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

December 5, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

NATIONAL SAFE DRIVING WEEK

FOOD BANKS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

CHRISTMAS FUND BROADCAST

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

PENETANGUISHENE MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

COMMUNITY LAND TRUSTS

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

UNCLAIMED PROPERTY

RESPONSE

UNCLAIMED PROPERTY

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

EMPLOYMENT ADJUSTMENT

TAXATION

HEALTH INSURANCE

FOREST MANAGEMENT

ADVOCACY AND GUARDIANSHIP

CULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS

ROUGE VALLEY

LONG-TERM CARE

VEHICLE EMISSIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

LENGTHS OF TRUCKS AND TRAILERS

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT / COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES SOCIALES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

UNCLAIMED INTANGIBLE PROPERTY ACT, 1989

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

ONTARIO MORTGAGE BROKERS ASSOCIATION ACT, 1989

ALARM SYSTEMS ACT, 1989

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INSURANCE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr Farnan: In Cambridge, there is a serious lack of help available to parents of developmentally delayed children. Cambridge has one group home for these children. Its five beds are filled and there are 12 names on the waiting list. In the meantime, those families use the city’s only relief bed to ease their burden by providing temporary care for their children. That one bed is no longer enough. Cambridge must have another group home.

As 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week care givers, these parents are exhausted. Their families are suffering and their marriages are being adversely affected, all because there is no temporary relief from the constant care they must give their special children.

No parent wants to institutionalize his or her child, especially when a group home setting would be far more appropriate and beneficial to both child and family. In Cambridge, the association for the mentally retarded has developed a proposal for a children’s group home, and the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Beer) gave the association’s executive director assurances that he fully supported the proposal. However, despite receiving the proposal four months ago, the ministry has not yet approved the necessary funds. Meanwhile, children wait, their families wait and the situation grows more critical with each passing day.

How can the government of Ontario turn its back on these families and their special needs?

NATIONAL SAFE DRIVING WEEK

Mr Villeneuve: Now that the snow and cold weather have reached Toronto, it provides us with an opportunity to reflect on National Safe Driving Week.

The Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere programs now under way and a good reminder that drinking and driving is unacceptable.

Christmas parties are already beginning, so when travel is involved, please plan to have a designated driver or take a cab.

We should also make sure that our cars are ready to withstand winter driving conditions, from tires to wiper fluid. Now that the driving is more dangerous, with the anticipation of 53-foot highway trailers, Ontario drivers will have to be more careful than ever.

In Ontario, snowy and icy roads mean salt trucks. Road de-icers are a necessity, but salt corrodes and pollutes. This winter season, let’s hope the Ontario government finally gets serious about looking for a road salt replacement.

Calcium magnesium acetate, or CMA, is one possibility which is only one tenth as corrosive as conventional road salt. There are no large-scale facilities for CMA production in Ontario. This also presents a prospect for new jobs, which the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr Kwinter) should look into, particularly for the economically deprived areas such as eastern Ontario.

FOOD BANKS

Mr Faubert: As we begin to celebrate this holiday season, all of our thoughts turn to those in our society who are less fortunate, those among us who need the help of government and their neighbours in the community in order to provide the necessities of life.

Substantial hope was given to those in this situation in the announcement last 18 May of a new agenda for social assistance. Support for social services was increased by $415 million on a full-year basis. In this fiscal year, social assistance benefits will total $2.3 billion, a 92 per cent increase since 1984-85. Higher shelter allowances and an increase in the general benefit rate will come into effect this January, and an increase in children’s benefits and a new support to employment programs came into effect last October. These reforms place Ontario in the forefront of social service reform across North America.

However, many families still will be relying on food banks during this holiday season. The profile of those who use this service has changed from primarily those on social assistance to also include refugees and the working poor. For this reason, I will once again this Christmas be organizing a food drive in my riding, utilizing my constituency office as a food drop point. I have called on Scarborough residents to donate nonperishable food items so that a few more people will be able to enjoy a better Christmas. All contributions dropped off at my constituency office will be donated to the St Ninian’s food bank for distribution to Scarborough residents in need of this service.

We must ensure that all our citizens can enjoy the blessings of family and friends over the holiday season. As good neighbours, we all have a role to play.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Laughren: In July, again in August, again in September, again in October, again in November and now in December, I reminded the minister responsible for the automobile insurance mess in this province that there was a problem about which he was doing absolutely nothing. My colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr Kormos) reminded him, as well; namely, the possibility or the reality of an insurance conglomerate transferring a policy from one of its subsidiaries to another one of its subsidiaries, thus evading the ceiling on rate increases, more recently, of 7.6 per cent.

Not only has the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr Elston) done absolutely nothing about this, he has not even had the decency to reply to my letters. The last time I raised it in this House, way back in early November, off the record he said he could not find the correspondence. I sent him the correspondence to remind him of his responsibilities, and at this point we are now in the month of December -- still no reply from the minister. I assume that that kind of practice is still going on, and the minister sits there nodding sagely, doing absolutely nothing about it.

Mr Speaker, I know you did not like it when I said last time that he was an accomplice to fraud when he allowed this to go on, so I will not repeat that charge again.

The Speaker: I would really ask that all members be careful with their language.

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mrs Cunningham: I am sure that members of this Legislature will be surprised to learn that this government is still using outdated terminology in its legislation which refers to developmentally disabled children. As a result, the Progressive Conservative Party has decided to correct the situation by amending the Education Act to comply with Word Choices: A Lexicon of Preferred Terms for Disability Issues, published by the Ontario Office for Disabled Persons.

Today I will be tabling a bill that removes the pejorative term “trainable retarded” from the Education Act and replaces it with the preferred term “trainable developmentally disabled.” The term “trainable retarded” has not been used in education circles or in this province for some 10 or more years, yet it still remains within the Education Act.

Children in our schools are taught tolerance and understanding in our education system and in our communities. I hope all members will help ensure a speedy passage of this progressive piece of legislation, a very necessary piece of legislation, to help show we understand this important lesson.

CHRISTMAS FUND BROADCAST

Mr Lipsett: I rise today to recognize the efforts of the organizers, performers and contributors to the CFOS-CFPS-Sun Times Christmas Fund Broadcast. This past Sunday, 3 December, marked the occasion of the 50th annual broadcast in support of the Save the Children-Canada program.

This pledge-by-telephone broadcast requesting local area talent to perform before a live audience and on the air waves started the first year that CFOS radio began broadcasting in Owen Sound. Co-sponsored over the years by the local radio station and the daily newspaper, the broadcast has generated an estimated $517,000 over the past 50 years. This year’s broadcast received $20,570 in pledges. In addition to the broadcast, donations are received at the Sun Times office until the end of January. Each year it is an opportunity for the residents of Grey and Bruce counties to extend the spirit of generosity to those less fortunate children around the world.

This 50th annual broadcast is a milestone for which the sponsors, volunteers and performers over the years deserve our most sincere appreciation. I am confident that we will carry on this Christmas season tradition for another 50 years or more.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Hampton: In the continuing auto insurance debate, one voice above all others should be listened to with care. One spokesperson is, in a real sense, detached from the issues and can give an objective opinion on what is happening. I refer to the consumer advocate Ralph Nader, who is neither a lawyer in the sense that he stands to make money out of existing insurance systems, nor is he tied to insurance companies -- nor is he tied to the government. Mr Nader has built a reputation as quite accurately a consumer advocate, first taking on automobile corporations like General Motors and Ford and then following up on other consumer questions.

What has Mr Nader had to say about the government’s insurance scheme? He quite bluntly has said that the Ontario motorist protection plan is a surrender to the power of the insurance industry, and he has urged its critics to unmask who is pulling the strings.

It is no secret who is pulling the strings -- it is the insurance companies. Jack Carr, a University of Toronto economist, says that the government’s insurance scheme will give the insurance companies at least an additional $630 million a year from the pockets of insurance consumers. I suggest that we all listen very carefully to what Mr Nader has to say on this issue.

PENETANGUISHENE MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

Mr McLean: My statement is for the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) and it concerns the registered nurses at the Oak Ridge division of the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre.

The minister is no doubt aware that registered nurses who had previously worked out of the dispensary attending to medical and psychiatric patients’ needs became assigned as part of the staff count, and their job specifications were expanded to include a large portion of security duties. However, there were no negotiations to include an increment to their salary to offset an added security role.

The minister recently allocated $20 million to registered nurses and registered nurses’ assistants in Ontario to combat increased difficulties in hiring, retention, poor educational opportunities and assistance in other areas. Registered nurses at Oak Ridge have presented a special case to the bargaining team for the 1990 negotiations, and on 20 December the negotiating parties will decide if the special case is to proceed to negotiations.

The minister has greatly increased the role of the registered nurses at Oak Ridge but has not been paying them accordingly. Therefore, I urge her to ensure that the registered nurses’ special case is included in the 1990 bargaining process. I think that would be the fair and equitable thing for her to do for the registered nurses at Oak Ridge.

COMMUNITY LAND TRUSTS

Mr Tatham: Affordable housing in perpetuity -- can it be done? One promising solution for providing affordable housing is the community land trust model. The trust buys the land and buildings, holding the land in trust, and sells the buildings to families. The home buyer enters into a long-term lease with the land trust which includes a limited appreciation provision on the resale of the building. “Limited appreciation” means a restriction on the amount of profit that can be made when the property is sold.

Nearly all community land trusts have a general goal of permanently removing land from the speculative market. The home buyer has to pay a land leasing fee, but it is a very modest fee compared to the cost of a housing lot. If the home buyer wishes to sell the home, the land trust has the first right to purchase, so it can be resold at an affordable price.

Community land trusts -- CLTs -- have been at work in urban rural areas of the United States since 1968 and now exist in more than 20 states. They are demonstrating success and making affordable housing opportunities more widely available. In the process, they are stabilizing neighbourhoods and communities and making extremely effective use of public and private subsidies. Most importantly, community land trusts create housing that is affordable into the future.

Hon Mr Ward: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I understand that statements have been circulated by the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon). Unfortunately, he is somewhat detained and I would suggest --

An hon member: Here he is.

Hon Mr Ward: -- that he is here.

The Speaker: Now that the elevator has worked well, I will call for ministerial statements.

Mr Laughren: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think the Treasurer -- and he is usually very good about this -- intended to have his statement circulated but it has not been done.

Hon Mr Ward: Here they come.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

UNCLAIMED PROPERTY

Hon R. F. Nixon: In the 1989 budget I announced the introduction of an unclaimed property program for Ontario. Today I will be introducing a bill to enact the program. This bill establishes a mechanism for the province to find the owners of unclaimed assets other than land and physical assets. Individuals, companies and other holders of unclaimed property will be required to notify the public trustee, who will advertise for owners in Ontario daily newspapers.

The public trustee will refer owners to the holders so that they can claim their property. Property that remains unclaimed will be turned over to the public trustee. Proceeds from the property will be placed in the consolidated revenue fund and used to benefit the people of this province. Owners will have a perpetual right to claim the value of their property from the trustee.

RESPONSE

UNCLAIMED PROPERTY

Mr Laughren: I would like to use the argument that I do not understand this statement very well because I have just had it, but I am not sure that, no matter how long I look at it, I will understand it.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr B. Rae: I have a question to the Minister of Financial Institutions. I have a confidential memo from the Workers’ Compensation Board that says that as a result of the changes to auto insurance which the minister is planning to bring in, as those amendments are currently designed, it will have the following effects. According to this memo, the proposed amendments of the government will diminish the rights injured workers currently enjoy under the act. That is the first thing it will do.

The second thing it will do is transfer a portion of the overall cost burden of motor vehicle accidents from the private insurance sector to the workers’ compensation system.

As they are currently designed, these amendments will, according to the Workers’ Compensation Board, cost the Workers’ Compensation Board some $25 million at the same time as they diminish the rights of injured workers.

The Speaker: Question.

Mr B. Rae: Can the minister justify that kind of legislation?

Hon Mr Elston: The honourable gentleman has a memo which I have not seen. Obviously it is confidential to him and it remains confidential to me. We have had discussions with the workers’ compensation people about the effect of this and we have had some very good discussions. Originally there were some projections that it may have been much higher than that. In fact, we have not yet, I think, discovered really what the numbers are going to be.

We do know that with respect to providing service for individuals under workers’ compensation, that pure no-fault system, the workers’ compensation system, has been augmented in the past by a second choice for individuals which has had to be paid for by the employers and indirectly of course by employees, so that they would have some kind of double coverage. It is my view that what we have in front of us with respect to an amendment of the collateral benefit rule means that it will be a fair compensation system and that it will replace lost wages. From my point of view, a fairer system is a better system and a more affordable system overall.

Mr B. Rae: I am astonished that the minister would not know something as basic as this about a piece of legislation, but what this memorandum states very clearly is that the act will take away the rights of injured workers in some cases, some very specific cases, that it will have the effect of transferring costs from the private insurance system over to the workers’ compensation system and that it will increase the costs to the Workers’ Compensation Board by as much as $25 million a year, which increases the unfunded liability of the board by some $500 million. The unfunded liability of the board is already $7.5 billion. This increases the unfunded liability by another $500 million.

Again, can the minister explain why the government would bring in

an act which adds to the costs of the workers’ compensation system, which amounts to a direct --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr B. Rae: -- subsidy of the private insurance system and which takes rights away from injured people?

Hon Mr Elston: No, I do not agree with the honourable gentleman’s review of the circumstances. In my view, we have moved to do something which has been requested for some time; that is, clarify the collateral benefit rule and have people being reimbursed only once for lost wages and other things.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that under the current pure no-fault system which is offered by workers’ compensation there is a second option available to an injured worker, and that is to proceed under the insurance policy, also paid for by the employer, to insure against automobile accidents. In this circumstance, we have only said that when the collateral benefits are to be put into effect you can collect only once for those losses and not collect twice.

We think that overall our system is much fairer. There is no question in my mind that there are going to be some costs incurred in the workers’ compensation system because of the working of that rule, but in terms of the exact exposure we are not certain that the number which the member has used is the accurate one. We are not sure in fact that the previous numbers which were brought to our attention by workers’ compensation --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Elston: -- were accurate. We have worked with them, we are talking with them and looking at how we can define --

The Speaker: Order. It seems like a fairly ample response.

Mr B. Rae: The Workers’ Compensation Board, in this confidential memorandum, states very clearly that the law proposed by the Liberals will do two things. It will take rights away from injured workers; it will diminish the rights that injured workers currently enjoy under

section 8 of the act. That is the first thing that it will do, according to the board.

The second thing is that it will transfer a portion of the overall cost burden of motor vehicle accidents from the private insurance sector to the workers’ compensation system. This is going to cost the workers’ compensation system some $25 million, which then means, according to the figures that they have, that the government is saving the private insurance companies that much money.

That is the transfer that is being effected. They are taking it out of the pockets of injured people and they are also giving it as a form of subsidy to the private insurance companies. The government is subsidizing the insurance companies through OHIP. We know they are subsidizing the insurance companies through OHIP --

The Speaker: The question.

Mr B. Rae: -- and now they are doing it through the workers’ compensation system. Why is the minister giving the private sector insurance companies such a good deal and taking so much money out of the pockets of people who have been injured? Why is he doing that?

Hon Mr Elston: There is clearly a misunderstanding on the part of the honourable member for York South. He knows that our system has been designed to make sure that the premiums paid into the automobile insurance system will go more in proportion to the injured than ever before. That is our strategy.

His New Democratic Party colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr Kormos) really wants us to retain the current tort-based system, which flies in the face of some of the things that the NDP policy people used to talk about in terms of fairness. He knows that our system is projected to have fair compensation to people who are victims of accidents. He is right when he says there may be some transfer of cost over to workers’ compensation, but let’s look at who pays for that system.

The employer, whether he or she pays for workers’ compensation coverage or for automobile coverage, will be paying premiums to affect a just and quick settlement for the injured employees as a result of an automobile accident. This is a fair way of dealing with it, it is a balanced approach and we are not subsidizing the private insurance companies.

EMPLOYMENT ADJUSTMENT

Mr B. Rae: I have a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Since I know the Premier (Mr Peterson) will not answer the question when I put it to him, there is no point in even letting him deflect it. I might as well go directly to the minister.

I asked the minister yesterday some questions about layoffs. I would like to ask the minister some more questions about layoffs. Over the last year the Algoma Steel Corp in Sault Ste Marie has lost some 1,500 jobs, 300 of which were announced last Thursday. The Sault has about 80,000 people. A loss of 1,500 jobs is, again using the figures that I used yesterday, the equivalent of over 40,000 lost jobs in Metropolitan Toronto. A haemorrhage of this size in the Sault in terms of jobs is massive when you consider the size of the whole community.

The Speaker: Your question.

Mr B. Rae: My question to the minister is this: He admitted outside yesterday that there were going to be even more layoffs. I want to ask him what programs, apart from the program for older worker adjustment, which we have already discussed in this House, does the minister have in place which are going to help the workers who are affected by these layoffs which we now see are taking place across the province?

Hon Mr Kwinter: I would like to defer that question to the Minister of Labour.

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

Hon Mr Phillips: I think all members in the House would share the concern we have with the layoffs that we have seen occurring in the last few weeks. I think it is important as we look ahead at the situation that we remind ourselves first of the things that we have done to help those workers who have been laid off.

This province has -- the only province, by the way -- a severance program, a program that pays workers who are laid off. It is important that those workers have some redress to ensure that they have some --

lnterjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Phillips: -- economic substance to get by the layoff period. Also, I think it is important to remember that we have something called POWA, the program for older worker adjustment, which is a program that we have negotiated with the federal government to ensure that we have some assistance for older workers. For workers who are 45 years of age and over we have something called the Transitions program, which was designed to assist those workers with training.

Just to refresh our memories, there is the severance program for workers who are laid off, POWA for older workers and the Transitions program. I might add, in a moment --

The Speaker: Thank you. Perhaps you would wait for the supplementary. It might fit in.

Mr B. Rae: We have a list from the ministry itself which is seven pages long and goes through all the companies in which there have been layoffs. Closures are at a higher level this year than last; 106 companies have either had reduced operations, partial closures or complete closures since 1 January 1989 to the end of October. That does not include the figures for November.

Again, I would like to ask the minister, where are the changes in pensions, where are the changes in employment standards, where are the changes in training law, all of which we have been waiting for now for over two years, which are going to help the workers who are affected by this kind of change?

It is coming, we can see it coming. Where are the laws, the acts and the programs in place that are going to help the workers who are going to be affected by these changes that are coming?

Hon Mr Phillips: Again, I recognize the importance of this matter and I think all of us, on all sides of the House, must begin to continue to address this situation. I remind us again, though, in terms of any of the provinces we are the only province that has severance pay. For workers who have more than five years’ experience it is one week’s pay for each year’s experience up to 26 weeks, the most progressive severance program. There is also POWA and there is also Transitions.

Another very important subject, which I began to raise earlier, is that the Premier anticipated the need for looking at this whole issue of training, of labour force adjustment, of trying to ensure that we have a workforce that is consistent with the future. A year ago, he asked the Premier’s Council to tackle this.

One thing that I think will be of major benefit to all of us is something that the Premier’s Council is at this very moment looking at, and that is a training program that will look at the future needs of the workforce in this province, a training board that will have the participation of management and labour as we look ahead at dealing specifically with the changing marketplace in Ontario and how we best meet it.

Mr B. Rae: The minister has the nerve to talk about the older worker program. That is a federal program. It involves a total of $9 million in provincial money, $9 million to deal with the size of the industrial change which Ontario is undergoing in the steel industry, in the food processing industry, in the electronics industry. All those things that his leader talked about in the last federal election in terms of the effects of free trade are coming down the pipe in terms of free trade and the minister is doing nothing to deal with that issue as it affects workers.

There are no programs in place in terms of pensions, in terms of training, in terms of new provincial money under his jurisdiction to deal with the seriousness of this problem. He has got workers who are going to be heading into Christmas without a paycheque and his government has done nothing over the last two years to deal with it. The years since 1987 have been wasted years --

The Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr B. Rae: -- in terms of preparing for the adjustments which we are going through. When are we going to get these programs and why do we not have these programs before Christmas?

Hon Mr Phillips: I am sure the member would not want to mislead anyone who is in a position where he is being laid off, but there are severance programs available to those workers. Any worker who has been employed for five years or more receives one week of severance for each year of employment. No other province has that.

There is much more we can do and much more we must do, but I think it is important to remember these programs are in place, they do not exist in any other province -- 26 weeks of severance pay. These are not insubstantial amounts. Yes, there is more we can do. That is available. There is also the Transitions program for the workers 45 years of age and over and the POWA program for workers 55 years of age and over. Yes, there is more we can do. The Ontario training board will look at those matters.

As we speak, we are urging the federal government to move on its job strategies, which is an important element of this. Let’s not forget it is the federal government which has the prime responsibility in this area. But we are not standing still and we will continue to work with workers who are laid off in these unfortunate circumstances.

The Speaker: New question. The member for Sarnia.

Mr Brandt: My question --

Some hon members: Haircut, haircut.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Brandt: You get a haircut and these people just cannot control themselves. In my case, it was either that or buy a violin. I decided to get the haircut.

TAXATION

Mr Brandt: My question is for the Premier and I want to address the Premier about a problem which I see emerging in the province and which I think is a very serious one.

I am sure the Premier would agree with me that the cost of doing business bears a direct relationship to the degree of economic activity in a jurisdiction. His government has recently introduced two very substantial tax increases, the commercial concentration levy and also the health levy. Those two taxes in particular are going to increase the cost of doing business in Ontario very substantially. Parking rates, as an example, are suggested to go to a rate of some $25 a day in downtown Toronto, which is fully a 142 per cent increase over the cost of parking in Toronto now.

The Speaker: The question?

Mr Brandt: Why, at a time when there is a predictable slowdown in the economy, which is imminent according to all of the political and economic pundits on this question, would the government be increasing taxes so substantially?

Hon Mr Peterson: I think the Treasurer can help out my honourable friend with his new haircut.

Hon R. F. Nixon: The honourable member refers to the employer health tax which replaces OHIP premiums. We are very proud of the fact that we are living up to the promise made by this party before we were a government and now we are in government. It really means that OHIP premiums will be a thing of the past. We will move away from medicare as an insurance and go into an era where it is a universal program, which is the way it should have been right from the start. The honourable member would know that the employer health tax is designed to replace those premiums and pay for about 16 per cent of the cost of medicare. He asks why we have applied that tax. That is the reason.

The second one is the commercial concentration tax as it is applied to parking spaces. I think the member is aware that the announcement of that tax was associated with the announcement of $2 billion extra to be spent on transportation infrastructure, most of it, at least $1.2 billion, in the greater Toronto area. He is aware, of course, that the consolidated revenue fund of the province supports and subsidizes the Toronto Transit Commission to the tune of $200 million a year. We hope to improve the service as well as improving GO Transit and building roads and bridges, which costs a lot of money.

The purpose of that commercial concentration tax is to provide the funds on the basis of users to fund the program.

Hon Mr Scott: What is wrong with that?

Mr Brandt: I will tell the Attorney General what is wrong with that. The Treasurer has substantially increased the cost of doing business in this province, and he knows that.

With respect to the promise made by the government to remove OHIP fees, I might add that the Treasurer did not at the time come clean with the Ontario public and indicate that he was going to collect fully $500 million more money when he made this transition and simply shift it on to the backs of the employers of this province. How can he justify what is fully a $3.1-billion additional tax grab? He can couch it in whatever way he wants with respect to avoiding the direct charge to Ontario taxpayers, but I want to tell him that his increases have --

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Brandt: I am getting to my question.

The Speaker: I thought you had placed your question and then you wanted to tell --

Mr Brandt: I do not think I had. Maybe I rolled over it quickly, Mr Speaker, and did not realize it.

The Speaker: Then place your question.

Mr Brandt: I will.

The Speaker: Thank you. I appreciate your co-operation.

Mr Brandt: You always have my co-operation, sir.

My question to the Treasurer is this: How can he justify a $3. 1-billion increase in additional taxes at a time when the Ontario economy is noticeably slowing, even according to his reports?

Hon R. F. Nixon: I want to deal with two comments that the honourable member has made. I want to set his troubled mind at rest. There is no overlapping or extra payment associated with the support of medicare from the transition from premiums to the employer health tax. I have told him and the other members of the House that before and he remains unconvinced. I regret that, but that is factual.

I would also like to say that, by way of doing away with premiums, we are actually putting back into the pockets of the taxpayers across the province, including the residents of Sarnia and Lambton county, close to $1 billion in money they otherwise would have paid in personal income taxes or medicare premiums. This is not smoke-and-mirrors money; this is money left in the pockets of all of us, as well as all of the other citizens of Ontario, which is a stimulus to the business ambience of this province and accounts to some degree for the economy being buoyant.

So I want to tell the honourable member that we are replacing the OHIP premiums with this tax, which we believe to be fair and equitable and eminently justifiable by any reasonable person.

Mr Brandt: The Treasurer himself indicated in the headline in the Toronto Star on 6 October 1989, “Ontario Must Stay Competitive to Keep Businesses,” and the members will note that there are a number of businesses leaving this province at this time.

I want to say to the Treasurer that while he proudly stands up and indicates the money going back into the taxpayers pockets, he makes light of the fact that he is, even without the argument and the debate that we have had about double collection for January through March of 1990, collecting fully half a billion dollars more in revenue than he would have, had he kept the OHIP premiums in place.

Perhaps this question might be a justifiable one to the Treasurer. Can he share with the members of this House any other provincial jurisdiction in Canada that is increasing taxes as rapidly as his government?

Hon R. F. Nixon: I think that the question should more properly be phrased, “Is there any other government in Canada that is offering such a spectrum of modern and useful services as this government?” But I think that the honourable member, as a taxpayer of the province as well as a member of this Legislature, should share our pride in the initiatives that have been taken to improve the quality of education, to improve our environment, to see that our medicare system and our hospitals are as good as any that can be found anywhere.

We are very proud of this accomplishment and we are doing this at the same time as we are reducing our deficit from the $3 billion that it was when the member was in charge to under $600 million this year.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Brandt: I want to address my next question to the Minister of Health and I want to revisit with the minister the discussion that we had yesterday, where she took issue with my press release. I want to say to the minister by way of comment that I stand by every word of the press release that I issued yesterday, and if the minister wants to debate that, I am prepared to do that now.

The minister would not admit in this House to the fact that certain services would be withdrawn from those citizens of Ontario who were not prepared to pay their OHIP premiums in that double period between January and March of 1990. She said something else outside the House. Would the minister clarify her position and that of the government, so that the people of Ontario will know exactly what she means for a change?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I think the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) explained very well to the leader of the third party, and as hard as he will try to confuse the people of this province, I will once again state very, very clearly that all residents of Ontario are covered for the health services that they receive. We are attempting to communicate with them during this time of transition to ensure that they understand exactly what that means and what their obligations are.

Mr Brandt: Then let me be very direct with the Minister of Health, who is collecting this tax on behalf of the Treasurer. The people of Ontario will be paying their OHIP premiums until the end of December 1989. Correct? As of 1 January 1990, the new employer health levy will come on stream. Will the minister tell me what period of time is missing in between and why the double taxation for the first four months of 1990?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I know that the leader of the third party really does understand this, which is why I take such exception to the irresponsible message that he is trying to give to the people of this province in suggesting that they should be worried about whether or not they are covered. I want him to know very, very clearly that in fact during this time, as we switch from a premium to a tax, all residents of the province of Ontario will have access to health services.

We will ensure that they have the information that they need to understand this transition, and I want to say very clearly to the leader of the third party that he must assist us in giving people the information they need during this time of transition, so that they will have confidence that we will smoothly move from a premium to a tax.

Mr Brandt: I want to be helpful to the minister and I want to say, by way of explanation to the people of Ontario who may be listening to this debate today, that the minister is collecting through this new scheme under the Treasurer fully $500 million in additional money. The amount of money for OHIP premiums that is involved in this exchange is about $100 million.

The government is already collecting hundreds of millions of dollars of additional money over and above what would normally be collected. Why does the minister not simply say to the people of Ontario that she is not going to doublebill them for the first four months of 1990?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I think it is that the leader of the third party does not want to understand. The Treasurer was very, very clear. There will be no additional premium notices going out after 1 January. The member should know that. As of 1 January, there will be a tax and health services will be funded from the consolidated revenue as are all government programs.

Everyone in this province, all residents of Ontario, will be covered and have access to the health services they need. They will require a health number. We will attempt to communicate to them, so that they have all of the information that they need through this time of transition, but I want them to have confidence that they will all be covered and have access to the services they need.

lnterjections.

The Speaker: Order. I hope you are all aware of what the Minister of Revenue (Mr Mancini) just stated -- 20(b), that no other member shall participate except on a point of order.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources related to the industry-ministry Report of the Task Force on Forest Management Agreements, which was finished in October 1988 but was never published by the ministry and has only now been published before the environmental assessment by the industry.

How does the minister respond to these criticisms: First, that the ministry’s province-wide cap on nursery stock production has resulted in insufficient stock to reforest the cutover areas and, second, that the ministry has been unable to produce stock meeting the standards which it agreed to under the FMAs? How is it the ministry is not producing enough stock to cover the cutover areas and is not producing stock that is of the standard required in order to ensure regeneration of our forests?

Hon Mrs McLeod: I think I would want to return to that specific FMA document which reviews, if I recall it correctly, four very specific forest management agreements and makes some very positive comments in recommending that those forest management agreements be renewed because of the success that is identified in having been able to carry out good forest management. Obviously, a part of the review process was also to recommend some areas in which improvements can take place. There has clearly been a focus within the last years to increase the amount of regeneration that is taking place and to ensure that is reflected in new FMAs that are signed.

Mr Wildman: The minister may not be aware that it specifically states that this is true of 10 out of the 13 forest management agreements. Can the minister explain how it was that the report found that there is insufficient funding being provided for the crown management units as well and that, besides not meeting the obligations under the FMAs, the ministry is not providing enough funding to carry out its own reforestation program on crown management units? What has the ministry been doing since October 1988 to rectify the situation and respond to the criticisms that the minister has kept secret for over a year?

Hon Mrs McLeod: I do not think there is any secret at all about the kind of work that is being done in the whole area of forest management and forest regeneration. I do not have any need to keep secret the numbers of acres that are being regenerated, to look at the improvements that have been made in fact within the period of the last year when we had a $230-million budget for forest management.

I think it is not appropriate to simply reflect on a report which is looking back on a past situation and to take out specific criticisms, given the context of that report which is generally very positive. Let me recognize instead a specific figure for hectares regenerated. I will just use this one figure: in 1986-87, 123,607 acres; by the next year, it was 135,979 and in 1988-89, it was 150,513.

I think along with the increase in the forest management budget last year, as we look at the total provincial perspective, we are in fact improving our regeneration. Yes, there is more that we can do. That is always the case. The concerns about timber production policy and the recommendations the class environmental assessment makes will become part of our future direction.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Are you just about finished? Okay, I do not mind waiting. Order.

ADVOCACY AND GUARDIANSHIP

Mrs Cunningham: My question is for the Minister of Health. Today I want to bring to the attention of the minister the need for independent advocates for vulnerable adults. This Liberal government, and specifically the Attorney General (Mr Scott), has been promising to put in place an advocacy program since it has been in power. What has resulted? First of all, at great expense, the Manson report, then the Fram report and the O’Sullivan report, and it is my understanding, since 1987 and three big reports, we have yet another committee studying this issue. When will the minister respond to the need for independent advocates for vulnerable adults?

Hon Mrs Caplan: Mr Speaker, as this matter goes far beyond the Ministry of Health, I will refer it to the Attorney General.

The Speaker: It has been referred to the Attorney General.

Hon Mr Scott: I am very grateful for the question. Of course, it would not have been possible to even ask the question before 1985, because the previous government had not the slightest interest in this subject. However, when we came in in 1985, we commissioned the three reports that the honourable member has referred to.

They deal with two subjects essentially: the issue of guardianship, which is a technical and very complex subject, and the issue of advocacy. They run, of course, across a variety of ministries in the government service. We have a committee that is developing options which, if effective, as we believe they will be, will introduce in Ontario for the first time potential for advocacy and guardianship unlike any service available anywhere else in the western world.

It is going to take a considerable period of time to do it, and I always remember how the Conservatives hectored me because we were not doing pay equity fast enough. Does the member remember that? It was before her time, but they will remember. They gave us hell about it every day and then we did it. Now we are going to do this carefully and prudently, but I want the honourable member to know that it is a priority with us and we are moving towards it.

Mrs Cunningham: I do not want to argue with the Attorney General but the issue of advocacy had in fact been dealt with by the Conservative government long before 1987 and advocacy in psychiatric hospitals had been in place. There was a beginning. There was a problem. This report looked at it. It was the beginning of advocacy in this province, and I was part of that so I know it very well.

I should go on to say that given three more reports, everyone in this House is probably aware of the very sad case of Leila Smith, an ex-patient in her 50s, who was beaten and later fell down some stairs. She spent 11 months in a coma, and this occurred in November 1986. If action could have been taken to address the urgent need for independent advocates, perhaps all the later cases of abuse in Cedar Glen could have been avoided.

The Speaker: And the question would be?

Mrs Cunningham: I do, of course, have another question. It is obvious to all of us that there is a real need for this service --

The Speaker: Supplementary question, please.

Mrs Cunningham: -- and I would like to know if the minister will be prepared to introduce this important legislation first thing in the next session.

Hon Mr Scott: If the honourable member is correct, and I very much doubt it, that the Conservatives ever had the slightest interest in advocacy for frail adults, it would have appeared -- which of us remember? -- in the famous Miller speech from the throne where, in an effort to buy support from the third party, a whole lot of things that the Conservatives had never shown the slightest interest in for 40 years appeared.

Now we happen to be interested in this issue, and I want to assure the honourable member that it is being given a priority. But we are very conscious that what we are engaged in, particularly on the guardianship side, is a technical issue that presents a lot of difficulties in light of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I want to assure the honourablc member that we will be addressing her concerns.

CULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS

Mr Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Culture and Communications. I appreciate that the minister has been visiting across the province, criss-crossing and encouraging and identifying with cultural organizations in Ontario. Yesterday we had the good fortune that she was in Simcoe county. The problem that I have and hear from the --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would all members show a little more respect for the rules they passed? Order. Supplementary, the member for Simcoe Centre.

Mr Owen: I have not asked the question yet.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. We will just wait. We have lots of time. Question, the member for Simcoe Centre.

Mr Owen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The concern that I had expressed yesterday at the organization the minister visited and the other cultural organizations in my area is that they have a problem with getting volunteers. There may be many explanations today, and my question to the minister is, I know that she identifies and she encourages volunteers, but is there any other leadership that can be shown to encourage and to bring about more volunteerism? I have been shown that if we could double in this province the number of hours or people in volunteer to the cultural organizations, we would have another 300 million hours available to these organizations.

Hon Ms Hart: I thank the member for Simcoe Centre for raising this problem. It is a societal problem largely based on the fact that the women of our society, who traditionally did the volunteer work, are now very often occupied outside the home in paying occupations, but that is not the end of the story.

Of course we need volunteers and we have a great many volunteers now, men and women. Those volunteers enable our cultural organizations to exist. Perhaps I could give the member some examples. He will have heard of the LACACs, the local architectural conservation advisory committees, in virtually every community in this province. These are all voluntary committees. There are 2,000 volunteers across the province and yes, our ministry does fund those LACACs and makes sure they can exist.

Mr Owen: On another day I would like to ask about the contributions to the arts by the federal and provincial governments, but for today I would like to comment about their concern with donations from individuals and the corporate sector. They have advised me that in the past 16 years individual donations to these organizations have dropped 30 per cent and that corporate donations, again to the nonprofit sector, are down over the past 14 years by almost 20 per cent. They say they are having a serious problem.

I would like to know what the minister’s ministry can do to show leadership to encourage more donations to these various organizations, because without more help some of them are going to have trouble surviving.

Hon Ms Hart: We are actually victims of our own success. Since the early 1970s in Ontario we have had an explosion of cultural activity, and as the cultural sector has grown and has become more important to the economy it has outstripped our ability, as governments at all levels, to fund it.

All levels of government have been encouraging the corporate sector to participate as partners in the funding of very many cultural activities. Most recently we have had a program, which we call Investment in the Arts, that is intended to lever funds from the private sector. It has worked. We have put in $10 million and we have levered a corresponding $l0 million. But I would be the first to say that it is not enough and that we will be working further to reach more corporations.

ROUGE VALLEY

Mrs Grier: My question is for the Minister of the Environment and it requires merely a yes or no answer. Can the minister tell the House whether he personally supports the placing of a garbage dump on lands at the edge of the Rouge Valley?

The Speaker: Minister, yes or no?

Hon Mr Bradley: I do not think the member ever expected to get a yes or no answer from me on any subject because --

Hon Mr Elston: She did not expect that at all. She needs a full explanation from this minister.

Hon Mr Bradley: She knows a full explanation is required, as my friend the member for Bruce (Mr Elston) indicates.

I can indicate clearly that the choice of any particular site selected by a municipality is the choice of that municipality. The role of the Ministry of the Environment is to ensure that the Environmental Assessment Board has a hearing on it, which it would do on any site that might be selected, but no decision, as I understand it, has been made by any municipality at this time. It would be wrong, I think, for me to speculate on that.

The member will know that virtually every application that comes in -- I am sure there are people out there who would like a political decision to be made by the Minister of the Environment that no, this site will not be considered or this project will not be considered, but our role is to ensure that the Environmental Assessment Board listens to the arguments and makes a decision. We will ensure that happens.

Mrs Grier: I did not need to have a lecture on process from the minister. I was asking him his personal position on this issue that is critical to a great many people in Metropolitan Toronto and the surrounding area. Let me ask the minister again, does he or does he not support lands on the edge of the Rouge Valley being designated as a suitable site for garbage disposal?

Hon Mr Bradley: As I indicated to the member and as I will indicate on any occasion, let’s put it in perspective. For instance, the choice for the Ontario Waste Management Corp toxic waste facility is probably about 25 miles from my house. There are a lot of people who would like --

Mrs Grier: That’s appropriate.

Hon Mr Bradley: The member says that’s appropriate. I will share that with my colleagues in St Catharines.

What some people would like me to do, for instance, is to say, “You wouldn’t possibly consider it in this particular area of the province, would you?” I explain to them that we have a process and that this process is that people who have objections to any particular choice made by a proponent will have the opportunity to oppose it. Not only will they have the opportunity to oppose those, but as the member knows, because of the very progressive legislation brought forward by the Attorney General (Mr Scott), they will have government funding, or proponent funding in this case, to assist them in making their case no matter what choice is made.

It would be very irresponsible for me as the Minister of the Environment to say, when any proposal is brought forward, that it will not be considered.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Eves: I have a question of the Minister of Health. Several weeks ago, as I am sure the minister is aware, a patient at Christie Park Nursing Home suffered a fatal beating by a psychogeriatric patient. Nursing homes across the province have a problem with this type of patient. They feel the only options they have now are to call the police or to send such patients to psychiatric hospitals. Is this the way the minister and her ministry want to see the ill and elderly people of this province treated?

Hon Mrs Caplan: As the member opposite knows, my priority is and always will be patient care. I can tell him that we have taken an approach within the nursing home branch to work with nursing homes to ensure they bring their homes up to compliance. I want him to know that while there is still room for progress and for improvement -- there always is -- I think we are moving towards an era of a co-operative approach to ensuring that standards within nursing homes are met and that patient care is the priority.

Mr Eves: I am sure the minister is well aware that nursing homes across the province do not receive funding adequate to their needs for special programs for these patients. There is no space at homes for the aged, which generally do a very good job with this type of patient; there is not any space left at these homes in the province. Psychiatric hospitals are not the answer for these patients and reporting them to the police certainly is not the answer.

What specific steps is the minister and her ministry taking to enable various people in the province to deal with this type of patient? She has just told us she is very concerned about it. She should tell us what specific steps she is taking, what funding and programs --

The Speaker: The minister.

Mr Eves: -- she has in place to specifically deal with their very real needs.

The Speaker: Order. That is the second time you have asked those questions.

Hon Mrs Caplan: I want to thank my critic for this very important question. I know that he will acknowledge, as will all members in the House, that we have no long-term care system in place. What we have is fragmented and unco-ordinated. There is no common assessment process. This was identified some time ago. My colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Beer) announced our intention to develop a comprehensive, long-term care system. This long-term care reform is something we are actively working on. I know the member will be very interested in the progress we are making when we are ready to make an announcement in due course.

VEHICLE EMISSIONS

Mr Faubert: My question is to the Minister of the Environment and actually requires more than a yes or no answer.

Residents throughout the greater Toronto area and residents of urban communities across this province are acutely aware that air quality problems continue to plague our urban areas. We are all aware that automobile emissions contribute substantially to the smog levels with which residents living in cities such as Scarborough, and across Metropolitan Toronto, must contend. Can the minister advise the House whether the emission controls currently in place are sufficient or whether further controls are being considered?

Hon Mr Bradley: There are a number of initiatives that can be taken and I want to indicate that some of those initiatives have already been taken. I want to assure the member they will continue to be implemented in future years. The member may be aware that we implemented in this province something they did not have in other provinces -- I am assured it is going to happen next summer -- and that is the use of lower smog gasoline so that the volatility of gas is lowered rather considerably and the smog in urban municipalities, for instance, is reduced by about eight to 10 per cent, not only for the people in the area but also for those who are downstream.

In addition to that, the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers met in October of this year and I was an advocate of adopting the proposed California standards for the 1994 model year. I am pleased the conference accepted the suggestion of Ontario.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Bradley: There was unanimous agreement that in Canada we would adopt the California standards for nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and carbon --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Faubert: Urban smog is not the only concern resulting from automobile emissions. Ozone depletion is also considered a serious consequence. This is a problem that is of concern not only in Ontario, but as the minister points out, nationally from coast to coast and therefore it must be dealt with on that national level. The minister mentioned a promise by the federal government to announce national regulations on vehicle emissions. Can the minister advise when these announcements are expected to take place?

Hon Mr Bradley: The agreement was at the conference of Environment ministers and it would be announced very soon. We have to recognize that it takes the automobile companies some three years to implement the actual changes in terms of the equipment that is put into automobiles. There was an indication by the federal minister, as I indicated, that we would probably have to have an announcement in November of this year.

I have no reason to believe that we will not soon see that change announced by the federal minister since there was a commitment at the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers of Canada. I would expect that very soon there would be what we call a preregulation announcement, so that the people who are involved in automobile manufacturing would know what would be coming off the line in September 1993 in terms of the 1994 models, would know that we would want to have the proposed Californian standards for the substances I indicated. I am optimistic that that commitment will be kept and that we could see that in the not too distant future.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Lake Nipigon.

Interjections.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Pouliot: Mr Speaker, with respect, on a point of order before I proceed with the question: Those wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing are contravening, and I know why they are upset. It is because I am about to ask the Minister of Health one more time a question about the critical shortage of doctors in northern Ontario.

The minister will be aware of a telegram addressed and signed by 13 reeves, mayors and hospital chairpersons highlighting the critical shortage of physicians in hospitals along the north shore of Lake Superior. The minister is being blessed. She is being extended the compliment of an invitation to attend a meeting at her convenience in January or February so that she will be the recipient of our answers to her problem that she has been unable to solve to this date.

Yes or no, will the minister join us at a meeting in Terrace Bay?

Hon Mrs Caplan: As the member opposite knows, I have travelled extensively throughout the north and I am very aware of the challenges of attracting health professionals to northern communities to deliver health services. He knows as well that while we have an adequate supply of physicians across Ontario, we have geographical distribution issues that must be addressed.

He knows as well that I established the Northern Health Manpower Committee which is just beginning to meet. We have a director of the underserviced area program. I say to him that I would be pleased to have the director meet with his community, but if possible and I have the opportunity, I would be pleased of course, as always, to meet with community leaders as I travel throughout the north.

Mr Pouliot: Let’s get this straight here. We are not asking the minister to travel to British Columbia to examine the solutions that were taken to solve the problems under a former regime. We are asking her to meet her own people. Thirteen communities are saying to the minister, “Pay us the compliment of a visit, Your Grace.” Those are the people paying her wages and they want a meeting with her in January or February. Will the minister give it to them?

Hon Mrs Caplan: The member opposite, of all members in this House, knows that I have travelled extensively and have visited communities in his own riding. I always try to meet with community leaders as I travel through the north. I say to him that I will be in the north again, as soon as I can possibly arrange it given my schedule, and I will continue to meet with northern leaders.

However, in the meantime I would encourage his constituents and his community leaders to set up a meeting with our northern co-ordinator and with the underserviced area program director so that they can be aware of the many initiatives we have undertaken already to meet the challenges of northern Ontario in the delivery of health services.

LENGTHS OF TRUCKS AND TRAILERS

Mr Wiseman: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. On 25 October in a speech to the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto, concerning 53-foot trailers on Ontario roads and highways, the minister stated and I quote, “I continue to be concerned about the potential safety implications of changes such as those.” Not one month later, on 23 November, the minister announced that he was endorsing new truck length standards, including those of the 53-foot trailers.

Perhaps the minister could explain this incredible about-face in policy and also table the studies that led him to believe that 53-foot trailers were safer than 48-foot trailers?

If I could, Mr Speaker, I have --

The Speaker: Perhaps we will get the response.

Hon Mr Wrye: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and perhaps we will have time for the supplementary.

An hon member: Do not bet on it, though.

Hon Mr Wrye: But perhaps not.

First of all, let me say to my honourable friend that I am surprised he has not had an opportunity to read the three-year $3-million study by the Roads and Transportation Association of Canada which was published, I believe, in early 1988 and was the basis for the action that has now been taken by a majority of the jurisdictions in Canada, which have joined the majority of the jurisdictions in the United States. I want to make him the commitment today that I am prepared to send him a copy of that study.

I want to make it very clear to the honourable gentleman that the concerns I expressed in the speech at the Metro Board of Trade are absolutely consistent with the concerns I expressed again in the speech to the Ontario Trucking Association. I believe they are concerns that are shared by the senior leadership of the OTA, that we ensure that in 1989, and indeed beyond, our trucking industry and our trucks on the highways are just as safe as they can possibly be.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT / COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES SOCIALES

Mrs O’Neill from the standing committee on social development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

M me O’Neill du Comité permanent des affaires sociales présente le rapport suivant et propose son adoption :

Your committee begs to report the following bills as amended:

Bill 64,

An Act to amend the Education Act and certain other Acts relating to Education Assessment.

Bill 65,

An Act to amend the Ottawa-Carleton French-Language School Board Act, 1988.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Bill 64 ordered for third reading.

Bill 65 ordered for third reading.

Le projet de loi 65 devra passer à l’étape de troisième lecture.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

UNCLAIMED INTANGIBLE PROPERTY ACT, 1989

Mr R. F. Nixon moved first reading of Bill 86,

An Act respecting the Custody of Unclaimed Intangible Property.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Mrs Cunningham: I move that leave be given to introduce a bill entitled

An Act to amend various Acts with respect to Easements and Other Matters and that it now be read the first time.

The Speaker: Mrs Cunningham has moved that leave be given to introduce a bill entitled

An Act to amend the Education Act and that it now be read the first time.

That is not what I heard, was it? That is the

long title. There seemed to be something wrong. My words did not seem to be the same as your words. There was a lot more to it than that.

Mrs Cunningham: Mr Speaker, my intent was to amend the Education Act. When we asked for assistance from your office, this is the way it was presented to us.

The Speaker: Shall we put this on record as amending the Education Act?

Mrs Cunningham: Okay, Mr Speaker, I will. The

short title is the Education Amendment Act, 1989.

Mrs Cunningham moved first reading of Bill 87,

An Act to amend the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mrs Cunningham: Very simply, the purpose of the bill is to update the terminology used in the act with respect to developmentally disabled children and pupils.

ONTARIO MORTGAGE BROKERS ASSOCIATION ACT, 1989

Mr M. C. Ray moved first reading of Bill Pr46,

An Act to revive Ontario Mortgage Brokers Association.

Motion agreed to.

ALARM SYSTEMS ACT, 1989

Mr McLean moved first reading of Bill 88,

An Act to regulate Alarm Systems.

Motion carried.

The Speaker: The member may have a brief explanation.

Mr McLean: A brief, three-paragraph explanation. The purpose of the bill is to regulate alarm systems installed on real property. The bill establishes a licensing system for persons engaged in the business of providing alarm services and persons employed as alarm installers.

The bill provides for investigations regarding the suitability of persons applying for licences and investigations of complaints against persons providing alarm services.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Mr Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 89,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Mackenzie: The purpose of the bill is to prevent the hiring of strikebreakers and to control access to a work premise that is affected by a strike or lockout. The bill prohibits an employer from hiring or using the services of a person to do the work of an employee who is on strike or locked out unless that person is specifically authorized to do so. Similarly, when a picket line is established at a place of access to a work premise, access is limited to persons specifically authorized by the bill.

The bill repeals a provision of the act dealing with professional strikebreakers and strike-related misconduct.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INSURANCE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 68,

An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Insurance.

The Speaker: I believe the member for London North adjourned.

Hon Mr Ward: Mr Speaker, before the debate resumes I would like to advise the House that by agreement the three parties will split the last hour, 20 minutes to each party, beginning at 4:45, and I would ask that the table keep track of the time.

The Speaker: I understand the parties have agreed. However, I hope there is unanimous consent here today.

Agreed to.

Mrs Cunningham: I would like to spend a few minutes on a couple of concerns I have with regard to this new bill on automobile insurance.

I guess it goes back to the very beginning with regard to the question and the issue and the concern of the government in 1987 when it stated: “We have a real problem with automobile insurance rates; they are increasing. We are concerned about that. We are not sure how it will affect the public, and our extreme desire would be to see us able to reduce them.”

I am sure that many of us would be making those kinds of statements, especially when we are not certain about circumstances. As a result, in order to get a handle on the real issue and the real problem, the commission was established with the leadership of the Honourable Mr Justice Coulter Osborne, the Supreme Court of Ontario commissioner, and he did produce quite an extensive report; probably one of the best reports on auto insurance that has been put together in the history of any province in Canada, and it is called the Report of Inquiry into Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation in Ontario. It is extremely thorough.

Some of us have spent a lot of time studying it and asking questions about it. I have to admit that we have not been able to get better advice as we have been asking our questions about the proposed legislation.

I would just like to sum up my remarks by saying a couple of things. I think Mr Justice Osborne’s conclusions should be taken very seriously. He says, “I have reached the conclusion that existing no-fault benefits ought to be substantially expanded” -- no-fault, of course, does exist now to a point -- “made truly no-fault in their character, and that the right to individual compensation in the tort system ought to be maintained.”

I think that is what we should be looking at in the public inquiry that will take place on this particular bill. I am hoping the government members will be totally open to suggestions for improvement based on, I think, expert witnesses who have already indicated to a number of us from all three parties that they would like to be part of these deliberations.

“In the system I have proposed,” he goes on to say, “the need to sue has been reduced.” I think basically that is what the insurance industry was telling us, that the need to sue or the action of suing is one that was of great concern to it and, certainly, the results of those actions, which in fact resulted in some very substantive payouts, was a concern.

I should remind the House that on page 363 of the Osborne report, where it outlines the progression of motor-vehicle-accident-related claims through the courts, it does show in 1985 that there were 232,207 third-party-liability claims reported. This was in 1985. Only 4,383 of these cases went to trial and only 3,755 proceeded through to judgement. That is just 1.6 per cent of claims.

I think sometimes when we talk about the system being able to sustain these kinds of actions, one should remember that, yes, 1.6 per cent of the claims -- and the members remind me that is a lot of dollars and that is what we really need to understand -- and in spite of $1.8 billion, in spite of all of those numbers, Mr Justice Osborne still says, “Having looked at a great number of compensation systems, in the final analysis it seems to me that, while our system is far from perfect, Ontario should be an exporter not an importer of compensation systems.”

I think we should underline those words. Our present system is working with a few flaws and the underlying recommendation is that we should be an exporter not an importer of compensation systems.

This is the recommendation by the Honourable Mr Justice Coulter A. Osborne, for those who are wondering just who said that.

I should also like to underline another conclusion. In the main body of the report, he does develop the arguments for this conclusion. Understanding the propensity of those of us who are elected to like little summaries, the beginning of this report does say, “Summary of Finding and Recommendations.” For those who took it further and tried to understand it and tried to ask further questions, I would say that we would come back to the very beginning of the study and agree with his other conclusion where he states:

“Aside from the provision of a modest degree of additional stability for automobile insurers, cost premium decreases would be modest were we to proceed to threshold no-fault and those modest cost savings would be important on the backs of over 90 per cent of injured Ontario motorists who now have the right to seek non-economic compensation.”

So if we are going to make these substantive changes where 90 per cent of injured Ontario motorists now, today, have the right to seek non-economic compensation, I would think we should be very seriously looking at any new evidence that would support the present bill. That is what I am going to be looking for. If the government is really serious about and confident in this new legislation, I would expect it would have witnesses before the committee who would support the very premise and the very essence of that bill.

We were accused sometimes during our speech yesterday of reading letters from solicitors. I tried very hard not to read letters from solicitors only because it seemed to offend members of the government, not because I was not seriously taking their advice, because in fact I was. Those are the persons who are most familiar with the legislation and whom we, as citizens, require to help us in any resolution of disputes over the availability of remuneration because of a car accident.

I can only say that no matter what way one wants to look at this new legislation, the actions that take place now on behalf of victims will take place in the same manner in the future timewise. We will still need mediators and we will still need advocates, we will still need lawyers, we will still need to be paying individuals to represent us either privately ourselves or through the insurance companies that represent us. It will still take a very long period of time.

I suppose one of the issues that we have thoroughly looked at would be the issue of the $500,000 for the up-front money, if someone is disabled, for the care of the individual and the rehabilitation. That has been presented on a number of occasions by the members of the Liberal government.

Looking into the reality of that sum of money, that is the kind of money that would be spent over a very long period of time. In fact, we were advised that the most one could get out of that money would be some $1,500 a month, and if that is the case, we know that anybody who was not able to sue but who needed long-term care or around-the-clock care could not begin to receive that kind of service in his own home, even paying the minimum wage or paying the minimum wage of a support system that basically supports a $10-an-hour income for people who are out there to assist disabled victims of car accidents or those in ill health.

We are most concerned with this legislation and our great plea at this point in time would be that the Liberal members of this government remain open-minded. We are hoping we can give them that credit at this point in time even though, with due respect, the minister, I think in a moment of weakness, has been quoted as saying that the hearings will not make a difference. I would hope that would not, in fact, be something he would continue with, because that was a statement that was made at the beginning of the Sunday shopping hearings, and we know where they went.

I would hope that the people of Ontario will find some hope that the government will be listening to them during the public hearings on this no-fault automobile legislation.

We have a number of letters from parents of children who have been hurt, a number of letters from children whose parents have been hurt, and they all describe in great detail what would happen to them under this no-fault legislation in its present form and what has happened to them in the past. We must consider very seriously important changes to this legislation so that we can be assured that what we are buying in the public marketplace and in the private marketplace is something that we can depend on and something that we know will be there whenever, God forbid, any of us needs it or family members need it.

I will close my remarks and hope that the members and the minister, in particular, will be open-minded about the input in the public hearings and that this legislation will be changed rather significantly before it is passed in this House. We should be very grateful to have the kind of expertise we have in the province of Ontario and we should be listening very carefully to the Honourable Mr Justice Coulter Osborne as he advises very carefully in his more recent report.

Mr Kormos: We are not as interested in seeing this legislation amended or tinkered with as we are in seeing it defeated, quashed, tossed into the waste-basket where it indeed belongs.

It is not too hard to understand where the legislation came from, because the Insurance Bureau of Canada demanded of this government a threshold system some number of years ago. Finally, the government is delivering to its boss, to the master’s voice, the Insurance Bureau of Canada, and it is selling out the drivers of Ontario lock, stock and barrel in the process.

Now, it should not surprise us. This is the same government that told us one thing and then did another about Sunday shopping -- Sunday working. This is the government, the Liberal government that said one thing and did another about openness. This is the government that said one thing and did another about its responsibility in terms of funding educational systems here in Ontario, including places like Niagara College in Welland.

Mr J. B. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: My point of order is quite simply that I understood this was an opportunity for individual members to respond to the speech delivered by the member for London North. I have heard the member for Welland-Thorold deliver a diatribe against the government, but that has nothing to do with anything. He should be speaking to the speech given by the member for London North.

The Deputy Speaker: The member may continue.

Mr Kormos: The member for York Mills, who does not know spit from Shinola, would not know whether it was drilled, punched or bored, and his purpose in the point of order was, of course, to cut my -- he has never participated in the debate because he does not know the bill in any way, shape or form. He demonstrated that at the Advocates’ Society a month ago.

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

Mr J. M. Johnson: I have just a few brief comments. First, I want to congratulate my colleague the member for London North, and maybe for the information of the House, it is her birthday today, too, so we should be especially kind. That is especially meant for the member for York Mills.

I am quite concerned about the legislation. I am pleased that the government is going to send it to public hearings. My concern is with a health aspect of it. I feel that the money that is saved in not paying lawyers will end up paying doctors to do much the same thing. I am not sure how the members in the Legislature find dealing with the Workers’ Compensation Board, but I find it extremely difficult. We have people, constituents, who in my mind have extremely good cases and they cannot get the support from the doctors that they need to establish there that they do have an injury.

I feel that we are heading in that direction with this piece of legislation, Bill 68. It does not make much sense to me to create another problem in the medical profession, as there is enough there now.

It is ironic that the former Minister of Health, the member for Bruce (Mr Elston), who is just entering the chamber, is also the sponsor of the bill. As the former Minister of Health, I am sure he realizes that there is a problem in our health delivery system now -- lack of dollars, for one thing. This type of legislation is only going to increase that cost and I hope that when the bill is brought into committee, consideration is given to this one aspect of it.

Again, I commend the member for London North, who made many excellent suggestions of how it could be improved. Hopefully, for once, the Liberal government will listen to some of these excellent recommendations.

Mr J. B. Nixon: I too want to congratulate the member for London North on her birthday and a speech well delivered. I can only say that I must take issue with one point in her speech. When she says that the system is working reasonably well, I think she makes a mistake. We have heard for the last two or three years about the problems with the automobile insurance premiums in this province. We have heard consistently, day after day, the complaints, since 1985, from consumers, the opposition and people and members of our own caucus.

All of us have been concerned about high premiums. Finally, the government has taken the decision to act in an expeditious way to deal with these problems, and I too, like the member for London North, look forward to committee hearings on this bill.

I think people will find that the bill fulfils many of the requirements that they see as necessary to be fulfilled. One of the things, though, that does concern me is that the party of virtue, sweetness, light and all goodness has so little to say on this bill that it degenerates into ad hominem and personal attacks and has no matters of substance left to say, that being the New Democratic Party, not the member for London North, who did deliver a serious, thoughtful speech, for which I thank her.

Mr Sterling: I did not expect to get this opportunity, but I welcome it. I do not want to be repetitive, because I know that the debate has gone on a long time regarding this act respecting insurance. I do want to say, however, that this whole debate and the time of the Legislature that has been taken over the past week and the time that is going to be taken by a committee which is going to travel across this province for six weeks into the new year is all unnecessary.

It is amazing, as you become a member of this Legislature and you sit here longer and longer, and particularly as I experienced watching this Liberal government over the past five years -- it seems it is bent on creating work for itself. That is how I would sum up what Bill 68 is all about. It is resulting from the Premier (Mr Peterson) standing up in one part of this province and saying, “I’ve got a plan to make auto insurance premiums lower for everybody in this province,” when in fact he did not have such a plan.

Instead of gracefully backing down and letting either one of the two options fall, either going to public automobile insurance, as the New Democratic Party would want, or dealing with the present system, going ahead with tort reform in a progressive manner and therefore keeping the premiums in check, he decided to bring in this abysmal piece of legislation which is not going to solve any problems and is eventually going to lead to where the New Democratic Party wants this government to go, and that is to public automobile insurance.

The Deputy Speaker: Would the member for London North wish to respond?

Mrs Cunningham: Just shortly. Mr Speaker. I will have to reiterate, but before I do, I would just like to say that when we are advising the public about the Ontario motorist protection plan, which is the guide that was sent out, I think it is interesting to note that we never mentioned any circumstances under which we could sue. They were never mentioned. The ministry talks about all the perks to the new system. “In very extreme circumstances” being described as “permanent, serious disfigurement; or permanent serious impairment of an important bodily function caused by continuing injury which is physical in nature” is not mentioned in this pamphlet.

I think that when the government was letting members of the public know about the guide to the Ontario motorist protection plan, it would have been very important to let them know under what circumstance, or under the only circumstance, whereby they could be fairly compensated through the court system, and it is not even mentioned. I think that is extremely important.

My final point is this: If we are going to ask someone with the distinction that Coulter Osborne has in this province, a person who has worked very hard to make sure that fairness is available to all in many areas of law, I think maybe we should think very carefully about what he says.

He did conclude, and I will say it again, that aside from the provision of a modest degree of additional stability for automobile insurers, premium cost decreases would be modest were we to proceed to threshold no-fault and those modest cost savings would be imported on the backs of over 90 per cent of injured Ontario motorists who now have the right to seek noneconomic compensation. Ninety per cent of us is a lot. He did look at all of the other systems and he said that this one is the one we should live with, with a few changes.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you, and happy birthday. The member for Cambridge.

Mr Farnan: Bill 68 is a bad deal for consumers. I think that is the bottom line. What constitutes a good deal? Well, a consumer would probably sum it up like this: a superior product at the same price, or the same product at a lower price. That is very simple. I think people can understand that.

When we are talking about auto insurance we can apply the same principle. Does Bill 68 constitute a superior product at the same price? Does it constitute the same product at a lower price?

Let’s go back to Cambridge three days before the last provincial election and recall the words of the Premier of this present government when he said, “I have a very specific plan to reduce auto insurance premiums.” I invite the members here to examine those words. “I have a very specific plan to reduce auto insurance premiums.” It is very clear; he is going to lower auto insurance premiums. He does not say anything about the product, whether it is going to improve or whether it is going to decrease in value as a product, but one thing he does say is that the cost of the product is going to go down.

The people of Cambridge are the kind of people who like to take you at your word, so they take the words of the Premier -- when he says, “I have a very specific plan to reduce the cost of auto insurance,” they understand that the premiums will go down and the product will remain substantially the same.

Unfortunately, what has happened, Mr Speaker -- you know this as well as I do -- is that the cost of the premiums have not remained the same. The member for York Mills suggested that there was a problem before the Liberals came along and addressed this issue. Well, I can tell the member for York Mills that since the Premier made his promise to reduce auto insurance premiums, we have had a 4.5 per cent, another 4.5 per cent, a 7.6 per cent and now an 8 per cent increase. This constitutes a 25 per cent increase.

How do you put that alongside the words of the Premier, “I have a very specific plan to reduce the cost of auto insurance premiums,” when in fact, the cost has actually risen 25 per cent? You do not have to be a mathematical genius to realize that the Premier was wrong. The cost of premiums did not go down; in fact, they went in the opposite direction and in quite a radical manner. A 25 per cent increase in any product, in the consumer’s mind, is a very significant increase.

An inferior product, in fact, is now being offered through Bill 68. We are going to get a lot less for a lot more money. In other words, the product is going to decrease and the cost of the product is going to escalate. In consumers minds, that’s a very bad deal.

Let me make a simple analogy for the members of the House and those citizens of Ontario who may be listening in to us today. Let us imagine the manufacturer of a detergent who was offering a package of detergent at $4 a package and he says: “I’ve got a deal for you guys. We’re going to sell the package for $5 and we’re going to decrease the amount of detergent in the package by half. Have I got a deal for you.”

No wonder the pages are laughing, because the pages can see that this constitutes a very bad deal. If the pages here can see it constitutes a very bad deal, I am sure the people of Ontario also will see that it is a very bad deal.

Are consumers getting less under the new government scheme of threshold no-fault? According to a consumers’ group, the Committee for Fair Action in Insurance Reform -- they outlined the problem and the concerns Ontario should have about this new proposed system. They say the no-fault legislation recently announced by the government takes away your rights and those of your family to recover damages in almost all cases if you are injured in a motor vehicle accident in Ontario. In almost all cases it takes away your right.

Only in extreme and limited cases where you are catastrophically injured will you or your family be able to recover damages for injuries or full loss of income. In fact, to be more specific, by means of this legislation, only if you are rendered a paraplegic, a quadriplegic, seriously brain damaged or dead will you have the right to sue. Is it a good deal for consumers? In the vast majority of cases in which people’s lives are seriously affected in a very negative way, the right to sue has been taken away.

Under this new bill, the people of Ontario will be, very soon, taking a serious financial risk in riding in a motor vehicle on Ontario roads. Even buying additional insurance at substantial cost will not fully protect us. Under the proposed plan, we will get nothing for pain and suffering. If you are an employee, you will be unable to recover full loss of wages. If you are self-employed, you will be unable to recover losses associated with disruption of your business. Indeed, you could lose your business and recover nothing.

You will be unable to recover for many serious physical injuries, including broken bones, scarring, torn muscles and the pain and suffering that accompanies these and other injuries. You will not be able to recover for any emotional or psychological injuries, such as depression, shock and anxiety. No matter what you earn, the most you can recover is $450 per week, and many of the drivers who are injured will receive a lot less.

For consumers this is obviously a very, very bad deal. They are going to get a lot less, and people know that. Not only are they going to get a lot less, they are going to pay a lot more. This is a very, very simple concept. I have received thousands -- I repeat, thousands -- of letters on this issue. I venture to add that I also invited response from my community through a mailout.

But I have received thousands of letters, and the vast majority of the people of Cambridge, the same town where the Premier made this promise which he has failed to keep, know that what they are getting is not what the Premier promised. I have taken a selection of these letters and I would like to read them into the record.

From Fred Smith and Aileen Wakeford of Pinetree Crescent, Cambridge:

“As it stands now, the proposed plan ignores recommendations of your own advisers. I do not believe it will produce lower premiums. The only beneficiary to this plan will be the dangerous drivers and most certainly the insurance companies.”

Dorothy Bowyer of Alexander Avenue states her position thus:

“I feel that the suggestion of no fault is a wrong principle. While it is often difficult to establish blame, there are very many cases where blame is obvious. It will be grossly unfair to reduce the cost of insurance for persons who will drive while impaired or inflict damage on innocent persons.

John Reid of John S. Reid Insurance Agency points to a critical flaw in the Liberal insurance scheme:

“This type of coverage places the working person in a very dangerous position financially. I am referring to the fact that if a person is injured in an accident other than life-threatening, he or she may be out of pocket thousands of dollars if unable to continue to work on a full-time basis while recovering. This insurance scheme contradicts our Charter of Rights, which guarantees a citizen to a just consideration. Perhaps indeed Bill 68 can be challenged successfully under the charter.”

Finally, Rosemary McLaughlin of Sterling McGregor writes at great length about how, as an innocent victim, her life has been seriously affected as the result of an accident. Ms McLaughlin is the innocent victim in this accident. The letter is in quite some detail, as were many of the letters I received: “I’ll have to live with my life the way it has changed and get no compensation, and the accident was not even my fault. I am sure there are hundreds, if not thousands, of people in similar circumstances.” How true.

Who are the beneficiaries of this legislation? It is not the drivers, it is not the consumers of this province, it is certainly not the lawyers. The great beneficiaries of the insurance legislation as proposed by this Liberal government are the insurance companies themselves. It is with a great degree of reluctance that I have to state what I believe to be the fact that this legislation is in a very real sense a payoff from the Liberal Party to the insurance industry for the support received by the Liberals in the last election.

It is interesting that the only people who are not complaining about this legislation are the insurance companies. In fact, they love it. And why would the insurance industry not love this legislation? Look at what they get. They get the right to increase premiums and they get the right to take away the rights of the consumer to go to court and claim full compensation. Is it not fantastic? The insurance industry, with its legalese and paperwork and the ability to bamboozle with its fine print, will now deal with a consuming public that will not have the right to the protection of the legal profession.

Let me suggest to the members that the insurance industry looks upon this as the right to get rid of lawyers, and in many cases lawyers protect the public from insurance companies. What we have now, I suggest to members, is Little Red Riding Hood dealing with the big bad wolf. I do not have to ask members who they think the insurance company is represented by, Little Red Riding Hood or the wolf, nor do I have to ask members who the consumers of Ontario are represented by. But certainly this Liberal government is exposing the consumers of Ontario to a consumer sector that, by and large, has been viewed as ripping off the ordinary drivers of this province.

There are a variety of groups that will be negatively impacted by this legislation. I want to deal with them.

Union members: Unions are generally strong in this province and have negotiated substantial income replacement benefits and pension benefits. Those benefits, part of the workers’ earned pay package, are deducted from the no-fault benefits. So union members lose as a result of this legislation. But not only union members lose; all workers lose. Because of the deductible, no one gets paid for the first week of disability. The person injured when his stopped car is run into from behind and who earns $500 weekly has to bear that $500 loss himself.

On top of that, as long as he remains disabled and entitled to benefits, he only gets 80 per cent of his lost earnings. So he must bear that additional $100 weekly loss himself.

High earners: High earners are hurt by this legislation. As the maximum payment is $450 weekly, if the injured person earns $700 a week, he will lose $250 a week as long as he remains disabled. If when he buys his automobile insurance policy he has the foresight to buy additional coverage, that $450 maximum can be raised so that he can reduce his loss. But no insurance company will sell him insurance to cover his full loss of earnings, and the additional coverage he buys will cost him an additional premium, thereby raising his cost of automobile insurance.

People covered by workers’ compensation: Suppose the person run into from behind is a truck driver covered by workers’ compensation. He gets nothing at all in no-fault benefits. He must take whatever he can get from workers’ compensation and join the multitude of injured workers who regularly march on Queen’s Park complaining of their treatment by the Workers’ Compensation Board.

School teachers: School teachers and many others who have substantial sick-pay plans will lose as a result of this legislation. Sick pay has to be used up before the no-fault insurance pays anything. Suppose the injury keeps the teacher off work for six months. He uses up his six months’ accumulated sick pay and gets nothing in no-fault benefits. If after he gets back to work he misses time because of the flu, a heart attack or any one of many illnesses that we all must be concerned about, he has used up all his accumulated sick pay because of an accident that was someone else’s fault and he gets no pay during his absence from work due to the sickness, whether it was flu, heart attack, etc.

Is this fair? Is this a good consumer piece of legislation? Heck, no. Ask any teacher in this province. Teachers, whom this government has already alienated because of the manner in which it is dealing with their pensions, are going to be even more angry as a result of this particular legislation.

Small business people, self-employed: These people will also be affected by this legislation. Often a businessman will plow his profits back into the business and the income he takes out does not represent what he is building. If he is disabled from working, all he gets is 80 per cent of his gross weekly income. If it is a new business, he may have no income from it yet, in which case he gets nothing. As a result of his time away from work he may lose his business. He gets nothing for that.

If he gets any benefits, he gets them only until he is able to return to work. He gets nothing for the time, after his disability ends, that he has to spend rebuilding his business to what it was at the time of the accident. A businessman may be able to prove that he lost a substantial business deal because of his injuries; however, he gets no compensation for this. Is this good protection? Is this the way to encourage small business? Not at all.

Farmers lose out on this. Farmers will particularly suffer because they are self-employed people who seldom have much provable income. Their earnings are, to a very large extent, absorbed by the farm rather than going into their pockets. It will be very difficult for a disabled farmer to qualify for much of a weekly benefit, if any. If he has to hire someone to help with the chores, then no-fault coverage pays nothing for this. Is this good legislation? It is not good legislation.

Students will suffer. Students who lose their year as a result of an accident, students who may have to repeat a year as a result of an accident and who will lose a year of earnings as a result of an accident will not get any compensation.

Homemakers: Let’s talk about homemakers because it affects literally hundreds of thousands, millions of people in this province Like a student, a homemaker is entitled to a weekly benefit of $185 only if as a result of her injury she is unable to perform all or substantially all of her normal activities. Like a student, she will have to be virtually bedridden to qualify.

What about the homemaker who is unable to perform, say, half of her normal activities? This is not unusual. She gets nothing under the plan. If she has to hire someone to help her with the housework or with the children, she cannot claim that expense from anyone.

As we look at this legislation and examine how it affects different segments of the community, one after the other we see that this government is introducing a very bad consumer package. This government runs the risk of alienating, even more than it already has, very powerful sectors in our society: homemakers, teachers, small businessmen, all workers. Every one of these groups is negatively affected and impacted by this legislation.

I want to tell this government we are going to use this time to go out and preach the message of what it is doing, because we have to do this. It is our responsibility to do this because what the government is doing, I would say, constitutes shady business practice.

As a consumer critic, if I found an individual business operating the way this government is operating with this legislation, I would be standing up in the House and saying, “Why is the government allowing this business to get away with this kind of shady dealings?” How can a business go out and try to sell this kind of false advertising when in actual fact it is increasing the cost of the product and reducing the value of the product. Obviously we have to have legislation that takes care of those individuals and businesses that defraud and cheat and mislead the consumer.

It is a sad day for Ontario when it is not some business or individual out there that is cheating and defrauding the consumers of Ontario, when it is in actual fact the government of Ontario which is at fault, it is the government of Ontario which is basically ripping off the consumers of Ontario.

So many people have to drive. A car is an essential part of many people’s lifestyle. Going to work, getting groceries, visiting friends, distances have to be travelled. There are very few people, very few families that can get along without a car, and this government is selling them a package. I can promise members I am going back to the people of Cambridge and my colleagues are going to go out to their constituents. We are going to go out to the province and we are going to say to the people of the province, “Remember 7 September 1987.”

Mr Cousens: What happened then?

Mr Farnan: We are going to point out that the Premier on that occasion made the promise that he had a very specific plan to reduce auto insurance premiums. We know the plan is now costing us 25 per cent more. We know that all of these sectors which I have enumerated, and demonstrated how they will be negatively impacted, are going to get an inferior product.

There are some issues that stick. Let me tell members there are times when governments can get away with issues, but I have a sneaking suspicion about this particular issue. I think this issue is going to come back to haunt this government. I think the people of Ontario are going to look at the kinds of donations that have been made by the auto insurance industry to the Liberal Party, they are going to look at those donations and I can assure members I am going to help them to look at it because we are going to dig out that research and we are going to let people see what is happening.

The people of Ontario will see the direct correlation between the dollars poured into the Liberal Party and legislation that the Liberal Party then produces, about which the insurance companies say, “Boy, did we ever back a winner,” and which the insurance companies are getting for a very small investment, I might remind members. The member for Brantford (Mr Neumann) will know; he received insurance companies’ donations just like other members in the House, the member for Guelph (Mr Ferraro) and the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr Sweeney), all of the members in the House who have received this kind of generous donation from the auto insurance industry.

Mr Callahan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise on

section 23 of the standing orders and I suggest that the member is imputing improper motives to the members of this House. I suggest that is certainly not a very honourable thing to do.

The Deputy Speaker: The member may proceed.

Mr Farnan: I want to assure the member for Brampton South that the last thing I would want to do would be to impute motive to any individual member of the House. I have to leave it to the people of Ontario to decide what the motives of the Liberal government were in passing this legislation based on the perhaps accidental reality that this same government received extraordinary financial support from the insurance industry. Far be it from me to make that kind of accusation, but I believe the people of Ontario are fairminded and the people of Ontario are also not going to be taken for granted and are not going to allow the facts to be swept under the carpet.

This issue is a sleeper. I do hope that the government realizes in time that it has gone on a course that is unacceptable to the people of Ontario and I do want to assure the people of Ontario that the New Democratic Party will be faithful to them as consumers. We are not going to stand by as the Liberal government puts forward an inferior product at increased prices.

New Democrats have a plan for auto insurance. Our plan for auto insurance is the same after the election as it was before the election. We do not have to make promises on auto insurance that we will not keep. Not only do we have a plan, we have a plan that has been implemented and works; indeed it does in fact result in decreased auto insurance premiums for a superior product. That is a good deal, that is a consumer deal and that is a different deal than what the Liberals are offering the people of Ontario with this very inadequate, very poor legislation.

Mr Callahan: The member for Cambridge has read from what was very well researched for him obviously, but I doubt that he has ever dealt with the human situation where people have been in an accident, consider themselves not to be at fault, and because a charge is laid, any compensation whatsoever to look after their family is denied them. This plan would take that away. They would in fact get it, and the question of fault would not be of any importance.

I might also suggest that I had the privilege of travelling this province when we dealt with the bill that was being proposed by my good friend the member for St Catharines-Brock (Mr Dietsch), wherein they were espousing public auto insurance, and it seems pretty obvious that that had a detrimental effect on the existence of the Manitoba government. In fact, it resulted in a number of charges being laid because there was behind-the-scenes fixing of tickets in order to avoid increases that were imposed at the licence level.

Now if that is what my friend the member for Cambridge is suggesting we have as public auto insurance, then I think he is dreaming in Technicolor. But I say to him that the concern should be, and I think the concern is, that in fact people will be fairly dealt with when they have an accident, that in fact they will not be denied that coverage. They will not be required to wait lengthy periods of time to receive compensation to look after their families. I think in a very real respect that is the important thing.

I wish the member for Cambridge and his colleagues would get off the public auto kick and perhaps consider this legislation and deal with it.

Ms Bryden: I just want to congratulate my colleague the member for Cambridge on the very fine way in which he has pointed out that Bill 68 is a sellout of the car drivers of Ontario. It will continue to leave them at the mercy of the insurance companies and I would submit, as he has submitted, that the only way to avoid that is to bring in a publicly operated auto insurance scheme, and that is what I and my party will continue to advocate.

Mr Cousens: What the honourable member for Cambridge referred to in his speech had to do with the use of the tort and the use of lawyers in order to protect someone from a problem they might be having. When I heard the member speaking very eloquently on this whole subject, he was speaking very much in favour of having the tort system in existence, and I wondered just how that position that he related fits in with the New Democratic Party policy about the use of lawyers within the whole insurance appeals system.

I just wondered whether the member was carving new territory on it or whether that was consistent with the general views held by the New Democratic Party, because as a party it has taken a pretty strong stand that would not involve the legal profession in any way, generally speaking. I would be very interested in some kind of clarification on the member’s position there.

Mr Morin-Strom: I would like to congratulate my colleague the member for Cambridge on the excellent remarks he has made on this particular initiative from this government, which certainly does not have the interests of the drivers of the province of Ontario at heart at all in its plans.

The only advocate for the government’s action in fact is the insurance industry in Ontario. They are the only beneficiaries of this program. Certainly the so-called product reform that has been announced by this government shows conclusively how insincere and manipulative the Premier and his government have been over the last two years when it comes to the issue of high car insurance premiums.

It also shows, as my colleague has just shown, what the industry has got in return for the more than $230,000 it contributed to the Ontario Liberal Party in 1987 and 1988. The government’s no-fault proposals will only put a smile on the face of the insurance industry. Only a tiny fraction of claims will ever end up in court, while premiums continue to rise. Overall, the result will be less money paid out to accident victims, reduced costs to companies and bigger profits for the industry.

As my colleague has indicated, the key promise in the last election campaign was the Premier’s statement three days before the election and his commitment, “We have a very specific plan to lower insurance rates.” Time after time, we have seen, since this last government was elected, that no plan in fact exists. This government is not going to do anything to bring down the skyrocketing costs of insurance in the province. The only beneficiary of this action is the automobile insurance industry itself.

Mr Farnan: I want to just say a few words about perception, the perception of 1987. There are many Liberal members here in this House who owe their seats to the Premier. Basically, he went out and, with his sleeves rolled up and his shirt open and his tie pulled down, it was: “This is good old Dave. You can trust Dave. This is honest Dave. This is open Dave. You can tell Dave.”

I want to tell the House that that perception of the Premier -- you can dress him up in red, you can undo his shirt, you can roll up his sleeves, but no longer is it “honest Dave,” because no longer will the people of Ontario believe what has been said and what is being said by this Premier. When a Premier says, “I have a very specific plan to reduce auto insurance,” people understand what that means and they know that what the Premier said and what has happened are two different things.

On the one hand, premiums have continued to escalate; on the other hand, the product that is being offered is being reduced and cut and hacked until all that is left is a skeleton and shell. So come the next election, they can dress the Premier up in his red track suit, they can roll up his sleeves, they can undo his tie and they can try to sell him as “open Dave, honest Dave,” but those days, my friends, are gone. They are gone because the people of Ontario do not believe we have a Premier that is being honest with them, and indeed on this issue, he has not been honest with them.

Mr Cousens: Before I begin, I would just question why the member for Cambridge did not answer my question. We have an opportunity to -- whether or not he is in a position to --

The Deputy Speaker: Sorry.

Mr Cousens: That is too bad, because I would be interested.

Mr Farnan: I would be happy to --

Mr Cousens: If there is unanimous consent we could have the honourable member --

Mr Neumann: We don’t want to hear more of his rhetoric.

Mr Cousens: I would be pleased to see him answer the question that I asked if there is unanimous consent from the House.

Mr Kerrio: No way. You can’t trust him.

Mr Cousens: Oh, that is too bad.

The Deputy Speaker: Since there is no unanimous consent, the member for Markham may proceed.

Mr Cousens: I was interested in seeing how the New Democratic Party members can explain themselves away from some of their positions. It would have given him a chance to dig a deeper hole for himself.

In reviewing Bill 68, I have a number of concerns I would like to table for consideration by the House. I have broken my presentation into 10 points and would therefore like to elaborate on them in order as I put them.

The first point I want to make is that the government has reneged on its promise of lower automobile insurance rates. In a moment of the election campaign of 1987 -- it must have been one of those weak moments when the Premier had an inspiration -- but on 7 September at a campaign stop in Cambridge, the Premier said that he had “a very specific plan to lower insurance rates.”

He has never retracted that statement, nor has he disputed the fact that he has been quoted correctly in that statement, yet it is obvious to those of us today who are now looking at the legislation before this House now that the Premier did not have “a very specific plan to lower insurance rates.”

The fact of the matter is that he had no plan. The people of Ontario and the people who were listening and saw him using that as part of his platform planks gave him the authority to become Premier again, yet he has greatly disappointed everyone who will be affected by this very -- I do not want to use any unparliamentary language -- this statement that has not been proven by fact.

What has happened is that from 1 January 1988 to 17 April 1989, the rates for insurance have risen by 16.6 per cent. They increased by 4.5 per cent on 1 January 1988. Six months later on 1 August 1988, they increased by another 4.5 per cent, and the rates for insurance for automobiles increased on 17 April 1989 by 7.6 per cent. All of this from a government which prides itself on slogans such as, “We did what we said we would do.”

The fact of the matter is that when we look at the speech from the throne back in 1987, the government then said:

“My government will protect Ontarians from unfair and arbitrary practices in the marketplace. In doing so, we will take steps to promote increased consumer awareness.

“We recently announced a comprehensive package of new auto insurance legislation. Among other provisions, the program will cap auto insurance premiums and establish a public review process under which insurance rates must be justified.”

I think the fact of the matter is that what they said then, they have had to retract and do again. There has been no building of trust between the people of Ontario and this government. What the government is now doing is coming in to establish yet another type of process by which it will be able to manage the insurance industry for the people of the province.

When the Premier said on 7 September 1987 that he had a specific plan to lower insurance rates, the people of Ontario, who were having a hard enough time paying their mortgages and making ends meet, really felt that this would be an opportunity to cap the cost on insurance. It is certainly a worry that everybody has had, that insurance costs continue to rise along with everything else. If we are going to have a Premier in this province who would suddenly put the lid on that, that would be something great for them.

What we are seeing is that those people are going to be even more disadvantaged by the legislation the government is coming out with. For instance, if people who are disabled have an accident and that accident incurs costs that have to be paid, they will have to pay those costs out of their own pocket under the existing legislation rather than having them paid for on an ongoing basis. They will have to accumulate those costs, pay them out of their own bank account and after they have all been tallied up, then they can submit them for payment.

What we are also seeing is those very same people who may well be making more than $23,400 a year will only be paid at the rate of $450 a week for any time they are disabled. They are not going to be better off if there is an accident. I am going to come to some specific examples in my presentation that show how the average citizen in the province of Ontario is going to be severely disadvantaged by the legislation that is before us. That is my first point. The government has reneged on its promise to lower automobile insurance rates.

My second point is that the government’s bungling of automobile insurance has cost the taxpayers dearly. There are two very extensive reports that were put together on this subject. I have one of them here, the report that was done in 1987, the Report of Inquiry into Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation in Ontario, by the Honourable Mr Justice Coulter A. Osborne.

That report alone cost the province in excess of $1.4 million. There is a detailed statement, probably one of the best that has ever been put together in North America, on automobile insurance. The government has disregarded the recommendations in that report. We also have another report that was put