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

December 20, 1990

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Mr Runciman moved second reading of Bill 20,

An Act to amend the Insurance Act.

Mr Runciman: We have 25 minutes, I think, allocated to each party. Is that correct?

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Runciman: I only have 10 minutes initially and I will make some closing comments later on.

I proposed this legislation at this juncture because of our frustration as a party, the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, with the lack of action on the part of the new government in respect to the concerns of consumers across this province in relation to the no-fault auto insurance scheme brought in by the former government.

I am not going to talk at length about the actions of the former government; it is like kicking a dead horse. We did this at length earlier this year and prior to that, in the fall of 1989, and we know, as the New Democratic Party government knows, that this is bad legislation. Innocent accident victims are seriously impacted in a negative way by this legislation. There is one Ontarian injured in an automobile accident every five minutes in this province and many of those individuals are innocent.

We in this party, the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, believe very strongly in the ethic of responsibility, that individuals should be responsible for their own actions. We were certainly led to believe during the course of deliberation on Bill 68, the Liberal no-fault legislation, that the NDP, the opposition party at that point in time, shared those views.

We were witness to a display in this Legislature by the now Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the Minister of Financial Institutions, the member for Welland-Thorold, the 17-hour filibuster in an effort to break a record in this Legislature, which he did. He was complimented and received significant publicity across the province for his efforts supposedly on behalf of innocent accident victims in Ontario.

Someone once said the secret to success is sincerity; once you can fake it, you have got it made. I hope that was not the case in respect to the member for Welland-Thorold. I want to say that we did indeed develop a friendship over that period of time dealing with Bill 68. We shared many of the same concerns about the no-fault legislation. But now this minister and this party have been in power for over two months and we are not seeing any action on what at one point in time, not too many months ago, was their number one priority.

They were quite well prepared to hold up the business of this Legislature for weeks and days on end to try to get a change in this legislation, to have the Liberal government pull back. They did not succeed, but it was a noble effort which we shared with them. Now, once in power, they are doing absolutely nothing. When I have posed the question, when the Liberal critic has posed the question, the minister has stood on his feet and suggested that, "We have to consult, we have to talk things over with a variety of people across the province."

I want to say that the current Minister of Financial Institutions and myself toured this province in a significant consultative effort which the Liberal government of the day failed to pay heed to. But I thought the member for Welland-Thorold and myself, and the NDP and the Conservative Party, had indeed listened to what was being said at those hearings right across this province. Over 75% of the witnesses appearing before us were very strongly opposed to the Liberal no-fault legislation, very strongly opposed to the elimination of the right to sue for innocent accident victims in this province.

So now he has the gall to stand up in this House and say, "I've got to go out and consult further." We are having thousands of innocent accident victims whose rights are being denied them while he is suggesting in this House that now he has to consult. We can go back to the 1987 election, when the NDP attempted to make automobile insurance the number one issue in this province. They took this stand in 1989 and 1990 when they were sitting over here, and now they are stalling and stalling while, as I said, thousands of innocent accident victims have their rights denied on a monthly, weekly basis.

We simply cannot allow this to continue. That is why I raised this issue. That is why I am trying to at least put some public pressure, some focus on this government's lack of action in respect to innocent accident victims in this province.

I want to say I hope it was not simply public posturing on the part of the minister, but up to this point in time we have to assume that indeed was the case, that he was not sincere. I do not know. It is passing strange that the minister is not even in his chair here today during this important debate. Where is the minister? If he really cares about innocent accident victims, I want to pose the question to government members who are going to be participating in this debate, where is the minister today? We have known for a number of weeks now that this bill was going to be debated.

He took up the time of this House for days on end -- and here he comes. Well, it is about time he got out of bed. It is good to see him.

Mr McLean: He has gone away again.

Mr Harnick: You chased him away. Come back, Minister, come back.

Mr Runciman: I hope I did not intimidate him. I also hope that what we were talking about in respect to the NDP government is not a lot of meaningless rhetoric and that Bob Rae is not the Milli Vanilli of Ontario politics, great at mouthing but cannot deliver the goods. I hope that is not the case.

I want to say that we hear strong indications that the NDP government is moving towards some sort of variation of the Quebec plan, which would see a pure no-fault system in respect to bodily injury. The insurance industry itself would retain responsibility for damages to automobiles. If indeed that is the case, I want to put on record at this point my very serious concern about that. As I said, right now, under the Liberal legislation, 95% to 97% of innocent accident victims are losing their right to sue. Under the Quebec meat chart plan, 100% of innocent accident victims will lose their right to sue.

I want to say if the minister has the audacity to bring in that kind of legislation in the spring. I do not think he should remain as the Minister of Financial Institutions. He is on the record very clearly in support of the right to sue. So is his leader. I do not see how they can stand in this House in the spring and completely eliminate the right to sue.

I know a significant player in this government, the Deputy Premier, is very strongly supportive of pure no-fault. He believes in the meat chart approach to compensation for innocent accident victims. I want to say this party does not and we are strongly going to fight any attempt to do that, and if it means bringing this House to its knees, as the member for Welland-Thorold attempted to do a few short months ago, we are going to be doing it. We are the only party, in my view, up to this point. that seems to care enough about innocent accident victims to continue to stand up and fight for their rights in the Legislature of Ontario.

I want to say again that I do not want to see games played with respect to this legislation. If indeed we do get support today for this bill by members of the government, I want to see it called for third reading. I do not want to see it referred to a committee, never called and buried. That is just another phoney effort, if indeed that occurs, to try once again to dupe the public of Ontario. We are not going to allow it to happen. I personally do not want to see this legislation referred to committee, because nothing is going to happen.

It will be nothing more than a farce if we have an effort of support from the NDP government and then a referral to a standing committee where it will never be called.

I want to say that I mentioned earlier that going through the Bill 68 process, the hearing process in this building and across the province, was probably the most emotional time in my life as a legislator. Members know that I can get quite emotional on occasions and sometimes I do and say things that perhaps are inappropriate and later have to apologize for them. I have done that on a couple of occasions, but I want to say in respect to that particular piece of legislation that I have never felt so strongly, I have never felt so emotional.

The people who appeared before us were the head-injured, senior citizens, people who are going to be very negatively impacted, people representing groups that would be negatively impacted and people who had no vested interest but simply cared about innocent accident victims in this province. A very emotional time indeed, shared by the member for Welland-Thorold with me. At this point in time, now that he has the authority, the opportunity to do something for these people, how can he justify continuing to drag his feet?

This bill should be passed, it should be called for third reading and given royal assent before this House adjourns.

Mrs Mathyssen: We on the government side of the House were a little surprised by the introduction of Bill 20,

An Act to amend the Insurance Act.

[Failure of sound system]

-- last June by the former Liberal government, and that particular flaw was of course the threshold established by the former government, a threshold so excessively restrictive that 95% of the victims, and I emphasize the word "victims," of automobile accidents are precluded from their right to seek financial compensation for pain, suffering, psychological trauma or the loss of the enjoyment of life.

Only the most extreme injuries -- injuries resulting in death, injuries causing permanent, serious disfigurement or permanent loss of bodily function -- would qualify under this threshold, the most rigid threshold anywhere in North America, and even more rigid than the insurance industry had asked it to be. Certainly, this threshold ruled out any real kind of justice for the accident victims of Ontario.

Quite naturally, we who now sit as the government believe that is wrong and I dare say many of the voters of Ontario also believed Bill 68 was wrong. I began by indicating surprise at the third party's proposal because I wonder where their concern was last spring when Bill 68 was before this House. There was ample opportunity to voice the kind of outrage the bill deserved at that time. Why wait until now to see the error of Liberal ways?

I also have mentioned that the Liberal threshold was one of the flaws of Bill 68 because it was set inhumanely high. But it is only one flaw. We need insurance legislation that provides Ontarians with insurance that is affordable, available and does not discriminate against drivers.

Unfortunately, this amendment act proposed by the honourable member opposite does not address these other serious flaws. We are paying dearly for the current private system. Premiums have been too high, service has ranged from barely adequate to lousy, the insurers' efficiency has been low, their practices arbitrary and their methods often unfair.

We are all aware of the horror stories: the refusal to insure some drivers; the dumping of drivers into the Facility Association, where the highest rates are charged; and the penalizing of good drivers because the driving record of another member of the household is poor. These problems occurred before the former government introduced Bill 68 and they have not gone away.

As everyone knows, our party vigorously opposed the Liberals' threshold no-fault system. We did everything in our power to prevent the passage of Bill 68. At the time of the debate, we received thousands of telephone calls and letters from ordinary people opposed to the bill.

Young people were unable to take jobs because they could not afford to insure a car needed to go to work. Families were hit with increase after increase. Seniors became captive in their own homes because they could no longer afford car insurance. The public anger with the threshold no-fault system is very real. We continue to receive calls from ordinary people dissatisfied with the current insurance system. We believe the drivers of Ontario are entitled to insurance coverage at a reasonable cost and an insurance system that will guarantee the right for compensation for the injured victims.

We have historically advocated a non-profit, publicly operated insurance plan. As we indicated in the speech from the throne, we are committed to a public, driver-owned, non-profit auto insurance system. The systems operating in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Quebec are models that have caught our attention. In three of these provinces the public car insurance systems established by NDP governments were so successful that they were continued by subsequent governments. In Manitoba, the public auto insurance is now being run by a Conservative government.

In Saskatchewan, public auto insurance was introduced in 1946 by the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation government led by Tommy Douglas. It is now being operated by a Conservative government. British Columbia established a public auto insurance system in 1973. Their system does not discriminate on the basis of age or gender. The elimination of profits in the British Columbia system saves drivers there millions and millions of dollars every year.

We understand the intent of Bill 20 and are certainly encouraged by the recognition that amendments are needed. However, the new legislation planned by our government for the spring will be the result of careful consideration with representatives of the insurance industry and consumers. It will be a comprehensive solution to the Liberal insurance fiasco currently plaguing Ontarians and it will address all the flaws of the current legislation.

Mr Chiarelli: My colleague the member for Brampton North and I will be sharing our 15 minutes.

In spite of the antics of the current Minister of Financial Institutions, the issue of automobile insurance is indeed very serious public business. The jobs, careers and livelihood of 44,000 people are at stake. General insurance companies have nearly $9 billion invested in Ontario. The personal financial budget of every driver is at stake with premium levels. It is most important for every Ontario citizen to have the security of knowing that should an auto accident visit upon him or her there will be adequate and timely accident benefits.

Because so much is at stake, it is with much encouragement that we read the Premier's comments on 10 November that: "The approach the government takes has to be based not just on pie-in-the-sky hope but a solidly based, documented approach. The decision can't be based on ideology; it has to be based on facts."

And so it was with much discouragement that we read at almost the same time that the Minister of Financial Institutions told his home-town Welland-Port Colborne Tribune that Bill 68, the current Ontario motorist protection plan, was a "complete disaster."

I have repeatedly asked the minister and the Premier to share their information and documented approach, but absolutely nothing is forthcoming except a veil of secrecy and contradictory statements. The present minister is like a child in a candy store or a candy factory. He has walked over to the counter that says "automobile insurance" and he has seen this array of goodies and he cannot make up his mind what he wants.

On 30 October the minister promised in a prepared speech "a public, driver-owned, non-profit insurance system with access to courtrooms for injured victims." That statement was made not when he was opposition critic, but after he had been appointed Minister of Financial Institutions. At the same time, he promised the Advocates' Society he would reinstate the right to sue.

Yet on 17 November, the Ottawa Citizen in an excellent

article reported that the minister told the Consumers' Association of Canada that he was bowing to the wishes of his colleagues in dropping his insistence on a tort system giving the people the right to go to court. The minister has said he likes the BC plan with the right to sue, yet this week he called the lawyers pigs at the trough.

The minister also says he will consider Quebec's no-fault system, and while the Premier says he will consider a documented approach, he could not even confirm on 3 December that his government now has or has not commissioned an economic impact study of public automobile insurance in Ontario, something it has known will cause billions of dollars of capital to leave this province.

There are many contradictory statements this government has made since 6 September, many of which are on record in Hansard and in the press. But I encourage the Premier to follow his own advice and to tell his minister to do likewise. I say to the Premier that he should not draft his legislation, should not change Bill 68, the Ontario motorist protection plan, should not make the decision based on ideology.

I say the same thing to the member for Leeds-Grenville. The issue of expanding the right to sue cannot be taken in isolation. That is why I will be voting against this bill today.

Bill 68, the OMPP, is working. In his speech last Tuesday, the minister said on another subject, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I challenge this government to enter the debate with documentation, deal with the facts and please share its facts.

Here are our facts:

An independent Legislative Assembly researcher reports that he contacted the three largest auto insurance companies in Ontario and learned that they were complying with government guidelines limiting premium increases to an average of 8% in the greater Toronto area and 0% outside the Toronto area.

Affordability of premiums is a key issue in automobile insurance reform, yet the Premier has refused in this House to say his plan will lower rates.

The same researcher reports that early indications are that the then government's predictions that litigation would be reduced by at least 90% under Bill 68 were accurate.

Helen Anderson, a member of the Consumers' Association of Canada and a member of the Accident Benefits Advisory Committee, told the researcher the committee is not aware of any problems with the current weekly benefit of $600 per week, although she had some suggestions to fine-tune it.

The consumer information centre of the Insurance Bureau of Canada reports as of 19 December on inquiries:

"Most of the inquiries are for specific information and we are receiving very little general comment on the new legislation. Very few callers express negative viewpoints on the current OMPP system."

It goes on to say, "We are experiencing a decrease in calls related to non-renewal or cancellation of automobile policies. The details are available for anyone who wants them."

I want to read a letter dated 19 December from the president of Allstate Insurance Co, and I want to challenge the NDP government to disprove its contents with a documented, non-ideological approach and deal with the facts. The letter was addressed to me re the Ontario motorist protection plan.

"We have every reason to feel optimistic about the prospects for the wholehearted acceptance of the OMPP by Ontario consumers. The thrust of the new regime is optimal customer service given in a caring, supportive and non-adversarial environment. Insurance people have responded remarkably to the need for a mindset change to bring this about, and they have been materially assisted in bringing it about by the absence of barriers created by the wordings of the judicial system.

"Equally remarkable is the improvement in turnaround time on claim settlements. Adjusters are sensitized to the sanctions against their employers and principals for late payments, and operating systems have been retooled so as to facilitate prompt cheque issuance. Traffic in consumer complaints to regulatory and industry bodies have been minimal. The dispute resolution staff at OIC, having geared up to process 10,000 applications for mediation annually, have received fewer than 100 since 22 June.

"As well, the direct indemnity feature of property damage has drawn much favourable comment from users of the auto insurance system. People have told us they appreciate the prompt resolution of liability and damage issues, and they especially like not having to wait months for the recovery of a collision deductible through the insurer's subrogation process.

"In all, we feel everyone's a winner. Customers like the product. Insurers are enjoying loss cost improvements and consequently are anticipating a return to profitability for this line of business. Everyone is getting along better, and essential issues are being resolved promptly.

"We believe the Ontario consumer of auto insurance is being better served than consumers in any other jurisdiction in North America.

"Yours very truly,

"J. T. Kelaher."

I urge the NDP to look at the facts, put the facts on the table and to accept Bill 68, the Ontario motorist protection plan. We urge them to improve upon it. There is a good basis there. Insurance companies must be made to improve on the issue of Facility coverage. The accident benefits package may need fine-tuning. We need to monitor how the threshold definition is working. But the previous minister, the member for Bruce, has put an election plan together and it is working. I urge the NDP to improve upon Bill 68, to fine-tune it, work with the opposition parties, with the industry and with consumer groups; but to use the minister's words, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Mr Harnick: I notice that the gallery has some students in it. In all likelihood a great many of those students are under 16 years of age. I can tell those students that if they are involved in an accident, unless they can climb the mountain that the former government has created, this threshold, if they are involved in an automobile accident, they will get nothing. They are under 16; they are eliminated from the system.

The threshold thumps and boils every innocent accident victim in this province; 95% are eliminated from the system. And the purpose of eliminating those students from the right to claim for any damages that they might suffer in an automobile accident is because the former Premier decided he had to hold the line on premiums, and when he held the line on premiums, he was able to do it by putting $650 million into the pockets of the auto insurers of this province.

I can tell members that they have not held the line on premiums. I have a constituent. His name is Ilya Trest and he lives in my riding of Willowdale. Mr Trest earns $13,999 a year. He is disabled. His wife is disabled. I have a copy of his income tax return here. His income was $13,999. Mr Trest has two sons, and when his oldest son got to be 16 years of age they scraped together enough money to buy a family car. Under the old system, they got a premium for the 16-year-old driver to drive the car of $2,489. This was under the old system; he was in the Facility.

Then the new system came along and they got that premium renewal so this 16-year-old could drive the family car, and I might add it is a 1984 Caravelle, it is quite an old car, and when they got that new premium notice -- he had had no violations, no accidents, a clean record throughout the year between the ages of 16 and 17 -- this terrific Ontario motorist protection plan bumped his premium up to almost $3,200. I have the premium notice here. By my calculation, contrary to what my friend on the bench to my right says, that premium went up 30% -- not 8% and not 0%; 30% -- to the point --

Mr Chiarelli: Stop trying to fool the people.

Mr Harnick: I am not fooling the people. I have got it right here on the Allstate letterhead. They cannot afford any more to drive the family car, and the reason they cannot afford to drive the family car is because the Ontario motorist protection plan did not protect them.

Mr Fletcher: How come you didn't hold up Bill 68 for a month like we did?

Mr Harnick: Well, we were right there beside the NDP. If the member was watching, he saw Mr Runciman and Mr Kormos and they were fighting against Bill 68 together. I put it to the member who is shouting across the floor at me, "Why weren't you fighting Bill 68," to sit down with the minister, if he has time, and ask him who was standing there shoulder-to-shoulder helping him. The member's facts are not what you would call correct.

The member is quite concerned about why we are all of a sudden fighting this bill. We know that there are innocent accident victims who are being turned away every day because they cannot climb the mountain of this threshold. They cannot prove that they are seriously and permanently injured, and because of that they get turned away.

My friend on the bench to the right said, "Boy, these great benefits that they're getting now." What benefits are those? After you exhaust all of the other benefits that are not auto benefits, then the insurance kicks in. You pay top premiums for secondary insurance from the private insurers, which are making $650 million this year, and innocent accident victims are being turned away and cannot get recourse to put them back where they otherwise might have been had the accident not occurred.

We are bringing this bill forward because in the Progressive Conservative Party we are concerned about innocent accident victims. We are on the record as fighting on behalf of innocent accident victims in the last Parliament and we are waiting anxiously to see what the Minister of Financial Institutions will present. But in the meantime, who is going to help the innocent accident victims? What is going to become of these people, these people who do not qualify under Bill 68 and who have to wait until the minister finishes another round of consultations? He has the Osborne report.

He has the 400 briefs that were filed before the committee. He is ready to act now. Why is he doing nothing to help these innocent accident victims? That is the reason we are here today and that is the reason we are asking members on the government benches to support this initiative. These people are going without redress. They have nowhere to turn.

I might add that the longer this goes on, the longer this delay takes place, the more impossible it is going to be to help these innocent accident victims. So that is why we are here. That is why we are asking the members on the government side of the House to support this initiative, because unless they do, these people are going to go without any help whatsoever. They are going to be lost between the current system and the system that may be.

I hope that the members on the government benches will see it in their hearts and in their consciences to help innocent accident victims now and to take that step without having to be led by waiting for the minister to finish the consultation process. He is not doing innocent accident victims any good by delaying this process any longer.

Ms Haeck: I want to say at the outset of my remarks that I support in principle the private member's bill to restore the right of car accident victims to compensation. This bill is designed to repeal sections of the former Liberal government's Bill 68, which came into effect in June of this year.

During the debate on Bill 68, this party opposed the threshold no-fault car insurance plan which denied any access to the courts for the vast majority of innocent victims. We opposed it and we oppose it now. The NDP government is in the process of designing a new public auto insurance plan that will not only provide fair coverage at a reasonable price but include a comprehensive package of reforms. We do not intend to move in a piecemeal fashion.

The speech from the throne promised introduction of the new auto insurance legislation by the spring session. We are moving with urgency on this vital concern. We are consulting with all groups which have an interest in the legislation, including accident victims, insurers and others.

Our party's views on auto insurance are well known. At this time we want to solicit the views of other interested parties in order to receive a range of views representing all stakeholders, and I will repeat that, because I want it to be made very clear that this government is interested in the consultative process. Our party's views on auto insurance are well known. At this time we want to solicit the views of other interested parties in order to receive a range of views representing all of the stakeholders.

The former Liberal government's threshold system is unfair and unconscionable. Under the threshold, people would only have the opportunity to sue for compensation in cases involving "death, permanent serious disfigurement, or permanent serious impairment of important functions caused by continuing injury that is physical in nature." Of all the threshold-type insurance systems in North America, the threshold put in place by the Liberals is the most onerous and the most stringent. During the hearings for Bill 68, it was estimated that this threshold would eliminate at least 95% of all claims -- not terribly fair, I would say.

However, the threshold was not the only aspect of the Liberal bill that we opposed. We fought Bill 68 on other grounds that are not dealt with in the bill we are debating today. For example, Bill 20 does not address the question of taxpayers subsidizing insurance companies. As Bill 68 failed to do, Bill 20 does not deal with the problem of availability of insurance. It is still difficult to find an insurance company that will accept individual risks at affordable prices if they will accept any at all, particularly if the individual has any record of an accident or traffic tickets.

And I can assure members that in doing my canvassing during the election campaign this summer there were a lot of my electors who had an awful lot to say about this particular plan. As we heard during the Bill 68 debate, many people are being forced into the Facility Association, where rates are exorbitant.

Both the former Liberal government's bill and this private member's bill fail to deal with discrimination on the basis of age, sex, marital status, family status or disability. It also does not establish a uniform classification system for determining risk and allows the different classification variables used by each company to continue, and they are highly discriminatory.

There are many provisions in Bill 20 that raise concerns for our party. The removal of collateral source deductions, for one, addresses some of our concerns about this measure but does not provide a solution as to how to deal with double compensation as recommended by Justice Osborne. I believe some members of this House have talked about Justice Osborne's opinions. Well, we have obviously taken them into consideration.

Bill 20 also eliminates all the mediation and arbitration systems now in place. The introduction of mediation and arbitration was recommended in Justice Osborne's report in order to facilitate a speedy resolution of disputes pertaining to accident benefits. Remember Justice Osborne?

Previously, many companies routinely denied or halted payment of benefits, leaving accident victims without ongoing compensation for long periods -- and to Gerry Plato out there, this is your problem. We believe any sensible system must address this concern.

Bill 68 and today's bill do not consider the benefits of a driver-owned system to the people of Ontario. The driver-owned systems in other provinces have proven to operate more efficiently, more effectively, than the private sector in a number of ways. They spend less money on overhead, operate on a non-profit basis, return more of the premium dollar towards claims, and integrate driver and vehicle licensing systems to ensure that all drivers are insured.

As we indicated in the throne speech, our government is moving quickly on automobile insurance. I will support in principle this private member's bill solely because it eliminates the former Liberal government's unacceptable threshold. We expect that this bill will be overtaken by government legislation which will comprehensively address all the concerns we outlined during the Bill 68 debate as well as some of the problems we have identified in the technically flawed private member's bill.

The public-operated, driver-owned system that we will introduce in the spring will provide Ontario drivers with affordable coverage in a non-profit system that will be accountable to the public. I know there are many of my constituents who will be extremely happy with that situation.

Mr McClelland: I appreciate the opportunity of spending a few moments talking about the bill put forward by the member for Leeds-Grenville. Let me say at the outset that I am impressed with the member for Middlesex, who has made a commitment on behalf of her party to deal with all of the flaws and to come up with the perfect solution. I guess that is why I cannot sit over there with her party, because I do not think that I could ever come up with anything that would be absolutely perfect.

That is one of the failings that I have as an individual, and I suppose only the member and her party in its wisdom can come up with perfection. I would not want to presume to come over there because I would ruin it.

I simply say that to suggest to her that with all of her best efforts it will not be perfect. Nobody suggested that Bill 68 was perfect. As my friend the member for Ottawa West has suggested, it is working in many cases very, very well. I think it is an opportunity now for us to be a little bit objective and take a look at what has happened under Bill 68.

The member talked about the horror stories. The member for Leeds-Grenville talked about the innocent people who are denied the opportunity to sue. The member for Willowdale admits to me that he has an inability to be objective about this because his clients are not now able to reap the benefit of his tremendous legal counsel. Those clients cannot go to him and cannot have this benefit, and he admits to me clearly his inability to be objective about this. What he fails to take into consideration is the one third of accident victims who under full tort had absolutely no recourse, who were left without any recourse of substance. Talk about the horror stories.

I want to talk about a couple of horror stories under full tort by way of contrast. I would ask my friend the member for Willowdale, as he leaves, to listen and be a little bit objective and understand, as my friend the member for Ottawa West said, that there are two sides to this equation, and that there are people who I think need to be objective and look at how Bill 68 is working, affecting real people in real life. I want to talk about that for a brief moment.

I had a constituent call me who was a victim of an accident in January 1986 under full tort. He was told to proceed with litigation. They went out and got a second mortgage on the advice of counsel so that they could continue payments on their first mortgage pending settlement. The second mortgage principal ran out, so they went out and got a third mortgage so they could pay the payments on the first mortgage and the second mortgage.

Subsequently, in the latter part of this year, a settlement was reached and when all the money was used up, they were in a position where they had virtually nothing left. They are now in a situation where they are walking away from their home. Those are the types of individuals who benefited under full tort.

Mr Tilson: You're too expensive, Carmen.

Mr Harnick: I never made money like that.

Mr McClelland: Now people from the third party are making a lot of flippant, quite frankly inappropriate comments and taking shots at people who are innocent victims.

Mr Tilson: No, they are directed to you.

Mr McClelland: The member for Dufferin-Peel says they are directed at me. That may be and he is entitled to do that, but in so doing, he is actually laughing, I think, indirectly at people who are hurting and who would have benefited.

Let me talk, in the few moments I have left, about a couple of other cases under Bill 68. I want to talk about a 42-year-old Ottawa Valley teacher who was recently killed when struck by a car while riding a bicycle. He left a widow and eight children. An over $230,000 settlement was assessed. The Royal Insurance company immediately advanced a sum of $10,000 to cover funeral expenses. The balance of the $230,000 was paid within a 10-day period and the individual still has the opportunity to pursue litigation.

Another case is that of a 34-year-old driller who lived in Kenora. He was on his way to work on 1 October. He fell asleep; he had an accident; he is now a paraplegic and he is recovering in Winnipeg. The accident victim has no replacement insurance and he was completely at fault in the accident, but under Bill 68 he is receiving $740 per week. His home will be renovated and the insurance is paying for the lodging expenses of his wife, who is staying in Winnipeg to be with him during his recovery. In addition to that, he is receiving more than the standard income replacement of $600 a week. The Co-operators insurance agreed to extend enhanced income replacement benefits up to $1,050 a week.

Yes, there are cases, I say to the member for Middlesex, where insurance companies are not working, but I want to give an example again of where insurance companies have in good faith extended income replacement and, in this case, until renewal time. The accident happened before renewal and he is receiving the benefit of compensation as if he had purchased the coverage which he did not.

I want to simply say that on balance there are many people who are substantially better off under Bill 68. It has been well said by my friend the member for Ottawa West. That is working well. There are countless cases where people are receiving benefits who might otherwise not have done so.

My friend the member for Ottawa West put on the record incidents and examples gleaned by independent research in terms of the efficacy in the way that Bill 68 is working. I say to the opposition, the third party could give an opportunity to work. It is not broken. Do not fix it; improve it. I think the opportunity is here to improve it and I thank you for the opportunity to address this issue.

Mr Tilson: If the member does not realize it by now, the law is broken. It has simple as that. The law is not working. There are people around this province coming to legal firms asking for opinions as to where to go. There is not any. They simply cannot recover the rights that they had before.

The member for Middlesex says that she is surprised at this bill. Quite frankly, we on this side of the House are surprised that she is surprised. The member for Welland-Thorold did a major filibuster during the last session where he gained great notoriety around the province in his position on this, and we agreed with him.

Mr Villeneuve: But he was just paying lip service.

Mr Tilson: Well, he was. He had a plan now and all of a sudden it is gone. It is probably like a lot of the policies that this government has. They spoke quite firmly when they were running for election and where are they now?

The people of this province cannot afford to wait until January or February when the minister plans to introduce his bill. Obviously both the Liberals and the NDP have decided that they are not going to support this bill; well, hopefully, this will make them move. We have not got time to wait any longer. The minister must move now. If he is not going to support this bill then he should bring his own bill forward.

Mr Charlton: Let me start out by saying that I will be supporting this piece of legislation by the member for Leeds-Grenville. The member for Dufferin-Peel, though, is not correct in the comments that he has just got through making. We both opposed Bill 68 last spring. We opposed that legislation for entirely different reasons, though, and the implication of the Conservative position on Bill 68 and this present bill is the status quo prior to Bill 68, which is a disaster for the drivers of the province of Ontario.

I am going to support this piece of legislation because it deals with the most offensive part of Bill 68: the threshold. But it is not the only offensive part of Bill 68, and I would to simply point out to the member for Dufferin-Peel that the member for Welland-Thorold did show great stamina last spring in his fight against the bill, and if the Conservative caucus had joined us and matched us in that stamina we might not now have a piece of legislation that is the law of the province that is causing the problems it is causing.

For example, I have a constituent who has been to see me who is eligible, because of his wage level, for the maximum benefit of $600 a week while he is off work. Unfortunately, that benefit is supposed to be tax-free, and it is tax-free if it comes from his insurance company. Unfortunately for this gentleman, he is presently getting sick leave because that is what the law requires and his sick leave happens to be taxable. He is losing benefit because of a major loophole in a shoddily constructed piece of legislation by the former Liberal government, a piece of legislation which has to be completely reworked.

I will support this bill because it addresses a small part of what has to be addressed, but to just address the threshold question will not resolve the problems that are confronting drivers in the province of Ontario who have had serious accidents, and will not resolve the majority of cases that are being imposed on people by Bill 68, the present legislation. We intend to deal with it in a comprehensive and fair way across the board.

Mr Runciman: I want to thank the members of all parties who participated in the debate today. I want to say that some of the comments made by government members were upsetting, to say the least, in respect to the role that my party played during the debate on Bill 68. The member for Niagara Falls said she was surprised by this legislation. Well, I want to say we in this party were disappointed and dismayed by the lack of action on the part of the member for Welland-Thorold, the now Minister of Financial Institutions, based on his role in the debate earlier this year and his party's position for many, many years.

We had the member for Guelph, who seems to have a permanent smirk on his face since he entered this chamber, interjecting in respect to: "Where were you? Where were you when this debate took place?" I want to say we were there very actively and vigorously fighting on behalf of innocent accident victims in this province. That is where we were. The member was warming his tail back in Guelph. We were fighting here every day and right across this province as well; we have nothing to apologize for. Once those guys got in power, what the devil are they doing?

Absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing; talking about consultation, after we toured this province, myself and the member for Welland-Thorold, listening to witness after witness talking about the rights of innocent accident victims being denied them under the terrible Liberal legislation. Now they are in office for over two months and all the minister is doing is talking about further consultation. Well that is not acceptable, I want to tell members.

I want to say something about the minister, whom I like personally and consider a friend. but he has not shown his face in this assembly this morning. He is walking around the edges, or he is up in the gallery talking to the president of the Insurance Bureau of Canada. Why is he not sitting in here? Why is he not participating in this debate? He took up 17 hours of the Legislature's time last year, indicating he cared so much about innocent accident victims, but he is not even sitting in his spot here today. He is not taking up his chair. Where has that compassion gone to? Has it just simply drained away since he assumed office as a minister of the crown?

I want to say it is shameful that the minister is not here today participating in this debate. If he cared as much as he indicated to the people of this province a few short months ago, he would be here today, he would be continuing to stand up on behalf of innocent accident victims right across this province. He is not here today and that speaks volumes about the lack of sincerity on the part of the NDP and regrettably, obviously, on the part of the member for Welland-Thorold. I certainly did not consider him the kind of individual who would be a yes man, but obviously that is what has happened.

He is being significantly muzzled by the Premier's office, apparently. There is no other explanation for the minister not being here and standing up on behalf of innocent accident victims.

We have some inane interjections from a Liberal member here. They talk about nobody being hurt by their terrible legislation, everybody benefits, and then the member for Ottawa West has the gall, the unmitigated gall, to quote as justification for his position the president of an insurance company. My God. They are reaping significant benefits, the insurance industry itself, and the Liberal member has the gall to stand up here and justify his continued support for this dreadful legislation by quoting a letter from an insurance industry executive.

I want to say, if the NDP thought they put up a fight -- a phoney fight indeed. That is what it was proven to be -- I want to say when they bring in pure no-fault, when they fail to recognize the rights of innocent accident victims in this province, they are going to have one hell of a much bigger fight on their hands from the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. We are not going to stand for it. If it means tying up the business of this House for a significantly longer period of time than the member for Welland-Thorold did, we are going to do it. We are going to be sincere about it, because we believe in what we stand for.

I told members earlier that this party believes very strongly in the ethic of responsibility, that individuals should be responsible for their actions. Bill 68 wiped that out. It wiped out whole groups of people in society. We talked about the kids in the gallery here today, under 16. The Liberals say everybody benefits. It was pointed out to them that kids under 16 are completely wiped out, nothing, nothing, nothing under that Liberal legislation.

Here we have an NDP government which just two or three or four months ago felt so strongly about people like those kids sitting in the gallery that they were going to do something about it. Now they have had the opportunity and what do we get from the minister? "I want to go out and consult." Well, that is a bunch of garbage and nothing less.

I want to say that we went around this province. We listened to people. I listened. I thought the member for Welland-Thorold listened. I was emotionally impacted upon by those witnesses as I have never been before as a legislator, never been before. It impacted on me and members saw it in this House on a daily basis, and I want to say I felt that I shared those emotions with the member for Welland-Thorold.

I thought he was sincere and it apparently is not the case, because today we are getting a mixed reaction from across the floor now that the NDP is the government and we have a failure on the part of the minister to even make an appearance in this House, let alone participate in the debate. There is no justifiable reason whatsoever for his absence here today.

I want to say again that if we do get passage of this bill, if we have enough members of the NDP supporting passage of this bill, I personally do not want to see this referred to committee, because I think it is a procedural ploy. I think it is more gamesmanship. I do not think again that there is sincerity on the part of the government if they simply want to see this referred to a committee where it will never be called, never be debated and simply buried, another further delay while we have hundreds and hundreds of innocent accident victims continuing to suffer, continuing to have their rights pulled away from them by the draconian Liberal legislation brought in in June of this year.

I think I have said enough on this bill, on this issue. I have spoken on it for years. I think everyone knows my strong feelings in respect to the rights of innocent accident victims in this province. I urge all members of the House to support this legislation, to see it called quickly for third reading and given royal assent before the adjournment of the House.

CITY OF LONDON ACT, 1990

Mr Winninger moved second reading of Bill 18.

An Act respecting the City of London.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Winninger: Mr Speaker, I have a throat infection. If I sit down early, it is not because I have nothing more to say, it is because I have no more voice to say it with.

This bill,

An Act respecting the City of London, is designed to conserve heritage property in London. Currently, we have 71 properties designated as heritage properties in London. I have already filed two petitions incorporating many, many names of Londoners who support Bill 18 and what it is designed to do.

As many of the members will recall, the Ontario Heritage Act was passed and proclaimed --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Would you stop the clock, please? We have to see whether the speaker works. Could you wait just for a minute? Try it on again and let's see if it works properly. If not, take another seat.

Mr Winninger: As I was just saying, in 1975 the Ontario Heritage Act was proclaimed with a commitment to conserving our architectural heritage. Under the heritage act, municipalities could designate heritage buildings. These buildings could not be demolished for a period of 180 days. If, during that period of 180 days, these buildings were not purchased or expropriated, they could then be demolished.

This act did not go far enough, in our estimation. The city of Toronto has now passed a statute which would require that a building permit be issued before such heritage buildings can be demolished. Markham has also passed similar legislation. The city of London does not at the present time have legislation that would require the issuance of a building permit by city council before heritage buildings can be torn down. In fact, we have already lost one important building, the Sir Adam Beck House, which was torn down virtually overnight in the absence of this kind of legislation.

Another important heritage resource we have in London, which I will call the Talbot Street block, which is in fact a streetscape that has been described as the most magnificent example of Victorian uninterrupted streetscape in the province, is scheduled for demolition after 3 February, when the 180-day designation under the heritage act is due to expire.

I grew up in London certainly during the sleepy 1950s, when Eisenhower was in the White House and a milkshake cost 25 cents. London had a real architectural identity. It had a real downtown core area where people went to shop at either the local independent business stores or at the Simpsons store. London has a park in the centre of town called Victoria Park, with a bandshell and military monuments like many other small towns and cities strewn across Ontario.

During the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s, a lot of these buildings were torn down either to make way for parking lots or to make way for modern structures that lack the distinct identity that the original streetscapes had. That is why it is so important that we conserve what little is left of our architectural heritage.

Another builder who has purchased a property called Thornwood Estate in London, the second-oldest house in London, has asked for a demolition permit for that property as well.

I, like many members of the House, share the view that private property owners and developers have rights too, but these rights have to be balanced from time to time against conservation of our heritage which is, I believe, a legitimate municipal planning consideration. Municipalities like Toronto and Markham that already enjoy the privilege of issuing a building permit before a building is demolished certainly have an advantage over London, where buildings can be demolished without a building permit after the period of 180 days elapses.

The one building that I have mentioned due for demolition -- in fact, a whole streetscape of buildings due for demolition on 4 February, goes back to the late 1800s. The southernmost point of the streetscape was the original town hall of London and later the first professional theatre in London. The building at the northern end of the streetscape is the terminus of the legendary Donnelly stagecoach that went from Lucan to London, and in between were a number of a notable other stores such as one that was run by an enterprising female, a Victorian entrepreneur called Jane Darch who supplied harnesses and saddles.

The Talbot Street block is in close proximity to the Covent Garden market in London which has existed for over 100 years. It supplied hotel services, it supplied staples and the sale of agricultural implements. This is a fine example of Victorian streetscape that London cannot afford to lose. If it is going to lose it, it should certainly know what kind of structure is going to replace it. The owner of that particular property, Cambridge Leaseholds, indicated in an

article in the Globe and Mail on 10 December of this year that it is reining in all new developments for a period of at least two years.

Should this streetscape be sacrificed for a parking lot simply because the builder has vowed resolutely and irretrievably to tear it down? I would submit no, we have to conserve our heritage. It is a visible link that we have with the past. Psychologists have determined that where a city becomes modern and loses its distinct architecture, people develop a sense of stress and anxiety. They feel much more a sense of wellbeing when they conserve their rootedness in a community. Also, crime and other forms of social disorder increase where a city modernizes too quickly.

Our heritage which we wish to conserve in London is certainly irreplaceable. This bill only goes so far as to require a building permit, as I said earlier, before demolition can occur. We need an ongoing partnership between all levels of government and the private sector to protect our heritage.

For every million dollars spent on renovation, 27 jobs are created. For every million dollars spent on new construction, only 13 jobs are created. Certainly jobs can be created through renovation, through incorporating the old into the new. Also, the cost of renovating the Talbot streetscape, for example, is equal to the cost of adequate new construction. It does not necessarily cost more.

John Ota of the Ministry of Culture and Communications toured the Talbot streetscape and in his report to the city of London said that he had not seen a more beautiful and intact example of 19th century commercial buildings in a row in the entire province than London's. Mr Ota said, "There is a tremendous potential here to come up with a creative method of integrating a modern development with the city's irreplaceable heritage buildings."

Certainly, if any steps towards improving the downtown are considered, they should begin with the preservation of those buildings. This view was also endorsed by the Heritage Canada Foundation and Christine Hart, the former Liberal Minister of Culture and Communications, who toured the streetscape last June, vowed that she would see that legislation was enacted to protect the streetscape. Unfortunately, the September election prevented her from so doing but we can certainly carry on the torch to ensure that buildings like the Talbot streetscape, but also many other heritage buildings in London, some of which are now owned by developers, do not fall to the wrecking ball.

Mr Sorbara: I am pleased to rise and join in this debate during private members' hour and on a private member's public business bill.

I listened very carefully to the member for London South. I noted his remarks, for example, about how impressed he is with the architectural value of the buildings which he endeavours to preserve by way of this bill. I noted as well with interest that the previous Minister of Culture and Communications had toured the buildings, had examined the site, had met, I think, with city officials probably and had made a public commitment for the government of the day to bring in a government bill in order to vest in the city of London the power that our friend the member for London South now proposes to do by way of a private bill.

The member for London South did not, unfortunately, review in his remarks any of the politics surrounding this little issue of the buildings on Talbot Street. He did not, for example, mention the fact that this House is prepared, seemingly -- to satisfy the needs of this member and his political colleagues, and perhaps the member for London North as well, the Conservative member -- that he is prepared to short-circuit, and I would suggest abandon, the regular procedures of this House in order to effect the political objectives which he wishes to effect.

He did not say that apparently we are prepared in this House, with the acquiescence of the government House leader, to urgently turn a private member's bill into government legislation with a vote this afternoon.

I am not going to comment on the merits of the bill itself. I recognize that not only the city of Toronto but other municipalities have acquired the kinds of rights and abilities that are proposed for the city of London within Bill 18.

The difference here is that this matter currently before us and before the city of London is not a matter that has been requested by the city of London. In fact, there is no doubt in anyone's mind that councillors and the mayor of the city of London are in the midst of a vicious debate over the future of this property and the powers that one private member has determined, the government should now vest in the city of London.

We have procedures in this House for the government to put forward its legislation. We have ministers in the House who are capable of proposing matters to cabinet, having matters reviewed by committees of cabinet and then bringing those matters forward in the form of legislation. This government, notwithstanding that the Ministry of Culture and Communications could have urged the incumbent minister to bring forward a bill, did not do that. So within three months of their election, they determined that it is all right to short-circuit the process.

I remind members that there is a standing order in our standing orders that governs how we do business, standing order 66, which says that a government in the last two weeks of a sitting -- the winter sitting in this case -- is not permitted to bring forward a bill and then have it go through the three readings that are required and be passed into law. Why do we have that standing order there? It is no longer of any value, because if the government wants to do something it can, by consent of this House, foist it upon members, have a private member's bill suddenly become, without any notice, a government bill.

This afternoon, we are going to be asked to do precisely what the standing orders prohibit us from doing.

The member for London South, shaking his head, is not familiar enough with the rules of this House, but he will be familiar with politics. He was willing to sacrifice the interests of the folks who had asked him to bring forward a resolution on the CFB. That is what was on Orders and Notices. That is what he asked us to debate in this House this morning. That is what the notice document said. That is what he proposed to do, not this bill. This is a government bill, this is not a private member's bill. This is something that the ministry should have had on the order paper a month and a half ago. Then we could have considered it appropriately. That would have been fair.

It would have been fair for the member to urge the Minister of Culture and Communications to bring forward a bill, for the government, in a government decision, to stand behind something that the government wanted to give to the city of London. I will simply leave the fact that the city of London has not yet resolved the issue and requested the legislation to be brought forward. That is the normal course. No, but my friend from London South has a political agenda, and in this case maybe it is all right. In this case maybe it is fine that we will abridge, abbreviate, ignore the rules of this House because this is a good political objective.

I just tell my friend, who is a new member of this House, that it really saddens me that in the case of this issue we are ready to ignore the rules. Why do we have these rules here? What happened here? What political pressure was placed on the member that we just ignore the rules? I was told last week that we were going to have unanimous consent to move it off one page of the Orders and Notices to another page.

Hon Miss Martel: There was no guarantee that we were going to get it from you. That's why we're doing it this way. That's what the problem was.

Mr Sorbara: My friend the government House leader says there is no guarantee for getting it from me.

The Deputy Speaker: Please address your remarks to the Chair and ignore the heckling.

Mr Sorbara: I want to do that. If Mr Speaker would direct the government House leader to not interject, which is another part of the standing orders, that would be fine.

The government House leader says I was not prepared to give my consent to moving the bill over. I ask the government House leader this question. Why was the government not prepared a month and a half ago to introduce this legislation, to allow it to be debated in this House as a government bill, which it is and which the government wants it to be? What was the hesitation? Why is this bill not going to be allowed to be reviewed by a committee of this House? Why are members not going to be able to comment on it? Why?

Because it is politically expedient in the city of London, just as it was politically expedient in the city of Hamilton for its members to meet privately with NDP members to tell them about a decision that was going to be coming out.

That is the kind of government we have in this place now, a government of convenience, very convenient for the Minister of Colleges and Universities to meet privately with NDP councillors, to tell them, sort of, about what is going to happen. It does not matter that the cabinet had not formally announced the decision. Not very important, really, when it is expedient for the movement to get the message through to its members.

Now we have got a bill. It is a fine bill and I wish that we simply could pass this bill based on the rules that we have in this House. But apparently we are not going to be allowed to do that.

It seems to me that there is a very strong debate going on in the city of London about Talbot Street and what should happen to these buildings. It seems to me that in every other community we have laws and regulations and bylaws governing how those disputes are to be resolved. The city of Hamilton, with the exception of the Red Hill Expressway, gets along like that. The city of Toronto gets along like that. The city of North Bay gets along like that. They look at the rules that govern how these issues are to be resolved where there are differing interests and differing points of views.

But in this case, no, we are not going to have that. We are not going to have the government bring forward legislation. We are going to have one private member -- he did not make it to cabinet; he is a private member -- who takes up the cause and introduces a bill for discussion during private members' public business. But he makes a deal because the pressure is too great, the political pressure is too great. He makes a deal with the government:

"I'll introduce it as a private bill. The government won't have to go out on a limb here. We'll get it on the order paper that way. Then, on the last day of the sitting, we'll just ignore the rules and ram it through. We'll decide the issue prematurely. We won't let the parties who have a differing point of view in the city of London resolve it. We won't even wait for the city of London to come forward and request to the government that this legislation be passed."

The most unusual thing of all is I have been here five years and I have never once seen a bill changing the rules for a municipality without the municipality, by resolution, requesting those changes. But it is a new day -- "We have a New Democratic government now. We have urgent political problems to solve in the city of London. You see, we defeated the former Premier and the former Solicitor General and now we have to pay debts."

I want to tell my friend the member for London South that he starts off on a very bad course, because once we start ignoring the rules and once we start finding ways to get around the rules, we start down a terribly slippery slope, because my friend the member for London South should know that the political pressure just gets more and more severe.

He can go to London tonight -- it sounds as if we are going to adjourn tonight -- and take a bow. He can say:

"I did it. I got them to ignore the rules. I got them to change a private member's bill to an important piece of government business in the last eight days. Remember, standing order 66 says we ought not to do that, but I got them to do it. Isn't wonderful that you elected me?"

The city of London did not even ask for this bill. The city of London is very deeply divided over how this matter should be handled. "But now that I'm an MPP," says the member for London South, "I can do it all by myself, because my government understands not good policy, my government understands political expediency. My government understands political expediency when it comes to the Red Hill Expressway in Hamilton. We have to have private meetings to tell our NDP colleagues on municipal councils about decisions that are coming up so they can explain to us how to orchestrate a strategy to make sure the decision is well received."

You swear an oath when you get into cabinet that you will not violate the secrecy of cabinet. That oath does not have any qualifications to it. It does not say "except when a controversial decision is coming up which ignores a decision of an Environmental Assessment Board."

Ms Haeck: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe that the member for York Centre has somewhat digressed, if I may be so kind as to use such a word.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member for York Centre.

Mr Sorbara: I say to my friend the member for St Catharines-Brock that I have not digressed at all. We are talking about the rules of this House and how they are being reshaped in order for the member for London South to achieve the passage of government legislation through the most interesting little back door that I have seen in the five years I have been here. So the bill will pass. The bill is going to pass; they have a majority. The member for London South is going to be able to go to London tonight and say: "We did it, folks. I singlehandedly overcame" --

Ms Haeck: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am sorry, but I still do believe that the member is digressing.

The Deputy Speaker: Your point has been made. Thank you very much.

Ms Haeck: Even if he is explaining this, he still seems to be digressing in that explanation. He is really not adhering to any --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Sorbara: I think what I am doing is causing a little bit of embarrassment on the part of my friend for policies that she is going to have to explain to her constituents.

The bill is going to pass. The government House leader has already decided that. Notwithstanding standing order 66 and notwithstanding that the city of London has not asked for the bill, we are going to change the rules that apply. The constituents who most vigorously supported my friend the member for London South will probably be very happy. I, for one, will be very sad, not that this bill passes, but that the government could not see fit, in its first three months of office, in achieving its objectives, to simply do what is right and just, and that is to regard with a great deal of respect the rules that we ourselves have adopted to order our business in this House.

I, for one, will be delighted if these heritage buildings are preserved. I remember when Toronto's old city hall was preserved. That was a great day. This is not a great day for this Parliament, nor for the member for London South.

Mrs Cunningham: It is my responsibility this morning to rise on behalf of our party and to speak to the bill as presented by my colleague the member for London South with regard to the heritage in the city of London.

I think I will begin by addressing the comments from the member for York Centre. In a letter sent to the Premier from Cambridge Shopping Centres Ltd, which will in fact be the private sector member that will be inconvenienced somewhat by this legislation, at least over periods of time, I will say from the very beginning, it states that, "Cambridge's primary concern is with the process by which its passage is being attempted."

I will agree with the member for York Centre and I will, right up front, here in front of everyone in this House, state that I do agree we have a process that in fact is not being followed in this House. I will also agree with the member for York Centre when he said perhaps he understood that the member for London South had a reason for bringing this bill. It related to his responsibilities as a member of provincial Parliament and to the city of London, part of which he represents along with myself and the member for London Centre.

Today we have a tremendously responsible decision to make. It is not one that I am pleased to have to be part of because I am a person who supports the procedures of this House and I am a person who likes to be proud to do that. From time to time, those of us have a tremendous responsibility as we represent our communities. We are asking today that the procedures be set aside, and there is a reason for it.

At the same time in this province, those of us who represent the public recognize that our heritage is there to be preserved and our heritage is there to be passed on to our children. In this instance, it is up to the local heritage advisory committee to decide and recommend to the city of London whether or not these buildings are heritage buildings and it is up to the city of London to decide, by vote of city council, in fact that they are. Given that we in fact have

an act, called the Ontario Heritage Act, that in its own way attempts to help municipalities across this province preserve their heritage buildings, I think I am entrusted this morning with the responsibility to support my city council.

On 7 May 1990, a majority of the city council decided that the buildings on Talbot Street would be heritage building sites. For want of a better way to explain that, it said to myself, and certainly others who represent the city of London, that we must do everything we can do to preserve those buildings or parts thereof, whether it be the façades, whether it be the Talbot Inn. Whatever the city council and Cambridge decide over a long period of process and negotiations would be appropriate to preserve would certainly be in the interest of the heritage buildings and the city of London.

What we find ourselves with today is

an act where the process time disappears on 4 February and we find ourselves in a position where we have not come to a conclusion that is satisfactory to either side. This is not new, I think, across the province of Ontario, but this is, at least as far as I have been able to tell, the first building that will be demolished because of

an act that was considered by the former government and many members of this House, including myself, to be insufficient protection.

It will not be new to the city of London or to Cambridge to know that there was an intent on the part of the former Liberal government to change that act to make it more restrictive. In fact, in the spring of last year the minister, Christine Hart, visited the city of London, which the member for York Centre recognized in his remarks this morning, and served notice that the Ontario Heritage Act would be strengthened by that government.

It was of course the intent, I think, of this government, and certainly the member for London South in a letter that he wrote on 18 October, to move quickly along with the minister to make those changes.

There will be criticism on this process. There will never be criticism, I do not think, around the intent of the member. It would have made it a lot easier for all of us if that had happened. I am not certain whose fault it is but I will say that the criticism was directed to the government. I think there were other alternatives if in fact it had been dealt with on 18 October or shortly thereafter.

So we find ourselves with intentions and we find ourselves with the Cambridge developers being most unhappy with what is happening this morning. I can only say about this piece of legislation that there are other buildings across the province of Ontario crying out for this kind of protection today. In the city of London alone we are most fortunate. I will correct speakers: it is just the city of Toronto that has this protection; Markham did not complete the process. We probably have over 80 buildings in our municipality that have been designated under the Ontario Heritage Act.

I feel all of them need the same kind of protection that we are giving this particular site this morning, if indeed this piece of legislation is passed.

The majority of London city council support the effort to introduce this legislation which will give the municipality a greater deal of control. I can only say that not because they voted on it, and I will be very clear, but I feel that the intent of the resolution last spring would, if it were consistent with the thinking of the council of that time, and as a member of provincial parliament that is the only vote that I can take seriously.

This bill has certainly been in the media for the last two or three weeks and I have not seen any change in a vote of city council to give me different direction than what I had last spring. Very clearly, that is the only reason I am supporting this legislation this morning, because I have been instructed for the first time in almost three years by a vote of city council to represent my community in the best way that I see fit.

There are many misconceptions about the legislation and, I feel, some unfounded fears that have led to concern among community groups in London. I will recognize that I have had a number of groups write, as they represent citizens and their own interests, to say they are not happy with this legislation. I have also had many, many more phone calls and letters supporting it. But basically the real reason that I am voting in favour of this legislation is because of the intent of city council and the intent of the member for London South to support it in any way he can as an elected representative of our municipality at Queen's Park with his legislation.

But I will say clearly here today that Bill 18 does not stop development. It does not stop a solution to the problems that we have in developing that site in the municipality.

What it might do, and this is my hope, is to get the city council and the mayor along with Cambridge talking once again about a very important piece of property in our city, one that we do not want to remain as a parking lot, but one that we hope Cambridge Shopping Centres Ltd will work with our municipality in a very positive way to develop in the best interests not only of the citizens whom they serve in their work, and very important work as they provide services, but I think one that will also meet the needs of our citizens and their children for years and years to come by preserving whatever part of that heritage property can be preserved sensibly.

I would urge, because I think we have all been put through, I think, rather strong negotiations from both sides, that people grow up on this issue and show some leadership and get on with it.

One of my great concerns is that the courts and municipal boards are used when common sense should be used. If I can do anything to get our mayor and the president of Cambridge Shopping Centres Ltd together in meaningful discussion, maybe along with my two colleagues -- I have not discussed it -- I think there is a solution to this. I do not like to represent a city that seems to be dug in on planning. I do not like to think that a developer would not be speaking openly and positively with our municipality.

In spite of their private interests and in spite of providing jobs, providing an enhanced living for our citizens, I think they too have a responsibility to get down and talk. The big problem with the Ontario Heritage Act, given the time frame, is both sides have allowed it to elapse. We are now giving them another opportunity to get down and talk business and get something done for the municipality which I serve.

In closing, I would like to say that I know there will be great criticism around the processes in this House and I would hope that all the members of this Legislative Assembly will not again be subjected to the breaking of the rules as we have been today. I do not think it is our intent, and I would hope it would not be the government's intent, to have this happen frequently. Perhaps we have all learned a lesson very early in the tenure of this government, that people are hurt when rules are broken.

Today, I do not think anybody needs to be hurt directly or indirectly. I think this is an opportunity for people to get together, both sides, both Cambridge and the city of London, and to come to some sensible, mature solution around that particular development and around the preservation, where possible, whether it be a building or a streetscape or otherwise, in the best interest of the citizens of London whom I serve in this House.

Mr G. Wilson: I am pleased to be arising to speak to this debate, this very crucial debate, in support of my colleague and seatmate, the member for London South.

This is the first time I rise to speak in this House and it gives me the opportunity to acknowledge the heritage of stewardship created by my predecessors in this position, most recently represented in the person of Ken Keyes.

I think we have had some discussion about the process involved here and of course that process has evolved over our experience in the House, a very important one, I think we would all agree, and one that we want to sensitively deal with and, where necessary, modify. Like any heritage, it is there to be built upon, to be used creatively and strengthened.

Second, I would like to mention the fact that I am the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Culture and Communications and very excited to be involved in the creation of new policies in that ministry, in particular a new heritage act. Certainly, the ministry is well aware of the importance of local people taking the initiative in the preservation of culture in their particular area, but we realize they need support from the Ministry of Culture and Communications.

That support will be there in a strengthened heritage bill which will be introduced in the near future after consultation with the people throughout the province who are actively engaged in the preservation of the heritage in their areas.

I want to say too that as a resident of Kingston -- in fact, part of the reason we moved to Kingston was because of its fame for its preservation of its historic buildings and other areas of heritage. It is very important that the steps taken in Kingston be emulated throughout the province.

In particular, it is well known that Kingston has a number of limestone buildings. Local residents are aware of this priceless heritage and have taken steps to ensure that future generations also enjoy the area's rich past. Kingston may have the greatest number of 19th century buildings of architectural merit of any city in Ontario. Many of our public buildings are outstanding in their design and decoration.

It is not by accident that so many magnificent buildings remain standing. The need to adopt measures to protect the city's historic architectural heritage has long been recognized by the citizens of Kingston. Kingston was the first city in Ontario to be given authority by the province to pass bylaws to designate buildings of historic or architectural interest. It was given this authority on its own request in 1970, five years before the Ontario Heritage Act came into force. The city had 30 designated buildings on its list then; now it has well over 500.

Kingston was also the first municipality in Ontario to have a heritage conservation district designated. We now boast two such areas, the village of Barriefield and Market Square.

Kingston has been in the forefront of the movement of heritage conservation in the province. My constituents know that it is not so much preserving the past as it is building our future, enriched by the experiences and legacies of previous generations.

I would like to say too that fate has taken a rather tragic hand in this debate this week in the burning of a historic barn in an area of my constituency. As I mentioned, a barn is in a rural area. Sometimes we forget about the valuable heritage that exists in that area as well.

I would like to read a couple of paragraphs from the news reports of this tragedy. The building was owned by Dr Westenberg, not only a medical doctor but a diplomatic representative for the Netherlands. A couple of paragraphs describing the incident:

"He has been active in historical preservation projects and was deeply hurt by the loss of the barn, that he valued highly as an example of craftsmanship and history that is disappearing with time from the countryside. 'The area's historic buildings fit into the countryside the way furnishings complete a room in a home. My whole idea of preservation was in that barn.'

"Located beside the road, the barn had been the focus of many drawings and photographs. It was built in the old style a century or more ago with square timbers that were fitted together and held with pegs instead of the nails that became common later."

I think those of us who can tear ourselves away from the riveting debate in this building sometimes notice the marvellous decoration of this building. Many of the skills that went into designing this building have been lost and I think that is another reason that we would all agree requires the kind of support for heritage that this bill speaks to and that the Ministry of Culture and Communications is committed to.

There is also the international community which has recognized the importance of heritage and culture. In 1982, at the World Conference on Cultural Policies, UNESCO identified the connection between heritage and cultural policies and problems of growth and change.

I think we can safely say, then, that heritage conservation is not a preoccupation with the past. It is the basis on which to build our future.

Mr Sterling: I have only a few minutes to speak and I just wanted to say that while we are generally in support of this measure, we have some concerns, which the member for York Centre has raised. I think the problem arises from the fact that a private bill, if brought by the city of London to this Legislature, would enable the people who were affected in London to bring their concerns to a committee of this Legislature and then the committee of the Legislature would make its decision after hearing the concerns of not only members speaking on this bill, but also people from the actual area.

I guess another part that concerns us is that this now is the third municipality which has sought to strengthen the Ontario Heritage Act. I believe that Markham and the city of Toronto both have this kind of jurisdiction, which they have received from the province of Ontario. There is a concern if it spreads wider and wider without considering the overall policies and the structure of how it is to be done.

In my view, legislation that is brought in in a private bill at the request of a municipality does not undergo the same rigour and examination of the processes that are there, not only to properly protect the right of a municipality to protect heritage buildings, but it also does not address the right of the owner of that particular property.

One thing that concerns me about this bill is that the proposer of the bill, the member for London South, specifically referred to a project in the city of London in his remarks. That is what this bill is all about. That is not what legislation should be about in this place. It should be about creating rules which are generic in form and apply to all heritage properties, hopefully in all of Ontario, but in this case in the city of London.

The member for London South, by narrowing down on the Talbot Street property, has in effect admitted that what this bill is doing is usurping the rights of one owner of what he understood the law to be today. We are today amending those rights unilaterally without his right to be heard. That is what we find objectionable in this process. We think it could have been done another way, but we accept that in case we must proceed with it as it is.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I too am rising for the first time in this House to speak as the member for London Centre. I am delighted to have the opportunity to do so with respect to this particular bill.

I am also pleased that the member for York Centre brought up the politics of this situation because I think it is extremely important for this House to recognize the part that politics has played in our getting to this point today. I also regret that this bill needed to be brought in this way, but the political situation which surrounded this particular bill is well known to the people in London and ought to be well known to the people in this House.

It is customary, when you rise for the first time, to talk about your predecessor. My predecessor, the former Premier of the province, built his political reputation in the mid-1970s as a heritage conserver in the city of London when he took action to protect the Middlesex county courthouse from demolition. Therefore, it is not surprising that the people of London Centre expected their member to be very vigorous in defence of the Talbot streetscape and the other heritage properties that have been demolished in the city of London, and those that may be demolished and certainly are slated to be demolished if the developers involved have their way.

The whole issue in London is not a new one. It has been raging on for at least the last five years in a very public way, as anyone who reads our local press or has been aware of our local political situation will understand. Citizens in London have been very vigorous in their defence, partly of the Talbot streetscape, but also the other buildings that have been demolished. Those have included the Sir Adam Beck House, which was demolished supposedly to be renovated and put back together on a scale model by another developer who currently seeks to destroy yet another heritage property in London North.

The Premier had been swamped, throughout his term from 1985 to 1990, by requests from the citizens of London, including the heritage associations, to bring in changes to the Ontario Heritage Act that would allow exactly what the effect of this bill allows. He delayed and he delayed. He did not do so because he was aware, as members are aware, that there is controversy about this. We would be foolish, those of us from London, to deny that there is controversy. There certainly is not a unified position within our community around heritage buildings and I know that lack of unity is true across the province.

The import of this bill and the changes that we all had asked the former Premier to make in the heritage act gives, in fact, the responsibility back to the municipality in a very real way so that that decision is made at the local level. Because of the way the heritage act reads now, once a designation is made there is a time period, the clock begins to tick. We are simply saying and are wanting to enact in this bill a position in which the city council is given the responsibility to issue a demolition permit or to hold off until a building permit is issued in order to permit demolition. That puts it back into the local decision-making power and we think that is very important.

It does mean that a very highly divided city council is going to face decisions in an election year which are going to be difficult for them and we recognize that. But that is the appropriate arena for this decision to be made, and the city council in London needs to make a decision as to whether they are prepared to allow the demolition of yet another major heritage building and streetscape, which is the one that is particularly urgent at this point since 4 February is demolition day. They have the decision-making power to determine that. We believe that it is appropriate for them to do so.

The way the act reads now, they have no decision-making power. They have designated the property as heritage.

They have also made a decision based on their financial accountability that they cannot expropriate or pay for the buildings to be maintained. So they are saying, "We do not want these buildings maintained if it is going to cost the citizens of London money, but we equally do not want yet another devastation of our heritage." We do not want yet another addition to the city block which is now empty of anything but a parking lot in the very heart of my riding.

So, I would urge the members of this House to recognize that this extraordinary measure is necessary in order to buy the time that is necessary to prevent demolition by an intransigent owner who has refused every opportunity to negotiate this situation with the city, has refused offers of purchase that would have maintained the landscape and has refused to incorporate the landscape into any plans that have been submitted to the city thus far.

Ms Haeck: I rise in support of this bill. I live in a historically designated area. In fact, as a result of that designation my own home is a historically designated building. I know about the process through which the local architectural conservation advisory committee undergoes such a designation. It took, for my particular property for my particular block, in fact well over two years of consultation with the municipalities, with the actual residents, home owners of those properties as well as the local architectural conservation society hiring consultants, the city hiring consultants.

So we are talking about a very long process where everyone, including the owners of those buildings, being well informed about what is going to be happening.

The Queen Street historical area in St Catharines, as I say, took over two years to be designated. It is in fact true that when properties are designated, they are not only designated because they achieved a historical status, but they also achieved financial value. I think we have to recognize that tourism today includes people visiting communities because of historical buildings. Quebec City itself plays up very largely the fact that the old town exists; Montreal plays up the fact that an old town exists. Why are we facing the destruction of our historical heritage? We are losing tourism dollars in doing so.

I personally advocate that each community should be undertaking an inventory of significant buildings and making every effort to save these structures because of their financial advantage to the community. It provides a visual record of the history, but it also adds financial value.

As a librarian who has worked for a number of years in the local history department of her local library, I see a strong need for this kind of legislation, legislation which would finally provide an important element of this province's history, the kind of protection it truly needs. Our history should not be the pawn of business interests, interests that see advantage only in parking lots.

We as a province have lost much to the wrecker's ball because the Ontario Heritage Act,

an act which should be there to protect those buildings, has absolutely no teeth at all. What it should do is to protect our heritage, but it is represented in the wrecker's ball and it really needs -- When in fact our government proposes its legislation, I will be strongly working to make sure that the Victorian architecture out there gets the same kind of protection as our art heritage as well as our works of literature.

The member for York Centre fails to understand that these buildings are imperilled.

Mr Winninger: I certainly appreciate the concerns about process voiced both by the member for York Centre and also the member for Carleton. However, they know, as I do, that the clock has all but run out. I did not direct this particular piece of legislation to one development in particular but the fact is, the Talbot Street block is one development in particular that London can still save by reassuming control over the manner in which demolition permits are issued. All this bill speaks to is the need for a building permit before a property is demolished.

With the time running out, I appreciate the activities of the member for London North and certainly for London Centre in supporting this bill. I certainly appreciate the support that the various House leaders have given to facilitate speedy passage of this bill.

I would conclude by saying that all members of the House who have spoken today seem to acknowledge the political will to achieve this kind of political objective.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The honourable member just said he was not applying to any specific development or anything. Is that really what the member was saying and meant? He has 26 seconds to answer. It is a good question.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

We will deal first with ballot item 3, standing in the name of Mr Runciman. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise?

INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Runciman has moved second reading of Bill 20,

an Act to amend the Insurance Act.

Motion agreed to.

Pursuant to standing order 94(

f) the recorded vote on this ballot item is deferred.

CITY OF LONDON ACT, 1990

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Winninger moved second reading of Bill 18,

An Act respecting the City of London. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those opposed will please say "nay." All those in favour will please say "aye."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading. 1208

The House divided on Mr Runciman's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 62

Abel, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carr, Carter, Charlton, Cooper, Coppen, Cousens, Cunningham, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Eves, Fletcher, Frankford, Grier, Haeck, Hansen, Harnick, Harrington, Harris, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Jordan, Klopp, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Mathyssen, McLean, Mills, Morrow, Murdoch, B., Murdock, S., O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Runciman, Silipo, Sterling, Stockwell, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Ward, B., Ward, M., Waters, White, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Witmer, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays -- 9

Chiarelli, Cooke, Elston, Gigantes, McClelland, Phillips, G., Sola, Sorbara, Sullivan.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 94(

k) the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mr Runciman: I understand that later today the House will revert to private members' business. I would respectfully suggest that my bill be treated the same as Mr Winninger's and I be granted unanimous consent that the bill be ordered for third reading.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. There is no consent.

Mr Runciman: Based on the regrettable response from the government, I would ask for consent that the bill be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall this bill be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice?

All those in favour of this question will please rise and remain standing.

Please take your seats.

All of those opposed will please rise.

Please resume your seats.

The majority of the House not being in agreement with the request of the member, this bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mr Sterling: I think it is important to note, because the names were not recorded in that last vote, that the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party supported it going out to committee and all of the New Democratic Party opposed that motion.

The House recessed at 1214.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr Beer: The issue of special education is and must be a critical one for all members of this Legislature. One of the fundamental goals of government is to protect those who cannot protect themselves and make it possible for each child to fulfil his or her own potential.

Over the past decade, different governments have worked to provide greater access to a whole range of educational and employment services for those with special needs. But we know that much more remains to be done. The educational system is the key to ensuring that those with special needs will have a greater opportunity to lead fuller and more productive lives.

The former government had committed to bring in major legislative changes to the provision of special education in the province. These amendments were to have been presented this fall to the Legislature. The proposed changes were the result of several years of work and public consultation.

Of particular interest to the special education community were proposed changes to enhance the rights of parents to change the current composition of appeal boards for the appropriate placement of students and to expand the placement options for students with special needs.

The children and parents for whom these amendments are intended have waited long enough. The amendments have been drafted. The new government has had plenty of time to review them. They are needed, and they are needed now. When will this government finally act and bring forward the necessary legislation?

LANDFILL SITE

Mr Eves: I rise in the House today to bring the McDougall landfill site to the attention of the Minister of the Environment. I want to address this issue, which continues to plague the township of McDougall and surrounding municipalities. The problem is a direct result of an order issued under

section 29 of the Environmental Protection Act, ordering the township to assume the responsibility to operate the dump site.

A plume of leachate which has migrated from the dump and into the marsh, stream and on to neighbouring properties precipitated this order.

The township of McDougall cannot afford to place the ratepayers at risk. The ministry has failed to guarantee the necessary funding over the anticipated cost of operating the problematic site, nor has it provided a commitment to the municipalities or compensation against future liability for having complied with this order.

The Parry Sound area must have a proper place for waste. An alternative site must be found.

McDougall township officials have made several requests to meet with the Minister of the Environment to resolve this issue of liability, which has been outstanding since September of 1989. The township of McDougall has been willing to co-operate as much as possible. However, it, along with other Ontario municipalities, as demonstrated by the passing of a resolution at the annual convention of the AMO, is asking the Ministry of the Environment to assume its share of the responsibilities .

During a recent telephone conversation with the township reeve, the minister's assistant indicated that the minister was preoccupied with finding a waste site for Toronto's garbage. I hate to disturb the minister from her preoccupation with this endeavour. However, I would ask her if she would kindly sit down to meet with officials from McDougall to resolve their problem.

JACK KENNEDY

Mrs MacKinnon: Today Lambton county is quiet. The music man, Jack Kennedy, a gentle man as sweet as the music he played, passed away on Sunday. A lifelong resident of Lambton county, he was easily recognized in the music industry. He was a master of piano, organ and accordion. Thousands of young people and old were entertained by Mr Kennedy at places like Kenwick on the Lake and Kenwick Terrace.

He was a leader in the big band era. Jack, as everyone called him, was a charter member of the St Clair Parkway Commission formed in 1966, and served as chairman from 1970 to 1981. The parkway along the St Clair River is a tribute to the vision of citizenship and civic spirit that Kennedy demonstrated all his life.

He was also a woodworker, yachtsman and, most of all, a family man and a friend to the young and the not so young. The shopping malls and seniors' residence will be quieter now as Jack will not be there to play for them.

Jack's family, the parkway and his music are a legacy that will be treasured by all of Lambton county and the province of Ontario.

Left to celebrate his life are his wife, Genevieve, their four children, grandchildren and those in Lambton and throughout Ontario who had the pleasure of knowing Jack and hearing his music for 73 years. All of us will remember Jack and be truly grateful to have shared in his life.

'THE RAE-MAN'

Mr Sola:

Once upon a time, seems so long ago,

There was a party in Ontario.

Their leader, the Rae-man, used this lore,

Quoth he, "Consult and spend -- evermore!"

The People's Agenda let everyone know

All of the answers to our every woe.

Which was stated as clearly as before,

To quote the Rae-man, "Evermore!"

When, much to even their own surprise,

Voters bought the NDP enterprise,

The people expected to be in store,

Was, to quote the Rae-man, "Evermore!"

Now in power, they are on a roll.

All their promises are out of control.

Their change in message their friends abhor,

Rae's changed their tune to "Nevermore!"

Floyd in Treasury has changed his hue

From bright pink to deep Tory blue.

Ed Flip has flopped, in days of yore

Quoth this Rae-man, "53-footers -- Nevermore!"

Cowboy Pete on insurance will consult

All of those he did not insult.

Green Ruth's decrees will even the score,

Her list targets regions wanting dumps "Nevermore!"

Dave, the tenants from rent did free,

And Cooke-d the goose of Labour's Bob Mackenzie.

Now tenants and landlords and labour are sore,

There's no fixing of buildings, no jobs -- "Nevermore!"

The NDP tax revolt you cannot ignore,

Stand on your heads to be where you stood before.

Can we trust them heretofore?

To quote that Rae-man -- "Nevermore!"

With apologies to The Raven and Edgar Allan Poe.

HEALTH CARE FINANCING

Mr Jackson: I want to call the attention of all members of the House to the serious situation of provincial health care underfunding which continues to face Ontario hospitals and especially Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital in Burlington, which could be forced to cut up to as many as 30 badly needed beds as a result.

Members will be aware that Liberal mismanagement of our health care delivery system was the straw that broke the former government's back during the last provincial election. Burlington's Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital, for example, never received the 180 additional beds it was promised by that government.

But what has changed under the NDP government? There is nothing in the throne speech to indicate that health care will not continue to be relegated to the back of the line of government policy priorities. When it came to this new NDP Health minister, the people of Ontario were expecting support for hospitals to deal with the new realities they have been dealing with alone, such as the employer health payroll tax, pay equity and increased wages for health care and hospital workers.

Instead, they got a minister who has done nothing to improve matters, who has continued to lower hospital funding -- and this is at the same time that her government is dragging its feet on the release of transfer payments.

The people of Burlington are outraged at this government's indifference to the funding crisis facing Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital. The time for rhetoric is over. Ontario hospitals cannot continue to operate under this government's cynical Band-Aid approach to health care funding.

TAXATION

Ms M. Ward: One of the key yardsticks of fairness in government policy is our taxation system. I think we face a great danger if our taxation system is not fair or is not perceived to be fair. A taxation system depends, as do many of our other government policies, on achieving a social consensus. Even if we do not believe that a system is ideal for us as individuals, we will accept it if we believe it offers the best for society as a whole.

In my riding of Don Mills, the question I have been asked most frequently in the last few months is, "Is there any way that the GST can be stopped?" I do not intend to dwell on the GST, but I believe it is another blow to that social consensus. If people do not believe the rules are fair, a certain number of people will stop playing by the rules.

Recently, I have had a couple of experiences in small retail shops where the sales clerks have asked me if I wanted to pay sales tax. I did pay it. I will look at the Minister of Revenue to make sure she heard that. While these two instances do not indicate a trend necessarily, I believe they are a warning signal we have to pay attention to, and that people are beginning to feel the system is not fair and are angry about it.

That is why I was excited about the announcement in the throne speech of the Fair Tax Commission. Fair taxes are a major concern to my constituents. They are willing to pay their fair share and no more.

CANADIAN FORCES OVERSEAS

Mr Morin: As the holiday season approaches, it automatically evokes a feeling of warmth in our hearts. It is a time for reflection, nostalgia and the gathering together of close family and friends. In just a few days, we members of this House will join our own families to celebrate this special time of year.

Yet, as we do so, let us not forget our brave fellow Canadians stationed in the Persian Gulf, who will not have the good fortune of spending this holiday in the company of their loved ones. Let us also think of the friends and relatives who anxiously await their safe return. The sentimentality we experience as celebrations draw near is heightened for those troops who must prepare to spend these days far from home. The uncertainty of the situation in the Persian Gulf contributes to the sense of suspension among the soldiers.

I can understand the feelings of these young men and women at this time of year. In 1953, 37 years ago, I was in Korea as a young officer with the Royal 22nd Regiment. A Christmas package from my mother meant the world to me. I can still recall the smell of that Christmas cake in a tin from home, which was a symbol that somebody was thinking of me.

Let our thoughts extend to Canadian service personnel overseas at this special time of year. Let us pay tribute to the people who play this essential role in honouring Canada's commitment to the world community in the pursuit of peace and security in the region. À tous mes collègues et à tous mes camarades militaires : Joyeux Noël et bonne et heureuse année.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr Tilson: Like many high schools in high-growth areas, the Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board in my riding has sustained overcrowding and extremely long travelling time to and from school. Up to three hours travelling time per day is now spent by young people in my riding travelling to and from school. Students in the Dufferin-Peel area are now obliged to travel to a new school outside my riding, to Brampton's Notre Dame Secondary School, where portables have now been increased to more than 30. Young people in both my riding and the riding to the south are therefore receiving unequal education.

The solution agreed to by the Ministry of Education and the school board was the construction of Northern Secondary School in Caledon East. The land has been purchased and is awaiting construction. Last year the Ministry of Education failed to provide the funding as promised.

I ask the new Minister of Education to give this matter top priority now and give full funding early in 1991 to alleviate this very serious problem of overcrowding and excessive and unnecessary travel by young people in Dufferin-Peel.

SKI HILL BLUES

Mr Owens: I rise today to speak about an exciting project taking place in the city of Scarborough. The program Ski Hill Blues was initiated by Toronto Police Commission Chair June Rowlands, and is financially supported by the police commission.

In co-operation with the Scarborough Board of Education, Metro Toronto Housing Authority and Tropicana Community Services, 40 children in grades 7 and 8 are given lessons in downhill skiing, as well as special attention given to the development of life skills and an awareness of the social issues facing youth today.

I would like to extend the thanks of this Legislature to the following groups and individuals: Pat Tallon, Chair of Ski Hill Blues; Jennifer Murdock, MTHA; Annie Payne, Tropicana; Blaine Bell, Canadian Ski Patrol; Michael Belec, Uplands Ski Club; Detective Janet Neate, PC Phil Semple, Inspector Karl Davis, Staff Inspector Tony Farrell, Sergeant Harry Ward, PC Ed Bain; Norm Clements, National Sports Ltd; and the auxiliary police officers who act as drivers for this group.

One last thought: I would like to wish the visitors and my fellow members in this Assembly a very merry and safe Christmas.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker: Before we continue with our normal proceedings, I would like, with the indulgence of the House, to take a couple of minutes. First, all of us may be aware that there is a very special group of people who have been with us for some time, and this is indeed their last day on the job. I trust that all of us feel the same way, that they have served this House and the members extremely well, and that is the pages. Could you show your appreciation for their fine work?

LEGISLATIVE STAFF

The Speaker: I would also like to take this opportunity to extend very best wishes for a well-deserved rest and happy holidays to the more than 400 women and men who serve us in the assembly: the Sergeant at Arms and the legislative attendants, the Clerk and his staff, the broadcasting and recording service, Hansard, language services branch, the staff of the office of the comptroller, the legislative library staff, assembly services, the legislative building services and the security staff.

I know I speak on behalf of all the members when I say that these more than 400 individuals help to make our lives much easier and help us to do our job well. Perhaps we could show our appreciation for the work they do.

PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE

Mr Cousens: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I rise on a question of privilege of which I have given you notice. I wish to deal with a matter that constitutes not only a breach of privilege but a contempt of Parliament and a disrespect for this Legislature. I rise to this point of privilege as defined in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms: "Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively...and by members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals."

I feel that my job and responsibility as a member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and as a legislator is to represent and to serve the best interests of the people of Ontario. Yet circumstances have arisen which make it impossible for me, as cited by Beauchesne, to discharge my function as a member of the House. Yesterday in this chamber we were informed that a major policy document had been released by the Minister of the Environment. We did not become aware of this occurrence through the customary practice of ministerial disclosure but rather through a question and subsequent confirmation put forth by the member for Oxford and the Minister of the Environment respectively.

The Legislative Assembly Act, paragraph 45(1)6, defines a breach of privilege as, "Giving false evidence or prevaricating or misbehaving in giving evidence or refusing to give evidence or to produce papers before the assembly or a committee thereof."

I am not accusing anyone of deceit or prevarication per se. I am simply trying to establish a prima facie case of privilege. On a number of occasions in the past several weeks, responses to questions placed by members of the government side have resulted in the disclosure of information that should have more appropriately been tabled before this House by way of ministerial statement. The discussion document released yesterday, to everyone, it would seem, except members of the opposition, is a crucial component of the minister's environmental protection policy for the people of Ontario.

How can I, as a member of this Legislature, determine what is best for the people of Ontario when the government discloses important information in a way which prevents us from determining whether people would be adversely or positively affected by this policy initiative?

It is we, as mandated by the people of Ontario, we as the fiduciary of the people, and we, on behalf of the people of Ontario, who are here to serve the best interests of Ontario citizens. The manner in which this information was disclosed and the flagrant disregard in informing members of the opposition until it was deemed appropriate by the government constitutes a breach of the rights and privileges of all members and a contempt of Parliament.

I point out that the definition of contempt contained in the 21st edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice,

chapter 9, page 115, is as follows: "Any act of omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence."

Mr Speaker, I put before you and submit to you that this is a significant question of privilege covering the issue of contempt. If you find a prima facie case, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

The Speaker: To the member for Markham, first I appreciate the fact that you gave prior notice to the Chair, and secondly I take your point seriously; I will take it under advisement and I will report back to you at my earliest convenience.

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

The Speaker: This would also actually be a good opportunity to speak to the House regarding a matter which was raised yesterday. During yesterday's question period, the honourable member for Mississauga North raised a point of order regarding the use of question period by ministers to make statements under the guise of answers to questions from members of their own caucus.

Following question period, the honourable member for Parry Sound raised a similar point of order, which was contributed to by a number of honourable members. I want to thank everyone for their contributions. I have reviewed Hansard and given this matter some thought, which I am now prepared to share with you.

First of all, there can be no doubt that our standing orders and practice permit a certain number of questions to be asked of ministers during question period each day which originate from members of the government caucus. A restriction to this is that a parliamentary secretary cannot ask a question of the minister under whom she or he serves regarding the subject matter field pertaining to that minister.

The chair takes very seriously the point made by the member for Mississauga North and the member for Parry Sound that answers to questions should not be used to present to the House changes in government policy. Members will know that our standing orders provide a specific time period each day during routine proceedings for that type of announcement. The procedure for statements by the ministry also provides for replies on the part of members of the opposition parties. I therefore agree with the honourable members who made these points yesterday that question period should definitely not be used for presenting changes in government policy.

I must caution honourable members, however, that although the Chair tries to be vigilant in these matters, sometimes the skill displayed by the questioner and the minister providing the answer is such that it is difficult for the Speaker to identify what might or might not constitute a change in government policy.

I have looked at the questions and answers of yesterday's question period and I will take this occasion to tell the Minister of Labour that his answer yesterday to the question asked by the member for Dovercourt was indeed borderline and could be interpreted to be an announcement of new government policy. In conclusion therefore, members were perfectly right to raise this. It is indeed a point of order, and ministers should be aware that new government policy should be announced during the time provided for it under our standing orders and not during question period.

Hon Mrs Grier: Mr Speaker, I would like to comment if I may, or at least clarify the statement made by the member for Markham in his point of order, because I think I did make this point to you yesterday. In my ministerial statement on 21 November 1990, I announced that I would be releasing the discussion paper with respect to improvements to the Envir