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

April 11, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L056 - Thu 11 Apr 1996 / Jeu 11 Avr 1996

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR L'ASSURANCE-AUTOMOBILE

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR L'ASSURANCE-AUTOMOBILE

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

I HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY CONFERENCE

CONTROL OF SMOKING

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

EASTER ACTIVITIES

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

EDUCATION FINANCING

JOSEPH HOWE SENIOR PUBLIC SCHOOL

REPORT, COMMISSION ON ELECTION FINANCES

VISITOR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE RESTRUCTURING

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE RESTRUCTURING

EDUCATION FINANCING

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE RESTRUCTURING

MEDICAL LABORATORIES

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

WATER QUALITY

ACQUIRED BRAIN INJURIES

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE RESTRUCTURING

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

ADJOURNMENT MOTION

ORDER OF BUSINESS

WRITTEN QUESTIONS / QUESTIONS ÉCRITES

The House met at 1004.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

Mr Flaherty moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 33,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act / Projet de loi 33, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'Assemblée législative.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): I'm pleased to have this opportunity to speak in support of Bill 33,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act, which is the private member's bill which I brought forward. The bill proposes to amend the act to provide that a member of the assembly shall not receive any indemnity as a member for any period during which the member is suspended from the service of the assembly.

The current situation is that a member of this House who by his or her own misconduct is suspended for a day or longer suffers no financial penalty, that is, the member is paid while suspended. This came as a surprise to me as a newly elected member in June 1995 and also to some of my colleagues who were elected then, and indeed to some of the veteran members, all of whom thought that no work, no pay was the rule, which it is not. The bill proposes that would be the rule and that no work would equal no pay in this place.

The purpose of the bill is also to promote a reasonable standard of behaviour in this place. Presently, there are no consequences for misbehaviour by a member. Indeed, some members may gain publicity for themselves or for a specific concern through their own misconduct without penalty.

I suggest that it is important for members of the provincial Parliament to lead by example. We should not be paid when, through our own misconduct, we are named by the Speaker. We would not expect people who work in the private sector and who are suspended for cause to be paid while they were suspended for cause. Why should politicians have this special privilege?

What we are talking about here is situations in which a member is suspended for cause, that is, due to the member's own conduct or, more accurately, misconduct. The point is that the member brings the suspension on to herself or himself.

It is vital that this chamber be a place for rational debate of the important issues that face the people of Ontario today and affect the future of our children. We have serious business to attend to here and we are being paid to do it. It is also important that all of us as members individually and collectively seek to improve the image and the reputation of the Legislature and us as legislators, that we emphasize the concept of rational debate, as opposed to puffery and playing to the cameras.

All of us need to remember that the purpose of Parliament is to permit free men and women to air honest differences of opinion in open debate. How can we have informed, rational debate in this place when we are howling and interrupting each other? We should be mindful of our negative image to visiting school children and to their teachers, who are here virtually daily, our negative image to visiting dignitaries, to our own constituents who visit here. What negative impressions they must have when they leave this place after visiting.

We should also be mindful of the importance of protecting and enhancing the role and the authority of the Speaker. The chamber protocol memo circulated by the Speaker recently contains examples of two areas in which misconduct by members is common. First of all, the protocol memo noted: "Members may not interrupt another member speaking unless it is for a point of order or a point of privilege. All interjections are out of order." Secondly, "During the day's proceedings, the members should show respect for other members and refrain from interjecting or using disrespectful or offensive language." I say that these two rules are breached regularly in this place.

Philip Laundy, in his book The Office of the Speaker, writes: "A Speaker is, or should be, one of the trustees of a nation's liberties. On his fair

interpretation of the rules of procedure depends the protection of the rights of members. In protecting these rights he is protecting the political freedom of the people as a whole."

Mr Laundy notes that "the maintenance of order is a fundamental duty of the Speaker," but we must remember that the ultimate authority in matters of order is not the Speaker; it is the House itself. It is us, as members of this place, who are accountable individually and collectively for the standard of conduct, the standard of behaviour here. While it is the Speaker's fundamental duty to maintain order, the ultimate authority is that of us as members of this assembly.

If I may refer to the historical context, in the British House of Commons there was a recognized procedure for dealing with disorderly conduct prior to the reform of the standing orders there in the 1880s, and the Journal of the House of Commons reflects the infliction of various punishments on offending members ranging from censure to imprisonment. This bill does not propose censure to imprisonment; it proposes that a member who is suspended would lose pay for the period of the suspension.

Today, the procedure which is followed in the British House of Commons upon the naming of a member is provided for in specific terms by the standing orders, although the right of the House to proceed against a member according to ancient usages, should it so desire, is preserved. Again, I refer to Mr Laundy's text on the office of the Speaker.

In the more recent history in this place, since the introduction of the relevant standing order 15 in 1970, the Speaker has named a member and ordered him or her to withdraw from the House for the remainder of the sessional day 68 times, that is to the end of 1995: the total Liberals, 26; the total NDP, 27; the total Progressive Conservative members, 15. The pattern is as follows: the number of total suspensions in the 1970s, in those 10 years, only 10; in the 1980s, 33, an increase of more than 300%; in the first half of the 1990s, to the end of December 1995, already 25 members suspended.

It is apparent that suspensions were rare in the 1970s, only 10 in 10 years, but more than tripled in the 1980s. We are well on our way to a record in the 1990s, given 25 suspensions to the end of 1995. This is not a partisan issue. All parties have had members who have been suspended, so one's political party affiliation is not the issue.

With respect to the quantum of the suspension cost, before yesterday's announcement, the indemnity annually, pre-social contract, was $44,675 per annum, which would be a per diem rate of $122.39. After the announcement and the pending legislation mentioned by the Minister of Finance yesterday, the indemnity would be $78,007, which would be a per diem rate, on my arithmetic, of $213.72.

It may be said by some members here that this bill is an attempt to stifle the opposition. Let it be noted that members of all three parties have been ejected from this chamber throughout its history, both in government and in opposition. This legislation is to the benefit of all members and to the benefit of this institution, and therefore to the benefit of all of the people of Ontario who elected us.

The issue of the conduct of members is broader than members being named, because that is the ultimate sanction, being asked to leave for the day. The level of conduct is a broader issue, with the level of suspensions really just representing the tip of the iceberg.

Members of both the government and the opposition have been ejected over the years. The serious issues, it should be remembered, with which we are faced at this important time for Ontario emphasize the need for rational debate, informed debate, debate in which members listen to each other about the differing points of view. It is important that we as members of the Legislature convey to our constituents and to all of the people of Ontario that we are here to work for them, that we are their employees as taxpayers, that we are serious about the work that we have sought to do and which they have elected us to do.

I ask for the help of all members in seeking to accomplish this goal of promoting a reasonable standard of behaviour in this place. I urge all members to support Bill 33 by voting for the bill today at second reading.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I appreciate the member bringing this bill before the House because I think it speaks to some of the great paradoxes of this place. We have seen, and the member has presented to us, a lot of information about how often people happen to be ejected from this House and that sort of thing.

I would suggest to the member that there is a direct correlation between the amount of disruption and the changes in the standing orders over the years. You will find that as the standing orders tightened down, often made it very difficult for members to make legitimate points during debate as time was restricted, as members did not have an outlet to tell this House what it was they were concerned about, the issues their constituents were concerned about, there has been increasing disruption in this place.

I think that's unfortunate. I don't think we would want to be seen by the public to be doing these things. But it seems to me that the problem is with the standing orders in general. As you restrict the standing orders, as you make it more difficult for private members, whether they be in the opposition parties or in the government party, to speak, what is going to happen? You're going to have people who do things to make their point. You're going to have people become very angry and very frustrated in this place, as you do anywhere. And guess what? They're going to do things we would appreciate them not doing.

Now, I understand the intent of this. I think we should be better behaved. I think our constituents would be far happier if we presented ourselves in a more professional way. But I would suggest to the member, if he has ever watched the Mother of Parliaments in action, we are very well behaved people.

This is not a place where decorum means everything. This is a place to debate. Debate sometimes becomes emotional, and under those circumstances, people from 130 constituencies and three political parties and one independent are going to have strong views, and if there isn't an outlet, guess what? We're going to have disruption.

The member should understand that by saying to the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, "You're going to get thrown out and it's going to cost you $122," you know what? I'm still going to get thrown out. What you need to do is to change the rules. Don't act in an arrogant way, because that's what's happening. Over the last 15 years, governments of all stripes have restricted us as private members, and to get government's attention, we had to do things like we did with Bill 26, which all of us over here are very proud of because they accomplished what needed to happen.

The rules did not permit us to do anything but acquiesce to the government's point of view. We would not have had any public hearings; there would not have been discussion. It needed to happen. As governments turn the screws, we have this great paradox that exactly the opposite thing happens.

I would suggest to the member that while I appreciate why he's placing it forward, I believe it's the wrong direction. What we need to do is open up debate, permit more opportunities for members to legitimately place their points of view in here, and our behaviour will improve. That's the way I see it and I appreciate the opportunity for being able to speak this morning.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I will start by saying I will not support this resolution, and I'll try to tell you why clearly. I try to do this in a fairminded way. I understand where the member is coming from. He is a new member to this assembly. He has not been around here long enough to understand the history of this place and what transpires within the House, what the practices have been over the years. I think you have to take into account the history of this House to a certain extent.

The Conservative member stands in this House today and says, "I have a resolution that's going to fix decorum in the House" -- and he was trying to be fairminded -- "because the opposition parties at times get somewhat out of hand and get kicked out of the House, and we've got to give the Speaker more power so that when the Speaker kicks a member out, that member loses his or her wages," and that somehow is a deterrent to stop me, an opposition member, from doing that. I just want to put on the record, and I'm sure the Conservative members know this, that, my, oh my, you should have been here from 1990 to 1995.

The Conservative caucus was very effective as an opposition party, yelling, screaming, doing everything it could in the House. They brought signs into the House. They brought pink placards into the House. They had all kinds of props in the House. They named every lake. My, oh my. Don't come in here and start preaching to me about how holier than thou you are about the rules, because it was very much the antics of the third party from 1990 to 1995 that led our government to change the rules in this House to limit those kinds of actions. In a way, I regret that we did that.

There were some good things we did in the rules, in limiting the amount of time a member can speak in any one speech. I think the rule to allow the member to have the floor ad infinitum was a dumb rule. Moving to 30 minutes was smart. It allows you, as a member, to clearly articulate what you want to say, to give your speech and get done and give the floor to somebody else.

But remember why those rule changes were made. They were made because Mike Harris and the Conservative Party were an effective opposition that was using every rule of the House to obstruct the government's agenda, and we as a government, the New Democratic government, made rule changes in the House that limited the ability for the third party to do what it did in obstructing our agenda. Let's be clear here.

The real problem, and the member from Manitoulin touched on it, is that this is not how you reform Parliament, by bringing forward a bill such as you have now. We need to get past into the next debate, which is, how do you give the members of this assembly an actual role to play when it comes to the decision of policy in the province? I say that not just as an opposition member; I'm speaking for you in the back bench of the Conservative Party. I've been there, and I understand where you are.

It is extremely frustrating to be a member of this assembly, to be a representative of your riding, to come here and to be told by the inner cabinet -- not all the cabinet, but the inner cabinet, the chosen few around your Premier who make decisions that you then have to go out and defend, defend what your government is doing as part of government policy.

Admittedly, some of that you agree with as backbenchers. I agreed with much of what our government did. But the real issue is that constituents across this province and across this land are saying, "We want our elected representatives to have a real voice in the House and we want to be able to make sure that those members are accountable, not to the Parliament necessarily, but to the people."

What we should be talking about is parliamentary reform. There are many jurisdictions across the parliamentary system as we know it, the British parliamentary system, which have reformed their system of government to take a look at whether we should have strictly a vote system such as we have in Ontario where a member is elected by first past the post, because the reality is that we elect members to this assembly with less than 50% of the votes cast, we elect governments at majority with less than 50%. We were elected as an NDP government with less than 40%. You were elected as a majority government with around 44% or 45%. Is that true democracy?

I think we need to take a look at proportional representation as one of the things that possibly we should be doing. Maybe we have to have a system where we elect, on a proportional basis, the members of this House, a certain amount of them directly from the riding so that they represent the constituencies and the others from a list, such as they do in Germany and Israel. New Zealand has a new system coming in 1997 that says you have in the House a proportional representation of parties and of members that actually reflects the desire of the people when they cast their ballot in a general election. That's the first issue.

The biggest issue after that becomes, in my view, how do you give those members a role so that it's not just a chosen few in cabinet who say, "We are going to give a 30% tax break," or, "We will do or not do auto insurance," or whatever it might be? You have to have a role where members of the House actually have a say so that their vote is necessary for the government to survive, so there needs to be cooperation between all of the members, not just the members in the government party, to be able to put legislation through. If we were to do that, it would increase the role of us as members.

It would make us, by force, much more responsible as members, going back to our constituencies and making sure that we understand truly what our constituents want so that we can come here and represent those views and move forward legislation according to the needs of the constituents and not just of the parties.

I will not be voting for this bill simply because I think it's one of those nice, politically glitzy things you can do that has absolutely nothing to do with parliamentary reform.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I'd first like to compliment our member Jim Flaherty for bringing forward this bill. It's certainly, in my opinion, a bill that's long overdue. I'm a little disappointed in the feelings and the comments that I'm hearing from the opposition.

This bill is all about not getting paid when you're not here, when you've been suspended for a misdemeanour or misbehaviour of some sort. This could only be in Ontario; I don't know where else in the world this would be interpreted in this manner. To me, it should be automatic that you would not be paid when suspended. I find it almost embarrassing to be debating an issue such as this when to me it should be very, very obvious. It's totally incomprehensible in my opinion. We're talking about a measure of accountability of personal behaviour of members here in this House.

In businesses and unions and many other walks of life, malfeasants and scofflaws are penalized financially when under suspension for breaking the rules. Why should it be any different here in this House?

Certainly during the campaign the decorum of this House came up on many occasions when knocking on doors and when at public meetings. The public are extremely irritated over the performance they observe on the legislative channel when they watch how people behave here in this House, and that's all parties. It's certainly not a partisan issue. They're extremely disappointed in how they perform.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Especially the government backbenchers.

Mr Galt: Particularly the member for Kingston and The Islands, how he speaks out.

They've lost respect for the politicians in general, and I suggest to you that the way we act in this House is part of the reason politicians have lost respect in the province of Ontario. I can just imagine what the headlines will be after this debate when the public and the press start to realize we do get paid after being suspended from this House.

MPPs have been setting a rather bad example. I look up at the gallery often and I see children -- actually, they're very mature young people -- leaning forward on occasion, looking at rather childish actions -- maybe I shouldn't use childish; that's kind of insulting to children -- members acting in a very irresponsible manner, and what happens? The security officer comes down and reprimands the child for leaning forward to see what's going on, and down on the floor they can carry on and the Speaker may or may not call them to order. On occasion, they'll be named and suspended.

The end result is that they continue getting paid and the poor child up there, because they lean forward, is reprimanded for a misdemeanour. To me, this is a rather reverse reward situation when we're paying somebody for doing something we are telling them they really shouldn't be doing.

Recently we had members, when they were suspended, applauded with a standing ovation by members of their caucus. This is totally unacceptable and just should not be happening in this House.

Paying an MPP while he is suspended is something like expelling a child from school who really didn't want to be in school in the first place, or charging with vagrancy and putting in jail, where it's warm, people who really didn't want to be on the street in the first place. It is rewarding someone for misbehaviour.

I know that emotions run high in debates and I probably have made the odd call myself, but it's certainly out of order, and we should be paying attention to those rules. It's like trying to drive without rules and without enforcing those rules. We make it illegal to make left-hand turns during some of the busy periods, rush-hour traffic. If we didn't have those rules and didn't enforce them, traffic would become total pandemonium.

Most drivers follow those rules very willingly because they know it's helpful to everyone else; others only follow those rules because they know there are penalties and they may end up with a summons or charge. The OPP and the police do, in general, try to apply the laws in an equal manner. When the rules are ignored in this House, it's like trying to run a red light in traffic.

When we suspend members and hit them in the pocketbook, there will be a motivation to improve the decorum in this House. I respect what the opposition members have commented on already, that there are other ways, and yes, there are limitations to the debate, but we can't go on forever. There do have to be various rules at various times, and I respect that, but once they're hit in the pocketbook, I'm sure they will look at decorum in a very different way.

I wholeheartedly endorse Bill 33, brought forward by Mr Flaherty, which will ensure that MPPs, when suspended, will not be receiving compensation, remuneration, payment, money of any kind during their period of suspension.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I certainly appreciate the well-intentioned effort of the member in bringing this forward. However, I have to speak in opposition to it.

I find it a little ironic that it would be government members who have forgotten the track record of Premier Harris when Mr Harris was on this side of the House, and many opposition members at that time. Remember the rule that cell phones are not allowed in the House? I recall Mike Harris bringing a cell phone into the House and making a mocking call to Premier Rae. I cannot believe that someone as dignified as the Premier of Ontario would have done that on this side of the House -- Mike Harris holding up signs, all the backbenchers waving Blue Jay banners, all those parliamentary things that do not embarrass us and are not childish.

I find it hypocritical and I find it interesting, now that you're on that side of the House, that you feel the opposition should be very much limited in its attempts to get our message across on what this government is doing. This is an ongoing pattern of bullying, of intimidating, of the type of goon mentality that exists often in what this government does. This bill is aimed at the opposition; this bill is aimed clearly at trying to limit our opportunity to debate, our opportunity to speak out, our opportunity to fight against this government.

It's also based on the misconception that MPPs' work is only in this place. I think any of us who have been here for a short time understand that the vast majority of our work as MPPs, if you want to relate it to remuneration, happens outside of question period, that one hour when we sit in here and yell and scream at each other. Most of our work happens in our constituencies, it happens in committees, it happens at our Queen's Park office; it doesn't happen here.

Somehow you're trying to make that correlation. You're saying if you get kicked out because the Speaker feels you have acted in an unparliamentary way, even if a cabinet minister or the Premier, as an example -- and I'm not suggesting they would -- has lied openly and blatantly about an issue, you're not allowed to say that in this House. If you want to say it in this House and you say it, then you get thrown out, although the record may be very clear, because parliamentary procedure says you can't use those words, so you get turfed out, and government members clap and think it's wonderful. Now they're suggesting that you get fined for that.

Let me tell you that my accountability is not to the government members; my accountability is to my constituents, the people who have elected me and have put me here. If my constituents are unhappy with my behaviour in the House, if my constituents are unhappy with the positions I take in this House and if my constituents are unhappy with the fact that I may have been thrown out of the House on a number of occasions, then they will tell me that four years from now, when we go back to the polls. They're the judge and jury here, not government rules to stifle opposition.

That's all this is: simply another attempt by this government to try to intimidate, bully and stifle the opposition in this House. It's a pattern we've seen with Bill 26; it's a pattern we've seen with the principal in Scarborough who got a call from the minister's office because she dared to criticize this government; it's a pattern we've seen with the children's aid society in Simcoe county, which got a call from the minister's office and they're scared out of their boots because, "How dare you criticize what we're doing, so fall into line." This is what we're seeing here and these are typical, ongoing efforts of this government.

If you want to talk about performance and work in the House, then let's apply the rule to the cabinet ministers who don't show up. I'm sure there's a good reason why they're not here, but they're not doing their work in the House when they're not here. Based on their salary, it's probably about $1,000 they would be docked while they're not here. If you're a parliamentary assistant, we'll probably bump that up a little more. There are lots of those on that side of the House who get those nice perks. If you're a whip or deputy whip on that side of the House, we'll bump it up even further.

But those rules don't apply that way. They only apply if you get thrown out of the House. If you're a cabinet minister and you're on holidays or at a conference somewhere or out of the House, you're not doing your job in the House, so the same principle would apply. But you're not getting your pay docked; it's only if you're in opposition and you're unparliamentary and you get turfed out.

You can look at a sort of penalty setup where at the end of the year, like you do in hockey, you would put up the number of penalty minutes you would get: two minutes for yelling at Palladini, maybe five minutes for yelling at Eves, and if you're really bad and yell at the Premier, you get a 10-minute penalty. We could really get creative with the kinds of censures and punishments we want to put on members of the opposition.

The reality is, and my friend from the NDP talked about it earlier, parliamentary reform is what is needed. If government members are serious about how this place operates, allow some parliamentary reform; allow some proper debates on issues. Change some of the rules you fought so hard against when you were in opposition that limited debate. Allow some free votes. Give your backbenchers some flexibility to represent their constituents. Do the type of parliamentary reform that is necessary.

This is simply, in my view, a bullying, intimidating act by a bullying, intimidating government. I'm not going to support it, you're not going to be able to impose it and this is absolutely ridiculous. Get down to some real reform and stop playing these games.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I want to indicate my fundamental opposition to this bill on a number of fronts. First of all, I think by this bill this member tells us all of his inexperience in this House, because those of us who have been here for a while understand that work in this House is only a small part of the work that an MPP does. This member will discover, as a government backbencher, that what will get him re-elected or not re-elected is not what the government does or doesn't do or necessarily what happens in this House.

It will be the constituency work that is done; it will be the work with the civil service that is done; it will be the work with municipal councils and community organizations that is done; it will be all the other work that takes up about 90% of an MPP's time if he or she is a good MPP.

To suggest that what happens in this House during the few months of the year when it meets should somehow determine all these issues indicates to me how little this government member knows about the work of an MPP. Let me say that I fundamentally oppose it for that reason.

There is an even stronger reason I oppose this bill. Parliamentary democracy depends upon an opposition. Majority governments don't need a parliamentary opposition; the public needs a parliamentary opposition for democracy to function well. The public needs a parliamentary opposition that is free to oppose, that is free to delay, that is free to criticize, and, on the occasions when something is really wrong in this place, the public needs an opposition which is free to show fundamental opposition to what the government is doing.

This bill is really about a government that thinks it is next to God and that it should somehow be able to define and restrict the functioning of parliamentary democracy.

Let me point out the give and take of this House for the benefit of the member. We saw in this House last fall something that I think is unprecedented in a parliamentary democracy. We saw a government come in here on the day when almost all opposition members were in a budget lockup, or something very akin to a budget lockup, and we saw the government try to introduce a bill which fundamentally changes democratic institutions in this government without giving the opposition any notice.

When the opposition reacted angrily and when the opposition expressed fundamental opposition to this breach of democracy, the answer of this government is: "Then we need to shut down the opposition. We need to restrict the opposition."

This is government legislation posing as a private member's bill. This is a government attempt to interfere with the fundamental working of parliamentary democracy and the fundamental working of parliamentary opposition. I'm ashamed this is even debated here in the House, this bill itself is such a fundamental breach of democracy.

The fact is that in a majority parliamentary system, at the end of the day a majority government gets its way and there is nothing the opposition can do about that. It can delay, it can even obstruct, but at the end of the day the government will get its legislation. So why the opposition on the part of the government bench to individual members of the opposition showing their fundamental opposition to government motives and to government action?

I can't disagree more with this bill and I can't say more strongly that as far as I'm concerned, this is a government attempt to muzzle the opposition masquerading as a private member's bill and shouldn't even be here in the House for debate.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to make a few comments with respect to the bill that's been introduced by my friend from Durham Centre. I will be supporting the bill.

Interjection.

Mr Tilson: The member for Kingston and The Islands says, "Show some originality." The problem we've found in the House, certainly since I've been elected, is the whole issue of decorum. Yes, the members can say, "They're worse than we are," and "They're worse than they are," and that sort of thing, and there's no question that examples can be shown from all sides as to how terrible the other is. We all can list examples. There's a member sitting in the Legislature now who lately has taken to going up and sitting in the gallery and trying to incite the public to make remarks.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): Name names.

Mr Tilson: We all know who it is. And there have been very serious criticisms made with respect to the Speaker, the Speaker who's sitting, whether it be the Deputy Speaker or others. The question is, do we respect the office of the Speaker? Obviously, in my observation lately, we do not, whoever that person is. Do we respect the institution of this place?

There are all kinds of examples with respect to decorum. We have a rule in this House, for example, standing order 20(b), that says, "When a member is speaking, no other member shall interrupt such member, except on a question of order." What does that mean? Why should we even have that standing order? It doesn't mean a thing, not one absolute purpose. Out of frustration, the member for Durham Centre is making an attempt to resolve the problem of decorum in the House.

We start talking about the issue of respect. We have children in school hopefully trying to respect their teachers; we try to teach that. We have the public hopefully trying to respect the police, respecting the uniform. We have the issue of respect for women and children, particularly the whole issue of abuse of women and children. There are problems in that area.

There's the issue of respect for each other. Either we respect each other or we don't. This is not a question of doing away with opposition. Yes, the former NDP government essentially did away with the filibuster. I understand the frustration. I've sat over there, and you're right, there are more votes over on this side. One of the powers you have is to try to convince the government to change, so you can talk, you can do whatever you can to stop the government from doing something. The NDP government, of course, changed some of those rules. It may be argued that the filibuster should be brought back in; maybe it shouldn't.

In terms of this issue of the Speaker naming an individual, when an individual is named, what does it mean? "Go stand in the corner? Go leave the room?" No, it means they can no longer participate in this House and can no longer participate in a committee. And what does that mean? Well, it doesn't really mean much else. The only way it's going to affect the decorum in this House is through the pocketbook. I have received letters from the Speaker, as have all of you, from this Speaker, and former Speaker Warner tried to do the same thing, making an effort to control decorum in this House. None of that has worked.

Nothing else has worked. The Speaker has made attempts to control the raucous behaviour that's gone on in this place. I don't think you're ever going to stop the remarks that go back and forth.

I can still remember one member over here last week saying, "Mr Speaker, you're a joke." How dare he say that? How dare he?

Mr Gerretsen: It's awful.

Mr Tilson: It is awful, as the member says. It is awful. We either have respect for each other or we don't, and quite obviously we don't.

This bill encourages respect for democracy. As members, we should all have respect for the democratic process. If we have no respect for the rules of this House and, by extension, the House itself, what are we doing here? Is it just going to turn into a shouting match? Do we not have any form of debate? You may say out of frustration: "I don't have an opportunity to speak. My caucus won't let me speak."

Mr Laughren: Oh, David.

Mr Tilson: The former Treasurer says that doesn't happen. We all know there are rules even among our own party, so out of frustration the only opportunity you have is to shout.

Mr Laughren: I can't believe that.

Mr Tilson: I know it's hard to believe, but it does indeed happen.

I submit that each member of this place is an elected official with the responsibility of representing his or her constituents in the assembly and it's his or her right to bring forward the concerns of their constituents. Is the alternative anarchy? Is that the alternative? Different members of the Liberal and NDP caucuses have stood in their place and said, "We're going to oppose this." Is the alternative to allow the conduct that goes on in this place to continue? Is that what they're suggesting? Is that what their idea of democracy is, to continue to shout at each other?

The name of the game, it seems, is to shout down whoever the speaker is. I'm not saying we're innocent; it happens on this side too. But is that what we're trying to do, to outshout the other person? If you don't like what he or she is saying, outshout them, call them names, and certainly don't have respect for the Speaker, because that's what you're saying with respect to the conduct going on in this place.

I have heard that we should be continuing to pay people. But if you've been kicked out of this place and you can't sit here and you can't sit in the committee, why are we paying members not to work? You're either working or you're not working. One of the members said, "I'll go back to my office and work." The problem is that it's called decorum, and the Speaker has made a decision to name someone. What does that mean? It doesn't mean anything. That's what it's become in this place. It doesn't mean anything to be named.

I've seen people sit here and they'll look at the clock and they'll say: "It's 4 o'clock. Maybe I'll get named and create some grandstanding." I've actually seen a member on this side do that, look at the clock and then start to create and show disrespect for the Speaker, and the Speaker has no choice but to kick that person out.

It's unfortunate with the influence of the media, and the media must take some blame for this today, that members feel it necessary to grandstand to gain attention, and that happens. Instead of winning attention for their logical arguments, well-thought-out ideas -- and I believe some of you have some well-thought-out ideas -- they are often given attention for their tirades, their shouting, not their arguments, their debate, but their expertise in shouting.

Politicians today --

Mr Bisson: See the gallery. There's a member up there.

Mr Tilson: There's a member up there now, I suppose.

Politicians today are not held in the highest regard by the public, and it's unfortunate. One of the reasons is how they see we're conducting ourselves in this place. Unruly behaviour does absolutely nothing to elevate the status of politicians in the public's esteem. We are constantly in the public's eye what with the advent of television, how these proceedings are televised, so we must be on our best behaviour at all times if we're to show any credibility with respect to the different positions, the different philosophies we have in this place. But the answer seems to be to shout.

That seems to be the main argument today, that if you're not supporting this bill, you're advocating a form of anarchy, you're advocating shouting. Drown out the speaker. That's what you want to advocate.

I commend the member for Durham Centre for putting some real meaning into being named, the issue of the Speaker naming someone for unruly conduct and not respecting each other or not respecting the Speaker. I encourage members to support this legislation. We cannot continue to act like unruly children. We must act as we should, that is the exercise of proper debate, and I encourage all of us in this place to support this legislation.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This legislation will contribute nothing to the decorum of this House and will contribute nothing to the cooperation between the various parties in this Legislature. You know, these new members come in, right-wing members come into this Legislature and say, "We're going to run this place like I'm running my business," in terms of the Legislative Assembly, and democracy be damned with you people.

It showed through very carefully when you had Bill 26 in the way you handled Bill 26; first of all, a huge bill which affected some 48 pieces of legislation. The member sits there with a smirk on his face. He should worry about the hospitals in his areas and not be worrying about pushing the opposition around, because that's what this bill is really about: a government with a huge majority wanting to push the opposition around and suggesting, for instance, if a member is not in this House, that the member isn't somehow carrying out a responsibility to the people that member represents. The member should know better than that.

I notice this did not come forward from the government House leader, because he knows only too well what this kind of legislation would do to the atmosphere at House leaders' meetings. The reason the House can work is because the House leaders of the three parties are able to sit down and agree upon a

schedule of committees, for instance, agree upon a

schedule of legislation before the House. There is disagreement from time to time, but that's why this place has worked over the years with Conservative House leaders, Liberal House leaders and NDP House leaders.

Then some member shows up in this House and says, "We'll start bullying the opposition around." Now your real members who appreciate this House and appreciate the role of the opposition will stand and oppose this. I don't know how many people you've been able to get on your side to agree with this legislation, but I'm sure the people who know the importance of the role of the opposition in this House -- and you'll be in opposition some day, your party. It happens. I don't know when it will happen, but it does happen.

I can remember when my friends in the New Democratic Party changed the rules of the House. The member for Nickel Belt will recall, because he told me on that occasion he had not seen me so exercised in this House as when the government brought in that legislation. I opposed that legislation vehemently. I thought that severely restricted the opposition and what it could do. I think, upon reflection, many in the party, and perhaps even at the time, disagreed with that legislation, because in opposition they now see how you people on the other side will apply those rules.

If you care about democracy, you won't pass this. That's strictly a majority government trying to shove it at the opposition and the people of this province. That's exactly what this bill does, and if you think that's going to enhance the atmosphere at the meetings of the House leaders, sir, you are wrong. I'll make sure that's wrong when you start pushing the opposition around again, just like Bill 26. You tried it, you have the people on the sidelines, the smart people of course, who advise, the unelected people, who say: "Oh, yes, we've got to have this. We've got to control the House.

We know how to do it." That's exactly what this is about, a majority government trying to control the opposition. If you put this bill through, I tell you that you will not get any cooperation from other members of this House.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Thank you, Speaker. Did you think for a minute that I wouldn't want to talk to this bill? Boy, you could have bet your boots on it. Let me tell you, this is a pathetic and insincere and naïve bit of fluff. The reality is -- look, at the end of the day, you know what? If a speaker is an ass, one has to say the speaker is an ass. One understands that you'll get passed out for the day, but somebody has got to stand up and say it.

If the Minister of Education is lying when he talks about improving the quality of education at the same time as he slashes transfer payments so that teachers are put out on the street instead of into the classroom, somebody's got to stand up and say, "You're lying." It's imperative that that be done.

If the Premier stands up and says that the slashing and cutting of assistance to the poorest, to our children doesn't impact on families and force children into the custody of children's aid and generate child abuse and hunger and fill our hostels in an unprecedented way with children, somebody's got to stand up and say, "You're lying." It's imperative that that be done, and if it means you forfeit your right to participate in the Legislature for the balance of the day, God bless.

I'll go one further. If this bill passes, what it means is you'll forfeit one day's pay. Listen. Principles can't be bought and sold on this side of the House. This government proves that Ontario once again has the best politicians that money can buy. They're prepared to sit there like sheep, silent, warming their seats. You want to talk about decorum? Talk about what their role is in this Legislature as mere backbenchers. Pierre Trudeau, some time ago, said that once a backbencher is but 15 minutes away from Parliament Hill, he or she is a nobody.

The fact is with this government, when they're sitting in their seats in the Legislature they're nobodies, because we know they don't make the policy. Tom Long and the Bay Street gang make the policy. The bond dealers make the policy.

We know these guys are here nodding their heads, following their marching orders, like little seals with the balls balanced on their noses, being whipped into shape in the most disgraceful way -- not an ounce of guts or courage among the whole gang of them to stand up and speak out when they're the ones who should be standing up and saying to the Minister of Education that he's lying when he talks about quality in education but at the same time withdraws funding so that teachers are out at the soup lines instead of in the classrooms teaching.

It should be the Tory backbenchers standing up and telling the Premier he's lying when he says his savage cuts -- all in the name of a tax break for the very wealthiest, for the rich of this province -- his tax cuts aren't going to impact on our kids and on our poorest and on our sick and our parents and our grandparents.

What these folks don't understand, you see, they've never looked up and seen that there's an owl up there to remind the government to exercise wisdom. Unfortunately, the myopia present in the government benches has precluded them from ever seeing that owl. We look to the eagle, which encourages us to show courage and tenacity. This opposition has never been confronted with a more formidable challenge than the right-wing hacking, slashing, axing of this government and, by God, no bill is going to undermine the courage of this opposition.

Mr Gerretsen: I concur with many of the comments that have been made earlier but I'd like to take a slightly different approach. There are 75 new members here and we all are concerned with what happens to school children and what have you when they come to this place, or when people watch this. The real problem with this bill is that it doesn't address the real issue here. The real issue here is how do we make the 110 people who are not in cabinet more part of the system, and I'm going to suggest something to you.

I'm going to suggest that you make a suggestion within your own caucuses, because you control the situation, whereby if a ministry wants to come up with a particular bill in a particular area, let it come up with some notions, some ideas, some legislative concepts, some general principles that it wants to employ; send it to a committee and have a committee of the Legislature, made up of a membership of all the parties here, come up with some drafts and actually go out and have meaningful public hearings, not on pieces of legislation that are already cast in stone, and then come up with something whereby we can all feel more part of the system.

That's where the real problem lies. It's only if something like that happens, when we bring this institution into the 21st century, that you will see some real, meaningful changes here. What you've got here is plain motherhood.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Durham Centre, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Flaherty: The member for Algoma-Manitoulin began by saying he would not support the bill. He said we should be concerned that the standing orders, since they were changed, made misbehaviour more common in the House. The main standing order amendment was made in 1970. The list of reasons for suspension since then of the 68 members is: flouting the authority of the Speaker; refusing to stop speaking when asked; unparliamentary language; refusing to resume seat when asked to do so; and refusing to vote. With respect, sir, I don't think the people of Ontario consider that to be acceptable behaviour by those 68 members who have been suspended over that period of time.

The member for Cochrane South says that from 1990 to 1995 the Conservatives, in opposition, misbehaved a great deal. The actual numbers for 1990 are 10 Liberals suspended, eight NDP members, who were the government at the time, and only seven Progressive Conservatives during this time when the member for Cochrane South says they were acting in such a disorderly manner in the House. His facts are wrong.

Interjections.

Mr Hampton: You had a Speaker who recognized that the opposition needs to be allowed to oppose, bozo.

Mr Flaherty: The member for Hamilton East says this bill sets a limit on an opportunity to debate. What does debate have to do with gross misconduct in the House?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. If we were to abide to the topic being debated, perhaps members would be quiet.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: During the speech of the member for Durham Centre, the uproar in the House from the NDP member referring to the member as a bozo is a typical example of unparliamentary behaviour, and someone who from Rainy River is seeking the leadership is exemplary of misbehaviour that the member for Durham Centre is trying to address.

The Acting Speaker: Here's a typical example where when there's so much noise the Speaker can't hear. I didn't hear what he said. However, if the member has said a word which is insulting to the member for Durham Centre, I would ask him to apologize.

Mr Hampton: If I insulted the member for Durham Centre, I apologize, Speaker, but I find this bill quite offensive.

The Acting Speaker: Unfortunately, there's no time left. The time allotted for the first ballot item has expired.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR L'ASSURANCE-AUTOMOBILE

Mr Sergio moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 29,

An Act to provide for Fair Automobile Insurance Practices / Projet de loi 29, Loi visant à prévoir de justes pratiques en matière d'assurance-automobile.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(

i) the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I'd like to speak on this particular bill and the heading of the bill practically says the whole thing. It is to bring fairness and equity to certain sections of the insurance system as we know it today, a system that penalizes good drivers, drivers that have had a gap in insurance, gaps for a period of time, or drivers who have had coverage under someone else's insurance policy.

Under our present insurance system, every driver is required to have insurance. There is a particular form of coverage where the uninsurable, if you will, drivers with a terrible record, cannot seek insurance under the normal system, normal ways, under normal rates, they have to seek coverage or insurance under the Facility term or Facility Association type of insurance as we call it. That is the form of insurance where people who cannot obtain insurance through any other form or under reduced rates have to seek insurance.

My two main points of the bill address inequities with respect to the Facility sections of our insurance system. The Facility insurance system was created with a mandate to insure solely the riskiest types of drivers, those for example who have had some serious major accidents, at-fault accidents, major traffic violations, or through Criminal Code offences.

In 1993, the insurance industry, in order to reduce the enormous amount of insureds through the Facility, created a risk point system, a risk point system which, by the way, did not necessitate the approval of the Legislature, the approval of this House. It was a system which was devised by the insurance industry, was sought through the Ontario Insurance Commission and approval was obtained by the Ontario Insurance Commission.

In the spring of 1995, last year, the insurance industry said, "Well, we feel according to our own statistics that the majority of accidents are caused by new drivers, and therefore we have to amend the point risk system as they were introduced in 1993." Changes, amendments, again were sought without the approval of this House, and approval was given by the Ontario Insurance Commission last year in May.

My bill addresses two particular concerns emanating from the risk point system. That has to do, as I said before, with drivers who have had a gap in coverage or drivers who have had coverage under someone else's insurance. This has nothing to do with insurance rates themselves; it's how drivers are rated. That's where my bill tries to address the inequity within the system as we know it today.

For example, if someone has been out of work for a period of time -- a year, eight months, a year and a half or so -- or has been out of the country for whatever reason, or does not have a car for a period of time, they should not be penalized. The way the system is at the moment, they are assessed if they cannot provide proof of coverage for 12 months during the last 24. They are automatically penalized, thrown into the risk point system, allotted four points and assessed through the Facility Association at a much higher premium.

The same goes for someone -- it can be a member of your family, a daughter, a son, still going to school, going to college -- perfectly okay to drive. It is not abnormal to have an 18-year-old, a 20-year old kid today -- they're a kid no more at 18 or 20, but we call it such -- driving to the family cottage or going on a vacation or going to work or picking up another member of the family to and from work, and having done so for a number of years. So what happens now that they may be joining the workforce? They're out of school. They may be buying their own car and they may be seeking to purchase their own insurance for the first time.

This is the other inequity the bill tries to address: If a driver has been driving with a good, clean record for a number of years under someone else's policy, he or she should not be assessed as a new driver. My bill is trying to address that particular point, that if someone has been covered, insured under someone else's policy with a good, clean record for a number of years, that record should be taken into account and he should not be assessed the four-point system and be thrown into the Facility Association at a very high risk and a very high premium.

Lately, we have seen plenty of articles like this with horror stories about what's happening in the insurance industry.

The system provides for some flexibility, and the Ontario Insurance Commission recognizes that and agrees with that, but unfortunately that flexibility is not being used. So what happens? Too many people, being good drivers, too often are being penalized. These are some things I'm trying to address in this particular bill.

The third thing the bill is trying to do is to have, through the Ontario Insurance Commission, a review when some particular driver is being thrown into the Facility Association, to take another look, to correct the above inequities, perhaps through a hearing where the decision of the Ontario Insurance Commission would be final.

Also, it's a case where we are saying there is no particular system of education, neither for the drivers nor for the insurers out there. We have said we have to make the system more open and more easily understandable by those people seeking coverage.

I don't think it is fair that we can assess a particular driver who has had a speeding ticket through a school driving area or for failing to yield the same as someone who has received an offence under the Criminal Code. They would be treated similarly, the same, being thrown into the Facility Association, paying an enormous amount of money. I think this is quite unfair. As I said before, it does not deal with respect to lowering or raising rates; it deals solely with how we rate drivers, especially good drivers with good records.

I would hope, just ending my 10 minutes here, that especially the members of the government side can see the importance of this matter and hopefully go along with it, as this affects every ordinary resident or constituent of ours. I hope I have support on this particular bill, as it alleviates many problems for drivers throughout Ontario.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I'm going to be speaking to this matter, of course, and other members of this caucus are going to be speaking to this matter as well. I'm quite pleased that Mario Sergio of Yorkview has had the insight that has permitted him to bring this bill forward. I wish he had been here, though, as a member of the Peterson government when it rammed Bill 68 through the Legislature.

I used to, and quite accurately, indicate that the Peterson government was in bed with the auto insurance industry. Those guys, with Bill 68, were so deep in the back pockets of the insurance industry, they were spitting out lint. But then I realized, if they were in bed with the industry, it surely wasn't just a queen-sized bed, it was a king-sized bed. I voted against Bill 164, and I realized it wasn't just Peterson in bed, but it was in effect a ménage à trois. Now, after listening to the Tories' purported reform -- reform, my foot -- I realize, is there such a thing as a ménage à quatre?

I suspect in some jurisdictions it's illegal. I'm not about to pass judgement on the morality of it, but I know that there are people here who could indicate whether the morality sections of our Criminal Code permit or prohibit that type of enjoinder.

The insurance industry has been and remains the poor country cousin of the legitimate corporate world. The insurance industry has short arms and deep pockets. The insurance industry continues to abuse consumers, premium payers and indeed victims. Now that they've got a government that is so slavishly committed to doing their bidding, we are going to see an increase yet in the enormous profits enjoyed by the industry historically pursuant to Bill 68, which was like a dream come true. Bill 164, to be fair, in some respects tuned up the industry a little bit but certainly didn't propose the real response to this.

I know that the member for Yorkview, Mr Sergio, will be assisting the next government in implementing a public automobile insurance system here in the province of Ontario, recognizing that that's the real answer, that the private sector is as selfish and as greedy and as nasty and as underhanded and as abusive as any industry could ever be.

They cry crocodile tears about the prospect of being put out of business by virtue of a public auto insurance system, the kind of system that Tommy Douglas introduced in Saskatchewan, that was emulated by New Democrats in Manitoba and then, of course, by Dave Barrett's government after his election in 1972 in British Columbia -- the ICBC, surely the most successful of public auto insurance systems in Canada.

The real response is to take these guys, these Tories, out of the back pockets of that industry, haul them out of bed, at least pull the sheets back so that we know who's huddled there in that lumpy form on top of the king-sized mattress.

The government proposes, as I say, reforms. They indicated consultation. Well, with whom? With the insurance industry. Some consultation. Can you believe it? You see, what the insurance industry does historically is that they high-grade, they cherry-pick. Now, the real victims here are not just the consumers. Brokers, which this government has been totally oblivious to -- there are insurance brokers in this province left with but one insurance company to sell product to their consumers. They're scared to death.

They phone me and tell me, "Please don't identify me," because they know their business is all but gone, it's destroyed, should the public in their community, usually a small community, become aware that the broker handles only one insurance company. Because the insurance companies, the insurance industry, in their greed, in their outright selfishness, in their every intent to abuse the take-all-comers rule, have been using the brokers to do this cherry-picking, this high-grading.

This government isn't responding to that. This government talks about supporting small business. When they talk about small business, that's what they mean: small business. They're not talking about brokers, one- and two-person brokerages; they're talking about big insurance companies. Now, what's going to be remarkable -- because very soon we're going to have access to see who supported whom by way of the cash, the payola, the grease, during the period preceding the last election. Boy, did I have -- I couldn't say it was fun, but I took some great pleasure in seeing the huge sums of money that were pumped into Liberal coffers during the election of 1987.

You can bet your boots, you can bet your bottom dollar -- Speaker, you can count on it, and I can see you're acknowledging that this is the case -- that these guys, the Tories, have been paid off by this industry like no caucus ever has. I've never seen so many insurance brokers, ex-insurance people, in a given caucus. They knew something was coming down the line. They knew that payoff was there. The insurance industry uses Facility to high-grade. The fact is that Facility is poorly administered. The fact is that Facility --

Interjection: He just took a shot at you.

Mr Kormos: Did I take a shot at some Tories? You bet your boots I did. Lord love a duck. I wouldn't have not if my life had depended upon it. I would have done it even if I had to be thrown out for the balance of the day and forfeit my day's pay. It would have been worth it, let me tell you. It would have been money well spent. Because if anybody has to have a shot taken at them, it's these guys. You know it.

What an incredible abuse they've demonstrated, and a disdain for consumers in this province, a disdain for drivers, a disdain for innocent victims, a complete failure to meaningfully effect reform in the insurance industry.

What they propose to do is create yet the fourth regime for victims: pre-68, 68, 164, and now the no-name, generic bill, as of yet unnumbered. The real challenge, you see -- because I had the pleasure of participating in the pre-bill hearings that Mr Sampson, as a banker type, led off as we purported to travel around the province. And I was pleased to have had the opportunity to pose questions. The problem is, the insurance industry, it isn't ad idem. They haven't got their act together themselves. You've got Royal Insurance saying one thing; you've got George Cooke -- boy, George Cooke, Dominion of Canada.

Has he been around the lot a few times. He started with the Liberals back when they were ramming the first piece of insurance garbage down the throats of consumers here in the province of Ontario and now ends up to be a well-paid -- well, Dominion of Canada do not belong to the disclosure requirements of

schedule A, but George Cooke is doing just fine. But these guys can't get their own act together.

It's about time we had some real, meaningful reform. This is a beginning. Drivers who are being punished, beat up on, skewered by the insurance industry need a chance to effect an appeal. I'm going to be supporting this bill; you can count on that.

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga West): It's always a pleasure, and one that I've had numerous times since looking into auto insurance, to have an opportunity to speak to this particular topic, and more importantly to speak to this topic after the member for Welland-Thorold has spoken to the topic, because he continues to enlighten me on his views on auto insurance, frankly how they have changed over a period of time, as they have in the previous government, and I'll speak to that in a few minutes.

But I want to congratulate the member for Yorkview for bringing this very important topic to light, because it's something that I must say in the eight or so months of taking a look at auto insurance in Ontario I've seen come to light a number of times, and that is how one deals -- how the industry, frankly, deals -- under the structure that the government provides for auto insurance, with properly pricing the risks associated with drivers who have driving habits or previous driving habits that would demonstrate a higher propensity to get involved in an accident, because that's what they're doing when they assess the risk.

It's to a large degree -- and the industry shudders a bit when I say this -- a gambling process. They're on one side of the table saying, "I'm betting that you won't get involved in an accident," and you're on the other side saying, "Yes, but if I do, you had better be there to pay for the expenses." So the industry is given the tremendous challenge of trying to understand exactly what the propensity for one to get involved in an accident would be, and that's difficult to do.

I want to talk briefly to the risk point system, because despite of the meanderings of the member for Welland-Thorold on this subject, that's really what the purpose of this particular bill is: How does one deal with the risk point system? Really, if I can, the member's bill focuses on those particular drivers who have had lapses of coverage, so it's a very, very small component of the general higher risk category.

I want to make sure it's clear to the members in this House that the scheme put in place to deal with high-risk drivers was not one, as the member for Yorkview said, that was crafted by the industry. It was a response by the industry to government's pressure to deal with the fact that there was about 5% of the driving population of this province in the high-risk driving category, in the category that had generally very high premiums.

By the way, 5% in North America is way below average. If you were asked the question, "How many of the driving population do you think are truly high-risk drivers?" I would say that generally people would come back and say 5% is a fairly low number. But the previous government, under the pressures to deal with rate increases, went to the industry and said: "Five per cent is too high. Get that number down." They were told to depopulate the high-risk pool, as it's called.

How did they do that? Well, they created another system called the risk sharing pool, which I suspect some of the viewers today may be in but don't know it. And why don't they know it? Because they've been assessed as having high-risk driving behaviour but they're paying regular rates. You and I and most of the people watching on TV today are subsidizing people who have truly bad driving habits. That's wrong. That's what the previous government said was the solution to the high-risk driving problem, and that's not the way to proceed.

As I listened to Ontarians when we took our draft legislation across Ontario, many Ontarians came to me and said, "If somebody is truly a high-risk driver, they should pay the higher premium, no question." There was absolutely no question about that in many of the views of Ontarians I spoke to.

So while I would agree with the member's intention on this bill, that it's important to be able to get the high-risk drivers into that category and not people who really don't have high-risk driving experience, I must disagree with the methodology under which he's trying to achieve that objective.

I want to speak to the general problem as to why the methodology is wrong. I think, with due respect to the member, that what he's trying to do is treat the symptom and not the fundamental disease.

The fundamental disease in auto insurance in Ontario is that we have a bill called Bill 164, commonly called a no-fault plan, and the name "no-fault" is the biggest misnomer I have ever seen in any bill. This bill should have been called "everybody's at fault" because everybody pays for the high-risk driving characteristics and the accidents of those at fault. Everybody in the risk pool pays. You, I, the people on TV watching today pay for people who get involved in accidents -- some of them on purpose, by the way.

That's wrong and that's what we've tried to fix with our draft legislation, and we're hoping to be able to make modifications on that draft legislation and bring them to the House to deal with the fundamental problem in auto insurance: the product design. We can deal with the symptoms but that's not the solution; it won't solve the problem.

What we have today is an auto insurance plan that the industry does not want to aggressively write in Ontario. The member for Welland-Thorold spoke very eloquently about some brokers who have only what's called one market left. Now a market is basically an insurance company to send clients to, the insurance company to write the business. And you're right. He's right. Some brokers do only have one market. That market is the Facility market. Why? Because companies don't want to write in Ontario. They don't want to write auto insurance, they don't want to underwrite auto insurance in this province, because it's too expensive to guess wrong.

Lotto 164 is not an auto product; it's an entitlement product. If we want an entitlement product in this province, it's going to cost a lot of money, rates are going to go up year over year, and that in fact is what we have seen under the regime of 164 in Ontario. It's the wrong principle for insurance. It's not working, it won't work and needs to be fixed, and we will fix it.

Before I close, I want to say that the other reason I must vote against this particular legislation is that it encourages the Ontario Insurance Commission to get into the business of auto insurance. It's one small step towards the end objective that my friend from Welland-Thorold would love to see, which is public auto.

I'll tell you, if the previous government's capabilities in dealing with public disability insurance, as demonstrated by the Workers' Compensation Board experience, is an example of how they think public auto would work, I don't want it and neither does the rest of Ontario, because we're not going to pay through the nose for a system that is an entitlement system, not a true auto insurance product.

Ontarians need a solution to the problems of auto insurance. We will deliver that. That solution is not further red tape, that solution is not one more step towards public auto, and that solution is not dealing with the symptom; that solution is dealing with the fundamental problem of auto insurance. There needs to be a fundamental redesign. We need to return auto insurance to a program of, "What was your loss? Here is your recovery," not, "What have I been entitled to as a result of the accident?"

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Mr Speaker, the previous speaker almost lulled me to sleep, but I have a great deal more respect for him than that.

When I first came to this Legislature a couple of years ago, a number of people asked me why I would ever consider going into politics full time. Notwithstanding what's gone on this morning, I told them because I was in the brokerage business, that it's better than being an insurance broker, because these are difficult times when it comes to auto insurance. Governments have tried to solve these problems and are continuing to do so.

This morning I want to take my few minutes not necessarily to talk about the insurance companies' problems, and I don't want to talk about those who have bad driving records and who deserve to be in the Facility Association. Many of them have suspended licences. They don't deserve to drive at all. I want to talk about those people who are caught between a rock and a hard place. They have outstanding driving records. Many of them have come to me both since I've been a member and previously, when I was in the insurance business, to say, "I've been a good driver for 30 years and now they're treating me not only like a new driver, but they're treating me like a driver who has a bad record."

That's what this bill addresses. The government will tell us it doesn't solve the problem. Rarely do we ever have legislation that solves all the problem, but while we're taking time to do that, there are a number of people in this province with good driving records but it so happens that for various reasons -- some being out of the country serving our country, who come back -- they're treated like a new driver or a bad driver.

Certainly in this pamphlet that's given out, You're in the Driver's Seat -- I think it's misnamed. I don't know who's in the driver's seat, but certainly the insured of the province of Ontario are not in the driver's seat these days. It says at the outset on this, "In Ontario, the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act guarantees that all owners and drivers of automobiles can obtain the insurance they're required to carry by law." What it doesn't say is that you're able to get insurance at fair and reasonable cost. I think it should.

In this case, this private member's bill I want to support maybe is an interim solution, but let's address these one at a time, and what's the harm if we pass it and we help some of these people?

A driving record can be checked through the MTO and if a person has driving offences during that lapsed period of time, then that should be taken into consideration and perhaps they should be in the Facility Association, but if there's no evidence they have a poor driving record, I think it's incumbent upon the insurance companies to take some of that risk they're being paid for and give the intended insured the benefit of the doubt.

The other problem that's created is that there are a number of brokers in this province who don't have standard insurers in their portfolios. It may be only the Facility Association they can go to. Frankly, they neglect to tell these intended insureds that there are other options and that they can go to other insurers or other brokers. I think that's a problem we have to address.

But here we're talking about a group of people who, as I said at the outset, are between a rock and a hard place. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt while we're taking time to try and solve the whole question. I certainly think this bill is good in its intention. It goes one step towards solving the problem we have and I would ask that the government consider supporting it.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I will say up front that I will support this bill because I too believe it is a step in the right direction. I agree with many of the speakers prior that there are a number of difficulties in the automobile insurance sector. I certainly would like to see a lot of them fixed, but I support any step we can take forward in the right direction to assist some of those people out there who, quite frankly, are really put behind the eight ball because of the present rules on the Facility Association.

I just want to say a couple of things in passing really quickly about that. The reality is that the insurance companies in this province have a monopoly. They have a private sector monopoly by which they control how much we're going to pay for our insurance in this province.

Yes, there's competition and members will say that if I don't like the rate I can go from one company to the other broker to get a bid on another one, but the reality is it doesn't work that way. They're in collusion. They get together.

They stick together to decide how much it is that a driver's going to pay for automobile insurance, and if you find yourself unfortunate enough to be in a situation where you might have a couple of demerit points on your licence because of a traffic violation, or you allowed your automobile insurance to lapse, when you go shopping from one company to another the insurance company says, "This is what you pay," and that's what everybody else has been asked to get.

I don't know how many people I've had in the riding of Cochrane South, from Matheson to Iroquois Falls to Timmins, who come to me and say: "Gilles, I was paying $550 a year for my automobile insurance last year. I ended up with a traffic violation where I got three demerit points and my automobile insurance has gone up to $1,900." That's a real, real shame.

It's not only because of the question of the Facility Association. There's the other issue that I think we need to deal with at one point, which is the question of surcharge. I was speaking to Lorraine in my riding just the other week on this very issue. She was driving down Algonquin Boulevard, turned left and happened to get into a fender-bender. There were no claims to the automobile insurance companies because it was a minor accident, but she was charged. She decided not to fight the ticket at the time because she felt: "What the heck? There's been no cost. It was not a big thing. I'm just going to pay the ticket and I'm not going to worry about it any more."

Her automobile insurance came due, I think it was on February 1. Because she was trying to pull the money together -- like lots of working people, she didn't have the bucks to pay, or for whatever reason -- she allowed it to lapse for three weeks. She went from $550 a year to $1,900. I think that is thievery, quite frankly. That is a darned shame. Then the government stands here and says, "We're going to fix automobile insurance." I really wonder if people like Lorraine are going to be properly served. I will support what the member is doing because I believe that in Lorraine's case she should have the ability to appeal. Right now, she doesn't.

I can appeal a decision when it comes to benefits, but I cannot appeal a decision when it comes to me, as a driver, being put into the Facility Association, or I cannot appeal if an insurance company wants to put a surcharge on my automobile insurance. I wish that would have been added into the resolution, but I support it anyway because you're going in the right direction.

This is a most unfair system of automobile insurance that we have. One regret I have, and I say it freely, is that I wish, as a government, when we were in power, we would have had the $2.5 billion that was necessary to set up driver-owned automobile insurance. I disagree with the government member who says, "We should not pool the rates so that we have a rate where everybody sort of subsidizes each other, so on average we have a lesser cost of automobile insurance to the driver." He argues the old adage of the Tory party: "I'm all right, Jack. Everything's fine for me and if I have a good driving record, I don't want to carry anybody else on my back."

The reality is, where you've got driver-owned automobile insurance, in provinces like Manitoba and Saskatchewan and British Columbia, they pay far less for automobile insurance than we do in the province of Ontario. I was talking to one of the members just a little while ago who says his daughter lives in Manitoba and is paying a little bit less than half of what she was paying when she was living in Ontario for the same coverage on automobile insurance.

The reason is that system pools the risk among everybody, but also it takes out the competition you have between the entire private sector, where they're all competing against each other for the same customers. Time for another debate. We will come to that at one point. I wish we would have had the $2.5 billion that was necessary to set up driver automobile insurance. If there's anything I regret in our term in government, it's probably that one.

But I say allow people the opportunity to appeal the decision when an insurance company says, "I'm going to stick it to you," and you don't have a say about trying to do anything. What ends up happening is that, like Lorraine, you go cap in hand like a beggar from insurance company to insurance company and you say, "Please, Mr Broker," or "Please, Mrs Insurance Company, can you give me a better rate than the $1,900 you want to give me?" There's absolutely nothing Lorraine can do.

The cost of that is, I don't think Lorraine's going to be able to buy automobile insurance for the next year. Where does that leave her? She needs her car to get to work and to do the kinds of things we all do when it comes to transportation, especially in northern Ontario where you have to travel vast distances. She is, quite frankly, held for hostage. Either she's going to have to go to the bank and work out a payment arrangement with the insurance company or she'll be stuck.

At least if she had the ability to say, "I want to appeal the decision of the automobile insurance company to the Insurance Commission on both the Facility Association issue" -- and I wish you would have added the whole question of the surcharges -- maybe Lorraine would get some justice. I support this bill on that premise.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I rise today to recognize the member for Yorkview and Bill 29. On reading it, without having a great deal of insurance background, it appealed to me. I must admit that right from the beginning. It addressed the problem of a person's ability to question, through his broker, why his insurance has doubled.

In my constituency a couple of students who were studying overseas or were away, people who were in the armed services, and indeed single parents who because of changes in their lifestyle had come back into the insurance business found that their insurance was unaffordable, which meant the ability to get to school or to a job was impaired. So I had a great deal early on in my duty representing those people, finding out that it was because of this Facility Association clause that they had been dropped into this group and their premiums were subsequently changed to a higher level.

The member for Mississauga West addressed what I believe to be really most important as the root cause. The real high-risk drivers, those charged with impaired or other types of traffic offences, should pay the real cost of insurance. One of the problems with Bill 164 -- it was broken. Our government recognized that. We put Mr Sampson on the job. I have a great deal of faith that in his interim report we will address the problem. With all sympathy, I support the sentiments of the member for Yorkview, but I'm still listening to the full debate.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I'm pleased to stand today in support of the bill that my colleague is forwarding regarding auto insurance. I think if any of us in the House has a look at our files back in our constituency office, when we look at the one issue we might get calls about that relates to auto insurance, this is indeed the issue. If some of the members who will hopefully assist in passing this bill today were to document the calls you get in your offices back home, you would see that this issue is probably the most prevalent.

It's time that we address and say to our own people back home that the people in the House here at Queen's Park are listening. I'm very pleased that my colleague has come forward with this kind of resolution today to address that.

I want to tell you about an individual from my riding. His name is George Drew. It's the perfect case example, where in 1991 he was paying an insurance rate of $800, and almost overnight, after a lapse that didn't have anything to do with a driving record, his insurance suddenly went to $2,000. There are numerous cases like this that exist.

Now, in speaking to people who are in the insurance industry, what they do tell me, and I'm sure they've told the government members in charge of the report they've been drafting, is that the number of people who are in FARM, the Facility Association Residual Market, or in that facility bracket, has decreased dramatically.

Nevertheless there is still an inherent unfairness in the system where individuals, for a variety of reasons, choose not to drive and therefore choose not to pay their insurance, and when they come back into the system, they find that all of a sudden they've been elevated and are paying huge amounts regardless of age, regardless of any change in the status of the driver. That is what is being addressed by this bill. Because of that, I think it's incumbent on all of us to support something that really will right the fairness of this issue.

When you get cases that are not fair, I think it's incumbent on us to change that. When the government member introduced the report, we were hoping this would have been addressed, but the reality is that it has not been addressed in the draft forms that we saw, and it should have been. Regardless of what the government members are going to do today with this bill, at least we think that by our pointing it out through this private member's bill you're going to have a revision and you will include it.

Indeed, even the insurance industry recognizes that they come upon cases that really are not fair for the drivers, whether it's people who go on sabbatical out of town for years at a time or a year at a time, or people who move to Toronto who decide a car isn't practical and then move back and need a car. Nothing in their driver status has changed and yet they're thrown into such enormous rate levels that it becomes unaffordable. I think we owe it to people.

Even the previous government sought to bring in a kind of system that would improve auto insurance, but they saw that their system simply wasn't practical day to day. Finally we have a member who is choosing to address this. Finally we have a member who even will allow an appeal process for people. There's a frustration for me and my staff, in working on these cases for the people in my riding -- we can call the Ontario Insurance Commission, we can call the companies, and at the end of the day they have their policies. At the end of it all they say that all companies have lapse-of-insurance clauses.

I think that's where we have to step in and say, "Let's make it fair for people and let people have a place to go to correct it."

I applaud my member, and we want this bill to pass.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? You have 17 seconds.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): I thank you very kindly. So much to say about what's in front of us, yet so little time to do so. Members of our caucus, independent as always, will vote with their conscience. Having examined the written word, I for one will vote to support the bill.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I would like to commend the member for Yorkview because I know that he has very commendable intentions with this bill. I will not defend the insurance companies' actions over the last number of years because I know there have been many actions which haven't been commendable on their part. However, I think what we have to look at here is why the factor exists that the member is trying to address: the interruption factor.

Why is someone forced to pay more because they don't have insurance for the previous year? It's not a penalty for lack of coverage. It is a lack of verifiable proof of coverage. That means there is no claims record, and that is the reason for that interruption factor in the insurance.

Also, it is not normal practice for insurance companies to treat an applicant as a new driver if that driver was listed as an occasional operator on another person's policy.

Mr Pouliot: Are you a broker? You're in conflict.

Mr Wettlaufer: Yes, to the honourable member, I was an insurance broker.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, the member for Nipigon and the member for Welland-Thorold. I want to remind the members that when the Speaker rises, you take your seat.

Mr Wettlaufer: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The problem with the insurance product today is what is causing the insurance companies' actions. We want to introduce an insurance product so that insurance companies want to write automobile insurance. We want to introduce an insurance product that insurance companies will compete for, something they are not doing now. We want to introduce an insurance product that the market will assess.

We don't want a product like OMPP that the Liberals had, whereby so many people were suffering. Independent, self-employed business people were not receiving proper coverage. Students were not receiving, were not eligible for proper coverage. Bill 164 was treated as cash for life by the average claimant. We cannot have a product like that any more.

We must introduce a product. That was the purpose of the public hearings we held for the last two weeks of February: to find out what problems the public was experiencing with the existing product.

I can assure you we heard all kinds of horror stories from claimants, from people who had been injured while the other two plans were in existence, Bill 164 and OMPP, and the stories we heard were only the tip of the iceberg. I can assure you, from my history in the insurance industry, all kinds of people out there have not been treated properly.

What we have to do is reach a compromise. We have to introduce a compromise product that the public will want to pay for what they also have to have. The insurance companies will provide a product which will be reasonably affordable.

Mr Kormos: You took a drop in pay when you came here, huh?

Mr Wettlaufer: Yes I did, as a matter of fact.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member's time has expired.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I stand in support of this bill. We've heard from the member for Kitchener what the insurance industry wants, but let's address for a second what the member, Mr Sergio, wants. All Mr Sergio wants is fairness for the public. He's only picking two aspects which aren't covered in the draft legislation and he wants fairness attached to them. As the member for Windsor-Sandwich stated earlier, your offices, as mine, have received numerous phone calls and letters with regard to fairness in auto insurance reform.

Let me just read part of a letter that was sent to Mr Sampson by Mr Arthur Slade, a constituent of mine. Although it doesn't deal with this, it deals with fairness, and that's what's important here. We must deal with fairness.

"Dear Sir,

"According to my insurance agent, I must have accident benefits coverage, at a cost of about $250/year, on each of my vehicles, even though I only drive one at a time. My wife does not drive, so 99.9% of the time, one of the vehicles is parked. I drive a combined distance of 25,000 kilometres/year, but it would be the same if I only had one vehicle. My second vehicle (the half-ton truck) may be used three or four times per year...but for those hours I should not be charged the cost of annual coverage."

He goes on to state the unfairness of this and asks Mr Sampson to be fair in his perusal of this letter and in his response. The key word is "fairness." We must be fair. What the mover of this bill is simply asking is that if someone has to lapse coverage for whatever reason, and that's going to increase more and more -- as the government puts more Ontarians out of work starting today, these gaps are going to occur more frequently. All that the mover of this bill is asking is that when the person can afford it or when he can find a job or when he's able to be insured again, he is treated fairly.

The second part of his bill is very straightforward and simple. He wants fairness for good drivers; he wants fairness for good young drivers. He feels, and I support this, that people who are considered occasional drivers should not be punished because they are being covered by someone else. Their good, their excellent, their above-average driving record must be considered when they have to pay the premium. That's all Mr Sergio is asking. Indeed, it's simple.

This bill deals with items that are not dealt with in the draft legislation. It's important for every member of this House to understand that this is not covered in the draft legislation, therefore it is important that in this draft legislation it be treated fairly. If we support this bill we are supporting fairness. In these two instances it is not out of line, it is not wacko; it makes great common sense because it's fair.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I too join in the debate on this and would like to congratulate the member for Yorkview for bringing this matter forward. What is very interesting about this whole situation is that here we are at private members' time, when presumably partisanship is out the door, looking at real problems that people are facing on a day-to-day basis. The problems we've heard about from the member for Windsor and the member for Sudbury and Mr Sergio himself earlier are real problems that people are facing on a day-to-day basis.

I realize that this whole car insurance situation and problem have been with us for many years. I realize that the committee is working hard on it and the parliamentary assistant is working hard on it. This certainly doesn't answer all the problems he's dealing with. This is only part of the total situation as it relates to car insurance. But the point is, this is a start. This is a start to bring fairness to the situation and this is a start whereby at least the people of Ontario who are mainly affected -- and I hear it's only about 5% of the people -- will actually get some justice done.

I hope the backbenchers here on the government side, and particularly the member for Durham East, who spoke quite eloquently, can convince some of the other members to vote for this on a purely non-partisan basis, so at least there can be some justice done for the people who aren't properly protected at the present time.

I urge each and every member in this House, even the member for Wellington, who told his own Premier that he was reckless in trying to implement a tax cut -- this is once again an opportunity for him to show some independence and some real courage. Vote for this bill. I know the taxpayers of the province of Ontario who will be affected by this legislation will thank you for it.

The Acting Speaker: You have two minutes to reply, Mr Sergio.

Mr Sergio: I'm quite pleased to take the two minutes and respond to some of the previous speakers. I'm quite pleased, as a matter of fact, to hear that the members for Mississauga West and Kitchener are pleased with the intent of this proposed bill. What surprises me and makes me unhappy is to hear the version that, on a matter of principle, because it does not solve all the problems, they cannot support it.

Let me tell the members of this House, and especially the members of the government, that if there is one particular person in your constituency, in your riding, a member of a family in your own constituency who would benefit from the approval of this bill, then you have done your job and this bill has done its job.

I'm very disappointed to hear, especially from the member who has been conducting a study on improving the insurance system, that he agrees with the intent of this bill and he doesn't even give a chance to bring it forward, to discuss it further, to make better even what he is proposing, which by the way does not bring any solution.

The insurance companies themselves said that insurance premiums will skyrocket by as much as 40%. My bill has tried to bring equity and fairness to the system. It does not deal with insurance premiums. I'm not speaking on behalf of the insurance companies; I'm speaking on behalf of every constituent in your ridings. I appeal to your good common sense to bring some solutions to a specific problem. I do not intend to address all the problems. I'm trying to address a specific problem that affects a large number of our constituents. I hope they will see the common sense that is applied to this bill and I can have their support.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with the ballot item standing in the name of Mr Flaherty. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Pursuant to standing order 96(e), the following members signified their objection to the putting of the question on the motion and accordingly the motion was not put:

Bartolucci, Rick

Crozier, Bruce

Laughren, Floyd

Bisson, Gilles

Gerretsen, John

Martin, Tony

Boyd, Marion

Grandmaître, Bernard

Miclash, Frank

Bradley, James J.

Hampton, Howard

Pouliot, Gilles

Brown, Michael A.

Hoy, Pat

Pupatello, Sandra

Caplan, Elinor

Kormos, Peter

Sergio, Mario

Churley, Marilyn

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Wood, Len

Cooke, David S.

Lankin, Frances

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR L'ASSURANCE-AUTOMOBILE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 20, standing in the name of Mr Sergio.

If any members are opposed to vote on this ballot, will they please rise.

Mr Sergio has moved second reading of Bill 29,

An Act to provide for Fair Automobile Insurance Practices. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

This will be a five-minute bell. Call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1206 to 1211.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Conway, Sean G.

Lankin, Frances

Bartolucci, Rick

Cooke, David S.

Laughren, Floyd

Bisson, Gilles

Cordiano, Joseph

Martin, Tony

Boyd, Marion

Crozier, Bruce

Miclash, Frank

Bradley, James J.

Duncan, Dwight

Munro, Julia

Brown, Michael A.

Gerretsen, John

O'Toole, John

Caplan, Elinor

Grandmaître, Bernard

Pouliot, Gilles

Castrilli, Annamarie

Hampton, Howard

Pupatello, Sandra

Christopherson, David

Hoy, Pat

Sergio, Mario

Churley, Marilyn

Kormos, Peter

Wood, Len

Colle, Mike

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Gilchrist, Steve

Ross, Lillian

Baird, John R.

Guzzo, Garry J.

Sampson, Rob

Barrett, Toby

Hastings, John

Shea, Derwyn

Boushy, Dave

Johns, Helen

Sheehan, Frank

Carroll, Jack

Johnson, Bert

Smith, Bruce

Chudleigh, Ted

Klees, Frank

Snobelen, John

Danford, Harry

Martiniuk, Gerry

Tilson, David

Flaherty, Jim

Newman, Dan

Turnbull, David

Ford, Douglas B.

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Fox, Gary

Parker, John L.

Wood, Bob

Froese, Tom

Pettit, Trevor

Galt, Doug

Preston, Peter

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 32, the nays 34.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

All matters relating to private members' business have been completed. I will now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1214 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): When the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation tabled Bill 8, the act to repeal employment equity legislation, she said, "We will reform the Ontario Human Rights Commission to ensure that it fulfils its mandate to help victims of discrimination more effectively and more efficiently."

What has the minister done to reform the OHRC since passing Bill 8 into law last September? Nothing. There is widespread speculation that major cuts will take place at the Ontario Human Rights Commission. I understand that several hundred thousand dollars will be slashed from the budget of the commission.

I was surprised to hear this because I have a Progressive Conservative Party media release dated May 5, 1995, that states, "A Mike Harris government will reinforce the Human Rights Commission by using money redirected from the $9.3 million that will not be spent due to the cancellation of the Employment Equity Commission." The minister clearly has not kept her promise and she has not acted on this commitment. I urge the minister to act.

I have not seen any indication that she represents those people who are most discriminated against and have been subjected to many, many alienations in our society. When is this minister going to become the minister for human rights and stand up for the principles of those people who need protection most in our society?

I HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY CONFERENCE

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I'm happy today to be able to tell the Legislature and the people of Ontario about a conference that's going to be held this weekend in London at the London Convention Centre. It's an important conference. It's only the second year that it has been held. It's called I Have Something to Say. It is a symposium around the technology that is available to disabled people and their families to enable them to communicate and to be part of life.

This is an important occasion for people to look at the way in which technology can help people to become part of their community, access education and be more productive and more effective in their feelings about themselves.

Just two of the people who participated last year told their story in the London Free Press this morning, one an eight-year-old girl whose parents were told she could never go to school, who now with the aid of technology, a laptop computer and its software, has been integrated successfully into Ekcoe Central Public School in Glencoe. Another woman, Janice Janes of London, who has for 25 years experienced gradual deterioration in her ability to function physically because of multiple sclerosis, talks about the change in her life by being able to use the software and programs that she learned about at the conference last year.

I hope that people will attend this conference. It gives hope to those who are disabled and to their family and friends.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): We in Ontario must continue to do all that we can to discourage smoking, especially among our young people.

In recent years, all levels of government have taken steps to discourage tobacco use, but if the past is a guide, this year in Ontario alone, 13,500 people will die as a direct result of smoking.

Clearly, more needs to be done. Today and in the future we must continue to be vigilant on this issue. Here are some ideas we should consider:

We could take further action to ensure that Ontario workplaces are smoke-free. If possible, the use of smoking areas which are separately ventilated might be a solution for some workplaces.

The federal government could show leadership by gradually reintroducing tobacco taxes. Low tobacco prices have been linked to increases in smoking rates. Among young people aged 15 to 19, smoking rates have increased an average of 9% from 1994 to 1995.

We could put a 1-800 number on all cigarette packages, which would direct smokers who want to quit towards the help they need.

We could enhance enforcement of the laws which prohibit the sale of tobacco to minors.

We could strengthen public education programs in our schools.

I strongly urge the government to review these suggestions so that we can take every step possible to discourage young people from starting to smoke.

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I want to read a couple of quotes: "Not one nickel will be cut from agriculture," and "No cuts to agriculture." These statements were made by Mike Harris and were repeated often by Tory candidates throughout the election.

Well, there is obviously no election on now. Twenty-six million dollars have already been cut and the minister has told groups to expect a further 35% cut to the ministry.

Agriculture and the food and beverage industry are second only to the auto industry in importance for the economy of Ontario. Although agriculture has a farm-gate value of $6.2 billion, it receives only one half of one per cent of provincial spending, and now this government wishes to further this unwarranted assault on the agricultural industry.

I say to this government, shame on you for breaking your promise, and shame on you for attacking such a vital part of our economic future. I urge the government to honour its commitment and ensure that agriculture will regain its fair share of provincial spending.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): For the second time in this government's mandate -- the Tories sitting across -- there's been a direct attack on people with disabilities. Now the Minister of Municipal Affairs is proposing the elimination of building code requirements for barrier-free access, his philosophy being that barrier-free access is a regulatory burden on builders. Imagine.

This type of thinking is regressive and will trap individuals in their own homes, literally cutting them off from mainstream society. Any move this government makes to allow builders or developers to opt out makes the builders' and developers' role in society less reflective of the need of the marginalized and the most disabled, the people who need access the most.

In my great riding of Lake Nipigon, incidentally the largest riding geographically in the province, it is paramount that people who are physically challenged have access and can be able to take for granted what people in other parts of Ontario indeed do on a daily basis.

I urge the government to reconsider and not take us back to the Dark Ages, to involve what is at stake here, the essence of life and the human dimension.

EASTER ACTIVITIES

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): I rise to call to the attention of all members of the House that while many Canadians celebrated Easter last weekend, others who are members of the Eastern churches will observe this holiday this coming weekend.

Canadians of Ukrainian, Greek, Russian, Arabic, Ethiopian and other backgrounds bring their own colourful traditions to bear on a truly enriching, multicultural celebration of Easter.

Such fidelity to enduring and meaningful Easter traditions especially characterizes the Ukrainian community in my riding of High Park-Swansea. The Ukrainian experience of Easter is one which stands in awe of nature's cycles. It is also one which deeply appreciates, in political and national terms, the spiritual meaning of the resurrection theme. Following years of harsh oppression under the Soviet Russian regime, Ukraine underwent the suffering of its national crucifixion with patience and trust in divine providence.

The trust was finally rewarded on August 24, 1991, with the proclamation of a free and independent state, the joyous culmination of the testament of Ukraine's greatest poet, Taras Shevchenko, "Fear not, for the grave shall collapse and from underneath shall rise Ukraine -- and the children of slaves shall pray in freedom!"

On the great day of Christ's resurrection, I wish all Eastern Christians and my entire Ukrainian community in particular a happy and joyous Easter. I join with them in celebrating this great feast according to their beautiful rites and customs which are today the proud multicultural heritage of all Canadians. Krestos voskres.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): Later today thousands of our fellow citizens will find out that they no longer have a job. While most employers describe this experience, the experience of letting someone go, as the hardest thing they've ever had to do, this employer, the employer that will let these people go today, has had the unmitigated gall to celebrate.

The Premier himself today called this a happy day. How callous and insensitive can the Premier be towards the government's employees? The utter disdain for the lives of these people is amazing. The cold-hearted indifference to their families is astounding. On behalf of those families, thousands of families and thousands of individuals whose financial situation is about to be turned upside down, I say that gloating in the face of their personal tragedy is in bad taste.

Many people are describing this government as cold-hearted and cruel. What they've done to welfare recipients, what they've said, bears this out. Today, the Premier's lack of decency, his inability to be sensitive to those individuals and families, proves that the charges of callousness are right. Shame on all of you.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I want to talk about some very serious things that have been going on down in Niagara south. You know that 218 teachers from the Niagara south public board got their pink slips. They're not going to be teaching come September. They're not going to be in the classrooms there for the young people of Niagara south who are eager to get the sort of education their folks and grandfolks figured they'd be able to provide to those same young people.

I met with four of these young people because they're concerned, their families are concerned and worried. I met with Jennifer Barren and Jamie Treschak and Wesley Abell and Jami Langille, four of the leaders of a growing student movement that is going to fight and protest these unconscionable cuts by a government that simply doesn't give a tinker's dam about education. They picketed outside the Niagara South Board of Education office on Wednesday and they're going to be there, as am I with them, on April 16, when they address the Niagara South Board of Education at the public meeting.

I've also told those young people to bring their classmates, hundreds of them, bring them right into Queen's Park, because we'll fill these galleries and Minister Snobelen can, if he dares, look them in the eye and tell them why he's destroying their public education system and their future and the future of this province.

JOSEPH HOWE SENIOR PUBLIC SCHOOL

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): On March 29, the Ontario Science Olympiad was held at Centennial College in Scarborough. Schools from across the province were grouped according to their type of school. Joseph Howe Senior Public School, which I am proud to say is in our riding of Scarborough East, won for the intermediate level.

Daryl McCrossan, the grade 7 science teacher, had initially involved the students in Sir John A. Macdonald Collegiate's olympiad, held earlier that year. Teams of 10 students from Howe won this event, which entitled them to participate at the provincial level.

The Ontario Science Olympiad was divided into 15 events requiring a variety of skills. Students from Howe took five first-place and five second-place medals out of the 15 events. Members of the team and Mr McCrossan indicated that they have an abundance of the most important skill, the ability to work cooperatively.

The next step for this team is Atlanta, Georgia. On May 17 and 18, they'll be representing Ontario and possibly Canada in the National Science Olympiad. They'll compete against state teams from across the United States. The immediate hurdle for the team is to raise funds to cover the cost of transportation and accommodation, but I'm sure that Scarborough East residents will help them in that goal.

I'm very pleased to stand before the Legislature today and congratulate the students and staff at Joseph Howe Senior Public School for achieving this great milestone. Understanding science at a young age is crucial to the nurturing of tomorrow's scientists, who will lead Ontario and Canada into a new age of research and technology.

REPORT, COMMISSION ON ELECTION FINANCES

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I beg to inform the House I have today laid upon the table the Nineteenth Indemnity and Allowances Report of the Commission on Election Finances.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I would like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today Shile Develara, county Clare, member of Parliament from Ireland. Welcome to the Parliament.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE RESTRUCTURING

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): Today I wish to inform the members of this House of the government's progress towards changing the way the government of Ontario works by doing better for less.

Restructuring government is good for taxpayers and good for the people of Ontario. Doing better for less in government is a key part of our five-point plan to reduce costs, balance our budget, create jobs and restore hope and opportunities for current and future generations.

Last July we put the brakes on runaway spending. In November we outlined cost savings targets for ministries to achieve. We are meeting these targets and changing the way government operates by developing and implementing ministry business plans that are thorough and fair. Our business plans establish the core services that ministries should and can deliver over the next two years. They will incorporate results-based performance measurements to allow taxpayers to determine the effectiveness of these core programs and services.

As a general direction, we've confirmed our commitment to continuing the provincial government's role of setting standards and policy and ensuring these are enforced. However, we are moving out of direct delivery of services that can be done better by others. We are matching fees for services to their real costs and fostering self-reliance and more efficient use of taxpayers' dollars.

There has not been a restructuring of the provincial government on this scale for more than two decades and it's long overdue, as the deficit numbers bear out. Doing better for less is a work in progress and we want Ontarians to participate. Ministers and ministry staff will be sharing these new business directions with Ontarians who want to take

part in reshaping their government. We are building a better government, one that provides the service taxpayers need at a price the taxpayers can afford by getting rid of waste and duplication.

Today I am providing the members of this House and the people of Ontario with a detailed progress report on what we have accomplished. This report shows that we are determined to spend taxpayers' dollars wisely and outlines many examples of how we are doing this.

For instance, we are streamlining provincial involvement in land use planning approvals. There are currently half a dozen ministries which comment on official plan amendments and other planning proposals. This is a matter of routine more than necessity. Each ministry has staff devoted to land use planning issues. We're putting that responsibility for this activity where the planning experts are: in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, which will play the lead role in coordinating the provincial response.

The Ontario Provincial Police is another good example of what we're working towards. The OPP is cutting management layers from seven to four, reducing administrative centres by half and streamlining their dispatch system, closing three of 16 communications centres and reconfiguring the rest. The OPP is providing better service at less cost while protecting front-line policing.

Another example of streamlining is the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The ministry is simplifying its fee structure in the area of technical standards, taking the 270 separate fees it currently charges and cutting those down to about 60.

Doing better for less means looking at what we do, what it costs the taxpayers for us to do it, and where the lasting benefits are. The business planning process has permitted the involvement of government caucus members in these decisions to an unprecedented degree. Committees of government MPPs reviewed ministries' draft business plans to add the local view to proposed changes.

Business planning is a different way to organize decisions about on what, where, and how government spends money. As part of this we identified areas where we could achieve cost savings. The report I am tabling today shows how this will be done over the next two years. I want to stress that the cost savings outlined are not additional reductions, but rather a progress report on what we have accomplished. There will be more decisions in the coming months. Today's report outlines areas where we are downsizing operations, saving money in administration, reducing waste and duplication, streamlining and transferring services, and taking a more businesslike approach to government.

Working towards the commitments made in the fall, the cost-saving measures being implemented will reduce the province's operating spending in this fiscal year by $1.2 billion. This grows to a total of $1.6 billion in 1997-98.