandt: Mr Speaker, I am waiting patiently. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to raise a question with the Premier. It is in regard to the situation that was debated and discussed in this House yesterday. The Premier indicated, following question period, I believe, in response to media questions, that if the facts were essentially accurate something was deeply amiss within the system to allow Mrs Lacroix from Midland to die under the circumstances that unfolded, and the details, I am sure, are well known to the Premier, and the circumstances surrounding this particular case.

The Premier indicated that he was deeply concerned about this and that the contacting of some 15 hospitals in total was almost unbelievable, and the circumstances surrounding this case were very difficult for him to accept. Is the Premier satisfied now that this system that he has in place responded adequately to the needs of this particular patient?

Hon Mr Peterson: As I understand what the Minister of Health has just said, there is a system in place but the system was not used; that there were critical care beds available in the city to look after this kind of situation. It was there, but for some reason the people involved did not avail themselves of that service. We are assured that there were critical care beds in Toronto that were available.

So the question is: Why was that system which is in place and, to the best of my knowledge, functions well most of the time, not used? I understand that the Solicitor General (Mr Offer) has ordered a coroner’s inquest today and it will get at all of the facts in this matter. But I want to assure my honourable friend -- and I understand the discussion that went on in this House, a lot of charges and countercharges, but the system is there. The beds were available. I cannot stand here and give my absolute guarantee 100 per cent of the time that everything is perfect, but the system was there. The question is, why was it not used?

Mr Brandt: The fact of the matter is that the attending physician made it quite clear that the system failed his patient under the circumstances that developed in this particular case.

Let me remind the Premier that prior to the 1987 election, in the year 1986, the former Minister of Health announced a major capital commitment in terms of additional hospital beds, in the number of 4,400 new beds that were going to be constructed in this province at a cost of some $850 million.

I ask the Premier: In light of the fact that there were these numbers of additional beds that were going to come into the system, and this capital commitment was made very specifically by his government, does he think it is right and proper and in fact just that during that same time frame not only has he not added new beds to the system but he has taken the total number of hospital beds available in Ontario from 51,000 to today, the reason that there are no beds available in many circumstances and the frustration being indicated by --

The Speaker: Question?

Mr Brandt: -- over 50 per cent of physicians in a recent survey, where they have indicated it is becoming more difficult --

The Speaker: Thank you. Order.

Mr Brandt: I am coming to my question.

The Speaker: I hope you are.

Mr Brandt: Does the Premier think that is right, that he has reduced when he said he would increase?

Hon Mr Peterson: My honourable friend is building his attack on faulty premises. Let me say to my honourable friend that he is standing and saying in the House that there were not beds available yesterday. The Minister of Health has told the member there were beds available. Now the member may want to shift the course of his attack. I was here and I listened to some of the extreme statements of yesterday. That is one of the joys, I guess, of being in opposition: the members can make these charges even if they are not correct.

The Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) tells me that the $850 million has been spent and even more than that, $1 billion, on hospital capital. So I can tell my honourable friend that there were beds available. Obviously we are sensitive to the capital needs of the province and will continue to build.

Mr Brandt: The Premier indicates that it is very easy to be in opposition and throw out unfounded charges. I would like to bring to the attention of the Premier a full-page ad that appeared in the Haliburton County Echo newspaper, where it says -- and I will only read part of the ad in the interests of saving time for the House: “Whereas our local MPP, Mr John Eakins, has advised the Hon Elinor Caplan, Minister of Health, that the government of Ontario has `welched’ on a commitment to the people of Haliburton county;

now therefore

be it resolved....”

This is directly related to a commitment for hospital beds that the Premier made in 1986, and I can tell him this story is repeated in literally dozens of communities right across this province where they have raised the money locally, they have followed the commitment the Premier made with respect to the beds the Premier was going to construct, and now people, including members of the Premier’s own government, are saying, “Where is the money and where are the beds?”

I say to the Premier that he has failed in his commitment and how does he justify that to the people of Ontario?

Hon Mr Peterson: Mr Speaker, I just wish to advise you that I made a mistake. The Solicitor General did not call the coroner’s inquest, the chief coroner called that today. So I apologize for that mistake.

I tell my honourable friend again that the financial commitment has been made, the program is commencing. It is never as fast as anyone would like, but we intend to keep all of the commitments.

Mr Jackson: I have a question for the Minister of Health. I would like to relate to her an incident which occurred to a Burlington resident and her family this last summer. Joan Thole was receiving cancer treatments at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo. During one of her treatments emergency surgery was undertaken to deal with complications which had arisen. On Wednesday 19 July doctors deemed her condition appropriate for her to be transferred back to Ontario and released her to be transferred to Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital.

Her Burlington doctor and her husband phoned that hospital but were informed that there were no beds and no room available for her, that the best that they could offer her was a gurney in the emergency department hallway for two days.

My question to the minister is: How can she continue to say, as she did yesterday in this House, that she is “doing everything ... within the province to see to it that people have access to the services they need and when they need them”? I quote from Hansard yesterday.

Hon Mrs Caplan: I think what I have said very clearly, and I think we all agree, is that emergencies must receive priority within our system. Whenever I hear situations such as this I am always concerned, and I want to follow up on the details of the case. If the member will send me over the specifics, I will ask the hospital, which has responsibility for the actions of its staff, to let me know exactly what happened in this case and I will report to the member.

Mr Jackson: Joan Thole died eight days later. She died alone, without her family and her friends, in another country. Her family experienced great difficulties getting to the United States to visit her and many were denied their last opportunity to see her.

So I want to ask the Minister on behalf of the Thole family, they want to know from her how she can continue to say that she is delivering a health care system that is providing quality health care as close to home as possible. How can she continue to state that?

Hon Mrs Caplan: My priority is always to see that people get the care they need when they need that care and as close to home as possible, but the priority is to see that they get the care they need. When I hear these kinds of situations I am alwa