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

December 13, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

BREATHALYSER MACHINES

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

EARTHQUAKE IN ARMENIA

LAND USE PERMITS

ABANDONED RAIL LINE

TROPICANA COMMUNITY SERVICES

PAY EQUITY

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

MISSISSAUGA HERITAGE FOUNDATION

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

CANCER TREATMENT

HEALTH INSURANCE

SKILLED TRADES

HOSPITAL SERVICES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

NATIVE SERVICES

RENT REGULATION

RECYCLING

FOOD BANKS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

NUCLEAR SAFETY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

PETITIONS

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

GREATER TORONTO AREA

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

LAW SOCIETY AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

ORDERS OF THE DAY

UNCLAIMED INTANGIBLE PROPERTY ACT, 1989 / LOI DE 1989 SUR LES BILLETS IMMATERIELS NONRECLAMES

BUSINESS INFORMATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

PROVINCIAL PENALTIES ADJUSTMENT ACT, 1989 / LOI DE 1989 SUR LE RAJUSTEMENT DE PEINES PROVINCIALES

PROVINCIAL PENALTIES ADJUSTMENT ACT, 1989 / LOL DE1989 SUR LE RAJUSTEMENT DE PEINES PROVINCIALES

EVENING SITTING

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

MUNICIPAL FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT, 1989 / LOI DE 1989 SUR L’ACCES A L’INFORMATION MUNICIPALE ET LA PROTECTION DE LA VIE PRIVEE

MUNICIPAL FREEDOM OF INFORMATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

COMMERCIAL CONCENTRATION TAX ACT, 1989

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

BREATHALYSER MACHINES

Mr Farnan: Recently, I received a letter from a group of students at Wilfrid Laurier University. They are urging changes to the Liquor Licence Act of Ontario. Members may be aware that on 29 January 1989 a young man died choking on his own vomit after a night of heavy drinking at his university residence and campus bar.

In the letter, signed by Carolyn Fleck, Kimberley Gardhouse, Lisa Gaudet, Dwayne Gomes and Doug Isbister, the students suggested regulation 581,

section 35 be amended to provide for the inclusion of breathalyser machines within the canteen as a requirement for obtaining a liquor licence.

The students believe that the introduction of breathalyser machines in campus bars would offer an option which could be used in controlling the alcohol consumption of patrons. If the bar employee believes someone who is driving is over the legal limit, he could ask the customer to voluntarily use the breathalyser machine. Depending on the results, he would decide whether to refuse service. If the patron refused to take the test, the bar could utilize its right to refuse service.

The students included with their correspondence an 88-name petition in support of their recommended amendment. I will table this petition later this afternoon.

I would urge the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr Sorbara) to take seriously the suggestion from these concerned students.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr McLean: My statement is directed to the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr Conway). The recent auditor’s report makes reference to a former president of the University of Guelph who was employed by the university from 1948 to 1970.

He returned as president for a contract term of four and a half years from January 1984 to June 1988. The contracted salary in 1987-88 was $148,500. He also received $24,750 annually in lieu of administrative leave. His employment contract stipulated that he would not participate in the university’s pension plan.

When his contract expired at the end of June 1988, he received an early retirement option payment of over $100,000. Also on retirement, the president received in excess of $30,000 for 48 vacation days.

I just cannot understand how the minister can justify this when we recently saw more than 8,000 teachers, librarians and counsellors at Ontario’s 22 community colleges manning the picket lines for about 30 days as they sought a reasonable wage increase.

More than 100,000 college students were adversely affected by this prolonged strike, and it looks to me like another example of the government’s policy of robbing Peter to pay Paul. I honestly do not think the government can justify this questionable disparity between what happens at the University of Guelph and Ontario’s 22 community colleges.

EARTHQUAKE IN ARMENIA

Ms Oddie Munro: A year has passed since December 1988 when the people of the world united in an effort to help those who were struck by the devastation of the earthquake in Armenia. On Sunday last, 10 December, the Armenian community of Hamilton held a requiem service and ceremony at the Armenian Community Centre on Princess Street. The service was in memory of an estimated 55,000 missing persons, only 25,000 of whom have been officially accounted for. Tens of thousands more have suffered and are suffering the aftermath, including grieving families and friends in Canada.

Reconstruction is proceeding slowly, with evidence of a blockade of equipment and supplies, isolation of communities through road reconstruction, families still inadequately housed, clothed and fed. In addition, the strife in Armenia which has pitted ethnic communities against each other shows the grim paradox of aiding people, only to see them victims of prolonged civil strife.

During this week of international human rights reflection, and during this time of phenomenal changes in the Soviet Union and eastern European countries, it is appropriate to increase the pressure on Mikhail Gorbachev to extend political reform to Armenia. Mr Gorbachev made history by allowing rescue workers into Armenia during the earthquake. It will be a sad day in history if the Armenian people continue to be deprived of their rights in the Soviet Union, of their desire to be part of the political reform and to be acknowledged as the rightful occupants of their own land.

LAND USE PERMITS

Miss Martel: New Democratic Party Housing critics both past and present have repeatedly raised cases involving rental adjustments which are unreasonable and unfair. Tenants have faced rate increases which have been far beyond even what the landlords ask for in the first place, but the most obscene rental adjustment I have seen today comes not from the Ministry of Housing but from the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Once of my constituents recently received a notice from the ministry regarding his land use permit. He was advised that MNR is moving to sell or rent all crown lands at market value. Therefore, a market value evaluation was conducted on his land use permit area to reflect the current value of his site. Under this evaluation, his rental fee jumped from $20 a year to $295 a year. This represents a 1500 per cent rental increase.

This case must be reviewed and a reasonable fee applied to the land use permit, and all other land use permits should also be reviewed to ensure this ridiculous situation is corrected.

ABANDONED RAIL LINE

Mr Eves: I would like to express my support for the Ontario Trail Riders Association and the Parry Sound Area Chamber of Commerce in their bid to secure public ownership of the right of way of the Ottawa through Parry Sound abandoned railway, specifically that

part in Renfrew county.

Negotiations concerning this issue began in 1983 when the Ontario Trail Riders Association approached the Ontario government in order to ensure that this land would remain in public ownership. In 1985, the CN Renfrew was identified by Norm Richards, then director of the parks and recreations area branch, as one of three priority corridors that have the greatest benefit from a recreational and tourist standpoint.

A recent report commissioned by the Parry Sound Snow Sport Association proves that developing these railway lines into trails would increase year-round tourism in the area and provide opportunities for new business development. It has also been proposed that the trails could be used as a future utility corridor which will be economically advantageous.

The Ontario Trail Riders Association with the Parry Sound Area Chamber of Commerce have complied with the request of the member for Niagara Falls (Mr Kerrio) in 1989 as Minister of Natural Resources to produce a management plan for the trail. This preliminary impact study of the trail, along with a 40-mile stretch of the trial, found that $1.4 million is generated for the winter season alone.

It would be unfortunate if the province were to lose this very valuable resource. The asset as a public right of way connecting the Great Lakes with the nation’s capital through mid-Ontario should be retained in public ownership, where it has been for decades.

TROPICANA COMMUNITY SERVICES

Mr Faubert: Next Monday, 18 December, 1989, Tropicana Community Services will be celebrating its 10th anniversary.

Tropicana Community Services is a Scarborough-based agency offering advocacy, day care, counselling information and referral services, as well as a youth club and after-school program. Its clients include young people and their families who may be economically, educationally or socially disadvantaged. Many of their programs are directed within Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority developments, and one of their best-known athletic programs is the annual MTHA basketball tournament.

Tropicana Community Services also played an important role in the Jamaican hurricane relief effort by assisting in the co-ordination, collection and shipment of clothing and supplies to Jamaica at that time.

Another important program in which they play a

part is the WOW, or work orientation workshop. This is a federal program designed for youth 14 to 16 years of age. It introduces them to work experiences which they would not otherwise have and helps provide them with confidence to realize their career potential.

I would commend everyone who has been involved with Tropicana Community Services over the past decade. In particular, I would single out Barry Thomas, former executive director; Yvonne Blackwood, president, and Noreen Alleyne, the current executive director.

It is organizations such as Tropicana that reach out into our community to break down some of the barriers in our society to ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity to live up to his potential. For this reason Tropicana should receive every support and encouragement from all levels of government.

PAY EQUITY

Mr Mackenzie: The Libby-Owens-Ford plant in Lindsay, Ontario has become a classic example of one of our worst corporate citizens in the province. Not only has it gone out of the way to break and disobey the safety and health legislation and employment standards legislation, but it is now trying to do exactly the same thing with our pay equity legislation in Ontario.

At a meeting last week, the company called in the plant chairperson to insist that she sign a document clearly stating that the company did not need to meet the provisions of the act, did not need to set up a committee and did not need to hold discussions on pay equity within that particular plant. That obviously violates subsections 9(2) and 14(1) and (2) of the new pay equity legislation.

Not only is it an example that they are prepared to flout the pay equity legislation, but it is interesting to note that at the same time, they decided that union members with a grievance would be allowed only 15 minutes at any time to deal with grievances, and they have not responded to grievances filed in some period of time.

If, in this province, we are looking indeed for better labour-management relations, obviously we have to do something about a firm that deliberately goes out of its way, time and again, month after month, to disobey the labour laws of the province of Ontario. It is time we did look into these cases and decide what we are going to do to see that the pay equity legislation is not yet one more act that this company has decided it does not need to obey.

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

Mr Jackson: Last week I asked the Minister of Education to discuss the capital costs associated with his new kindergarten initiative. Instead of guaranteeing that local taxpayers would not have to pay for yet another provincially mandated program, he sidestepped the issue.

His own ministry allocated $400,000 to the Durham Board of Education for the construction of just two kindergarten classrooms. At that rate, it would cost over $500 million to build classrooms for the 53,000 four-year-olds who are currently not attending junior kindergarten in Ontario.

I am not questioning the value of junior kindergarten, but I am concerned by the minister’s refusal to give a straight answer to school boards and taxpayers about the real cost. The minister’s refusal to discuss the matter is a clear indication that the province is unwilling to cover the program’s full cost.

Education property taxes increased by $1 billion last year because of a relative decline in the provincial share of education funding. School boards are already projecting double-digit mill rate increases again this year, which indicates another $1-billion surge in property taxes. Angry ratepayer organizations are reacting to this latest increase. They are tired of footing the bill for trendy provincial programs at the expense of basic education.

Before the minister refuses to offer assurances to taxpayers, he should remember that property tax, unlike income tax, is not based on ability to pay. Property taxpayers should not be punished just because the minister wants to add a new twist to education in this province, and trustees should not be blamed.

MISSISSAUGA HERITAGE FOUNDATION

Mr Mahoney: I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues in the House the Mississauga Heritage Foundation. The motto inscribed in the city of Mississauga’s coat of arms is “Pride in our past -- faith in our future.” The Mississauga Heritage Foundation provides a vital link in the preservation of our past for all residents.

The foundation was launched on 6 December 1960 in order to save the historic Lewis Bradley house from demolition. Since that time, the foundation has expanded to include the acquisition, restoration and management of historical buildings and sites. One of its current projects, as it celebrates its 30th anniversary, is the restoration of the Anchorage.

The Anchorage is a heritage home that was moved from its original location to the Bradley Museum site in June 1978. It is one of only three regency-style cottages to be found in the province. It was originally named the Anchorage by a retired captain from the Royal Navy, John Skynner.

Through private fund-raising activities and the support of this government, the Mississauga Heritage Foundation is embarking on an ambitious program of public use on a year-round basis for the Anchorage. The Anchorage will be used as a tea room and a meeting place, host gallery displays and exhibits, as well as provide accommodation for collection storage.

By preserving our past we are able to build on our future, and I congratulate the staff, members and volunteers of the Mississauga Heritage Foundation for their hard work, their dedication and their pride in our past.

VISITOR

The Speaker: Just before I call the next item of business, I know the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr D. S. Cooke), and all members, would want to join me in welcoming the former member for Windsor-Riverside, Fred Burr, back to the chamber today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr B. Rae: I was hoping to ask this question of the Premier (Mr Peterson) and was told that he was here, but since I understand he is not, I will go with the next best thing, the Minister of Health.

Hon Mrs Caplan: What’s this?

Mr B. Rae: I am asking the minister a question.

I know that the minister has already issued a press release and answered a question in the House with respect to the inquest into the death of StelIa Lacroix, but I have some questions for the minister about her answers to the statements that are found in the inquest.

The inquest states categorically that Dr Nesdoly and the nursing supervisor are to be commended for their dedicated and sincere efforts on behalf of their patient Stella Lacroix, and that recognition should also be given to Mr Sharkey of the integrated trauma program for offering his assistance when he was by no means required to do so.

I want to give the minister one more chance to explain to this House why she and the Premier are not willing to at least apologize for having left the clear impression with the entire public that a system was in place which these dedicated professionals failed to use.

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr B. Rae: That was the impression left by the Premier and by the minister. I want to ask her, will she at least do the decent thing now and apologize in the face of the findings of the jury in the coroner’s inquest?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that I have at all times spoken of the dedication of all of the health providers of this province. I commend all of the care givers who attempted to assist Mrs Lacroix and I commend the jury, as well, which sought out all of the facts in this case.

But I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, that just because he says something does not mean that it is factual, which unfortunately often becomes the case in this House. Just because he leaves an impression does not mean that is correct. I would say to him that I never blamed anyone. I never, at any time, suggested that there was a province-wide hotline in service. I was referring at all times to the system at the Toronto General Hospital and to a letter which its officials gave to me and which, at the inquest, they say they stand by.

Mr B. Rae: I cannot believe that the Minister of Health fails to understand the implications of what she said and did in those short days after the death of Stella Lacroix. All members I think in their hearts know exactly what took place in this House. The Premier and the minister left Dr Nesdoly out to dry. That is precisely the effect of what they said in the House and what they said outside. Thank goodness the coroner’s jury has come to his defence.

I would like to ask the minister one particular question relating to the inquest. On page 3 of the inquest report, there is a very specific recommendation, made by the jury, that nurses be compensated for specialized training, and second, that the Minister of Health, together with the Ontario Nurses’ Association and hospital administrations, address the shortage of nursing staff in the Metropolitan Toronto area. The situation has reached a critical stage and seems to be a hindrance to the availability of continued quality health care in southern Ontario.

The health manpower study of the ministry shows how serious the shortage of nurses is in the latest ministry survey. I wonder if the minister can tell us whether she is prepared to provide the hospital administrations with the funds necessary to compensate nurses for specialized training.

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would like to make clear to the Leader of the Opposition that there are more nurses working in Ontario’s health care system than ever before. Nursing staff concerns often relate to the difficulties in specialized units or in certain geographic areas, and that is because we have in fact enhanced the system significantly.

As the member knows, over the course of the last number of years, hospital-based budgets and hospital funding generally has increased very, very significantly. The Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) just announced for this year an 8.7 per cent increase for hospital budgets across this province. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will say that is inadequate.

We know that he criticizes everything that we do -- that is his job -- but I want him to know that all issues relating to pay, salary and income are issues of the collective bargaining process between the nurses and their union, the Ontario Nurses’ Association, and the employers, the hospitals, through the Ontario Hospital Association. He knows that.

Mr B. Rae: I cannot believe the minister is rejecting the most basic finding of the jury’s statement. The jury said that there is a particular problem in Metropolitan Toronto. The jury suggested that the way to deal with that problem is for nurses who are involved in the most critical areas, where there are the most critical shortages, to be paid enough to keep them in those jobs. That is basically what is being suggested.

Her own survey shows that we are 1,900 nurses short across Ontario, that we have a vacancy rate in Metropolitan Toronto of nine per cent, that in some hospitals it is way above that and that in critical care it is way above that. If the minister does not appreciate that there is a nursing crisis in some hospitals and in some areas, then she is completely missing the point of everything that has happened in Ontario in health care in the last two years.

Is the minister prepared to fund the hospitals to the degree necessary to end this kind of a shortage?

Hon Mrs Caplan: Since 1985 there has been a growth in both the absolute numbers of registered nurses in Ontario and the number of nurses entering the workforce. There has been an increase of some 6,300 RNs registered in the province since 1985. I would say to the member that our recent nursing initiatives, which I announced, a five-year, $15-million program to improve both nursing recruitment and nursing retention, involved six very specific areas.

There is a five-year, $5-million nursing innovation fund, as well as annual nursing bursaries. The member knows that I fully understand these issues are very, very complicated, but I would say to him that I will be referring the recommendation of the jury and be sure that it is brought to the attention of the Ontario Nurses’ Association, which bargains in the collective bargaining process with the Ontario Hospital Association.

I want the member to know that last year as well Ontario hospitals received $6 billion, 223 hospitals in this province received some $6 billion, but that the nursing wages are established as part of the collective bargaining process. Surely he is not suggesting that we intervene in that process.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr Reville: To the same minister, since we are doing so badly. We get from the Minister of Health a version of the “have a nice day” wish chant that people are familiar with, and that is the “quality care as close to home as possible” wish chant.

I was speaking this morning to a man in Brantford, Ontario, who is in great anxiety because his father is in Ottawa, Ontario: same province at least, but about 300 miles away. His father is there because the cancer referral centre referred him there. The problem, among many problems, is that he was referred there on 22 November, and the Ottawa facility has said, “Maybe we can start your radiation treatment in January.”

Quality care close to home does not work. What about the care that they need when they need it?

Hon Mrs Caplan: The critic in the opposition knows full well that my priority is to see that people get care when they need it. That is the reason that we are working with our partners to see how we can improve the system, to see that people are referred to a location as close to home as possible. He knows as well that I am always prepared to review individual cases to see if appropriate action has been taken. We rely on doctors to use their very best judgement, but my priority always is to see that people have access to the services that they need, effective quality services, when they need them.

Mr Reville: The other option was Thunder Bay, which, the last time anybody I know drove there, was 17 hours from Brantford, Ontario, as opposed to five hours from Brantford to Ottawa. My caller and correspondent says this, “It is extremely difficult to accept the diagnosis of cancer to begin with, and at a time when having the support and love of family and friends is so important, the only hope of survival and, apparently, immediate treatment lies 300 miles away.”

Has the minister anything better to share with this House than her understanding of that kind of anxiety?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I think that there is not a person in this House or across the province who has not experienced the tragedy or the stress of having to deal with serious illness. We know that the support of family and communities is very, very important. These are very stressful and difficult moments, and at those times we expect an awful lot from our health care system and we want it to be perfect. It is not perfect, and we are always trying to improve it and to work together to improve it.

I want to say to the member that what we want to know, first and foremost, is that the very best possible care has been made available and I want him to know that we are working at the establishment of the kind of standards and quality assurance programs so that people can be assured that wherever they access care across this province they will be receiving appropriate and optimal care.

Mr Revile: There are a number of understatements in the minister’s response. It clearly is not perfect. The cancer was spotted in June 1989. My constituent, and I say that in the generic sense, was sent to Ottawa on 20 November.

Hon Mr Scott: What other possible sense is there?

Mr Revile: I wish the Attorney General would try to calm himself. I know it must be really irritating to be an Attorney General for that kind of government.

Somehow five months elapsed before the referral centre could even find a place to send the person suffering from cancer, and once he got there, he was then told he was going to have to wait two more months. There is a huge irony in this. The minister will probably know if she has read the history that Dr James Hillier comes from Brantford, Ontario. The member for St Andrew-St Patrick (Mr Kanter) knows that because he comes from Brantford, Ontario. It is not just the home of the telephone; it is the home of radiation treatment.

The Speaker: Order. Do you have a question? I do not know if there was a question there or not.

Hon Mrs Caplan: I think it is important for all members of this House to realize that if something has gone seriously wrong, there are highly effective procedures, processes and organizations, like the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which will thoroughly investigate any particular case. I do not question physician judgement.

I have to say to the member opposite that if the College of Physicians and Surgeons receives a complaint about the care that any individual has received from any doctor in this province, it will investigate and best advise the patient as to what to do. I would say to him that in fact we are always trying to improve. I understand the frustration, and if he has any advice, he knows that I am always open to his suggestions on how we can make the system a little bit better tomorrow than it was yesterday.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Brandt: My question as well is for the Minister of Health. I have to say to the minister, and I say this with respect, that it is almost painful the way we have to extract answers to questions to clarify policies on the part of the Ministry of Health. I want to attempt it once again today, because of some confusing signals that the minister sent out yesterday in response to questions in answers that she gave both inside and outside of this House.

Inside the House, in response to my question, the minister indicated that in order to be assured of health coverage after 1 January, those individuals who had received bills during the latter part of 1989 for their OHIP premiums would in fact have to pay those premiums to have health coverage for January, February and March of the new year.

Outside of the House, the minister indicated even if those premiums were not paid, those individuals would have access to the system and would not in fact be charged for any health-related expenses, should they become ill some time in the first three months of the new year. Could the minister once and for all clarify the position of her ministry and the government in connection with this whole premium policy?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would say to the leader of the third party that if there is any confusion in this province, he bears responsibility for it. I will state very, very clearly, as I have before, that all residents will continue to have access to health care services in this province. During this time of transition it is extremely important that we not confuse this issue. My concern is that people have access to those services. If the member wants to play games with doublespeak and innuendo, then he should bear the responsibility of the confusion that he has created.

Mr Brandt: The word “access” crept into the minister’s vocabulary still another day, in spite of my attempt to assist the minister yesterday in how confusing that particular word was relative to the question I am asking. Is the minister saying, and I will give her a specific case, if someone does not pay his OHIP premiums for January, February and March, which he must pay some time before the end of 1989, and if that individual slips on the ice and breaks his leg and is hospitalized but has not paid his premiums for the first three months of 1990, that those health-related costs are going to be covered? It is a simple question.

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would say again to the leader of the third party that I would encourage him during this time of transition from premiums to a tax-funding system for the health services of this province not to confuse the issue in the minds of people. I want the people of this province not to worry as we change the system. As of 1 January, all residents of Ontario will be covered and all residents will have access to the services that they need and they need not worry.

Mr Brandt: We have already established that in addition to a transition period in which the minister is changing the method by which she is going to be collecting money from the Ontario public, that she will be at the very least collecting an additional $300 million from the system. She will be replacing $1.8 billion in OHIP premiums with $2.1 billion in the new employer health levy, which her government has determined is the better way to go.

If in fact it is the better way to go, let’s just assure the Ontario public that they are going to be hit with an additional $300 million. Why does the minister not do the right thing, perhaps to simplify how this whole matter could be clarified in the minds of the Ontario public, by bringing in that change of premium and in fact the coverage on 1 April 1990 and telling the Ontario public that with or without premiums they are going to be covered for January, February and March?

Now, in so doing, I recognize the government will lose the bonusing that the Treasurer has built into this new scheme, but the minister will effectively balance the books. Why does she not do that and come clean and tell the Ontario public that she is not going to collect that extra money and cover them?

The Speaker: That is a very good speech.

Hon Mrs Caplan: I know that the leader of the third party could understand this if he put his mind to it. The employer health tax will be used to raise revenues to provide the services that the people of this province need and require through the Ministry of Health. He knows as well that this change from a premium to a tax represents a $1-billion tax cut for the people of this province. That has been explained to him by the Treasurer. I would suggest that maybe he does not want to understand, but I think he could if he put his mind to this.

The member knows how important it is to ensure that health services are appropriately funded. My commitment is to see that people have access to the health services they need. I want to reassure them that as we change from one system to another, they will not be denied access to the services they need. I ask the member, during this time of transition, to try to lessen the confusion by giving the people the facts.

Mr Pope: My question is to the Minister of Revenue. In the absence of the ability of the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) to answer simple questions put with respect to Bill 47, the Employer Health Tax Act, 1989 -- the doctors cannot extra-bill but the Liberal government can. I guess that is the message the Minister of Health has given.

Could the Minister of Revenue do something that the government refused to do for an hour and a half yesterday in the Legislature, and that is confirm what the member for Middlesex (Mr Reycraft), the parliamentary assistant to the Treasurer, said to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs last Thursday 7 December when he indicated that $500 million would be collected for January, February and March 1990 under the employer health tax levy system, while the government would be collecting $435 million in OHIP premiums for January, February and March 1990? Will the minister confirm this double collection and that what the member for Middlesex said was true?

Hon Mr Mancini: Let me quote from Hansard of 19 October 1989. Let me quote what the Treasurer said to a similar charge that was made by the opposition at that time.

“Because we count the dollars, and they are not doubled, I can assure the honourable member that the cash flow coming originally from the insurance premiums that end at the end of December and the tax that begins on 1 January will be identical except for the three per cent increase that is associated with moving the support from 13 per cent, which is where we are now, to approximately 16 per cent, where we will be next year.”

That is more or less the identical answer that I gave to the honourable member yesterday in committee.

Mr Pope: Last Thursday the standing committee on finance and economic affairs examined Bill 47. We as an opposition demanded answers from the spokesman for the government with respect to the collection of OHIP premiums up until the end of December for the period January, February and March of 1990. At the same time, the government is taking the employer health tax, payroll tax, for the same period of January, February and March.

Mr Orsini, an official of this government, indicated that for January, February and March, it was collecting $435 million in OHIP premiums. Two minutes before then, the member for Middlesex, who had called on Mr Orsini, indicated that the payroll tax would give to the coffers of the province of Ontario $500 million for that same period.

Will the minister confirm that the government is double-taxing the people of the province of Ontario and confirm what the parliamentary assistant to the Treasurer and what his own government official told the members of that committee last Thursday?

Hon Mr Mancini: That question has been asked a number of times. It has been answered a number of times. It is very clear that one system ends on 31 December and that another system begins on 1 January. There are no double dollars that go to the Treasury, as the Treasurer stated to the Legislature on 19 October, but the facts are that well over 270,000 individuals and well over 300,000 families will not have to make OHIP premium payments in the future. They will have their OHIP covered under the new employer health tax which requires all employers to make a fair contribution, with a special half-rate for small business.

Mr Pope: The minister, like the Minister of Health, over many days of discussion has refused to confirm information given to members of a committee of this Legislature by the ministries’ own representatives. He refused to confirm this double taxation.

The minister has inadvertently made an incorrect statement to this House just now. He said the OHIP premium system ends on 31 December 1989. In fact, Mr Orsini, who was called upon by the member for Middlesex to give information to members of the committee last Thursday said, “There are no premiums collected in the January-February-March period, but the payments made for January, February and March” -- OHIP premiums -- ‘would amount to over $400,000 million, approximately $435,000 million.”

How can the minister stand here and deny that people are not paying OHIP premiums for January, February and March 1990 when his own officials told a House committee last Thursday that this was a fact? How can the minister deny the truth of double taxation when it is there for everyone to see?

Hon Mr Bradley: But please spend more on health care while you’re at it.

Hon Mr Mancini: That is exactly right and that is what some of the members opposite wanted us to do last night. They wanted us to increase our expenditures in health care and they wanted us to take in less revenue. They know the facts. They have tried to distort the facts.

If OHIP premiums had not been frozen in 1984-85 by this government and if they had been indexed to the consumer price index, OHIP premiums today would bring in to the government $2.6 billion, not the $2.1 billion that is going to be brought in by the employer health tax.

SKILLED TRADES

Mr Mackenzie: In view of the absence of the Minister of Skills Development (Mr Conway), I would like to go to the Premier. The government of Ontario has established provincial statutes dealing with apprentices and journeymen in the construction industry through the Apprenticeship and Tradesmen’s Qualifications Act. These statutes have, unfortunately, been given to the Minister of Skills Development to implement, govern and enforce and that simply has not been happening as the hundreds of tradespeople who were outside this building this morning can attest to.

In light of recent evidence that problems are developing with respect to both apprenticeship training and health and safety programs, can the Premier tell the House if it is true that we have only five enforcement officers working for the ministry trying to deal with and regulate over 30 regulated trades covering thousands of workers in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Peterson: I am sorry I cannot answer that question specifically about how many enforcement officers there are. I will inquire of the minister and he can report to the member specifically on that question.

Mr Mackenzie: At the same time, while inquiring of the minister, if the number of enforcement officers is there because the ministry feels they are competent to deal with the act, can we also find out why, with some dozen applications made for prosecution under the act, none have been proceeded with and there appears to have been no prosecution since 1966? How can the government so flagrantly ignore the very real issues that are facing skilled tradespeople in the province of Ontario and what is this government prepared to do about it?

Hon Mr Peterson: I am sorry I cannot answer the specific question the honourable member raises. I do know there was a demonstration here today about, I gather, the ratios with number of apprentices to tradespeople today. As the member knows, that entire matter is under review by a number of committees, sectoral committees looking at the various trades.

It is our view, as well, that on one hand, as my honourable friend knows, there is a shortage of skilled labour and that will continue in the future unless it is addressed, and we believe that the labour movement has to be part of the solution. As the member knows, as well, a number of programs are being developed through the Premier’s Council in conjunction with labour that we hope will share the ownership and the solutions to some of these problems. They are all complicated and interrelated.

I am sorry I cannot answer his specific question, but I can tell my honourable friend that the broad question is under review at the present time.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr Eves: I have a question of the Premier. I am sure he will now be aware of the coroner’s inquest and the coroner’s jury’s recommendations with respect to the death of Stella Lacroix: the first recommendation being that the medical staff of Huronia District Hospital, with particular emphasis on Dr Derek Nesdoly, Nurse Sharon Noon and Administrative Nursing Co-ordinator Dennis Lahaie, be commended for their dedicated and sincere efforts on behalf of their patient Stella Lacroix.

Both the Premier and the Minister of Health on 12 October of this year made remarks in the Legislature that there was a system in place, that all Dr Nesdoly had to do was avail himself of that system and his problems would have been solved, and that for the life of them, they did not know why he did not use that system.

I think that is a disparaging remark with respect to Dr Nesdoly, especially in light of the coroner’s jury’s recommendations. The Minister of Health refused to apologize to Dr Nesdoly yesterday. Would the Premier do that today for us?

Hon Mr Peterson: I think the minister can answer the member’s question and I have every confidence in her.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It has been referred to the Minister of Health.

Hon Mrs Caplan: I want to remind the member opposite that last June when we announced that we were establishing regional trauma and critical care hotlines across the province that member said they were not necessary and all doctors knew exactly who to call. He knows, as well, that simply because he says something does not mean that he is informed, correct, or has the facts.

He knows full well that all information was shared with this House in good faith and that no one on this side of the House blamed anybody for anything. We said we wanted all the facts to come out. I commend the coroner’s jury and everyone who was involved in helping to get all the facts out, and I would say to him that he does no one a service by trying further to inflame that which was never inflamed in the first place.

Mr Eves: I do not know what that was, but that certainly was not an answer to the question that was asked. The question that was asked was a question of the Premier of the province of Ontario about a disparaging remark he made publicly and in this chamber about a doctor in the medical profession whom a coroner’s jury has subsequently found to deserve a commendation, not criticism by the Minister of Health or the Premier of the province.

I asked for an apology. Numerous members have asked for it several times. I have no supplementary. They have no class over there.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. As the minister is aware, there have been considerable concerns expressed in our area regarding possible health problems and even deaths as a result of alleged and possible working conditions at the former Robson-Lang tannery in Barrie.

I am pleased that the minister has had an inquiry and an investigation, but there are media reports which are quoting certain sources as saying that there are substantial deaths and health problems and there are other reports saying that there are not any concrete or specific results coming out of the study. Can the minister give us some guidance or tell us what the status is of the investigation and what information is evolving from his investigation?

Hon Mr Phillips: I very much appreciate the ongoing interest by the member for Simcoe Centre from the outset of the matter. The single most important thing perhaps is that all the individuals involved feel comfortable and confident in the process that is going on.

What we have done is establish a study. The Ministry of Labour will co-ordinate it, but it will involve also the injured workers, the union that has been involved in that particular tannery and the tannery association to conduct a thorough analysis of the situation. I think that is the most important thing; that all of the parties involved feel a part of that study, be involved in that study and be a part of the design of that study.

Frankly, what we are looking for now are names and addresses of individuals who worked in that institution over the longest period of time we can possibly find, so we can conduct the most thorough possible study.

Mr Owen: I am sure the minister appreciates that because of all of the publicity and concern there are many people who are going through a great deal of anxiety with regard to what has happened to them and what has happened to members of their family.

Does the minister have any idea as to the time that might be involved before some results or information might be available to either tell them there is reason for concern or there might not be reason for concern? When might they get some information that could satisfy them as to what the risks have been?

Hon Mr Phillips: This study will not be one that can be done really quickly. What we have also done is we have asked the tannery association for names of individuals involved in other tanneries. We have asked the former head office of this organization for names, and I think we got 800 names from it, because in order to do the kind of comprehensive study that we are going to have to do, we are going to require a fairly large number of individuals and a fairly sophisticated study. So, in terms of being able to comfort people that this can be done quickly, I do not think we can do that. It is going to require a number of months.

In the meantime, I believe there have been 80 individuals who have submitted claims to workers’ compensation. I would encourage that process to go on as well. I guess the reassurance I can give the member is that the study has the involvement of the affected parties, that the results will be known and will be a matter of public record, and I hope that we have enough involvement in the development of the study that individuals feel confident that they have a say in that study.

NATIVE SERVICES

Mr Pouliot: My question is to minister responsible for native affairs. The Human Rights Code of Ontario says the following -- it is very simple, and please, with respect, listen very intently -- “Every person has the right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex,” etc.

How does the minister explain, in this year of Our Lord 1989, on the eve of Christmas, that aboriginal people in northern Ontario have little or no running water, sewage treatment, garbage disposal, adequate housing, ambulance service, care for elders, midwifery service, education and preventive programs, programs to deal with substance abuse, spousal abuse, etc? How does he explain that position -- that discrepancy between what the code says and what is the sad reality of today?

Hon Mr Scott: I take the honourable member’s point and I think it is a sound one, but he will recognize that resources are not provided, unhappily, equitably all across the country or across the province, for that matter. People who live in rural communities do not get access to some services that are available to people who live in urban communities. Our native people have been the victims of that kind of difficulty in remote communities and in urban communities for many generations.

It is a serious, difficult, human problem that we are trying to address, and as I did try to address the other day when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr B. Rae) was jeering at me. I understand the nature of the problem and we are trying to respond effectively.

Mr Wlldman: I will not jeer at the minister. I would like to draw his attention to a report recently published by the Thunder Bay district health unit on prenatal mortality in northwestern Ontario, which relates to the kinds of conditions my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon delineated.

On the first page it says: “Using a nine-year average for the district of Thunder Bay and Ontario, Thunder Bay averaged 16 per cent higher perinatal mortality rate than Ontario. The other two districts in northwestern Ontario, Kenora and Rainy River, inflated the northwestern Ontario rate by an additional 11 percent. The perinatal mortality rate for natives is estimated to increase the district rate by 12 per cent.”

The study goes on to relate this to the high incidence of teenage pregnancies, lack of access to medical care and preventive health programs, alcohol and substance abuse and the smoking of tobacco. What is this government doing to respond to this terrible situation where infants are dying at a much higher rate because of the poor living conditions and social conditions that the aboriginal people of northwestern Ontario experience?

Hon Mr Scott: As the honourable member knows, the Minister of Health has been active to provide a series of resources and a series of programs to assist native people in northern Ontario and in other parts of the province for whom we are obliged to provide services. One of the difficulties, as the honourable member knows, is that almost all medical services for on-reserve native people are provided by the federal government.

I will be glad to take up any individual case that the honourable member has where the responsibility is provincial, as I said to the honourable member the other day. I know he did not accept it and I understand why. Native people are concerned about assuring themselves that the federal government, which has a constitutional obligation towards them, does not recede from those obligations.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Jackson: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. It has to do with his rent registry, which is part of his government’s new Residential Rent Regulation Act. As the minister will know, the registry is responsible for recording the maximum legal rents that are allowed to be charged in this province. His ministry has been promising all Ontarians since May 1987, and I quote from his annual report, “that tenants will be able to call their local rent review office to find out any available information recorded on their computer systems.”

Millions of dollars have been spent on computers, millions of dollars on software programmers and on new staff. Could the minister please advise this House today, after three years of operating the rent registry, just how many rental units are accurately recorded and available on computer to Ontario residents when they phone his offices?

Hon Mr Sweeney: I am sorry, I do not know that number, but I will get it for the honourable member. But I want to tell him that when I became minister I instructed my staff to redirect all staff resources, including taking some away from the rent registry. That was a decision that I made towards reducing the waiting list for rent review hearings. I take full responsibility for that and it was simply a choice that I had to make.

We now have the number down from roughly 27,000, I think, to about 9,000. I want to get it down even further. As soon as I have made that kind of impact, I will reassign the staff back to the registry.

Mr Jackson: The minister need not apologize for that decision. That is the very reason why he was appointed to that ministry that so desperately needed the leadership and management skills, because of the mess the rent registry is in this province.

However, there is a fundamental point of conflict between what the legislation promises a tenant in this province --

section 60 of the act gives tenants certain rights so that they are notified by his government through the use of the 9R form. His government has decided not to issue these 9R forms; not thousands but hundreds of thousands of forms.

I now have come to be advised that there is a report on his desk that the whole program be scrapped because of the rent registry program, because, in fact, we are looking at millions and millions more dollars in order to make it work. Would the minister please confirm to this House, as he has graciously confirmed the other tough decisions he has had to make, that he will be making this decision, and very soon, and that he will advise this House?

Hon Mr Sweeney: I want to assure the honourable member that within all ministries of government we are being asked to make some decisions like that and it is a case of, where are we going to put the resources that are available to us?

That decision has not been made. I cannot tell him whether or not it will be made, but obviously it is part of the legislation and I cannot just dismiss it. But I can tell him that there are a couple of other parts of the regulation that I have not proclaimed yet, simply because I do not have -- it is not that I do not have the resources, but I have chosen to put them somewhere else, at least temporarily. Until I have a better fix as to how long I am going to need them someplace else, I cannot make the decision he is asking me to make.

RECYCLING

Mr D. R. Cooke: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. It is estimated that this province produces about 400,000 tonnes of newsprint per year, and if all that were recycled, we could save about 6.8 million trees a year. We are currently collecting about half that in our tremendously successful blue box program, but I am only aware of a handful of newspapers that are actually using recycled paper -- the Financial Post, the Toronto Sun, the Brantford Expositor, the St Catharines Standard and the Kitchener-Waterloo Record.

Many Ontario newspapers are still using unrecycled print. I am wondering if there is anything that we can do to encourage our newspapers to use recycled newsprint.

Hon Mr Bradley: The member certainly raises --

Mr Brandt: Yes or no.

Hon Mr Bradley: The leader of the third party wants a yes or no answer and he knows it will require some elaboration. Naturally, it would be desirable if the newspapers across this province -- and I understand that in fact a good number of them intend to do so -- would adopt as a policy recycled content in their paper. Some have had their contracts already come up and have been able to do a new contract.

There is one company in the province of Ontario, the Quebec and Ontario Paper Co in Thorold, which has a de-inking plant that is now able to produce paper which is both virgin fibre and which has in it a component that is recycled newsprint.

I expect that the major newspapers in the province, as their contracts come up, will be stipulating that there will be recycled content in that newsprint. That will be very desirable. Certainly a lot of municipalities would be favourable to that. In our ministry’s meetings with the Canadian Daily Newspaper Publishers Association we have in fact ensured that it knows of that message, and we have had an undertaking that it would be proceeding in that direction at the earliest point in time.

Mr D. R. Cooke: One prominent newspaper had the nerve on Sunday to feature a story about the marketing problems of recycling goods, particularly newsprint, but it neglected to point out in this paper that it is actually printed itself on unrecycled paper. I am wondering if the minister is prepared to legislate the mandatory use of recycled fibre newsprint so that newspapers that are not co-operating with his suggestions will be forced to do so.

Hon Mr Bradley: As the member may be aware, the option that is always available to us when people do not enthusiastically embrace recycling and reduction and reuse in the province of Ontario is the opportunity to regulate.

Mr Brandt: Recycle.

Hon Mr Bradley: Sorry, recycle -- no, regulate. I have the former Environment minister on the other side trying to confuse me. Anyway, I will continue to say that the option of regulation is always there. We have had such enthusiastic support for recycling in the province of Ontario, and certainly we have had an undertaking from the newspaper publishers’ association that it is actively pursuing this.

I personally have been at a meeting where the representatives of the three major dailies in Metropolitan Toronto were present to discuss this matter, and certainly there seemed to be enthusiasm among those people to proceed in this direction as their contracts come up. Naturally, they are not in a position at this time to break a contract.

FOOD BANKS

Mr Laughren: I have a question for the Premier. He may or may not know, but according to the Daily Bread Food Bank, there are between 80,000 and 90,000 people per month using the food bank in this world-class city of his called Metropolitan Toronto. I wonder if the Premier could tell us what plans his government has to make food banks nothing but an embarrassing memory for this province.

Hon Mr Peterson: We have very extensive plans, but I think the Minister of Community and Social Services could bring the members up to date on them.

Hon Mr Beer: I think that none of us are at all content to see that food banks are there, and indeed that is why we have been trying to focus specifically on the issues of poverty and how to provide more assistance specifically to single parents, to children, so that those kinds of services are not required. If the members look at the major reforms which this government brought in in the spring which are now being implemented through the fall and with further increases in January, we believe that that is going to be putting money directly into the pockets of those who most need it.

Much more still remains to be done, but in our view that is the most effective way to deal with this issue, which is to get assistance to those at the lower end of the economic scale so that they have more money for food and they have more money for shelter.

Mr Laughren: I am not convinced that what the minister is going to do will be nearly enough to get rid of food banks in Metropolitan Toronto. I could remind the minister as well that out of that 80,000 to 90,000 people who use the food bank, approximately 14,000 are the working poor in Metropolitan Toronto. Could I ask the minister if he has done his job of lobbying the Treasurer to make sure that people who are working and still receiving income below the poverty level will no longer pay provincial income tax in the province of Ontario. Has he done his job in that regard?

Hon Mr Beer: I think that we have been looking at a number of ways in which we want to help those who are not able to help themselves or who are at that edge where it is difficult to make ends meet -- the reforms that we announced, the supports to employment program by which we are putting people back into jobs and phasing in the way in which they receive assistance before they move on to self-sufficiency, the kinds of programs that we are bringing forward in terms of developing better jobs and providing assistance for better training so workers can have improved jobs.

There is a whole series of things that obviously have to be done, and we not only have to keep talking as members of cabinet to the Treasurer or to other colleagues but we also have to carry that message out to the broader public in terms of the recognition of how important it is that we ensure that we make changes so that people are receiving more adequate compensation.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Villeneuve: This is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The minister, l am sure, is aware of statements made by one of his parliamentary assistants, my neighbour and colleague the member for Cornwall (Mr Cleary) to the effect that the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program would likely be restored next year. Can the minister tell us now what sort of a program it will be, and get farmers ready to be able to utilize to their best advantage this anticipated program?

Hon Mr Ramsay: I think we can accept the remarks of my parliamentary assistant who, by the way, I would like to say, is doing one heck of a job representing eastern Ontario and agriculture, and for me, and I would like to applaud him for doing that. I accept those remarks in good faith as encouragement to me to review, as I am, all the financial programs we have within the ministry, and I am looking at the farm financial programs of past and present to come up with a very good package of farm programs later on this year.

Mr Villeneuve: Surely the minister will be aware that farmers need a little bit of lead time to get prepared for this. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture has lobbied long and hard -- so has this party -- for a replacement of the OFFIRR program. We have higher interest rates now than we had when the program was initiated. Will the minister now tell Ontario’s agricultural community when this program will come about so that we can get ready for it?

Hon Mr Ramsay: My friend in the third party obviously is aware of the budget cycles and that it is impossible for ministries to announce programs at the end of the budget cycle. We prepare our planning now for the next budget cycle that begins 1 April and it is impossible to say now what we are going to be doing. But I am obviously consulting with all those groups that are talking to us and giving us their views. We are listening, and I think the member is going to be pleased, come this spring, with all the announcements that this government will be bringing to help all the people of this province.

NUCLEAR SAFETY

Mrs Stoner: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. I would like to ask the minister if she is aware of the situation at the Pickering nuclear generating plant involving radioactive water, specifically drums of radioactive water and other materials that are crammed in the corridors of that plant? The Atomic Energy Control Board recently criticized Ontario Hydro for poor housekeeping at the Pickering plant and said that poor maintenance at the plant could lead to doses of radiation that are not absolutely necessary. Could the minister comment?

Hon Mrs McLeod: I was, indeed, aware of the concerns that have been expressed by the Atomic Energy Control Board, which, as the honourable member knows, is the monitoring and regulatory agency for the Pickering plant, as for other nuclear generating plants in Ontario. I certainly did not have to bring that concern to the attention of Ontario Hydro. They have been made well aware of it through the report of the AECB.

They have responded to the concerns that were identified by increasing their staff at Pickering and at Bruce to deal with the backlog of maintenance work specifically related to some of the housekeeping issues identified, and they are also taking a new approach to the storage of tritiated heavy water. I would also recognize, of course, that once the tritium-removal facility is fully functional, the actual storage of tritiated heavy water at Pickering would be reduced to a minimum.

Mrs Stoner: My supplementary is that because safety factors are so crucial at a nuclear generating plant, can the minister give us some idea of what action will be taken in the future to ensure safety at those facilities?

Hon Mrs McLeod: I would recognize, of course, that the operation of the facility is very much within the jurisdiction of Ontario Hydro and, again, that the monitoring and regulating and the concern for inspecting the safety of that operation lies with the Atomic Energy Control Board. I think it is very important that we continue to stress the role that independent body has in ensuring that the safe operation is being supervised.

Specifically in relationship again to the storing of tritiated heavy water, Ontario Hydro is going to be receiving new bulk containers early in the new year and those are going to be stored in a special storage area. I think that this will relieve the concerns about the safety of storage of those minimal amounts of tritiated heavy water that would continue to be stored at Pickering.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Kormos: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions.

Larry Stanley is a young family head in Welland, 31 years old, two children and a wife whom he supports with his job at a local industry. Now, for some good chunk of time he has had his auto insurance provided by Wellington Insurance Co. His wife, the members should know, is an epileptic, and her epilepsy was under control by virtue of the medication that she took.

Last year, when she was pregnant with the Stanley’s second child, she was sick. She vomited on a daily basis and was unable to keep that medication down. As a result of that, she had a seizure, the first one she had had in a considerable period of time, not while she was driving a car, but a seizure none the less. Her doctor appropriately reported that to the ministry. Her license was suspended. Her driving privileges are suspended; she cannot drive a car.

Notwithstanding that, Mr Stanley gets a letter from his broker telling him that because his wife is an epileptic, Wellington is no longer going to insure him. They are denying him insurance coverage and he is being forced into facility. That is a gross injustice.

I ask the minister if he in any way finds that acceptable, and quite frankly, what he is prepared to do for Mr Stanley?

Hon Mr Elston: Actually, the honourable gentleman sort of clandestinely sent me a copy of the letter from the broker; it was addressed to Murray Elston. without an indication of where it was coming from, to surprise me, I suspect. But I do appreciate his bringing the letter to my attention.

I do not find it acceptable in my view that they would use this particular serious medical problem as a reason to disentitle Mr Stanley. I will follow up on the letter which my friend has just provided to me, dated 25 November. and I will proceed to ask the people at Wellington to provide me with a full explanation of the legitimate reason which they have in their minds for excluding the husband driver of the car. I do not find it very good at all.

PETITIONS

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

Mr Chiarelli: On behalf of my colleague the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr Patten), I beg leave to present a petition from Steven Willcock and 346 citizens from the Ottawa area to the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley) and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads as follows:

“It is with the utmost distress that we, the undersigned, have learned of the resumption of logging in the Temagami forests. We urge you to do everything in your power to preserve the Temagami forests for all Canadians for ever.”

In accordance with the standing orders, I have attached my signature thereto.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Owen: I have two petitions, one with 81 signatures and the other one with 68 signatures. requesting the repeal of Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, 1986. I have another petition with 120 names, expressing deep concern over the provisions of the new Ontario motorist protection plans.

GREATER TORONTO AREA

Mr Philip: I have a petition signed by about 200 people, most of whom live at West Acres senior citizen’s building in the riding of Etobicoke-Rexdale. Since the petition is fairly long, I will summarize it.

These people are upset about the fact that they are paying higher rates for drivers’ plates in greater Metropolitan Toronto than in other pasts of Ontario and they challenge the Peterson government to stop this discrimination against people by the location in which they live.

I have signed the petition.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

I guess I will sign these. I do not know. Do they take them like this?

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Callahan from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr37,

An Act respecting Fort Erie Lions Senior Citizens Complex lnc;

Bill Pr45,

An Act respecting Ontario Midwestern Railway Company Limited;

Bill Pr46,

An Act to revive Ontario Mortgage Brokers Association;

Bill Pr52,

An Act to revive Homes Unlimited (London) lnc;

Bill Pr56,

An Act to revive Times Change Women’s Employment Service Inc.

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr54,

An Act respecting the Brantford and Southern Railway Company Inc;

Your committee further recommends that the fees, and the actual cost of printing at all stages and in the annual statutes, be remitted on the following bills:

Bill Pr37,

An Act respecting Fort Erie Lions Senior Citizens Complex Inc;

Bill Pr38,

An Act to dissolve the Board of Trustees of the Ottawa Charitable Foundation; and

Bill PrS6,

An Act to revive Times Change Women’s Employment Service Inc.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Mr Wrye moved first reading of Bill 96,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Mr Wrye: Very briefly, these amendments will bring Ontario into conformity with existing truck lengths in the majority of other provinces and American states.

The maximum length for a semi-trailer will be increased by 1.6 metres to 16.2 metres, an increase of five feet. The maximum permissible length for double trailer combinations will be increased by 2 metres to 25 metres, which is an increase of slightly more than six feet.

The amendments also specify particular requirements for tractor wheelbases, restrictions to the box length of combination vehicles and limits to the number of axles and their maximum loads.

We believe that these changes will improve Ontario’s economic competitiveness but at the same time will actually enhance public safety.

LAW SOCIETY AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Mr Scott moved first reading of Bill 97,

An Act to amend the Law Society Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Mr Scott: The purpose of this bill is to permit exchange programs for crown attorneys so that we can exchange within the Commonwealth by sending our crown attorneys out to other jurisdictions and receiving theirs back. This bill will permit the law society to admit those persons who come to Ontario for this purpose as members of the bar for a limited period of time.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

UNCLAIMED INTANGIBLE PROPERTY ACT, 1989 / LOI DE 1989 SUR LES BILLETS IMMATERIELS NONRECLAMES

Mr Reycraft, on behalf of Mr R. F. Nixon, moved second reading of Bill 86,

An Act respecting the Custody of Unclaimed Intangible Property.

Mr Reycraft: I am pleased to introduce Bill 86 for second reading. The bill was introduced for first reading by the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) on 5 December and is an initiative announced in the 1989 budget, which was presented by the Treasurer on 17 May.

Bill 86 establishes for the first time in Canada a comprehensive unclaimed intangible property program. The Unclaimed Intangible Property Act will create an important means of returning unclaimed property to its rightful owners. Such property includes cheques, deposits, refunds, money orders, corporate shares and dividends, unpaid wages and insurance proceeds. The bill does not affect land or tangible personal property such as cars, boats or safety deposit boxes.

Under this bill, property becomes unclaimed after between one and 20 years, depending on the type of property. Most types of property will become unclaimed when there has been no communication between the holder and the owner for five years. Shorter time periods apply to properties such as unpaid wages where owners are likely to demand immediate payment. Longer time periods apply to property such as travellers’ cheques.

The public trustee will administer the program on behalf of the province. Once a year, the holders of unclaimed property will be required to file an initial report which the public trustee will use to advertise for missing owners in daily newspapers across the province. It is expected that a significant proportion of owners will come forward as a result of these advertisements, particularly as people become more aware of this program. Owners who come forward will be referred to the holders to claim their property.

Property that remains unclaimed six months after the initial report must be transferred to the public trustee. The public trustee will convert the property into cash. At the close of each fiscal year, the value of the property held by the public trustee, less a reserve from which to pay claims, will be placed in the consolidated revenue fund to benefit the people of Ontario. The rightful owners of property will have the perpetual right to claim the money equivalent of their property less an administrative fee. Where the property was interest-bearing before the transfer, interest will be paid on claims.

I want to emphasize that the intent of this legislation is to return unclaimed property to its rightful owners. Once the property is fully operational, we anticipate the public trustee will receive approximately $15 million each yeas from holdings.

Mr Laughren: I am pleased to see the parliamentary assistant to the Treasurer shepherding this bill through the chamber. I like people who do shepherding of any kind.

I must say that my first impression of this bill is that it is worthy of support because, if I understand the legislation properly, it is simply that at the present time unclaimed property can stay with the financial institution and the financial institution can reap any rewards when that intangible property is converted into cash, and I presume it could even be interest-bearing intangible property. Surely to goodness, that should be rectified. There is no reason why the financial institutions should be able to have that windfall when they did nothing to earn it.

I suppose there are some rather strange events that lead to property being unclaimed. The imagination can do wonders with that, but I would assume that a lot of it is on death and people not knowing the property was even there. I can recall reading one time how many bank accounts W. C. Fields had all across the United States when he died; presumably somebody got the benefit of that and presumably it was the financial institutions where the bank accounts were opened and where the money was held.

I believe as well that under this bill, if I read it correctly again, the banks have to inform as best they can the owners of the intangible property. If they have no idea who the rightful owners are, and it is simply sitting there in financial institutions, I can see where those financial institutions would be in a quandary as to what to do next. That is why I think it is appropriate that they would then have to contact the public trustee and say, “Look, we’ve got some intangible property here, and we don’t know what to do with it, so it’s up to you.”

I assume as well, and I hope the parliamentary assistant will respond to this, if this bill does not go into committee of the whole that he will deal with the question of retroactivity. When the bill does become law, at what point when property was left unclaimed will this bill apply?

I know

section 48 says, “This act comes into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor,” which presumably means that is when the bill will become law; but that does not answer my problem as to what happens if there is property that has been there for the last six months or even the last year. Does that property then become subject to this bill? Even though the bill was not in effect for the last number of years, when it is proclaimed, there will still be a lot of property already in place in those financial institutions.

I hope the parliamentary assistant will be able to respond to my concern there, because surely to goodness, just because a bill becomes law, for example, on 1 February, that does not mean only property that is unclaimed after 1 February should be sent back to the rightful owner or to somebody who has a right to claim that intangible property. I would hope that the bill would apply to existing unclaimed intangibles in the financial institutions, because if members just read it the way it is, it would seem that way to me.

The trustee, as I understand it, is going to advertise when a financial institution notifies the trustee that it has unclaimed property. The trustee will then put ads in the appropriate papers. I do not know how the trustee is going to figure out which are the appropriate papers, how many ads to put in or how much money it will be encouraged to spend in that regard. Surely to goodness, the purpose of the bill is not to make money for the province but to get property back to its rightful owner.

Already we have seen this Treasurer at work. It is not without cause that he is known as Maximum Bob, Tax-to-the-Max Nixon. That is what he is known as increasingly around the province, despite my attempts to stop people from using that phrase, Maximum Bob, Tax-to-the-Max Nixon. People are using it. More and more out there are calling him Maximum Bob, Tax-to-the-Max Nixon. I do not think people should be calling the Treasurer, Maximum Bob, Tax-to-the-Max Nixon, and I am doing what I can to dissuade them from using that expression, but they keep using it over and over again; it is Maximum Bob, Tax-to-the-Max Nixon.

Some members may recall that the judge who sentenced Jimmy Bakker to 45 years in jail was known as Maximum Bob because he always gave the maximum sentence, it seemed. The Treasurer is increasingly being known by many of his critics -- not me, but many of his critics -- as Maximum Bob because he taxes the maximum. That is why he is apparently known as Maximum Bob, Tax-to-the-Max Nixon. For those members who did not understand how that phrase began, it began with Jimmy Bakker, of all people.

I trust the parliamentary assistant to the Treasurer will reassure us that this is not a tax grab; that it is not its purpose. It is to return property to its rightful owner or their heirs or whoever. It is certainly to have it either stay in the financial institution or be a windfall to the Treasurer. We are not talking chicken feed here. During the first yeas, I think, $25 million is what the Treasury officials expect they will get in because there will be more the first year. The second yeas it will be around $20 million to the province, and $15 million every year after that. I am sure they have to be fairly rough estimates because they do not know what all is out there.

I would just like the assurances of the parliamentary assistant to the Treasurer that this is not meant to be a tax grab by Tax-to-the-Max Nixon, Maximum Bob, as some people will call him.

There is one other area of concern that I hope the parliamentary assistant will deal with, and that is if no one claims the intangible property and it is liquidated, what assurances will there be that it will be liquidated at market value? What process is going to be put in place to ensure that there is the appropriate amount of money as a result of that liquidation and that there is not some kind of arbitrariness in that process? I would be interested in knowing what the Treasury people have in mind concerning the liquidation of the property.

I know the financial institutions have some concerns about this bill. My colleague the member for Cochrane South (Mr Pope) will be dealing more extensively with the concerns of the financial institutions because if there are some serious problems about administering this bill, then we should air them, get the bill out there and let everybody have a go at it because, having had no such legislation since time began presumably, there is no reason that this needs to be rushed through in the next couple of days without full hearings.

If the concerns of the financial institutions are legitimate, then surely to goodness we should be listening to them. Quite frankly, I do not know if they are legitimate, but I do know that the member for Cochrane South is going to deal with that more fully.

I think the bill is worthy of support because I believe it does rectify a wrong, namely, that financial institutions, just by luck, would get a windfall when unclaimed property reverted to them and presumably increased their asset base.

With those remarks, I would simply say that we will be supporting this bill.

Le Vice-Président : Questions et commentaires au sujet de la présentation du député de Nickel Belt ? Sinon, d’autres commentaires ? Le député de Cochrane-Sud.

M. Pope: J’aimerais indiquer que notre parti, le Parti progressiste-conservateur, appuie ce projet de loi. Nous sommes d’accord avec les principes du projet de loi, mais nous avons appris, des institutions financières de l’Ontario, qu’il y avait quelques problèmes techniques avec certains détails et certaines phrases contenus dans ce projet de loi.

Alors, je pense qu’il faut résoudre ces problèmes dans le cadre d’un comité de la Législature. On pourrait faire cela rapidement et voir des progrès rapidement aussi, mais nous sommes d’accord avec le principe que le distingué député a présenté aujourd’hui dans le projet de loi.

I wanted to indicate very briefly that we support the principles of the bill, following my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr Laughren). We are anxious to indicate that publicly for the record. We agree that unclaimed intangible property should be treated this way and that the public trustee has a role to play in these matters. We have been informed by a number of individuals about some concerns over this legislation, and I have sent to the parliamentary assistant one of the messages I received by fax just an hour ago; I know he has handed it to his officials to analyse.

I believe there is a call by the Canadian Bankers’ Association through David Phillips, its director of legal affairs, that this bill be sent to committee. I talked to him on the phone just a few minutes ago. He has indicated that there had been some discussions with the financial community in the month of June or July with respect to potential legislation, that they were aware this had been introduced on 5 December but they felt they had not had adequate time to analyse the detailed provisions of the legislation.

They also feel there may be a conflict between the operation of some of the technical provisions of this act and some of the other regulatory requirements of financial institutions. They have some technical concerns with respect to some of the wording, and they would like an opportunity to make presentations to the minister, to the parliamentary assistant and perhaps to a committee of the Legislature in order to resolve them.

I have indicated to them and I indicate again to this House that we support the concepts contained in this bill. We think it is long overdue and we will be supporting this bill on second reading. We urge the parliamentary assistant to the minister to allow these technical concerns to be worked out, and I know he will take that under advisement.

Mr Reycraft: I want to thank my colleagues the member for Nickel Belt and the member for Cochrane South for their comments and their support in principle of Bill 86.

I will respond to some of the questions that were presented in their remarks. To my friend the member for Nickel Belt, let me say that he is right, that there currently exists no mechanism within this province that would assist owners of unclaimed property to recover their property. In fact, there is no legislation anywhere in Canada that provides the kind of mechanism that is being made available to the people of Ontario through Bill 86.

The member asked for some clarification about what property would be included within the scope of the bill and in particular seemed to be interested in its degree of retroactivity. Generally speaking, once Bill 86 is proclaimed, it will apply to all unclaimed property in the province. To that extent indeed, it is retroactive. The only exception to that that I should advise him of at this point would be property where the ownership rights or the rights of the owner have been lawfully terminated under some other piece of legislation, perhaps the statute of limitations or some other provincial law.

With that caveat, I can say that the bill is retroactive and it will apply to all unclaimed property.

The member also asked me for some assurance that the property would be liquidated at market values. Under the legislation, the responsibility for liquidating the property is vested in the public trustee and it is deemed appropriate to allow the trustee to make the judgement on the most appropriate time to enact that liquidation. When common shares of stock are involved, for example, it might be that the trustee would prefer to liquidate the property in stages, rather than all at once, because of possible consequences.

To the member for Cochrane South, who expressed concerns that he had received on behalf of the Canadian Bankers’ Association, I want to say that there has been a lengthy consultation between various groups and organizations that are interested in the bill and officials in the Treasury and the Ministry of Economics. Specifically, I can cite two formal consultations that occurred between officials of the Canadian Bankers’ Association and Treasury officials. The first of those was on 21 July of this year and the second on 20 September. Indeed, it is as a result of concerns that have been presented in that consultation that many, many changes were made in the draft legislation.

Holders of unclaimed property are protected in a number of different ways in the legislation. Subsection 28(

l) of the bill provides for relief from liability on behalf of all holders. It states, and I would like to read it into the record at this point: “A holder who transfers property to the public trustee for the purposes of this act in good faith is relieved of all liability to the extent of the value of the property paid or transferred for any claim in respect of the property.” So that provides protection from liability.

Subsection 28(2) also provides for indemnification by the public trustee for holders who might get themselves into some kind of difficulty as a result of transferring unclaimed property to the public trustee. That

section states:

“Subject to subsection (3), if a holder transfers property to the public trustee in good faith and thereafter another person claims the property from the person who was the holder or another jurisdiction claims the property under its laws relating to escheat or unclaimed property, the public trustee, upon proof of the claim, will indemnify the person who was the holder as to the claim and legal costs.”

I believe that

section indicates very clearly the protection that is provided for the holders of unclaimed property. I should also indicate that since the bill will come into force only upon its proclamation, we will have further time between now and that date to consider other concerns that may be raised by members of the public.

I want to indicate that we are interested in hearing those concerns and we will go to the greatest extent possible to attempt to address them between now and the date of proclamation. I hope I have adequately addressed the concerns that have been expressed by both members. I thank them again for their participation in the debate and ask for their support of this bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

BUSINESS INFORMATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Mr Haggerty moved, on behalf of Mr Sorbara, second reading of Bill 79.

An Act to amend Various Statutes in connection with information to be filed and records to be kept by Corporations and Limited Partnerships.

Mr Haggerty: I would like to present for second reading the Business Information Statute Law Amendment Act. 1989.

This act amends the Business Corporations Act, 1982, the Corporations Act, the Corporations Information Act, the Corporations Tax Act and the Limited Partnerships Act. These acts are statutory foundations upon which businesses operate and are identified in Ontario. At present, there are 451,000 active corporations in Ontario, 395 corporate searches are made each year and two thirds of the corporations are not meeting requirements under the present legislation.

Members will recall when the minister introduced the act for first reading in November that the amendments have two purposes: to enhance the accuracy of the information about Ontario businesses maintained for the public record and to improve public access to this information by converting the current paper-based records to a computerized system.

My ministry’s companies branch maintains these records, which are the key link between businesses operating in this province and those who wish to identify them, both consumers and businesses. Businesses will be given the opportunity to confirm or update their information currently held in the public record. The most recent business address on file at the corporations tax branch will be used for this purpose.

As evidence of this government’s commitment to facilitate investment in Ontario, the administrative burden now placed on limited partnerships to continually update the public record on changes of limited partners has been eased. It will now be the general partners who must maintain this information.

I am sure that my honourable colleagues will agree that both consumers and businesses will greatly benefit from a public record of business identification that is more up to date and more accessible.

Mr Farnan: Basically, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I want to make it clear that in addressing this particular piece of legislation, we are going to disassociate the concerns that we have concerning disclosures. We, as a party. have several concerns in this area with regard to disclosure. Be that as it may, we are going to look at this particular piece of legislation separately, but we do want it on the record because we will come back to the area of disclosure at another time.

Having said that, it would appear that the legislation before us does bring some commonsense approach to this whole area. It brings some uniformity among the various acts and some fine-tuning that calls for increased accountability from the corporate sector. This is a good thing, which is to be commended and to be supported.

Of course, whenever we find that reasonable legislation is brought forward, the government can always be assured of the support of the New Democratic Party.

I note that

section 1 amends the Business Corporations Act, 1982 by imposing certain restrictions on the ability of a corporation where the corporation is not complying with the filing requirements under the Corporations Information Act. This is a good thing.

In responding to my statement, I would ask the member for Niagara South (Mr Haggerty) to simply explain for the House -- I am sure he might want an opportunity to comment --

section 2, which amends the Corporations Act. In this area the time during which a dissolved corporation under the Corporations Act can make application for revival has been increased from two years to five years. The member might wish to comment on that particular aspect of the legislation.

We are certainly in support of the whole area of improving the database, computerizing the database, but what we would hope, of course, is that not only do we modernize the information but that we have systems that will make it available, and readily available, and hopefully that the system will cross-reference the information so that we can track the intricate ownership between a whole variety of different companies and the players involved.

I think that basically sums up my remarks. There are other areas we could comment on, but I think in general the New Democratic Party looks upon this as a fairly broad-sweeping housekeeping providing some uniformity and some fine-tuning, and I have to commend the government on this occasion for a certain degree of common sense.

Mr Runciman: The Progressive Conservative Party is also supportive of the legislation. We have a few modest concerns which we will put on the record and hopefully the parliamentary assistant will respond to them, but I would again describe them as relatively modest, mild concerns, if you will, with respect to

section 14.

That

section deals with the ability of a corporation to sue. The particular clause is 14(2)(b), and I will quote it: “there is no evidence that the public has been deceived or misled.” We believe this should be changed to read, “there is no evidence that the public has been adversely affected or harmed,” rather than “deceived or misled.”

It is our view that the public may be easily misled, but it is of no consequence unless they have been adversely affected or harmed. Now it is possible that a defence attorney might use the premise that the public has been deceived or misled in order to end a trial. We see that as a potential abuse of the legislation and we wanted to make that concern known to the parliamentary assistant and his colleagues.

Also, subsection 14(2)(c) -- again, I will read that

section into the record: “at the time of the application to the court, the corporation has filed all notices required by this act and has no unpaid fees or penalties.”

We are concerned that this provision might be employed to prevent a company from engaging in legal action or cause it to end an action which has been initiated. We would certainly appreciate an amendment to the effect that a corporation would have the opportunity to file any outstanding notices and pay any unpaid fees or penalties in order to continue court action. We believe that would be appropriate.

We have another modest concern with respect to the special filing requirements under

section 4, simply to put on the record that we hope that those are not also going to be a source of abuse. I think the potential is there and hope that the ministry staff recognize that and do what they can do to ensure that sort of thing does not occur.

Essentially, there is one other thing, and perhaps the parliamentary assistant can address this in respect to any ability of private firms to charge a fee for information that was previously supplied by the ministry. I assume that the government charged some sort of a fee to cover its cost and I wonder if there was any kind of comparable provision in the legislation. I do not see it and I wonder if indeed it would not be appropriate to have that sort of thing incorporated in the act.

Mr Haggerty: The question raised by my colleague the member for Cambridge (Mr Farnan) in the matter of subsection 2(3) of the bill, dealing with the revival period in the Corporations Act, corresponds to the same in the Business Corporations Act, 1982. This amendment makes the period five years in both cases, so we have some consistency in the five-year period.

This will also cut down on the number of private bills for revival. I am sure that the member has sat in the standing committee on regulations and private bills. We have seen a number of bills come forward for revival there and the period in question is within the law. This should clear that, I am sure.

The matter that the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr Runciman) brought up was clause 14(2)(b), which deals with the matter of unpaid fees for penalties. I think it pretty well puts it out in detail there and defines it: ‘There is no evidence that the public has been deceived or misled.”

Mr Runciman: That is the wording we were concerned about.

Mr Haggerty: Is that what your problem is? Clause (

c) says, “at the time of the application to the court, the corporation has filed all notices required by this act and has no unpaid fees or penalties.” Does that not make it understandable to the member?

Mr Runciman: It is not a question of understanding.

The Deputy Speaker: We are not exactly in committee of the whole here, gentlemen.

Mr Haggerty: I have some words of wisdom from legal counsel. “With respect to the ability to sue, the court must be satisfied as to a disruption.”

The Deputy Speaker: The Deputy Speaker has also got some words of wisdom for you, that you address your remarks through the Deputy Speaker.

Mr Haggerty: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is pretty hard to see you from my left here, you know.

The member raised the matter about the private fees, that a person would seek the information from the ministry. I understand there are a number of -- I guess you do not call them private persons in this area -- consultants, I guess it is, and they usually charge a fee. Apparently they have access to many government agencies and ministries in this particular area. There is a service fee or charge for that service, whether they get it from the ministry or not.

I do not have the answer clearly on that but it is there. The consultants are acting, and I understand, too, that normally the case is that the number of members may retire from politics -- and I may be one of them -- and may go into the field as consultants. I could give the member a definition of “consultant” but Eddie Sargent is not here. Without his approval, I cannot give it to members.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Mr Wrye moved second reading of Bill 95,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Mr Wrye: I am pleased to bring forward this important piece of legislation. It is not an entirely happy piece of legislation, particularly for those who will be hit by its contents, which are fairly significant.

These amendments are fairly wide-ranging but really the most central part of the amendment bill will see increases in fines for speeding, increases which are in support of the primary objective of my ministry and that is making the streets, roads and highways safer for everyone.

The intent of these changes is to decrease the frequency of reckless driving by restoring the deterrent value of speeding fines and there is a reason for that.

The present speeding fines which are now in place and which those who are convicted now pay, date all the way back two decades, to 1969 specifically. The only updating that went on was about 12 years ago when it was really an updating which moved the fines from a miles-per-hour basis to kilometres per hour. So, today, we are faced with a situation where the fines really reflect a time some 20 years ago.

I believe, and I think all members in the House would agree with me, that every driver has the right to the safe use and enjoyment of our roads and highways and that the vast majority of motorists operate their vehicles in a safe and responsible manner. The amendments before the House today are aimed at those who are the exception to that rule.

It is a fact that speeding is the most common factor in traffic fatalities. In spite of that, the incidence of driving beyond the posted limit continues to rise. Our latest statistics, going back just one year to 1988, indicate that there were more than 900,000 offences in our province and speeding was a factor in more than 27,000 accidents.

While we are also convincing people who disregard the law or who tend to disregard the law, while we try to use public education to increase their knowledge and their concern for fellow drivers and fellow users of the road so that they will obey the speed limit, there are some who will wilfully disregard the law and we on this side believe that it is important that we indicate to them that if they do wilfully disregard the law and endanger other lives, they will pay very, very handsomely for their irresponsibility behind the wheel.

Bearing in mind the human and economic costs of reckless driving, it is inappropriate that the penalties remain at the levels of 1969.

The fine structure contained in these amendments indicates that the province intends to take decisive action to keep the roads of this province safe. Those who exceed the posted limit by 50 kilometres per hour or more will face a fine three times as heavy as at present. It will cost them in the vicinity of $500 to behave recklessly. Fines at lower levels of excess will more than double.

To further protect the public, there are a number of other amendments to the act which I would term very clearly as housekeeping amendments. They deal with matters such as changes of lighting on emergency vehicles used by police, fire and ambulance services.

The consideration and passage of these amendments will contribute to a safer operating environment for all motorists in Ontario.

Le Vice-Président : Questions et commentaires au sujet de la présentation du Ministere ? Questions and comments?

Mr Kormos: I understood you, Mr Speaker.

Le Vice-Président: Bravo. I was just making sure. Le député de Welland-Thorold, dans ce cas-là.

M. Kormos: Merci. With interest, I read the bill and listened to the comments of the minister.

One cannot help but presume that this is all part and parcel because, after all, this minister was in that chorus line that put the floor show on up in North York in September of this year, along with four of his co-ministers, when the new Ontario motorist protection plan was announced.

One cannot help but presume, realizing that presumptions are never the safest route, that this is part and parcel of that Ontario motorist protection plan. Otherwise, there would not have been any good reason for this minister to have been in that chorus line except for maybe his sense of affinity and affection for his colleagues and his simply wanting to be there on such a historic occasion. One has to presume that this is part and parcel of that scheme.

It is some of the smoke and some of the mirrors behind which the government has been hiding when it talks about -- or rather, fails to talk about -- its new insurance system, the one the insurance companies wrote, the one that is going to generate a windfall for automobile insurers in Ontario of at least $630 million in the first year alone.

Let’s not mince words. Nobody in his right mind is going to suggest that it is not important to create deterrents for persons who break the law, including Highway Traffic Act offences, including speeding. Some comment is warranted and I would make this observation: One, there is not one of us who would not acknowledge that to speed by 20 kilometres over the posted limit when the posted limit is 100 kilometres an hour, as it is on the bulk of the major highways, is legitimately not as serious an offence and one which should not attract the same opprobrium as to exceed a municipal or urban --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member’s time is up. Do other members wish to participate?

Mr Revllle: In general terms, my party is in support of the initiatives undertaken by the Minister of Transportation.

Interjection.

Mr Revile: This is a comment. Is it all right to make a comment?

The Deputy Speaker: Of course, it is.

Mr Reville: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am getting confusing advice from my beloved colleagues whom I love dearly. I love them all. It is the season.

The bill is, however, a complex bill. It has 22 sections and it makes changes to a number of other pieces of legislation, some of which bear some scrutiny. I would like to indicate that my party will support this bill on second reading and we would like the matter to go to the committee of the whole House in case a technical amendment or two might be necessary.

Mr Wiseman: I would like to put some comments on the record. Our party, to start off with, will be supporting this bill, but we have some real concerns and I hope when we get a chance to get into the bill we will be able to discuss those fully.

In the bill, in the case of a person driving without a licence, it is mentioned, once, he loses his licence for a year, and twice, he loses it for two years, and this sort of thing. Because this is such a serious offence, why would the minister not have put in an automatic jail term, if not on the first offence, definitely on the second?

I wonder if the minister would have time now to ask his officials how much more money will be raised by the tripling of fines, based on last year’s experience. Perhaps he would answer those later or get some words of wisdom from his staff. But I wonder, too, when this deals with safety, why he did not take things like airbags into consideration, especially in the front seats of cars. We all know those would save a lot of lives. Why did he not improve the impact of the bumper up to about 10 miles an hour on impact from the anywhere from two to five that I understand it is now?

Many of these things we will get into as the bill is discussed further, but perhaps if the minister knows some of the questions we are going to ask, he can have some answers for us.

Hon Mr Wrye: To speak on the matter generally, very briefly, a number of the issues that my friend from the third party has raised are really matters that are not contained in the bill. On the latter two, I made quick notes. I believe airbags and bumpers are federal matters; they are national standards.

In sortie cases the dollars raised, we estimate, as I indicated publicly last week, will be somewhere in the range of $25 million to $30 million. If the world were to continue exactly with the new fines as it was with the old ones, it will be substantially more than that. We believe, and clearly I said this in my opening remarks and I am sure my friend the member for Lanark-Renfrew (Mr Wiseman) would agree with me, it is desirable that it have a deterrent effect and thus that speeding be reduced, the incidence of speeding on our roads be actually reduced, and so the fines would go down.

Quite frankly, we would be absolutely delighted in the government, and I am sure all members of the House would be, if there were no increase at all and in fact if the amount of money accruing to the consolidated revenue fund came down, because that would mean the incidence of speeding on our roadways would go down. It is meant for a deterrent effect. It is certainly not an effort to raise money and, quite frankly, if we do not make any more money that will be just fine. We are attempting to get the deterrent effect.

In terms of the jail term, it is not in the bill. It sounds like a very heavy and onerous burden and in terms of our level of institutionalisation I am not sure we would want to add more to it.

Mr Kormos: Carrying on, members will recall that what I was talking about initially was the deterrent that is required for speeding. The obvious conclusion that speeding -- let’s say 20 kilometres over the limit on a highway where the speed limit is 100 kilometres an hour -- is a less opprobrious offence than speeding 20 kilometres over the limit in an urban area where the posted speed is perhaps 50 kilomctres an hour.

I have some great concerns about the fact that this distinction is not reflected in the guidelines for penalties provided in the statute. As often as not, police officers, and rightly so, except in those instances where the excess speed is extraordinary, provide for out-of-court payments or out-of-court settlements by way of fines which are contained on the provincial offences notice.

In the absence of guidelines in the statute, what that means is that the out-of-court settlement for 20 kilometres over on a highway such as the Queen Elizabeth Way is the very same as an out-of-court settlement for 20 kilometres on a city street.

That, in my view and in the view of a great number of people who live on those city streets and the people who send their kids to school across those city streets, is not an acceptable proposition. With respect, the statute and these amendments are deficient in that regard in that they do not recognize the increased severity and the need for increased penalty in the instance, as I say, of speeding in the lower speed limit ranges where its consequences in fact are far more perilous.

There is simply no way that anybody could suggest that city streets are designed for high-speed traffic in the same manner that Highway 401, the Queen Elizabeth Way or any of our other modern and quite frankly, in sad reality, some of our not-so-modern highways across the province are.

The statute does not address the very fundamental problem of who is permitted to drive, It is that regard, I submit, that there has to be a great deal of focus of attention on the part of the ministry, on the part of the government, on the part of this whole Legislative Assembly. I am not talking about systems of probation for young drivers and I am not talking about the proposal that we have heard already about the prospect of driving during daylight hours being restricted to certain types of highways for young drivers, for tiro drivers.

I am talking about the type of training and the level of training that is required before any person, be it he or she, young or old, whatever, is permitted to get into a vehicle and on to our highways. I contrast the excellent level of training that is required, for instance, of light aircraft pilots. We have a large number of them in the province and across the country. I appreciate that is not a provincial matter, but I contrast the type of training that is required of a person who is going to operate a light aircraft.

Quite frankly, in view of the technology of automobile production, many of those light aircraft -- little Cessnas, Pipers and so on -- do not travel at the speed that many motor vehicles one buys do and that are driven on the highway; aircraft that have, at the most, a capacity for one to maybe three passengers and where the most obvious danger is to the occupants of the aircraft, not to other persons using the skyways, if one will.

When one contrasts the high and, quite frankly, laudable level of training required of a person operating an aircraft with the complete absence of any requirements for professional training on the part of drivers -- usually young but, as I say, young or old -- then we can start to understand where some of our problems in terms of highways and motor vehicle accidents come from.

The minister knows full well that there is a lobby among hundreds, thousands of others, from professional driving school people in the province who have been pressuring not only the minister but every other member of this Legislature to support and endorse legislation that would require new drivers to have undergone driving training by a licensed or regulated driver-training industry.

Never mind the fact that, sure, no two ways about it, those professional driver trainers have an interest. They are trying to sustain and bolster their industry in looking for this legislation. The fact remains that their argument is sound; that they are seeking a uniform, standardized, regulated approach to driver training. That is an approach that is going to result in fewer accidents.

That is an approach that is going to result in more competent drivers -- drivers who not only have the skills required of a person operating a vehicle but also drivers who are trained in the recognition of the standards and guidelines that are inherent in the Highway Traffic Act and those other provincial statutes that govern the operation of motor vehicles.

One other interesting omission from this particular set of amendments -- and I was sure when the chorus line appeared in North York on the occasion of the announcement of the Ontario motorist protection plan that this was going to be among them -- is enhanced powers of licence suspension by the province, particularly in response to things like convictions for Criminal Code driving offences: impaired driving, over 80, negligent driving, those other Criminal Code offences.

The province clearly has it within its power to control or regulate the right of individuals to drive. There is a demand out there in the community that persons who have demonstrated themselves to be inadequate drivers, not so much through lack of training but more so through lack of interest on their

part in abiding by even the most basic and the most fundamental rules -- not just rules of the road, but social rules; I am talking about drunk drivers.

The community in Ontario is outraged that drunk drivers have not been convicted, indeed have not been convicted not just once, but twice, thrice and more, and are indeed returned to the highway. I am not speaking just of the notice given us by the Provincial Auditor when he indicated how simple, how easy it was for persons convicted of drunk driving to avoid the rules and get back on to the highway through a little bit of legal legerdemain; I am talking about the fact that the impression in the community is that for convicted drunk drivers the periods of suspension are grossly inadequate.

The absence of any amendments to those sections of the Highway Traffic Act,

section 30 and so on, permitting and providing for suspension, are a great surprise to all of us. When we hear the foofaraw surrounding the introduction of the Ontario motorist protection plan, we find it remarkable that the government once again made commitments, made some promises and appears ill prepared, unprepared, reluctant, indeed has not even come close to meeting those commitments, meeting those obligations.

So those are three areas. When the minister presents this legislation -- and, as I say, undoubtedly a part of that Ontario motorist protection plan -- he tells us that it is all under the guise of making our roadways safer, making it safer for drivers and other persons using the highways. I say in response, “Close or sort of close, but no prize.”

We have all heard the Solicitor General (Mr Offer) talk about his promise of 100 new OPP officers. We have not seen the OPP officers yet. Those are the ones who are supposed to be stationed north of Toronto to patrol highways like 400, 401, 403 and so on. I fear that if there are 100 OPP officers positioned on those highways, it is going to be at the expense of the northern communities from which they are being taken and transferred down here.

It is not just OPP officers that patrol highways and enforce the Highway Traffic Act. We all know that it is municipal police officers as well. Unless and until this government makes a stronger commitment to aiding municipalities and regions, places like the regional municipality of Niagara, in what are incredibly rapidly increasing policing costs, until this government makes a serious commitment to aiding those municipalities and giving effect to meaningful policing, all the amendments to the Highway Traffic Act in the world are going to be for naught, because there simply are not going to be police officers available to effect meaningful enforcement of them.

Indeed, all of us know that all the laws in the world are of no effect if there is not some perception on the part of the community of at least a likelihood or a probability of detection, of apprehension. People are going to continue to speed, people are going to continue to drive illegally, people are going to continue to drive without licences as long as they can conduct themselves in the belief that they can get away with it and as long as communities like the regional municipality of Niagara are hamstrung when it comes to financing of police forces. People know that the law is there, but there simply are not police available to enforce it.

Mr Wiseman: I know the new minister was not in his present portfolio back in February when the then Minister of Transportation, the member for Scarborough East (Mr Fulton), brought forth a lot of safety measures in Bill 219 on 27 February. It would seem to me that a lot of these things should have been incorporated in that bill at that time and perhaps we would not be pushing it through just prior to Christmas like this.

I would like to touch on what the honourable member just previous to me had stated about the Provincial Auditor’s report when he said that hundreds of people were able to go and change and get another licence by just a name change. I am surprised that when the minister was bringing forward this legislation, bearing in mind this is twice in one session that we have had a safety bill before us, he did not take a little more time and incorporate how he was going to change that loophole and plug it so that people who have a bad driving record cannot simply change their name and get another licence and perhaps go out and commit all the infractions that they did with the first licence.

I cannot comprehend that in this day and age, in 1989. somebody could get away with a thing like that. With the computer network and the photographs and everything we have on our driver’s licence, I would never have thought it possible. Perhaps that should have been incorporated in this bill as well.

In regard to the air brakes that are mentioned in this bill, it has always been my understanding, and I only have a little bit of equipment at home, that in order to drive a vehicle with air brakes, even for farm purposes, you had to have a special licence. Now I understand that the only ones who really needed that were people with real heavy equipment such as tractor-trailers. When I went to purchase one, even the garage told me, “Doug, if you buy that one, you have to have a special licence because there are air brakes on the vehicle and your licence doesn’t cover you to drive that.” Perhaps he was wrong, but I took him at his word.

I wondered where the minister said that he may enter into a reciprocal agreement with some of the states in the United States. I believe for certain fines in the past -- we have certain states, and I believe New York state was one of them -- but perhaps for the benefit of all of us, the minister could indicate when he answers which states we presently have that agreement with, so that any of us on the way to Florida will know that the fines will register back in Ontario and if we will have to pay the Ontario rate or the rate in New York or whatever it might be.

The other part that I just could not understand, in 1989 again, is that persons must report serious damage or bullet-marked cars. Gosh, I thought that it was always over a certain damage done to your car, percentage or cost damage, you had to bring in the police and it had to be registered, the whole thing.

Then I thought if you missed out there, if someone rear-ended you and went to the auto body shop, I always was under the impression, and I could not believe in 1989 that it was not the case, that the auto body shop was expected to report that to the local police if it looked the least bit suspicious of a hit-and-run or whatever it might be. I understand from talking to some of my police friends that some of the first places they go to look are auto body shops to see if a car has been repaired and it looks a bit suspicious and what colour of paint it has on it and the whole bit.

I just thought that that would have been a must long before now.

I wonder when the minister said that the money that will be raised from tripling the fines will be in the neighbourhood of $25 million to $30 million, if that was a conservative figure based on a deterrent level, because some of the people who did a workup for me said that based on last year’s fines, with no deterrent built in, it would be somewhere just