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

December 8, 1987

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L019 - Tue 8 Dec 1987 / Mar 8 déc 1987

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

HUMAN RIGHTS

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

HUMAN RIGHTS

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

LABOUR LEGISLATION

PROPERTY TAXES

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

HOURS OF WORK

PURCHASE OF SURPLUS POWER

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

TRANSMISSION LINES

NEPEAN CIVIC AND PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE

PLANT CLOSURE

RENTERPRISE PROGRAM

FARM SAFETY

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

INTERNATIONAL BANKING CENTRES

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

PETITION

SCHOOL BUSES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

HEALTH PROTECTION AND PROMOTION AMENDMENT ACT

LABORATORY AND SPECIMEN COLLECTION CENTRE LICENSING AMENDMENT ACT

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE BOARD ACT (CONTINUED)

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER FOR LONDON NORTH

RETAIL STORE HOURS

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Philip: G Enterprises is an Etobicoke-based manufacturer of mufflers and exhaust systems. On October 7, 1987, just a few days after the Mulroney-Reagan free trade deal was announced, G Enterprises was sold to a firm in Cleveland called Mr. Gasket. On October 13, it was announced that G Enterprises would be closed on January 15, 1988, and that production would be moved to Mescali, Mexico, where wage rates average about 65 cents.

The company will be moving into that area of Mexico that enjoys virtual free trade with the United States. Under the terms of the Mexican-US agreement, the vast majority of goods manufactured in this area re-enter the US duty-free and are treated as though they were US goods. Under the terms of the Canada-US free trade agreement, these Mexican-produced goods will be treated as if they are US goods and thus will enter Canada duty-free.

The employees at G Enterprises will not be the last to lose their jobs as a result of the free trade agreement. They are examples of what will come in the future as firms move production to Mexico, to free trade zones or to the low-wage sweatshops in the US south.

The Premier (Mr. Peterson) called an election on the grounds that he needed a mandate to veto free trade. He now admits he has no such veto. The hundreds of workers at G Enterprises believed the Premier; some of them even voted for him. He has the mandate; now what is he going to do for them?

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Jackson: Today outside the Legislature, there were hundreds of secondary school students from Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School in Hamilton indicating to this government their concern and their frustration with a recent arbitration decision regarding their school. Those students are pleading with this government not to turn this educational issue into an economic issue.

They are hoping this government will honour the promises all members of this House made back on July 4, 1985, when the then Minister of Education, the Minister of Mines and member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), stated that, in implementing this policy, the interests of students in all our schools must be first and foremost in our minds. It is clear that now is the time to pay the piper for those political promises and, clearly, this government must honour in a sensitive and responsible fashion its commitment to the educational needs of all the students in this province.

The students are here and they are confused and concerned because they want to hold us accountable for those promises. I am reminded of what the then Minister of Education said when he introduced funding on that day: “I am persuaded once again that the citizens of Ontario are an exemplary and generous people. They are looking to us to resolve these outstanding and historic questions in an exemplary and responsible fashion.”

Let us get responsible with this issue.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr. Offer: It is my pleasure, as the co-chairman of the Ontario Legislature Committee on Soviet Jewry, to rise and report on Sunday’s events in Washington, DC.

I and my colleague and co-chairman, the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen), attended a massive demonstration held in Washington on the eve of the third summit between President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev. This demonstration was called to bring to the public’s attention the issue of the deprivation of human rights and freedoms of those Jews living in the Soviet Union. Many hundreds of thousands of individuals from across Canada and the United States, from all religions, of all political parties and from all walks of life, met together in a unity of spirit and cause.

I was pleased to bring a message from our Premier (Mr. Peterson) to the Canadian delegation at a reception called by Ambassador Gotlieb. That message read, and I quote in part:

“On this historic occasion, it is fitting that we should turn our thoughts to the ideals of human dignity and global peace. The world yearns for the day when we will all live in liberty and justice.

“On this special Freedom Sunday, as you commemorate the struggle of Soviet Jews, I commend each of you for your efforts to achieve freedom and fairness for all the people of the world.”

It is signed “David Peterson.”

It was an outstanding day in which the message evolved that there can be no peace without justice and there cannot be any justice without human rights and freedoms.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Hampton: I wish to bring to the attention of this House the sorry situation which exists in many small northwestern Ontario communities with respect to health care.

Many Ontarians who live in southern Ontario are accustomed to having general-practice physicians and even medical specialists readily at hand. I want to tell this House that the experience of many communities in northwestern Ontario is quite the opposite.

For example, the town of Rainy River, mentioned in an

article in today’s Toronto Star, with a population of 1,000 and a large agricultural area surrounding it, has only one physician. He is on call all day every day, to the extent that he is considering leaving the community if another physician is not found to share the workload.

The same kind of condition exists in the community of Ignace, with a population of 2,400, a community that is not by any means isolated.

To date, this government and its predecessors have tried to deal with the problem of too few doctors in the north by offering a grant here and some extra money there, and to no one’s surprise, these solutions have not worked.

What is needed is a more novel approach by this government. Why not establish one medical school as the school for northern Ontario and train doctors who want to practice in northern Ontario and who indicate so on their way into medical school, rather than holding out the inducement of money later on?

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Cousens: It is abundantly clear that the lack of affordable housing in this province will not be resolved in the creative and innovative fashion this government would lead us to believe.

One of the more logical options to this crisis would seem to be the use of provincially owned lands in developing affordable housing. In fact, it was this government’s campaign pledge to develop 12,000 housing units on government-owned lands. But where are these units? Where is the land?

Has any attention been given to the auditor’s report, which questions whether the Downsview rehabilitation centre needs all of its 65 acres of land when the actual buildings and facilities use only seven? Could this land not be used to provide decent, affordable housing?

The Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) time and again refuses to answer my questions on this serious matter. For weeks, we on this side of the House have been subjected to bureaucratic bafflegab and political rhetoric. We have been told that the provision of affordable housing on provincial lands is being actively considered. If this is the case, what provincial lands are being considered?

I believe this is a reasonable question and, on behalf of the thousands of people of Ontario desperately searching for housing, reasonable answers must be given. I cannot tolerate the lack of answers that are coming from the present Minister of Housing, nor should this House.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr. Polsinelli: I wish to bring to the attention of this Legislature a recent incident that took place in Brashov, Romania, where on November 15, the day of local elections for regional council, thousands of Romanian citizens marched in protest of the latest austerity measures imposed by the government. These measures include the severe rationing of food and energy while wages are cut by 50 per cent.

The protesters, according to United Press International, stormed the Communist Party headquarters and the city hall. The ensuing violence was the worst in that country in the past decade. The uprising was eventually crushed by security forces, who beat down the protesters and arrested several hundred. There is ample reason to be concerned that those arrested on November 15 will be detained and summarily tried without recourse to legal defence.

The systemic denial of human rights should be of paramount concern to legislators everywhere. Canadians of Romanian heritage and their organizations are particularly concerned with the reprisals of the Romanian government towards its dissidents and the oppressive measures of that regime.

I would like to welcome those responsible for bringing this information to our attention. They are with us today in the members’ gallery. They are: from the Romanian Voice newspaper, Mrs. Mihela Moisin; Professor Tudor Bompa, president of the Romanian National Council; and Nicolai Popescu of the Canadian-Romanian Institute for Human and Cultural Rights.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: If I may, I would like to draw the members’ attention to a former member of this Legislature who is in the gallery today, Murray Gaunt, the member for Huron-Bruce at one time.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr. B. Rae: My question is to the Minister of Labour, who I see is just coming in. Perhaps I could give him 20 seconds to find his seat.

My question concerns a number of broken promises and unkept commitments of his government.

If I can just start with this simple question, I would like to ask him why, for example, when his predecessor, on behalf of the government, told this House on many occasions and when, in particular, he told the people of Ontario during the last election that one of the first priorities of the government would be to introduce legislation with respect to health and safety in the workplace, and indicated, in particular, that it would be a priority for the first session of the government -- indeed, he said he would bring it back on the very first day -- it is that after the House has been sitting as long as we have been sitting, and when we are about to break for Christmas, we still have no legislation from this government in the vital area of health and safety.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am not sure exactly what my friend is talking about in terms of a commitment to bring in legislation on the very first day. Let me just tell him and reassure him, as I have done privately, that the work is ongoing on the matter of legislation bringing in major revisions to the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Discussions are going on with union representatives, with other unorganized workers and with owners and managers of companies, and I fully expect to be in a position to bring a bill into this House in the relatively near future.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister has indicated on several occasions, both publicly and privately, as he said, that the government has no intentions to bring in any legislation before Christmas. I see the minister is nodding his head, so he can confirm that fact. The government committed itself as long ago as 1985 to new legislation in the field of affirmative action. As the minister responsible for women’s issues, can he tell us why the Liberal Party has broken its promises with respect to legislation dealing with the vital question of affirmative action?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I think the Leader of the Opposition ought first to look at some of the steps that have been taken within the public sector on employment equity and affirmative action. I feel and the women’s directorate feels that those steps are vital to bringing employment equity and affirmative action to the workplace generally in Ontario.

We are also working on other initiatives. I think he is aware of those. It may well be that in the future I can make a statement on those to clarify them if he is not aware of them. I think we have been very progressive in that area. I do not recall a commitment, whether in 1985 or during the most recent election campaign, to legislate in that area. I think I simply have to refer my friend to the throne speech that began this session, which speech confirms our commitment in that area.

Mr. B. Rae: If the minister needs reminding of what precisely the Liberal Party has been committed to, let me remind him that in May 1983, which is clearly almost to the point of being a historic commitment now of the Liberal Party, the Ontario Liberal Party stated, “Our party is definitely in favour of mandatory affirmative action, of equal opportunities for women.”

I would like to ask the minister, why has the government taken no legislative action in terms of affirmative action, in terms of contract compliance, in terms of those issues where other jurisdictions have moved? The federal government has moved in terms of the issue of contract compliance. Why has the minister rejected the approach of taking a legal, full-brunt-of-the-law approach to this question? Why has he broken his commitment, the historic commitment of the Liberal Party, to use the law in order to require companies to have affirmative action programs? Why has the minister rejected that approach?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Speaking of historic commitments, I think the Leader of the Opposition ought simply to look at the Pay Equity Act, which is a historic piece of legislation, which I remind him and every member of this House will be proclaimed on January 1 next year and will have a major impact throughout the public sector, the broader public sector and the private sector in bringing greater economic opportunity and economic equity to the working women of Ontario. It is legislation that breaks new ground not only for every jurisdiction in Canada, but throughout North America.

He knows as well as every member of this House knows that it is perhaps the single most important piece of legislation for working women in North America.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. B. Rae: The only thing I can say about that answer is that it is utterly irrelevant to the question I posed to the minister, which dealt with affirmative action. The minister, I would point out, did not --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is your question to the minister?

Mr. B. Rae: Yes, and I will get to it.

The question I have for the Minister of Labour is this: In 1985, in November of that year, Donald Brown reported on the question of wage protection for workers who are affected by bankruptcy. Mr. Brown called for legislation to ensure that workers got the money owed them from a bankrupt firm before banks or other creditors could collect.

The minister’s predecessor is now the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye). He is supposed to be protecting consumers, having flunked the protection of workers. He said he would go ahead with provincial legislation in the spring of 1986 even if the federal government did not act. It is now December 1987.

I wonder if the minister can tell us just what he is going to do on behalf of those workers who even now are still left far behind banks and other financial institutions when it comes to their priority. Even now in Ontario there are workers who, when a firm goes bankrupt, are out on their ear and do not have a nickel to show for it from the company because this government has failed to move to protect them when it comes to where it stands on a bankruptcy.

Can the minister tell us why it has taken over two years before he was even aware of the report? Can he tell us now what he is going to do in terms of that broken promise?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Just apropos of my friend’s comments about passing and flunking, I think that is always an examination and a question that is put to the voters. I do not think my friend the Leader of the Opposition ought to be making comments. We know who passes and fails in the democratic process. It raises a larger question. I want to the speak to the issue the Leader of the Opposition has raised because it is a very important one.

Members will know that the Bankruptcy Act and legislation in respect of bankruptcies, failures of companies, are constitutionally within the purview of the federal government under the British North America Act -- specifically sections 91 and 92, I think they are.

I agree that steps need to be taken for greater protection of the wages of working people in this province and right across this country in a situation where a company has petitioned itself or some other entity has petitioned it into bankruptcy. This is not an issue, however, that is going to be solved simply by provincial action. It is one that has to be taken in conjunction with the federal government, revisions to the Bankruptcy Act that will apply to every workplace and every situation of bankruptcy throughout Canada.

Mr. B. Rae: Let me tell the minister something. First of all, his answers are very reminiscent in terms of who won and who has lost. They are very reminiscent of Bill Davis after 1981. The minister was not here then, so he would not recall those conversations, but they are really almost exactly the same. If that is who the minister chooses to follow, that is up to him. If that is the record of the Liberal government, if that is the attitude it wants to take, that is fine. Let that hang around its neck, because that is the way it is going to be.

Surely the Ministry of Labour was aware of the Constitution when it asked somebody of the distinction of Don Brown to look into this question. Surely the minister is not arguing that Mr. Brown is unaware of some of the constitutional issues. Even though Mr. Brown said in 1985 that the provincial government could act in terms of changing the Employment Standards Act and even though his predecessor said that the provincial government would act by 1986, is the minister now saying that the Liberal government has broken that promise and that commitment of his predecessor with respect to protecting workers’ wages? Is that what he is saying?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am not saying anything of the sort. When the member refers to the Bill Davis era, he is clearly wrong. What he suggested in his supplementary is that my predecessor as Minister of Labour did not have a number of accomplishments during his tenure. I would point out to him first-contract legislation, women’s legislation, the indexation of workers’ pensions and on and on. The achievements of this government and the previous Minister of Labour have been historic. That is a success rate which the voters of this province confirmed.

I invite the views, the reflections, the suggestions and the policy approaches that the Leader of the Opposition and his party -- and the third party, the Progressive Conservative Party -- might take to protect workers’ salaries in a case of bankruptcy. I am not saying to him I will have legislation prepared for January, February or March of next year, but I think it is an urgent matter.

Rather than trying to politicize it by saying, “You had to have it done by 1986 and you did not,” why do we not try to put our heads together and see if we cannot develop a legislative approach that is consistent with the federal government’s constitutional authority and bring a better regime for workers in that situation?

Mr. B. Rae: I wonder if the minister can explain why the Liberal Party has broken its promises to the people of this province on affirmative action. It has broken its promises on health and safety. It has broken its promises on workers’ compensation. It has broken its promises on hours of work. It has broken its promises on protection from plant closures and layoffs and it has broken its promises in terms of protecting workers’ wages. We can point to specific commitments that have been made by the Liberal Party, the Liberal government, the Premier (Mr.

Peterson) and the previous Minister of Labour with respect to each one of those areas. The government has not budged an inch to deal with those questions nor to help workers in those situations. Can the minister explain why he has managed to break all those promises?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Those who enjoy the broadcast of question period either simultaneously or later on in the evening will realize that this week the Leader of the Opposition is on a new theme, that is, broken promises. I think the people who look at the record know that is not true.

Mr. Wildman: You are the ones who are breaking that.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The people of the province know that is not true.

Let us take one specific issue, revisions to the Occupational Health and Safety Act. On the last day of the last parliament, my predecessor introduced Bill 106, which contained major revisions. Everyone I have talked to, including members of his party, has suggested that there are improvements to be made on Bill 106. People in the union movement, representatives from the Ontario Federation of Labour, have said to me, “Would you please hold off reintroducing Bill 106, because I think there are substantial improvements that we can make.” Others have said that as well.

My friend the Leader of the Opposition is shaking his head. I suggest that he check --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that is a sufficient answer.

PROPERTY TAXES

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Minister of Revenue with respect to the question of market value assessment. In following the minister’s comments with respect to this very complicated issue, I note the minister on one occasion indicated that before he would implement market value assessment it would require the unanimous consent and approval of the six Metro municipalities. On another occasion, he said it would require a majority vote of the Metro council. Those are two distinctly different positions, both of which I believe I understand reasonably clearly.

I wonder if the minister would, for the purposes of perhaps clarifying the confusion that may arise around this question, indicate to us which of those two positions, both of which he put forward, is the correct position.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Over our dead body.

Mr. Breaugh: Why is Ian Scott laughing?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: No, not exactly.

I must admit to the honourable member that maybe I was a little blunt two weeks ago when I was expecting six municipalities in Metro to co-operate with my ministry in implementing final legislation, but I must admit that my ministry is for ever trying to get all municipal governments to be on side with the final decision of this government. I can assure members that we will continue to co-operate with every municipality in this province. Who knows? One day Metro might have its own reassessment.

Mr. Brandt: I am not sure whether that is a brand-new, emerging third position or what the minister is really alluding to, but the municipal leaders in this great municipality of Metro Toronto would like to get some clarification from him. They have heard comment from the previous and the past Minister of Revenue, who is in this House at the present time, as the minister knows. He made certain comments with respect to this issue. The minister has taken a couple of positions on it.

Will he please, for the clarification of the House and for the municipal leaders, who are looking for some leadership from him in connection with this issue, indicate exactly what it is he is looking for them to do and what he intends to do?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I still agree with the position of my predecessor. I think he made it very clear to Metro that we would need some consensus from the six municipalities, and we will continue to work on this consensus.

I would like to remind the honourable member that all mayors and Metro politicians are very much aware of our position. That is why this evening they will take a vote and decide for themselves what they want to do with reassessment in Metro.

Mr. Brandt: I have a great deal of respect for the Minister of Revenue, whom I have known for a long time prior to his even coming to this House, and I have to tell members that even he had to smile while he was giving his answer to the House on the last question. It was very difficult for him to keep a straight face.

I have to say that the former Minister of Revenue indicated that the responsibility -- I am quoting directly from one of his more sage moments when he gave a direct and very specific quote --

Mr. Breaugh: It must have been early in the day.

Mr. Brandt: It was early in the day when he gave this quote. He said, “The responsibility lies with the elected members of the various councils.” I take that to mean he was talking about the six councils, the six municipalities in the Metro area. Again, I ask the minister, is it the Metro councils that are going to make this decision or is it the Metro council itself? Who is going to make the decision?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I think the previous Minister of Revenue has said in this House on a number of occasions that reassessment would never be imposed on any municipality in this province, and he was absolutely right. What I am looking for, and also to satisfy my honourable friend, is a consensus and, hopefully, that consensus will come this evening. Let us wait and see what the final Metro vote will be this evening.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Jackson: I have a question for the Minister of Education. I would like to quote a paragraph from the Stephen Goudge decision respecting the matter of the dispute between the Hamilton-Wentworth Roman Catholic Separate School Board and the Hamilton Board of Education and Wentworth County Board of Education.

“The goal of upgrading Roman Catholic secondary school facilities cannot be accomplished only by the transfer of existing facilities from public boards. To do so might impair the viability of the public secondary system. While the transfer of use can contribute to the solution of this problem, the remainder of the solution must be in large part a provincial responsibility and a longer-term goal. It must not be exclusively a burden upon the public secondary school system.”

Will the minister assure this House that cabinet will be looking seriously at this specific recommendation as a possible solution to the Hamilton-Wentworth appeal currently before cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I would like to assure the member for Burlington South that indeed cabinet will review carefully the submissions of the parties to the appeal in the light of the arbitrator’s report and will give serious consideration to all the viewpoints that are put forward.

Mr. Jackson: If the minister then has assured this House that this option I have referred to will be looked at seriously, can he today stand in the House and assure this House that the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has provided additional and sufficient capital funds so that cabinet is in a position to consider a new secondary school for the Hamilton-Wentworth impasse?

Hon. Mr. Ward: As I indicated yesterday to the member in my initial answer, cabinet will give careful consideration to the submissions that are put forward by the appellants to the accommodation dispute in Hamilton-Wentworth.

It would not be appropriate for me to respond beyond that, other than to say, certainly in general terms, that the capital allocation for this year throughout Ontario to meet the capital needs of school boards throughout the province is at a level some 50 per cent higher than the previous year. I think that does reflect this government’s commitment to ensuring that the students of this province are provided with adequate accommodation.

Mr. Jackson: It is hard to believe that we are in a position to look at the option seriously if the minister is equivocating on the fact of whether he has sufficient funding.

My final supplementary has to deal with the process involved in the transfers. During the hearings on Bill 30, issues of school transfers were considered in the light of the current regulations in place at the time governing school closures. The school closure policy in Ontario was a sensitive process involving community participation and full notice.

It appears that there is a concern being expressed today that there were a lot of surprises with respect to Mr. Goudge’s report. Is the minister prepared to consider a review of the sections of his regulations with respect to the transfer of schools as a result of arbitrators’ decisions under Bill 30 and will he advise this House whether he is looking towards building a more sensitive system that involves more community notice and participation in this sensitive issue of transferring facilities in communities across Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I would like to point out to the member for Burlington South that there have been quite a number of successful transfers, as he is no doubt aware, between coterminous boards throughout this province. Again, there has been a considerable number of successes.

I can indicate to the member that the government is always willing to look at any of its processes at any time, to see if there is any way in which we can enhance them.

HOURS OF WORK

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. The minister is well aware that

chapter 13 of the Donner report indicates that, using conservative estimates, a reduction in hours to a 40-hour week would likely eliminate unemployment for some 66,000 unemployed workers in Ontario.

Given that changes to the Employment Standards Act that control the hours of work and overtime would be one of the more effective ways of protecting the workers, particularly those in the retail trade, is the minister now prepared to offer that kind of protection to workers in Ontario and bring in some changes that will afford additional protection and more jobs for Ontario workers?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: There is not unanimity at all as to the job creation effect the changes proposed by Arthur Donner in his task force report would bring to Ontario; but that is not to suggest that the recommendations contained in the task force report are not good ones, none the less.

The suggestion, I think, from my friend the member for Hamilton East is that changes consistent with what is contained in Donner’s report would also be of benefit to retail workers who may be impacted by the changing approach toward -- I guess he is referring to Sunday shopping. Obviously, as a result of my commitment and our government’s commitment to look at enhanced protection there, we will be examining whether, within the broad parameters Arthur Donner is suggesting in his report, we might be able to enhance protection for those very workers with that sort of regime.

Mr. Mackenzie: I would also ask the minister if he is prepared to take a look at measures such as additional paid vacation, statutory holidays and a gradual reduction of the hours of work below 40 in Ontario, and to do that now, in a time when the economy is not as bad as it has been at times in the past, which is generally considered to be the time to make these kinds of progressive moves, with a view to protecting employment of workers in Ontario as we meet with the additional challenges of automation and so on.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: There are a number of points the member for Hamilton East is making -- additional statutory holidays. I look at Orders and Notices and notice he has introduced a bill which would amend the Employment Standards Act creating, I think it is, three new statutory holidays. He is suggesting, as well, that we consider the possibility of reducing the standard work week to below 40 hours. Arthur Donner in his report is suggesting a 40-hour standard work week.

All of these things are right now the subject of some policy-crafting within the ministry. I can tell my friend that Mr. Donner has now completed phase 2 of his report. That document is being translated into the French language, and I anticipate we are going to be able to release that very soon. That document deals with specific areas, including construction workers, domestics and other specific sectors.

I have already examined some of the bills my friend has introduced and they are consistent and do go beyond some of things Arthur Donner suggested. I tell him and I tell the rest of the members of this House that we look forward some time in 1988 to bringing in some fairly substantial revisions to the Employment Standards Act. I do not think all of them will be to the satisfaction of my friend, but I think he will welcome many of them.

PURCHASE OF SURPLUS POWER

Mr. Runciman: My question is for the Minister of Energy. I wonder if the minister would tell the House what the policy of his government is with respect to purchasing surplus power from neighbouring provinces.

Hon. Mr. Wong: Purchasing power from neighbouring provinces is within the security-of-supply energy policy for Ontario.

Mr. Runciman: That was another one of the minister’s enlightening answers.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: You don’t like the long answers; you don’t like the short answers. If you want a long answer, ask me.

An hon. member: We do not like no answers; that is the problem.

Mr. Runciman: We are looking for some informative answers. As I said last week, we are getting nonanswers. Obviously, many of these ministers simply do not have a clue about what they are supposed to be doing over there.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary question?

Mr. Runciman: In the Globe and Mail, Canada’s national newspaper, of November 30, it was reported that Ontario Hydro declined to purchase surplus power offered by Quebec. I guess we assumed that the minister was asked for his input but, based on his answer, I guess we are going to have to assume otherwise.

Would the minister tell the House whether he agrees with Ontario Hydro’s decision and what does he see as the long-term implications of this decision, especially with respect to possible increases in nuclear generating capacity?

Hon. Mr. Wong: With respect to the particular hydroelectric power that Quebec offered to Ontario, Ontario Hydro decided that at the time that power would be available it would not be needed by Ontario and by Hydro in its grid system and therefore it was rejected.

However, in future it could very well be that the demand picture for electricity in Ontario is such that we would have to enter into such a contract.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Miss Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The minister will be aware that there has been a continuing struggle by the Sudbury Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Union to have its worker representative have access to the joint health and safety committee. He has not yet been recognized by the company, although this battle has gone on for a year now.

The minister will also be aware that this is a direct violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, subsection 8(5), which states, “A committee shall consist of at least two persons of whom at least half shall be workers who do not exercise managerial functions.”

I would like to ask the minister, since he is aware of the situation, what he intends to do.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am glad to see my friend the member for Sudbury East is back in the House. I noted her absence last week. I am not sure why she was absent, but she was not keeping up to date In fact, I think it was a week ago today that I met with the head of the Mine, Mill union in Sudbury. He raised the issue with me at that time.

At that time I had an opportunity to tell him that about two hours before he came into my office I had signed a letter ordering that the representative of the union be appointed to that joint health and safety committee.

Had she asked the question about a week and a half ago, she might have had a more powerful supplementary.

Miss Martel: The minister will know that the first order issued in this case was issued on January 6, 1987, with the compliance date set for February 9, 1987. The company did not appeal the order, there was no compliance and there was no prosecution.

On March 25, 1987, repeat orders were given after complaints were made by the union that the company had not complied. The ministry called this not a repeat order but only an assessment report and some friendly advice to the company. Again there was no compliance. The company has refused now to accept a second individual who wants to be placed on that health and safety committee.

I would say to the minister it is obvious this company has no intention of complying with this order and I would like to know what he intends to do to make sure this act is observed.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I guess I was wrong; I think that was a very good supplementary. I think it was an excellent supplementary.

I tell my friend the member for Sudbury East that the order I sent out about a week ago is clear and unequivocal on its face and I expect it to be complied with. The joint health and safety committee, whether at Falconbridge or anywhere else, is crucial, as she knows, to ongoing health and safety issues in the workplace and I expect those orders to be complied with. If they are not, appropriate measures will be taken.

I can tell my friend that I have, at the very same time, met with the president of the union on that very issue, among a number of other issues, and he, if not the member for Sudbury East, is entirely satisfied with the actions that have been taken by me and the Ministry of Labour in this regard.

TRANSMISSION LINES

Mr. Sterling: Today I received a copy of the decision of the cabinet that turned down the appeal by the Bridlewood community with regard to the Ontario Hydro corridor going through the city of Kanata. I note that it is dated December 2, 1987. This is December 8. I wonder why we did not receive this document December 3. Perhaps it had something to do with the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) opening a new school under that very hydro line last Thursday.

I say to the Minister of Energy that the people of Kanata are very angry today. They believe his government has not acted properly over the past two years in considering this matter. Is he now willing to offer the people of Bridlewood and the people of eastern Ontario in the city of Kanata the same opportunity as the people in southwestern Ontario were given, to sell their properties at fair market value due to the loss in property values over this decision by his cabinet, due to the fact that there is a possibility the 16-storey, 500-kilowatt twin towers might fall on their property and --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is very clear.

Hon. Mr. Wong: We empathize with the feelings of the people in the community. The government, of course, also has to consider the other 200,000 or 300,000 people who would be affected by this decision. One of the important factors we had to consider was due process of law. As the member indicated, the community has had two years in which to have its views known, heard and decided by cabinet.

Mr. Sterling: We have seen two years of bungling by this government over this decision. Bridlewood and Kanata feel that the system of government in this province stinks with regard to this matter. I fear for their confidence in the system. I fear for the violence that this decision may create in that community.

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Sterling: Will the minister provide these people with adequate funding to fight Ontario Hydro and to dispute his decision in the courts, where they intend to take this? Will he order Hydro to withhold any construction action on the corridor until this matter has been decided by the courts so that we can finally get some measure of justice? Will he provide the people with adequate financing so he can avoid the violence that is going to take place on that line if those hydro workers go at it?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Two questions were asked.

Hon. Mr. Wong: The joint board that originally made the first decision was a board with integrity and expertise. Its decision was appealed by the community, as the member knows. After full consideration, the cabinet decided that the original board decision was correct: The joint board went further and permitted a mitigation process. This again was appealed. I feel that after two years the matter has been fully discussed.

NEPEAN CIVIC AND PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE

Mr. Daigeler: My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications. Next April, the city of Nepean will be opening its new civic complex. This impressive facility will house our new city hall, a central library, an outdoor rink and a 1,000-seat theatre, built right in the heart of Nepean, and if I may say so, right next to my constituency office. This beautifully designed complex will become a major focus for the 100,000 residents of Nepean. The theatre will become a real attraction for community events in Nepean and across the Ottawa-Carleton region.

Never to be outdone by the interim leader of the once mighty but now third party, I have brought along for today’s show-and-tell hour a beautiful artist’s sketch to show how impressive this facility is going to be.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you have a question?

Mr. Daigeler: Has the minister had time to study the funding application by the city of Nepean for this project? Does she feel that this is an initiative worthy of provincial support? Finally, when might we expect an announcement and, hopefully, a positive one?

Hon. Ms. Munro: I have indeed studied the Nepean proposal, and visited the civic officials two years ago to take a look at the plans. As everyone in the House knows, those applications which use community facilities improvement programming dollars must go through the field offices. The proposal has now left the field office and has received favourable analysis through my ministry. I congratulate the people of Nepean and am hopeful that I will be able to provide the member with more positive information at a later date.

Mr. Daigeler: I am appreciative to the minister for her attention to this matter. I would just like to point out to the opposition that we can ask long questions as well on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a supplementary?

Mr. Daigeler: I would like to point out to the minister that we would be very pleased to see her at the opening of this project, and I would like to invite her to support me in my efforts to have the Premier (Mr. Peterson) present at this opening as well. So I would like to ask the minister whether she is willing to give me her assistance in getting the Premier to celebrate this important event in the life of Nepean and also the very historic achievement that, for the first time in Nepean’s history, we have a Liberal member for Nepean.

Hon. Ms. Munro: I think it is a marvellous experience to see so much energy and creativity being shown by a member on issues relating to culture and communications. I join the member in saying I will sincerely look at the invitation, should it come to me, as will the Premier. I invite the whole Legislature to go to Nepean, should it get the money.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr. Allen: My question is to the Minister of Labour. When I asked the minister a question yesterday about the closure of Lapp Insulators in Hamilton, he replied, “I can tell him...that ministry officials are meeting right now with company officials.’’ It sounded as though the minister were indeed coming to grips in an urgent and concerned way with a problem of Hamilton working people.

What are the facts? There was no meeting going on right then with company officials. The only contact there has been with the company was a brief telephone call placed on December 2 by the manager of the plant to the local plant closure office. That call was the only call that has been made. There have been no calls placed by the ministry to any Lapp official in Hamilton or elsewhere, as far as the company knows, asking the company to explain its action or anything else, and there has been no call from the minister’s office at any point to the union in question.

Is this what the minister calls meeting right away on the urgent and concerned problems of Hamilton workers? How can they take him seriously as a fighter on their behalf if this is the incredibly feeble response he is making?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: In addition to the discussions that have gone on between my ministry and people within the union and at Lapp, negotiations and discussions have gone on, I am told, between representatives of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology and officials from the company. Obviously, our primary concern is to find a way in which to ensure somehow that Lapp Insulators does not close permanently and finally.

If indeed that is ultimately not possible -- and those discussions are, I am told, going on within the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology -- the Ministry of Labour will be providing assistance to the workers within that industry to help them in retraining programs and in applying their talents in other areas within Hamilton. In addition, because of the size of the payroll, I am told the provisions of Bill 85 that deal with severance pay will be applicable to this situation.

We have a team within the ministry that will be at the disposal of union officials, management officials and the workers to ensure that their rights under the law are protected and indeed, if the plant is going to close -- and we all hope that it is not --that there will be assistance for those workers.

Mr. Allen: It is indeed very interesting when the manager of the plant tells us that the only contact he has had with any provincial official was on December 2 when he telephoned that plant closure office.

This government pretends it is gearing up to deal with free trade in this province. This kind of plant closure situation is exactly the pattern that will follow in case after case as we move down the road. Lapp bought its plant in Hamilton in order to supply the Canadian market. They got large contracts with Quebec on the supposition that they were remaining a Canadian supplier. It appears they are now transferring their production to a plant in upstate New York. There is no reason why this production should not stay in Ontario.

Will the minister immediately summon the owners of Lapp from New York to come here and meet with him, the union and community officials in order to discuss ways and means of bringing this plant back into production in Hamilton?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am not sure whether my friend’s question really was a question concerning free trade or whether it was something narrower or broader. Obviously, if he is making a statement on free trade, I think his assessment and the assessments we have heard from many people are consistent with what he has heard. However, I do not think in this particular situation it really is a free trade issue.

The company was purchased a couple of years ago. Lapp in fact purchased the assets of another bankrupt firm, Canadian Porcelain Co. Ltd. and there was an effort to make this a viable enterprise. I am told that it has not been successful. There was a strike that began on November 30 and since that time things have degenerated even further. We are doing what we can on the labour side. My colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) is doing what he can on the industry side. We will be taking co-ordinated steps to see what we can do.

RENTERPRISE PROGRAM

Mr. Pope: My question is to the Minister of Housing. Can the minister, in dealing with the Renterprise issue, explain clearly to this House and to the people of Ontario how tenders are awarded or proposals accepted for Renterprise projects across this province? Can she table all proposals made or tenders offered to the government and those accepted, with explanations of this?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I am honoured to be the person to receive the first question in this House from the member for Cochrane North.

Interjections.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Cochrane South, sorry.

The member opposite knows that we decided quite early -- l think it was in October -- that we were going to phase out Renterprise because there were more quick ways to have an impact on the housing market. However, the way in which the Renterprise project worked was that ads were placed by the ministry calling for proposals, then the proposals were received and evaluated to ensure the best product at the best price, and then there were 15-year interest-free loans provided to those people whom we thought could do a good job in delivering rental accommodation to the people of Ontario.

Mr. Pope: My question specifically to the Minister of Housing was, would she table all of the tenders and proposals, including those accepted, with an explanation for the decisions made. I would appreciate an answer to that question. It does involve public money. Will the minister table that information this week in the Legislature and can she also explain how the fair market value of land that composes part of these projects was arrived at and policed in the Renterprise program?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: There has already been a question from the Housing critic about this issue and the ministry is preparing a list of all the projects that have been given under Renterprise. When that is complete it will be made available.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question to the Minister of Labour, who has left the room. I will stand it down.

FARM SAFETY

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The minister will be aware that the accident rate in agriculture in this province in the last two years, 1985 and 1986, was higher than was the accident rate in mining and just behind the construction industry, according to Workers’ Compensation Board figures.

A staggering 50 per cent of farm fatalities and half of the child fatalities on farms involved accidents on tractors. In view of this, will the minister move to require mandatory roll bars on all farm machinery, such as tractors, in this province, rather than waiting for the implementation committee to report in April?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The honourable member knows that we did implement a farm safety program not too long ago. Part of the program was farm safety. My understanding is that a lot of the funding from that program is being used by farmers to put roll bars and cabs on their tractors. I would hope they would voluntarily use our program to continue to put those safety features on not only tractors but also other pieces of machinery and other parts of their farming operations.

I do not think we have to mandate it. I think the farmers are going to utilize the very excellent programs that we always put in place with this government and they will continue to apply more safety measures on their farms than they have in the past.

Mr. Wildman: If the minister’s approach had been followed, we would not have mandatory seatbelt legislation in this province. We would not require hardhats on construction sites in this province. It is a rather silly approach. We recognize that there is a ministry program to assist farmers to put safety devices on their equipment. I am asking if he is prepared to make it mandatory. In Denmark and West Germany, tractor-related deaths were reduced by one tenth the previous average when this legislation was made mandatory in those jurisdictions. Will the minister follow that example?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I am not prepared at this time to make it mandatory. I would like to wait for a further report on this. We do have a joint committee established to follow up the Richards report. One has to take into consideration other costs that are involved in making such safety measures mandatory. The member knows full well that many farmers have to go into buildings with their tractors to clean up those buildings. If we make roll bars mandatory, it means that they will have to rebuild because they cannot get through the door with those tractors with roll bars on. We have to look at other costs that are going to be involved before we start making such measures mandatory.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Wiseman: A question to the Minister of Transportation: About three weeks ago the regional representative of the Ministry of Transportation met with the municipal people from west Carleton, as well as the town of Arnprior and about 40 concerned citizens, on the rerouting of Madawaska Boulevard, the exit on to Highway 17, the closure of that and the problem the loss of business is creating for many of the merchants there.

I would ask the minister if the region has sent its proposal through to him for the correction of this intersection and if he could give us the answer here today that, we hope, he has approved it.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: No, I do not think I have received the letter, but as I recall, the left-turn intersection the member is referring to was closed at the request of the local councils because of the accident rate. However, we are looking at other intersection improvements that may be effected and I understand they could be effected some time next year to respond to the needs of the local merchants.

Mr. Wiseman: I understood from the region that a proposal had gone through to the minister’s office for his approval or disapproval, whatever the case may be, and that it was satisfactory to those 40-some merchants as well as the two municipalities. I ask the minister if he will check with the region, and if by chance he could, give us an answer before we adjourn for the Christmas holidays.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The member will be well aware we deal every day with many of the municipalities across the province, not the least of which are those the member represents. I did indicate that I think the report from the ministry is coming forward to make some improvements on Highway 15. I have not seen the specific letter he mentions, but I will look into it in about six minutes from now when leaving question period.

INTERNATIONAL BANKING CENTRES

Mr. Ferraro: I have a question for the Treasurer. He will know that the Mulroney government intends by the end of this month to designate Montreal and Vancouver as international banking centres. The Treasurer will know as well that the Mulroney government intentionally has decided not to designate Toronto, which is downright silly if not ridiculous. My question to the Treasurer is, can he tell the House of his plans and indeed his time line in making sure that the city of Toronto is not relegated to a back seat in the national and global financial arena?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I agree with all the adjectives used in the honourable member’s question and regret that the standing committee of Parliament reported the

section positively. I understand that it had been before the committee previously and that under the direction of Mr. Blenkarn, the chairman, it was not reported. Some changes had to be made in the composition of the committee until they got a tied vote and the chairman himself supported the government policy that reported this, I would say, ill-advised recommendation back to the House, unfortunately, for enactment.

As far as we are concerned, we do not feel it is going to substantially change the very healthy competition between Montreal and Toronto, and including Vancouver, but we are watching it very carefully and we are prepared to make any changes necessary in our legislation or imposition of fees in order to maintain that competition. We feel, frankly, that it will not have a substantial effect and that it has a good deal of window-dressing associated with it, but we are observing it very closely.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Early when this session returned, I raised during members’ statements the matter of the death of Frank Pival, a 49-year-old resident of Windsor who had worked for 29 years at Wyeth pharmaceuticals and who had had his claim in front of the Workers’ Compensation Board for quite some time. In the last two years alone, my office has called the Workers’ Compensation Board or contacted it 17 times, the file has been lost at least once and the claim has not been approved as yet.

Does the Minister of Labour approve of this method of dealing with people’s lives through the Workers’ Compensation Board? What has he specifically done about Frank Pival’s case? When is his government going to get serious about cleaning up its problems at the Workers’ Compensation Board?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: As I recall, I did receive some correspondence from my friend the member for Windsor-Riverside on really a tragic case, Mr. Pival’s case. If I am not mistaken, I have sent a letter back to him on the issue. It is not an easy and simple matter for the board or for anyone, because the allegation is that the cancer that caused the death of the claimant was caused by a workplace substance. If I recall correctly, it was formaldehyde. That issue, of course, requires a great deal of scientific evidence and it is a very challenging issue for the board.

My friend’s suggestion is that the board has taken far too long. I can only tell him I am sympathetic to his concern about the length of time and I have discussed the matter with the chairman of the board and will suggest again that the adjudication of the matter be completed as expeditiously as possible, realizing all the time that it is a very challenging scientific matter to relate what the cause of death was to the conditions in the workplace.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It is challenging for the Workers’ Compensation Board, but it is a hell of a lot more challenging for the Pival family and for a man who died not even knowing that his widow was going to be taken care of by the Workers’ Compensation Board after working for 29 years in these kinds of chemicals.

I would like to ask the minister, when is he going to get serious about giving workers like Frank the benefit of the doubt so they can get the benefits they deserve in a modern, 1987 Ontario?

Finally, I would like to ask the minister, what is his response on the request the workers have made at this plant to have a health study, because there are other people who have died from cancer at Wyeth and many other diseases that have been related to the chemicals they work with at Wyeth? When is he going to get a health study started?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: There is a frailty in the supplementary question that my friend the member for Windsor-Riverside asked, and that is his suggestion, within the context of his question, that it is a simple matter to determine that certain agents in the workplace were the cause of the brain tumour that caused the death. That simply is not the case. There is no medical evidence currently before the board or anywhere else that can be found to suggest a linkage between the chemical agent and the development of the brain cancer.

I suggest to my friend that if the workers at that plant have put in a request to me for a health study, we will be investigating it. I am not sure whether he is suggesting that request has gone to the ministry or to the board, but I will get back to him on that as soon as I can.

PETITION

SCHOOL BUSES

Mr. Poirier: I have a petition to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from 205 persons in my riding, asking the Ministry of Transportation to move to amend the provincial traffic laws so that all school buses across the province are uniformly required to come to a full stop at all railway crossings.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mrs. Smith moved first reading of Bill 61,

An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: On December 9, 1986, Metropolitan Toronto council made a decision to request that the province amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act to increase the size of the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Commissioners of Police from five members to seven members, one additional member being appointed by the province and one by Metro council.

The ministries of the Solicitor General and Municipal Affairs are of the opinion that the workload of the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Commissioners of Police is sufficient to justify a seven-member board. Further, it is felt that the board’s management function with respect to the police force would be enhanced by this change.

This bill was previously given first reading as Bill 81 on June 8, 1987, in the Third Session of the 33rd Parliament. It is my pleasure to reintroduce this bill today.

Mr. Cureatz: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I just want to say to the Solicitor General that I am disappointed she did not bring this forward in statements at the beginning of question period instead of sneaking the bill in.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

HEALTH PROTECTION AND PROMOTION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Henderson moved first reading of Bill 62,

An Act to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Henderson: The purpose of this bill is to allow physicians and clinics for sexually transmitted diseases to provide for anonymous testing upon request for exposure to the acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or AIDS, virus. When testing has been performed on an anonymous basis, the clinic or physician will report a positive test to the medical officer of health in a way that does not disclose the identity of the patient.

LABORATORY AND SPECIMEN COLLECTION CENTRE LICENSING AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Henderson moved first reading of Bill 63,

An Act to amend the Laboratory and Specimen Collection Centre Licensing Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Henderson: The purpose of this bill is to permit laboratories and specimen collection centres to report a positive test result for exposure to the acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or AIDS, virus to the medical officer of health in a way that does not disclose the identity of the individual tested when the testing has been performed on an anonymous basis.

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Henderson moved first reading of Bill 64,

An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Henderson: The purpose of the bill is to make the provision of anonymous testing for the acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or AIDS, virus by physicians, clinics for sexually transmitted diseases, laboratories and specimen collection centres an uninsured service for the purposes of the Ontario health insurance plan.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

Mr. Kanter moved first reading of Bill Pr16,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. D. S. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Could I ask you to look at the questions that were asked today by the member for Nepean (Mr. Daigeler) to see whether they comply with standing order 29(a)? The standing order states, “Questions on matters of urgent public importance may be addressed to the ministers of the crown but the Speaker shall disallow any question which he does not consider urgent or of public importance.”

I understand that the Speaker, in the spring of 1985, ruled out of order a question from my colleague the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) that was based on the Halley’s Comet issue and its flying over earth. You indicated that was not a question of urgent public importance, and I suggest to you that the questions from the member for Nepean today certainly were not of urgent public importance. I just ask you to look at that.

Mr. Speaker: I am always willing to listen to the members’ comments and I will certainly take a look at it. In fact, I may take a look at more questions. I would be glad to.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker: It is appropriate for you to look at other matters, from my perspective, because it is a difficult issue for you. The question is not so much the initial question asking for the minister’s help on a particular project but the supplementary asking the minister and perhaps the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to come to visit the member’s riding. It was at that point that I thought that we should be drawing the line.

Mr. Speaker: Thanks for your assistance.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: I would like to inform the members that last Thursday the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) gave notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to a question given by the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) and I know all members will be here for that debate at six of the clock this evening.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

Hon. Mr. Conway: Before orders of the day, I would like to table the interim answers to questions 20 and 32 standing in Orders and now we have the government, with this bill Notices. [See Hansard for Monday, December 14]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE BOARD ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 2,

An Act to establish the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board and to provide for the Review of Automobile Insurance Rates.

Mr. Philip: When we adjourned last night at six o’clock, I was talking about the fact that in spite of 40 years’ experience in Saskatchewan with public auto insurance, in spite of 16 years’ experience in Manitoba, in spite of 14 years’ experience in British Columbia and in spite of the fact that independent studies have shown that it is less expensive to go the route of those three western provinces, the minister sent clear signals that this option was not to be studied in his so-called independent studies that were being paid for by the taxpayers.

Even the great right-winger, Premier Vander Zalm, when he is privatizing everything in sight in British Columbia, refuses to privatize the British Columbia auto insurance program.

On October 14, 1986, the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Kwinter), when he was Minister of Financial Institutions, stated that a rate review board was unworkable and that if one had been in place for the last five years, consumers would be paying between eight and 39 per cent higher premiums.

What is this bill doing, except setting up a rate review board? If it were going to increase rates on October 14, 1986, why is it not going to do something similar right now? The Slater report, which was later tabled, stated as follows, on page 1 79-this is the independent report paid for by the taxpayers and commissioned by this Liberal government, and it states very clearly:

“Rate regulation has been tried, in its various forms, in the United States with respect to insurance rates. The opinion is that the effects have been largely cosmetic, in that regulators allow deviations from established levels in rates that are, in effect, determined by competitive forces.”

First, we have the minister coming out and saying that he is against a rate review board because it is inflationary, then the minister’s own independent study that he has commissioned comes out and says it is not a good idea; and yet before the House, saying that somehow it is going to solve the problems of the inflation in auto insurance in this province. It just does not make any sense. If it was not applicable a couple of years ago, why is it applicable now? If it would not work a couple of years ago, what are the circumstances in between that would change and make it workable now?

The Liberals who get up to speak have not been able to explain what differences there are between two years ago, when it was clearly inappropriate, according to the Liberal minister and his own independent study, and now, when we have the very thing that they were against introduced in the House.

What the bill does is to set in place a complicated mechanism that provides no funding for consumer advocates or consumer groups to have representation on their interests. So what you are going to have are the insurance companies with their accountants and lawyers making their case and no one there representing the consumer. I suggest that if the minister really wanted this bill to work, then he would have at least provided some kind of funding for consumer advocacy so that the consumers would have a learned, well-researched voice to speak on their behalf.

The Liberal government was not content with one study on auto insurance. In November 1986 they appointed yet another commission, this time headed by Mr. Justice Coulter Arthur Osborne. He was supposed to report to the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. R. F. Nixon) on November 1 of this year. We still have not seen the results; we are still waiting for that report. So what we have are two studies over two years’ time, but not one of them deals with what one would think would be an essential, reasonable thing to do: namely, do a direct comparison, an independent study, with the three western provinces which have public insurance.

I get complaints from young drivers. I get complaints from taxi drivers. I get complaints from limousine drivers. There are a lot of limousine drivers in my riding. They own limousines that work out of the airport, which is just in the adjacent riding.

The Liberals promised during the election that they would deal with that problem. Well, they have done absolutely nothing in this bill or in any other legislation to cap the limousine rates. Limousine drivers can pay as much as $1,000 a month for insurance. They are now renewed on a monthly basis, so the rates can go up any month.

The minister has put in a reduction for taxi drivers and for young drivers but it averages something like $52 per driver. Earlier in the debate I pointed out that while introducing this very bill the minister in fact allowed a large increase as well in the rates for the insurance companies. What we have, then, is that the money is put in with one hand and taken out in larger globs with the other hand.

You tell a taxi driver who is paying $5,000 or $6,000 a year for insurance that he has got a great gift from the government -- it is going to be reduced by $52 -- and see what he will tell the minister, what he thinks of his legislation.

We have heard a lot of figures about percentages that insurance is going up in different provinces, but the fact is that Jack Lyndon himself, the president of the Insurance Bureau of Canada, on April 13, 1987, said that he could not quarrel with the figures that we in the New Democratic Party were tabling as the average insurance. He could not quarrel with the fact that Ontario is much more expensive when you look at auto insurance premiums. On April 14, on CFTO, Jack Lyndon further stated that the figures seemed to be right.

In Ontario the average number of accidents per 100 cars is 3.7, compared with 4.7 in Manitoba, 5.3 in Saskatchewan and 5.2 in British Columbia; so what we have is a higher accident rate in the west and still higher premiums here in Ontario. It just does not make any sense.

The Liberals like to talk about the recent increases in western Canada, but even if we take the very latest increases, we find -- and I would like to talk about the bottom line which the Premier (Mr. Peterson) likes to talk about. The bottom line is not the increase you paid, but the premium you paid. The bottom line is that a total six-year increase in British Columbia was 35 per cent; in Manitoba, 37 per cent; and Ontario’s six-year increase was over 70 per cent. Including the latest increases in the western provinces, what we end up with are average rates in British Columbia of $482, Manitoba of $405 and Saskatchewan of $251.

I think Ontario motorists who are paying an average of $640 a year would love to have the premiums the people are paying in either British Columbia, Manitoba or Saskatchewan.

One must ask why the consumers in western Canada do not call for privatization if their system is as bad as the Liberals here try to bring out, with their little letters to the editor and so forth they like to read. Why do the right-wing Conservative governments that are privatizing everything else not wish to privatize the insurance industry?

Of course, the answer is very clear: because the public as a whole supports it and pays lower premiums than it would under the private enterprise system. If we look at an editorial from the Winnipeg Free Press, in the January 1 edition, we see that it deals with the problem. It says: “Spokesmen for the Ontario-based insurance companies insist that they are merely playing catch-up, but those who pay are complaining. That situation has led the Liberal government to admit that the jump in rates is a serious problem, and while it does not want to run its own insurance scheme unless it is substantially cheaper than the private operations, corrective measures would be considered.”

That is the position of the Liberal government quoted by the Winnipeg Free Press. This is hardly a left-wing newspaper; it has been attacking the New Democratic Party government whenever it could on its editorial page. It says, “Like it or not, the publicly owned system is cheaper.”

Here is the Winnipeg Free Press, that has been very critical of the government on other matters that has been monitoring, that has been acting as another opposition force, and yet it still comes out in favour of the system that was developed there.

What we have here, then, is the situation where the Liberals and their rump, the Conservative Party members in this House, try to state that somehow the taxpayers in the western provinces are in some way subsidizing the system.

Of course, when we go case by case, we know that is simply not true. It is the old system that if we --

Mr. Wiseman: What about Manitoba?

Mr. Philip: Manitoba does not have a deficit. If the member would listen to some of the facts then he would learn something.

Mr. Wiseman: It was in the news the other day that they’re in the hole.

Mr. Philip: If the member would kindly listen to the debate, then he would learn something. I realize that is very difficult for him because of his personal prejudices, but if he would kindly listen then we would set the --

lnterjection.

Mr. Philip: He can ask questions and I would be happy to answer those questions, but if he would kindly not do it in the middle of my speech. It has been explained to him several times and either he is a very slow learner, a very poor listener or he simply does not want to have the facts. If he asks me that question, I would be happy to answer it in the debate.

I know that when the member for Lanark-Renfrew (Mr. Wiseman) comes in here on these few occasional times, he does not speak much in the House so he has got to interject in order to get his name on the record occasionally.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. If we look at the Ontario select committee report, it says, “As a result of their findings, the committee is inclined to the conclusion that there are no significant hidden subsidies or free rides that would materially distort the financial information under consideration.” It goes on in that same report to show that the overhead or the operating cost of a public system is so much cheaper than in the private enterprise system.

We have before us a bill which will not solve the automobile insurance crisis in Ontario. We have a bill that enacts a process that is bureaucratic and that is contrary to the Liberal government’s own study. We have a bill that is contrary to the statements made by the last Liberal Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations who was also Minister of Financial Institutions. We have a bill that is contrary to the promises made by the Liberals during and before the last election.

The minister should be ashamed to enact legislation like this; he should be ashamed that instead of protecting the consumers in this province he is, once again, like his predecessor, protecting the insurance companies.

Mr. Fleet: I wanted to address one particular alleged factor or alleged fact that comes repeatedly from the New Democratic Party on this matter. They keep referring to the number of accidents which occur. That is not the only factor that really impacts on the cost of insurance. The real heart of it is how many dollars get paid out per driver. It is the amount of the claims, the cost of repairing cars, the amount that is awarded in the costs. To not indicate the real facts is what really serves to mislead the public.

That is also why this government will be moving forward, as I understand it and as I am urging it, to deal with the process of car repairs. That is one of the elements which drives up the cost of premiums.

The other aspect, of course, that is not really ever told by the opposition party, is that there are community groups that are quite opposed to what it believes. The community groups, such as People to Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere, believe that the no-fault system on a broad scale that the NDP would have us adopt is not desirable at all, that it will not assist in encouraging people to be responsible drivers. It is the sort of thing that they never mention. They never really tell the whole story. They give their view. While they believe in it a whole lot, that does not make it right.

In fact, it is the more reasoned approach that this government is adopting, and all of the very complex considerations that have to be taken into account, which is what is going to really serve the public.

Mr. Wiseman: I just have to rise to ask the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip) a little bit about his car insurance and the fact that he said that Manitoba was not in a deficit position. What we all read and heard on the news was that they had to throw in another $50 million in order to make it viable.

Also, I would ask the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale if he has ever talked to some of the people who have had an accident in some of these provinces which have the government-run automobile insurance. I have an editor in my particular riding. He said that his first new car sat in a compound all winter long waiting to be fixed. We can all imagine, when we were young, a brand-new car sitting there through all the elements that it would go through in a winter, waiting to be fixed when the particular number came up for his car to be repaired. It was not repaired till spring. It was one of the accidents where the roof and so on had a lot of damage done to it.

Mr. Haggerty: Was his car replaced by one of the government cars?

Mr. Wiseman: No, there was no replacement. He had to take public transit. That was another thing.

Also, the bureaucrats that are set up in government to administer this state-owned auto-mobile insurance -- it is never mentioned how many people there are for that. It just makes it look as if the insurance companies are big fat cats without all this other truth coming in.

Mr. Swart: One opponent says thousands of jobs will be lost. Another says they are so inefficient they will have people falling over themselves.

Mr. Wiseman: The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) gets so wrapped up in the subject, he gets lost in it.

Mr. Philip: I would be happy to answer the questioners in reverse order. In the first place, if the member knew anything about the western system, he would know that there are no government bureaucrats. They are self-sufficient companies. Last year, in terms of his question about --

Mr. Wiseman: Who pays them?

Mr. Philip: They are paid out of premiums of course, in the same way as any other insurance company.

In terms of the deficit this year, actually the rate surplus last year in Manitoba was more than sufficient to pay for the deficit this year, so in fact there is no deficit. In terms of the --

Interjections.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I have only two minutes to answer. If the member for Lanark-Renfrew is going to keep interrupting me, then I am going to ask for additional time.

The Deputy Speaker: Ignore the interjections.

Mr. Philip: As I was saying when I was so rudely interrupted, in terms of the first speaker, independent studies have shown that the costs of repairs in British Columbia and Manitoba are actually no different from Ontario. In terms of the overhead, however -- this is the first part of the question -- our own select committee drew the conclusion that in the periods reviewed, 63 per cent of Ontario’s expenditures went to play claims,

whereas in the case of the three western provinces about 82.8 per cent, 80 per cent and 75.9 per cent of expenditures went to pay claims. In other words, in the three western provinces, there is more money in terms of percentage of the premiums going back to the insured than in Ontario.

I hope that answers his question. I urge him, since he is a new member, to study the select committee report that was tabled in this House.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I appreciate the opportunity to address Bill 2,

An Act to establish the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board and to provide for the Review of Automobile Insurance Rates. I think it is most unfortunate for the people of this province that this government has not had the will to do something about the totally unjust rates we are paying and have paid for the last several years in this province. Certainly, this bill will do nothing to solve the injustices that drivers face right across Ontario.

In terms of this Liberal government, there is nowhere its performance has been more disappointing than in its failure to protect Ontario drivers, not only since we have resumed our sitting but also over the last two and a half years. Ontario with public auto insurance is a time that has come, but we will not get it from this government and from this bill.

The horror story of auto insurance has now reached truly crisis proportions. In Sault Ste. Marie, and I am sure members know it in their communities as well, everyone knows of someone who has been hurt by the insurance companies. Premium costs have been soaring out of sight. There are arbitrary cancellations of policies. We have refusals to renew policies. Young male drivers with good records are being victimized and discriminated against. We have long delays and hassles in the settling of claims. We have all been through it, or we know someone who has been through it. Believe me, this bill will do nothing to solve these problems.

This government could have tackled this problem over the last two years. It knew it would have New Democratic Party support, but what did it do? It did nothing except stall and make more excuses for the insurance companies. Now they have their majority and they are imposing the bill the insurance companies want for the drivers of Ontario. The bills that were brought forward in the last session and the current bill, in effect, are a cruel joke on the drivers of Ontario.

The Liberals have distorted the facts when they claim the NDP blocked legislation in the last session.

Mr. Haggerty: That is a fact; you did.

Mr. Morin-Strom: We did not.

If members have any doubts about whose corner the Liberals are in, I refer them to the May newsletter of the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario. It says, “To a great degree, both the Liberals and Conservatives have been the defenders of the insurance industry.” So who has been protecting the drivers of Ontario? The only party that has protected their interests has been the New Democratic Party.

The NDP has proved conclusively that public auto insurance works. It has worked in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Public auto insurance is cheaper and fairer. If anyone tries to tell you it is not working in the western provinces, just ask why it is that not one of those provinces has rejected the current plans and imposed a free enterprise solution, despite the political positions of the Conservative and Social Credit parties in those provinces. In fact, we have the absurd situation of Premier Vander Zalm, one of the most right-wing Premiers in the history of this country, being to the left of the current Liberal government in Ontario.

Why is it that a young man of 21 with a clean driving record and three years’ driving experience pays a premium of over $2,000 in Sault Ste. Marie? Why are new drivers of any age forced to pay premiums at least twice the average rate? Why are all drivers in a household penalized because of one driver’s record? We all know why. It can be summed up in one word much loved by the Liberals and their corporate friends, profits.

The NDP think that $1 billion was a pretty neat profit for the insurance companies to make last year. We think that new record profits this year are pretty neat also -- pretty neat for the insurance companies. The NDP believes it is time someone found something neat for drivers. We believe a driver-owned insurance plan is it. Such a plan would produce lower premiums and more efficient service. Such a plan is more economical than the private auto insurance companies can deliver. It will deliver better coverage and simpler administration. Independent studies have shown that the operating costs of public plans are half that of the private insurance system.

Private insurance companies like to tell you how much of their premium dollar is paid out in claims. They are less likely to tell you how much they earn by investing the enormous reserve funds created by those premiums. In Ontario, most of the investment income goes straight into profits. A driver-owned insurance plan would apply investment income to reduce premiums.

We believe the insurance premiums paid by Ontario drivers should be invested in Ontario, not shipped away as company profits. In Ontario, about 60 per cent of the general insurance industry is in the hands of foreign-owned companies.

It is possible to make things better for the drivers of this province, but it can only be done by implementing a driver-owned insurance system like that which has proven so successful in the western provinces. This bill will not do that. It will not provide benefits for the drivers of this province, and I ask the Legislature to reject this bill and defeat it this afternoon.

Mr. Philip: I have a question of the previous speaker. The father of the Minister of Financial Institutions started a marvellous investment called the Province of Ontario Savings Office. One of the abilities or rationales behind that was that it was able to invest money back into the province.

One of the topics the member did not address was the job advantage that could be found by the public insurance companies reinvesting those premiums in Ontario instead of building condominiums in Florida and other places like that. In the interests of the Treasurer’s (Mr. R. F. Nixon) father, who had done such a marvellous job on the Ontario savings offices but which the Treasurer has failed to re-enact in a similar way in that he is protecting the insurance companies here, in his name if not in the Treasurer’s name, I wonder if he would answer that question.

Mr. Haggerty: I was interested in the comments from the previous speaker. He talked about the lower rates in the western provinces, British Columbia and perhaps Manitoba. I have talked to people out there too, and they say the package they get from government-run insurance out there is the basic. If you require a comprehensive automobile insurance, if you want collision, fire and theft, then you are looking at a higher premium. I suggest that when you include that, it is not much different from the average cost in Ontario.

There are other insurance agencies out there, such as mutual insurance or co-op insurance, that you might say are public, run by individuals themselves who share in automobile insurance, and if you shop around you can get a pretty good deal in these areas. I do not have the time to get into detail on this, but my daughter shopped around and she did get a good deal. Her insurance was reduced considerably.

Mr. Swart: Yes, for a member’s daughter.

Mr. Haggerty: I think the member for Welland-Thorold is against farm mutual insurance, such as Bertie and Clinton Insurance, which sells automobile insurance, and the co-op insurance, I think he is a member of it. But I will tell members that government does not have all the answers in this area.

If you take Manitoba, for example, there are government lawyers involved in automobile insurance there who are fighting the person who has had problems with an automobile accident. It reminds me of something that takes place in Ontario such as the Workers’ Compensation Board. It becomes an adversarial system.

Mr. Neumann: I was wondering whether the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom) could indicate, with his research of the plans in the western provinces, whether at any time in their history they have been affected by work stoppages and whether these work stoppages have affected the service to the drivers of the provinces.

Mr. Morin-Strom: The issue the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale brings up certainly is a very valid one. One of the main reasons these plans were implemented in the western provinces was to ensure that the funds generated in insurance plans are available. Insurance plans do build up investments, including tremendous investments in those western plans, which have tremendous reserves which are certainly sufficient to cover the costs of their plans. Keeping those funds within a given province ensures that capital is available for other endeavours within that province and that the income is not being siphoned off into other areas and other countries, as it is here in Ontario.

I think the member for Niagara South (Mr. Haggerty) is quite misinformed in terms of the situation in the western provinces. The rates last year, on average, including all supplementaries, were $605 in Ontario, $324 in Manitoba, $228 in Saskatchewan and $395 in British Columbia, for a difference of more than $200 per driver, even in the case closest to Ontario. Even under the projected new rate structure, the premiums in Ontario will still be at least 33 per cent higher than in any of the three western provinces.

I would just say to the member for Brantford (Mr. Neumann) that those plans out west are very successful. They do employ many people at decent wages in those provinces. As a party, we do believe in unions and the right for unions to negotiate contracts. I wish the Liberal Party believed in that as well.

Miss Martel: It gives me great pleasure actually to join in this debate. I had some remarks prepared for the response to the throne speech, but I was not able to get on because there were so many of our party who wanted to take a shot at the government on that. So I am pleased to get up at this point to join in this debate on Bill 2.

I am very pleased to be here. I am pleased to represent the riding of Sudbury East, and I wish to thank the constituents there for showing their support in electing me. I would like to say to them and to the members of this House that I intend to carry on the tradition set by my predecessor, who was a member here for 20 years. I do not know that I intend to stay that long, but I certainly hope my time will be as enjoyable and as successful as his was.

Again, I am pleased to join in this debate. I am pleased also that I will not be supporting Bill 2. It seems to me that it represents not a genuine or a major reform of the auto insurance system in this province; it merely represents some tinkering with the system that is in place. I think that is very unfortunate because in the final days of this campaign I well remember the Premier telling Ontario that auto insurance and reform to the auto insurance system were going to be a priority when the House returned, that we were going to have some major changes during the first session.

I say to the honourable members here that if this bill is an example of a major change in the auto insurance system, then we are in for some great difficulties in this province. I certainly do not see this legislation, as it now appears, as responding in any way to the priority and the need that really exists out there to make some major changes in this system.

I would like to begin by responding first to the Conservatives who spoke yesterday. It is too bad the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) is not here. I recognized yesterday in listening to him and to his response on this debate that he is even further right than Attila the Hun. I had heard rumours of that, and that was very much in evidence yesterday. It seemed to me that the poor gentleman was almost going to have cardiac arrest when he talked about the dreaded S word, which I have no problem saying.

However, he certainly did have a problem spitting out the word “socialist” and referring to this as the first step down the socialist path. I certainly am glad to represent that and I have no problem in saying that.

Let me say that my own sense in responding to his concerns yesterday was that if the free market does not work -- and in this case it does not --perhaps we should do something to change it. It certainly is not responding to the needs of ordinary drivers in this province. Like medicare, where we went in and made changes there to improve that system on behalf of workers and working people in this province, we should certainly do the same thing for auto insurance in this province.

The second thing is that I was quite amazed by his obsession with all the possible adjustments that might result in introducing the rate review board that the government has proposed and in the changes that are going to be made once we remove sex and marital status from the basis of how premiums are set in this province. He went on at great length about that.

I am going to refer back to the newspaper

article that he quoted concerning how terrible this rate review board was going to be. He stated that Cliff Fraser, vice-president of State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance, predicted that there would be a change that would mean a jump of up to 50 per cent for women under 25 and perhaps 10 per cent for drivers 25 and over of both sexes. He went on at quite some length about who and which groups were then going to be affected by higher premiums when the adjustments were made in the system.

Of course, he did not point out or make much emphasis of the fact that Fraser also said this is just speculation, but I think there is going to be a tremendous dislocation in auto premiums: some good, some bad, but all changed.

I would say to the member for Leeds-Grenville that it seems obvious to me that the present system is highly discriminatory and that there will be no change when we move to the rate review board. It, too, even though it removes discrimination based on age and sex, is not really the answer we need in this province. He seemed to be quite concerned about how there would be an increase and how we should maintain the status quo and the present system, which indeed is highly discriminatory, which he did not talk about.

I would like to say that what appears now is that young drivers under the age of 25 and males are very much being hit. If we move to the future system as envisioned by the member for Leeds-Grenville, we are also going to have women under 25 or both sexes over 25 hit. My sense is that if you are going to make changes and make sure that no one is being hit unfairly, then you move to a system where premiums are based on the driving record and not on any form of discrimination or any type of classification based on age, sex or marital status. We do not see that movement being made under the provisions of Bill 2.

I would like to respond also to the member for York Mills (Mr. J. B. Nixon). He made a great, lengthy condemnation of the systems in both British Columbia and Manitoba and went on at great length about the increase in premiums in both of those western provinces with those systems. He gave us the statistics concerning increases in the western provinces if you took two years beyond the figures that the member for Welland-Thorold had used.

I would like to point out to the member that he would have given the statistics a little more justice if he had also applied those statistics to the case in Ontario, because we did not get an accurate sense, or any sense at all, of what the rate increases had been in Ontario in the same period of time. We also were not given any idea what the base figure had been before the increases had been applied. We were given that there was some type of tremendous increase in the western provinces, but no idea of the base figures from which those increases were made.

I say that we would have seen in Ontario, if a comparison was made, that the increases in Ontario, when added to the base rate, would have been much higher. Certainly, the premiums here are much higher than they are in any of the western plans.

The public anger on this issue is very real. The need for reform became very evident to me during the election campaign. It might not have been a big issue in the ridings of some of the new members, but it certainly was the number one issue and the number one priority in my riding. As I canvassed during the summer before the election started and then through the election, I heard again and again that parents, families and young drivers were being hit very unfairly by this system and they resented it. They do not understand why the premiums are as high as they are.

They do not understand why, if they are young drivers, they are being penalized under this system. In my riding, that was very real and people were very much aware of the injustices of the present system under the private insurers.

I also ran into several proponents of the system during my campaigning. I too, in my own riding, was subjected to the leaflets the auto insurance industry put out concerning the western provinces; the comparisons. I was also quite amused to see the advertisements in the newspapers called, “In a pig’s ear,” which I am sure the industry must have spent quite a bit of money putting into newspapers. We saw it locally right through the entire campaign. I cannot imagine how much money was spent.

We countered that a bit by taking the advertisement, pinning it up on the wall in our committee room and stating, “Your premiums are paying for this.” People who were already angry about the system became even more angry when they saw the fight that was being waged on behalf of the private insurers against the New Democrats and against public auto insurance in this province.

I also met a very big proponent of the system in my campaigning in what happens to be a little more affluent area of my riding. One Friday evening when we had nothing better to do, we decided to go and canvass in that area just to make my presence known. We happened to run into Bob Price, who was with the Co-operators in Sudbury. He happened to be the top manager at the Co-operators in Sudbury and has subsequently moved to Barrie.

We had a very interesting discussion when I arrived at his doorstep. His wife was in quite a panic to have me meet her husband, who apparently wanted very much to speak to me about this issue. We had a very friendly discussion about the whole issue, but I must say he did not convince me, nor I him.

His sense of the whole issue and of our stand on it was that the general public does not understand the complexity of auto insurance and does not understand the complexity of arriving at the types of premiums they must pay in order to cover the so-called costs the auto insurance industry says it must cover.

He went on at great length about all the kinds of mechanisms and complexities that are involved in trying to get at this high premium figure residents in Ontario are forced to pay. It ended that I said to him, “People might not understand the complexity or why it costs so much, but they certainly understand that they are being ripped off.” That was very evident as I travelled about the riding and it is very evident even now in my riding. There are petitions on at two local high schools from young drivers who are being especially hard hit at this time. The issue is not dead in my riding and I do not think it is going to change even if and when this legislation is passed.

Let me talk a little bit about some of the injustices that are so very evident in the present system that is ruled by the private insurers in this province. This is what we compiled as a party after our tour in 1986 concerning the insurance system, in particular the auto insurance system, in this province. Let me go through them again. I am sure members have heard them already, but I will refresh their memories.

The number one problem seems to be the outrageous rates people are paying, in particular young drivers. It seems just absolutely incredible to me that when we compare the premiums being paid in western provinces with the premiums being paid here in Ontario the discrepancy is enormous. I cannot understand how it could be so wide and how we in Ontario must pay as high and as much as we must for auto insurance. It is outrageous and nothing has been done by the industry to explain why, how or where the money is going. That is the first major problem.

Second, the discrimination based on age is blatant. The system is based completely on the discrimination of young drivers, male drivers under the age of 25. They are penalizing an entire class for the bad driving of a small group within that, which is completely unfair and is probably against the Human Rights Code; in fact, I am sure it is.

Unfortunately, the auto insurance companies have not been able to explain adequately to the general public why the system must be based on this type of classification. We do not see a need for it. Certainly, discrimination continues in this system. It may well go away with the rate review board. That does not change the problem of having premiums set on drivers’ records so it is drivers themselves who are responsible for their actions and themselves responsible for any increase in premiums.

Another injustice, of course, is the arbitrary cancellation of all types of insurance or the refusal to renew it. One of the constituents in my riding, who worked very hard for me in the campaign, bought her first car in early April. She had been covered under her parents’ insurance up until that point. She wanted to get her own insurance. Her parents’ company would not cover her as a new driver. She could not get coverage from three of the major companies operating in Sudbury which are giving out insurance. She ended up with a very small company which was able to insure her but at an exceptionally high price, much higher than the price I am paying.

An insurance company in this province has absolutely no right not to insure people. We have to have a licence and coverage to drive in this province. I do not know how the insurance companies then do not have the obligation to provide insurance for our drivers. It is absolutely unbelievable to me.

There are several other injustices. We have seen increases for frivolous reasons, for no apparent good reason: the auto insurance company coming in and automatically increasing for any number of reasons, from having tickets to parking violations, speeding tickets, etc. There is an enormous increase with absolutely no justification on the part of the private insurers to say why.

There has also been a penalizing of all members of a household for one driver’s record That has been almost as bad as the discrimination against the young drivers. It has become a normal practice that premiums have increased because of one driver, whichever driver in that household either has had an accident or for some reason his own rates have had to rise. That is a blatant act, and I think it is completely unreasonable that the company is allowed to penalize an entire household for the bad driving of one.

We have also seen, and this has been another major problem, that new drivers at any age are finding that the rates they have to pay in order to drive are excessive. We have had cases of women over 40 and 45 years of age who are driving for the first time. We find that they cannot afford to get the coverage because the insurance premiums are as high as those in the category of males under 25. The discrimination in that regard is blatant as well.

I got all of this during the election campaign, because people are very much aware that the discrimination exists under this present policy. My friends, it will not go away. It will not change because of Bill 2, because there is very little in this bill that changes any of these injustices and takes them out of the system.

I want to look at what seem to be the two main components of Bill 2, which I want to reiterate merely tinkers with the present system and does not provide genuine reform for drivers in Ontario. What it means is that we will have a system that continues, which is unfair and which is a very high-priced system, much higher-priced than the driver-owned auto insurance systems that are being operated in the three western provinces.

We have a rate review board which will be established, and I want to make several comments about this board. They were also made by my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold, but they were so interesting that I want to point them out to this House again.

First, we have seen that in a question raised by the member far Welland-Thorold to the Minister of Financial Institutions in 1986, the member asked the minister if

section 371 of the Insurance Act would be implemented to allow his ministry to hold or adjust rates that were excessive, discriminatory or unreasonable --

[Failure of sound system]

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Hey, hey, you’ve blown a fuse.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Fleet: I wonder if you could repeat what you said -- not that we want to hear the same things again, but perhaps new things.

Miss Martel: I could start from the beginning. Let me begin again.

In going back to the rate review board, about which the member for Welland-Thorold so adequately spoke in his own speech, I want to go back to the question he raised with the Minister of Financial Institutions in 1986, when he asked the then minister to enforce

section 371 of the Insurance Act, which would give that ministry the power to hold or adjust rates that appeared to be excessive. The minister at that time, in light of the growing crisis of insurance in Ontario, stated that provision has been on the books for more than 50 years and not one government has seen fit to implement it.

It seems to me that this government has presently seen fit to implement it, and I must wonder what occurred to cause the change of heart.

There is a second conclusion about this rate review board which should be mentioned, and it was mentioned by Mr. Slater, of course, who set up this wonderful commission to study the problem of auto insurance in Ontario. He recommended against a board and stated: “Rate regulation has been tried, in its various forms, in the United States with respect to insurance rates. The opinion is that the effects have been largely cosmetic, in that regulators allow deviations from established levels in rates that are, in effect, determined by competitive forces.”

We have seen two opinions of this rate review board, both of them highly negative, one expressed by the former Minister of Financial Institutions; now we have the Liberals in the same breath presenting a bill which includes the rate review board.

I say we have come a long way when we have seen a complete turnaround from 1986 to 1987 on how we are going to deal with this crisis. We certainly have not gone anywhere to correct this situation, which would be to have public auto insurance, but we have now a cosmetic approach at trying to deal with a very unhealthy and discriminatory system in this province.

Second, I want to talk about the capping of rates, which seems to be the second major provision of this bill. The House knows this is actually enforcing legislation that had been set out April 23, 1987, when the former Minister of Financial Institutions announced there would be a capping of rates at that point in order to halt the spiralling rates of insurance. We were in a major crisis then; we continue to be in that crisis of insurance.

Unfortunately, what happened is that although he announced there would be a halt in rates, it did not occur in many parts of Ontario and, indeed, did not occur for many drivers. In our own constituency, we got letter after letter in June, July and August, as young drivers in particular began to renew their insurance and found that their prices had not been capped but their prices were increasing, and substantially in many cases.

A young gentleman who was a resident at McMaster University in Hamilton, and who lives in my riding during the summer, was in the same boat and wrote to us. We wrote to the minister, who responded: “As you know, the necessary legislation is not in place to support our capping and rollback initiatives. You might wish to suggest that your constituent make inquiries of several agents and brokers to ensure that the best terms available are obtained for the coverage required.”

There was absolutely no response in April to the serious problem of rates and excessive premiums. They were not capped in many cases but continued to rise. I know my own did as well, and I was not exceptionally pleased about that. I must say the problem with the present system is that it does not do anything to undermine the excessively high rates. Even if the rates were capped at their present levels, the levels are much too high to be paying for auto insurance in this province.

Under the legislation, the capping or the rate changes can occur in two ways. The first is that there will be an across-the-board adjustment in rates; and second, there will be a transitional increase which will have to be justified by the insurer to this new rate review board. That would have worked out not too badly, except that this has already been overruled by the minister himself when he stated the government would allow, effective January 1988, a 4.5 per cent increase from the April rates, which also were not capped in many cases.

The second major problem with the capping of rates, as I said and will say again, is that the premiums at this point are outrageous. They are excessive. There is no reason for them. We have seen no reason given by the ministry or by the private insurers as to why the rates are as high as they are. I must say that if we are only going to cap rates at their present levels, then it is certainly not a good omen for Ontario consumers because, if anything, they are going to continue to spiral. There will be no change in the present system, which is very discriminatory and certainly excessive.

I want to continue by saying that there are several defects in this bill which have not been addressed by the government, and I hope some of my other colleagues have picked up on these or will pick up on them when they speak.

Firstly, we have nothing in this bill which will specifically prohibit the classification system from being based on age, sex or marital status. The Treasurer has assured us that the premiums will not be set on this, the classification system will not be set on these types of issues, but we have nothing in the bill that specifically prohibits that. In my sense, because there is not very much in this bill, at least that should be there to ensure that we do not return to a classification system based on those types of issues.

Secondly, we have nothing in this bill to ensure that entire households are not penalized by the record of one driver. We have a continuing problem in Ontario with this particular aspect. It was certainly an issue I heard again and again, about how an entire household was penalized by the driving record of one, and there is nothing in this bill that is going to prevent the private insurers from continuing on in this manner.

Thirdly, another major problem which I can foresee is that the mandate of the rate review board has not been specified. We have said it is going to regulate rates after fair hearings industry-wide, and people are going to be allowed to come forward and present their case, as are the insurers, but we have no further mandate. We have no idea, for example, if the board will be allowed to go in and change the classification system later on if it appears not to be working, or will that return to this quasi-agency that the government has set up at this point to study the issue? We have no idea where the responsibilities for any future changes in the classification system actually lie.

Fourthly, there is nothing in this bill which is going to stop the increasing numbers of drivers who are driving without insurance. There is no provision in here that ties the buying of insurance to the buying of licence plates, and indeed there is no provision that the increasingly high numbers of drivers on the road without insurance are in any way going to be stopped. There is no provision made in order to police that more effectively either.

Finally, there is nothing in the bill which also co-ordinates or attempts to co-ordinate some of the criteria used by the Facility Association. Across the industry at this point in time there are all kinds of

definitions of who is a risk, why that particular individual is a risk and what price he will pay to be a risk. We see nothing in this bill to co-ordinate, industry-wide, who is going to be a risk and who is not.

My sense is that the bill is defective in many ways, but the real reason we cannot support this --and certainly I cannot support it -- is that it does not provide for the measures to make it fair for Ontario drivers. The only measure that would be fair for Ontario drivers is a move to driver-owned auto insurance in this province. We are not going to get any change in the discrimination. We might get a change in the discrimination, but certainly not a change in the excessive rates and the other arbitrary systems being used by the private companies now if we do not move to a driver-owned system in this province.

My colleagues have outlined on several occasions the benefits of that system. I will do it again for the benefit of the House. This system is fairer. The premiums are based on the driving record; they are not based on your class, your age, your sex or your marital status. They are based on how you drive, and so you assume responsibility for that driving and you pay for it. I certainly think that is much fairer. I cannot see why we cannot move to that system.

It is also more efficient than we have seen under the private systems in Ontario and in other provinces. First of all, the administration costs under the private system are higher, and we have had documentation of that. Secondly, the claims that are paid out as a percentage of total expenditures are much less in the private plans than they are in the public; that is to say, the percentage of money that goes out to a person who is making a claim is much higher under the public plan than it is under the private.

A third advantage is that any profits that are made under the public system are reinvested back into that province in terms of going back into municipalities, going through municipalities for hospitals and for the education system. We in Ontario are in the unfortunate situation that not only do we export our resources away; we export all of that excess revenue from the private insurers out of this country as well, at a tremendous cost to us. We are even unsure as to what that cost actually is. The profits, if any, that are seen under the public systems go back into either reducing those premiums or higher payouts to those claimants.

Fourth, all drivers are insured. We have to have insurance in this province in order to drive, and yet insurers do not have to provide that. We have seen under the public plan that when plates are bought with insurance, everyone must be and is covered. That would certainly go a long way in this province, where we have increasing numbers who are driving without insurance because they cannot afford it.

Finally, the savings on premiums alone should be enough to convince this government that a move should be made to driver-owned auto insurance. My experience during the election -- and I know my colleague the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) mentioned yesterday that he talked to a number of people who had moved to Ontario from the three western provinces, and I spoke to quite a few during my own campaign.

Their sense, regardless of any of the problems that might have been brought up in the House yesterday by my colleagues from the other parties, was that there was no doubt that the premiums they were paying were much less than in Ontario and there was no doubt that they thought the public plans were certainly much more fair than the one they were experiencing here in Ontario. I got that again and again as well during that campaign.

Let me say in winding up that certainly in this House and in this province we have opponents of the driver-owned auto insurance system. But let me reiterate to this House that even in the west, when we had changes of government from the New Democrats to the other parties, there was no move by those parties to remove that system. Indeed, if we had seen it anywhere, we would have seen it in British Columbia when Bill Vander Zalm was elected, because there is no one more right wing than he, except for perhaps the member for Leeds-Grenville; I am not sure after yesterday.

But certainly there was no move by him or by any of the Liberal governments that succeeded New Democrats in those provinces to make any change to the system.

Second, the private insurers in this province sure spent a bundle, both before and during the election campaign, to defeat New Democrats, to defeat this issue and to hope it would go away. I will say now, as I said during the election campaign, that for a group that is losing money and a system that is supposedly losing vast amounts of money, they sure had a heck of a lot of money to spend during the election campaign to fight to hang on to this system. They still continue to do that, so I have to wonder how badly beaten the auto insurance industry is when it can spend that kind of money to defeat public auto insurance in this province.

Let me say in

summary that I will not be supporting Bill 2. The Tories will not be, but for many very different reasons from ours. It seems to me they are hoping to maintain the statu