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

April 26, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

SOUTH CENTENNIAL MANOR

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

PROPOSED BUILDING SITE

PROPOSED EARTH SCIENCES CENTRE

PALLIATIVE CARE

SENIOR CITIZENS’ SERVICES

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

ACADEMIC CURRICULUM

RESPONSES

ACADEMIC CURRICULUM

ORAL QUESTIONS

WASTE DISPOSAL

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

KINDERGARTEN

ROUGE VALLEY

KINDERGARTEN

DISCLOSURE OF ADOPTION INFORMATION

AMBULANCE SERVICES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

TRANSIT SERVICES

LUMBER INDUSTRY

HOUSING

PETITIONS

PROPOSED BUILDING SITE

SCHOOL OPENING AND CLOSING EXERCISES

NATUROPATHY

FOREST MANAGEMENT

SOUTH CENTENNIAL MANOR

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

SENIOR CITIZENS’ APARTMENTS

TOBACCO TAX

NATUROPATHY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

MOTIONS

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

HOUSE SITTINGS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PORT BRUCE BOAT CLUB ACT, 1989

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1989

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker: I would like to ask all members to join me in recognizing the first group of legislative pages to serve in the second session of the 34th Parliament. They are:

Sarah Bhatti, Ottawa-Rideau; Edward Conroy, Scarborough Centre; Jeremy Dickson, Rainy River; Carolyn Elston, Huron; Julie Felton, Lambton; Jocelyn Kervin, Timiskaming; Rasha Khayat, York Mills; Natasha Klukach, Bruce; Marcel Lemay, Sudbury; Michael Marsden, Carleton; Mark McLeod, Port Arthur; Ian Ross, Lake Nipigon; Joseph Santos, Kingston and The Islands; Teresinha Silva, Parkdale; Cindy Sleiman, Essex South; Jamie Smith, Kitchener; Anne-Marie Stacyszyn, Windsor-Walkerville; Robert Taylor, Parry Sound; Robert Thomson, Ottawa Centre; Gwyneth Tristram, Chatham-Kent; Meghan Whittaker Van Dusen, Scarborough West; Samantha Winslow, Burlington South; Blair Yarranton, Quinte, and Heather Young, Waterloo North.

Please join me in welcoming our pages.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Mackenzie: On Friday, 28 April, a national day of mourning for workers killed or injured on the job will be observed in cities across Canada. As this House will not be sitting on Friday, I would ask the Speaker and members of the other parties to acknowledge the sacrifice of our workers with a minute of silence in this House on Thursday, 27 April, as well as an opportunity for each party to make a few comments.

I personally found it disturbing that on the eve of this national day of mourning, in response to questions on the omissions from his throne speech, our Premier (Mr Peterson) should be quoted as saying he was not certain his government would be proceeding with its own piece of health and safety legislation, Bill 208.

Surely the accident record of the last year and particularly the disturbing number of avoidable mining deaths in the last few months clearly indicate that the need to endorse labour’s concern for a campaign to end slaughter in the workplace is more valid today than when it was first launched a number of years ago.

It is legitimate to ask this government what its commitment to health and safety in the workplace is worth and when Bill 208 will be brought forward for second reading in this Legislature.

SOUTH CENTENNIAL MANOR

Mr Pope: Not only was there no reference in the speech from the throne yesterday to northern Ontario or to mining, forestry or the resource sector, but there was also no mention of assistance for the homes for the aged across the province.

I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Sweeney) and this government a very particular situation involving South Centennial Manor in Iroquois Falls.

On 28 July 1988, as a result of a level-of-care study conducted by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, there was a recommendation to increase the nursing staff at South Centennial Manor, and that permission was given in a letter from the minister to the board of that particular manor.

But, lo and behold, when the budget allocations for this current fiscal year were forwarded to the South Centennial Manor, there was no funding for the increased staff they had asked South Centennial Manor to hire the previous year.

As a result of that, notices of layoff or reduced hours were sent to 18 employees of South Centennial Manor in order to reduce the equivalent of eight full-time positions, and immediate steps were taken to transfer 10 extended care residents to area hospitals.

This situation was created by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, which tried to blame the Minister of Northern Development (Mr Fontaine) in letters it sent to the board.

The Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

Mr Pope: The fact of the matter is it is incompetent management to allow this to happen.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Faubert: Yesterday, as the Lieutenant Governor read the speech from the throne, I thought of the people who took the time to make submissions before a hearing I and the member for Scarborough Centre (Miss Nicholas) held Monday in the Scarborough Civic Centre on the report Transitions, Also at that meeting was the member for Kitchener (Mr D. R. Cooke), the chairman of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs.

In all, submissions were made by 15 groups and individuals ranging from welfare providers, food bank representatives, community service groups and welfare recipients to concerned individuals from advocacy groups and church representatives.

Their submissions covered such concerns as a need to simplify the social assistance system as well as an express need to ensure that incentives, skills and opportunities are harnessed so that those alienated by the system can once again become participants in the workforce. Another recurring concern was the effect of the high cost of housing on the budget of social assistance recipients and the working poor.

The presentations ranged from angry to extremely poignant, but all expressed hope in the implementation of the Transitions report.

The throne speech expressed this government’s commitment as it announced such progressive initiatives as increased payments for shelter support to persons on social assistance; the removal of barriers which serve as disincentives to work; the expansion of the network of employment counselling and referral; basic training and preparation programs, and increased children’s benefits.

The visionary intentions of this government announced yesterday will indeed give hope to the people I spoke to last Monday that the barriers of poverty will one day be overcome.

PROPOSED BUILDING SITE

Mr R. F. Johnston: Among the platitudes of the throne speech were promises on environmental protection, including setting up Cleantario where the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley) will impersonate Vanna White and basically try to convince the people of Ontario that this is a new game show we should all follow. I would be very pleased if this government were in fact using the legislation and the powers it has now to protect the environment.

In my riding, a development is proposed metres away from a dump site where 4,000-plus people will be housed unless this government decides it is appropriate to have a full environmental assessment of that site. Today I will be introducing some of the petitions I have from the community members who insist that this government take that kind of action to protect them from the inappropriate development this would entail. This is the Runnymede site on Gerrard Street in my riding.

It would be a terrible misuse of his present powers if the Minister of the Environment is not given the go-ahead by cabinet to require a full environmental assessment of this project.

PROPOSED EARTH SCIENCES CENTRE

Mr Pollock: A group of concerned citizens from the Bancroft area is interested in establishing an earth sciences centre. There have been many letters and calls to different ministries about this project.

Most recently, the project planning committee received a letter of support from the Minister of Mines (Mr Conway). The minister said that he is in favour of undertaking a feasibility study to explore the options and the costs of the involvement. I too would like to lend my support to this project. I hope the Ontario ministries involved will do their utmost to assist the Bancroft citizens with their request for financial help for this feasibility study.

I sincerely hope the earth sciences centre becomes a reality in eastern Ontario. It would be a major tourist attraction and education centre for the area and could be a positive focus in the mineral industry.

PALLIATIVE CARE

Mr Adams: The concept of a place to die with dignity is pre-Christian, but the current hospice movement has its roots among the poor of Europe a century ago. Then, homes for the dying were set up for those with tuberculosis, the scourge of the time.

The first modern hospice was set up in Britain in the 1960s and the movement spread rapidly to other parts of the world, including North America. The new homes for the dying were for those terminally ill with cancer and, more recently, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, the scourges of the 20th century.

Hospices offer a variety of support services for the dying and their families. Some offer 24-hour hospital care, some offer care and respite services on a daily basis, while others offer professional and volunteer home care.

In Canada, there are two free-standing hospices, Casey House in Toronto for AIDS victims, and Maison Michel Sarrazin, near Quebec City, for cancer patients. There are, however, some 30 hospice organizations in Ontario alone. A good contact before a provincial association is established is Palliative Care Services of York Region. Those interested in setting up a home care hospice could contact Hospice Peterborough, described in my statement of 17 October 1988 to this House.

SENIOR CITIZENS’ SERVICES

Ms Bryden: As the critic for senior citizens’ affairs, I was shocked to find no part of the throne speech devoted to plans for dealing with the huge increase expected in senior population in the next decade. We will need a great many more geriatric services, a great many more programs to help seniors stay in their own homes, a great many more programs to look after the health care of seniors.

I am sure all seniors in this province were also shocked at the failure of the government to deal with the extreme shortage of homemakers in the province. Homemaker programs are an essential part of enabling seniors to stay in their own homes as long as possible and are much less expensive than institutionalization.

Previous throne speeches promised big increases in homemaker programs for seniors, but this year’s speech does not even mention them. In fact, expenditures on homemaker programs were frozen on 30 September 1988. When will the government lift the freeze and make adequate homemaker services available throughout the province?

The Speaker: There are five seconds left. I believe no one would want to make a statement in that time.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

ACADEMIC CURRICULUM

Hon Mr Ward: I am very pleased and proud that yesterday’s speech from the throne had such a great emphasis on the quality and renewal of education in this province. This government’s agenda clearly places children first and is based on the principles of equal opportunity, accountability and the need to ensure that our children progress and grow with the skills they will need throughout their lives.

Today I am pleased to provide details of an important throne speech initiative, a key component of our plan for education reform; that is, the elimination of streaming in grade 9 and providing a core curriculum in the transition years of grades 7, 8 and 9.

Over the past 18 months, having met with many parents and educators, I have come to the conclusion that our young people must have the opportunity to fully explore their options and develop their interests and abilities before choosing an area of specialization that will ultimately help determine their career paths. But equally important is each student’s need for a solid foundation of knowledge and of skills.

Our new core program in the transition years will build upon a renewed emphasis on basic skills in the primary grades, with a focus on measuring achievement, identifying problem areas and providing extra help where needed.

More than ever, today’s young people must have the ability to communicate clearly. They must also acquire basic skills in mathematics, science and technology and understand how these subjects apply to their lives. All of our children must have an equal opportunity to master the skills and knowledge that will be essential in finding meaningful employment in a new and highly competitive economy.

This program will be fully in place as of September 1992. Three quarters of the new core program in grade 9 will consist of mandatory subjects, a core curriculum including such essential areas as language, mathematics, science and technology. Students will be permitted to choose options for only one quarter of their grade 9 program, including such electives as technological studies, business studies and family studies.

In the days and months to come, I will be consulting with our partners in education on the implementation of this initiative. With their advice and expertise, I believe we can develop a curriculum and teacher training program that will be required and avoid the kinds of problems that were associated with the last structural change in 1984, when structures were changed without the appropriate backup and teaching resources.

In keeping with the excellent recommendations of the select committee on education, I will soon announce pilot projects in various parts of the province to assist us in developing the most appropriate curriculum and implementation strategy.

The process of learning is a process of change, and clearly we have to show the flexibility to accommodate this change. If we are to be successful in providing all of our students with an equal opportunity to learn, we must make it easier for students to adapt and switch areas of specialization in their later years. Our emphasis all through these years will be on counselling, flexibility, co-operative learning, enhanced guidance and home-room teaching.

The opportunity to learn must be an opportunity shared by all of our children. These and other changes will help us to allow our children to reach their full potential.

RESPONSES

ACADEMIC CURRICULUM

Mr R. F. Johnston: It was a short throne speech, some might even say a focused throne speech. Some of us were a little disappointed with the constraints on it, and now we are finding out that even that which was supposed to be the meat of the throne speech is not going to take effect in this province until 1992.

We are going to have three more throne speeches before we even see this program on destreaming take place, and we are supposed to get excited about the action of this reform-minded Liberal government which is now reasserting its agenda.

This is laughable. It clearly indicates that the minister himself has a bit of a reading problem. He had a little remedial help in terms of even looking at what the consensus of the select committee on education said. He seems to have been able to read only certain recommendations. He missed certain pages almost entirely as he has brought forward this half-baked notion of what destreaming is going to be.

I would just like to suggest to the minister that one of our prime notions on that committee is that there has to be an emphasis on counselling, not just one word about it in a statement in his second-last paragraph, but an understanding that kids in grades 7 and 8 do not receive sufficient counselling at this stage and that there is a gap between the counselling they receive in the elementary panel and what they receive in the secondary panel. We suggested that he link up that counselling and make the counsellors follow the students as a fundamental portion of what he is talking about.

He said very little in this speech of his today, short as it is on detail, about whether he understands that there must be a reduction of class size in grade 9 if he is going to make this work.

Teachers in the secondary panel who have been teaching heterogeneous classes -- in other words, they have been specializing in dealing with a basic-skill class or an advanced-skill class but not mixing those kids in their classes -- are not trained to deal with the kind of new heterogeneity we are asking for.

They are not used to the home-room style of teachers who have most of the classes under their care and they are not going to be able to deal with 30 kids in that kind of a situation where we have several learning-disabled kids, some kids who would normally be considered basic-level kids, some general-level kids and some advanced-level kids.

I do not understand why the minister has not said something here about the kind of retraining possibilities that will be there for those teachers and about what he is going to do to pick up the bucks that will be required if that is to be done appropriately.

The important thing about this is we tried to indicate in the committee that we have to start the notion of getting away from streaming an awful lot earlier in the system and that grouping kids by ability only was taking place in the primary

section at the moment, not just in the intermediate section, and that whole practice has to be broken.

Again, the minister has not concentrated on that this afternoon, as he should have, and as a result is telling us the government has not thought through how to do this, has no particular plan at all to put forward and is not going to be answering the great concerns out there in the teaching community and in the boards about this kind of process.

Those of us who have been wanting to see destreaming undertaken are basically kind of disappointed that the minister is so slow off the mark and that he has not realized the context it should be put in. Those people who are hostile to destreaming are going to have all of their fears magnified by this announcement today.

We in this party are very disappointed with the lack of direction of the government at this time.

Mr Jackson: I guess my primary concern about the minister’s announcement is that it follows so quickly on the heels of the throne speech yesterday. I understand that the government is carving out this territory with respect to educational reforms. They read a couple of polls. They tell the public what it would like to hear. There has been very limited consultation on the specific details of implementation.

What the public must realize very quickly about this government’s quick-off-the-mark approach to education is the overall context in which the financing for these educational reforms will occur. The government must realize, and the minister is painfully aware of it, that the general legislative grants in this province have dropped from 44.6 per cent down to 42.7 per cent, one of the most severe, draconian drops in general legislative grants in the last decade.

The minister has to realize that everything he enunciates in this House has a pricetag attached to it. He keeps reducing the provincial contribution and further compounding and overloading local property taxpayers all across this province.

The fact is that he will not address the issue of resources. In his response to the select committee on education, very clearly the only mention he makes of the commitment to fund these programs -- I will quote directly from his response -- the Minister of Education (Mr Ward) says his ministry “recognizes the importance of providing resources to boards and will continue to make every effort to secure appropriate financing.”

It is abundantly clear, based on the general legislative grants and based on the recent capital allocation and his formula reduction, that the minister is losing in his battle at the cabinet table for the necessary resources to implement these kinds of reforms.

I want to ask the minister about his time lines for implementation. There were some very good presentations made to his office during the select committee on education activities but, quite frankly, his implementation date is mysteriously timed for the next provincial election.

If he is going to use pilot projects across this province, how can he suggest that these pilot projects, with only one year, or a year and a half at best, will give him sufficient time to analyse whether or not they have been effectively implemented?

Finally, I would ask the minister, because he has not been very clear in his very brief announcement today, what treatment he is going to be giving to students in occupational and vocational schools because, quite frankly, mainstreaming in these institutions presents a severe challenge to some of Ontario’s students. We do not want the minister in his announcement to leave those teachers, those students and those parents out on a limb.

I see the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr Mancini) is nodding in disapproval, but there is a Western Secondary School down in his part of the country and it cannot get a straight answer from this government with respect to where it is going with vocational students. I encourage the minister who sits directly behind the Minister of Education to perhaps examine this question and demand that the minister make some clarifying statements for those families of vocational students.

I would encourage the government to stop continuing in its trend of avoiding being the bill payer of this province for education reforms and stop being the total and solitary decision-maker for educational matters in this province and to work in a consultative manner with both school boards and teachers in terms of implementing these reforms.

Mrs Cunningham: I think the real question for the transition years in education is, one, who will teach these students? We are talking about 140 people in teachers’ colleges across this province, 140 in technical education studies. They should all be hired by one school board tomorrow. That is 140 technical teachers for the whole of the province.

The other question that should be answered is, “Where will they be taught?” Right now, the real problem in education is that we have too many students in portables. Does this really mean, during the transition years, that we will be teaching students of technical education and business in portables? When the minister talks about partners in education, is he talking about co-operating with business and industry, and where is the emphasis today on technological education?

ORAL QUESTIONS

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr B. Rae: I have some questions today to the Premier about garbage. During the break, the Premier was very heavily involved with the announcements made by the five regional chairmen about garbage and the disposal of garbage. He was personally at the press conference.

I would like to ask him a question very directly, and bring him down to earth if I can with respect to some of the things that were said yesterday in the throne speech. There is a contingency landfill which is now being actively discussed, the next landfill that will take in the garbage from the five regions.

The chairmen talk about the fact that the province has agreed on contingency provisions because it wishes to avert any potential environmental crisis. The greater Toronto area proposal is very careful to say that there will be a “public environmental suitability examination,” but it does not refer to an environmental assessment.

I want to ask the Premier specifically this question. Can he tell us whether there will be a complete, exhaustive environmental assessment of the next dump site contingency, part-time, full-time or whatever, or are we going to make do with a process in which the government simply does an end run around this whole situation?

Hon Mr Peterson: I think the minister can help my honourable friend with this whole matter.

Hon Mr Bradley: I have missed the House over the last period of time and the opportunity to share a few thoughts with my colleagues.

Mr R. F. Johnston: Where are those fluorescent green pants you were wearing?

Hon Mr Bradley: They are not on today. This is just the tie today.

Mr Reville: Where do you scratch and sniff?

Hon Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, they will not let the honourable member answer the question. They do not want to hear the answer to this.

Hon Mr Bradley: There will be tickets available at the appropriate time. I know that members of the opposition will want some of those tickets and we will ensure that they are available across Ontario.

In regard to the question of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr B. Rae), there have been a number of discussions which have taken place between officials of the government of Ontario and the chairmen of the regions, who have expressed an interest in getting together to work on the environmental challenges that they must meet over the next few years in terms of disposal of garbage.

One of the areas that we have placed a good deal of emphasis on, of course, is the fact that there must be a very significant diversion of waste from either landfills or incinerators in Ontario. We have established the goal, as the member would know, of course, of some 25 per cent by the year 1992 and 50 per cent by the year 2000.

Mrs Grier: I would certainly like to welcome the Minister of the Environment to the discussion of the greater Toronto area’s waste disposal problems. It is the first time he has been heard from on the issue, so we are glad that the question was deflected to him. I did not hear an answer to the Leader of the Opposition’s question and I would like to place it very directly to the Minister of the Environment.

Does the Minister of the Environment consider that the inclusion in the GTA proposal of the description, “public environmental suitability examination,” when it comes to the contingency landfill, is sufficient? If not, will he ensure that there is a full environmental assessment of any contingency landfill?

Hon Mr Bradley: As the Premier indicated at the time of the announcement, looking at the long-term efforts of the various regions that are attempting to get together to solve problems which they have had to solve exclusive of another in the past, they have indicated very clearly that there will be an environmental assessment taking place because we are looking well into the future when we talk about the long-term results of this particular scrutiny of any of the options that are available.

In terms of the interim, the member knows that in our policy in Ontario, we have expansions which take place from time to time. We have applied a policy that where an expansion takes place or an addition to a site takes place, there is an appropriate environmental hearing under the Environmental Protection Act in that specific instance of an expansion of a site, which examines very carefully all aspects of that particular site that may be placed on the table.

Any site that would come forward on an interim basis, we would look at very carefully to determine what should and what should not be approved. Our ministry officials look at it carefully. All government agencies scrutinize very carefully any site that would be put forward to determine whether that site is environmentally safe or not. We want to ensure that all the scientific and technical information --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr B. Rae: On 23 January 1989, I asked the Premier to tell us in detail what he knew about the proposal from Envacc Resources for the greater Toronto area. The Premier said this was a regional responsibility. He did not tell me or the House that on 23 June 1988 he met with a number of the principals of Envacc Resources, was briefed for some time, gave that company particular advice as to how to proceed and indicated that he was impressed with the fact that Marco Muzzo was one of the principals of the company.

Was the minister present at that meeting? Can he tell us why the Premier did not inform the House as to the details of that meeting? Can he tell us, if he was not there, why he was not included in a discussion which is of considerable importance to the future of the environment of the greater Toronto area?

Hon Mr Bradley: As the Leader of the Opposition will know, the Premier meets with a number of people throughout the year, probably hundreds, perhaps thousands of people, to discuss a number of proposals that affect the government as a whole.

The member will recall particularly that the Premier is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs as well as being the Premier. In that capacity he has the ability to meet with people who are regional chairmen and other municipal people on a variety of subjects. It is to be said that all options are available to the regional chairmen who have agreed to get together to solve what they consider to be a genuine challenge in the future and that all options are being canvassed by those people.

The Premier has, over a series of months, met with a number of people on this subject and other subjects, to deal with the Metropolitan Toronto area, the adjacent regions and some of the long-term options that the government of Ontario is canvassing. I am sure that in the future, if public sector or private sector people desire to meet with the Premier, they will have an opportunity to do so.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr B. Rae: The question is whether he will invite the minister to the meeting. I guess that is the one we are all asking.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions about car insurance. The minister made an announcement a couple of weeks ago about his plans for the future.

I wonder if he can tell us exactly what authority under the current act, the law which was debated and presented by the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) when he was minister and which was debated in this House for some time, what sections, what parts of the act he is relying on in his declaration that there will be a 7.6 per cent cap for this year and that in fact no changes will take place until 1990. Can he tell us what legal authority he has for that?

Hon Mr Elston: Legislation will be required and it will be brought forward in due course.

Mr B. Rae: I wonder if the minister could then confirm that he is telling us that this House spent weeks, indeed months, debating legislation with respect to automobile insurance following the 1987 election -- I want to make sure I have got this right -- we then set up the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board, which spent over $7 million of public money in having a hearing on classification and on rates, involving millions of dollars of insurance money which ends up coming out of the hides of drivers, that is literally millions and millions of dollars taken out of the hides of drivers and out of the hides of taxpayers --

The Speaker: Question.

Mr B. Rae: After that entire process is over, is the minister telling us that what the insurance board has done and ordered will not in fact take place this year? Is that what he is telling us?

Hon Mr Elston: The value of the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board has been well discussed, and I can assure the member that the advice it has given me in the course of several recommendations has provided us here in the legislative forum and also the public with the opportunity to examine in very minute detail the manner in which insurance rates are structured or put together and the components that go into determining what costs there are in running insurance programs.

You will know, Mr Speaker, much better than perhaps the Leader of the Opposition, that money spent in examining in very thorough detail the way in which products are delivered to provide protections for the citizens of this province is never misspent; in fact, the money has been well spent and has been very useful for us as we examine options which are ahead of us.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that we are moving to examine the options that are now in front of the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board and that we view the deliberations that it is now involved with as being very critical items, in particular items which will come forward to us as we make a decision on product reform.

The money has been well spent. It has been well worth it and in fact it has been a process which has provided the public in Ontario with the best education possible, I think, about insurance in any jurisdiction in North America.

Mr B. Rae: I talked to the minister about this back in February 1989 when we got the first report out from the insurance board. I want the minister to listen to the words he used to describe what I said. I warned him what would happen in terms of rates going up and what the implication would be. He said what I said was absolutely false; he said what I said was absolutely wrong.

He went on to say that we did not know what we were talking about and that as time unfolded, time would prove how right the minister was and how wrong the critics of him were, whether they were on this side or in that party -- my good friend the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr Runciman) -- or from the senior citizens’ organizations.

Hon Mr Wrye: There’s a real setback for his leadership.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Ward: You guys are going to have a strike.

Mr Reville: He just dropped 10 points in the poll.

Hon Mr Bradley: Are you watching, Tom Long?

The Speaker: Order, order.

Hon Mr Scott: One down, six to go.

Hon Mr Bradley: Left is right and right is left.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Conway: Boy, that makes Lorne Nystrom look pure.

Hon Mr Peterson: Who are you running for anyway?

Mr Harris: May I get a thousand copies of that Hansard?

The Speaker: Order. Does the Leader of the Opposition have the final supplementary?

Mr B. Rae: I do; and when I say “Leader of the Opposition,” I mean the whole opposition.

What I want to ask the minister is, in light of the things that he said would happen -- which have proven to be completely false -- if I may borrow his words, and in light of the allegations which he made about all of us on the other side who were so critical, does he not think he owes it to the people of this province to resign, in light of the genuine incompetence that he has shown in terms of the handling of this issue? It has cost millions of dollars; it has wasted taxpayers’ money.

Hon Mr Elston: I owe it to the public of this province to ensure that we have a product that protects the people. That is what I am doing; I move with dispatch to make sure there is protection in place for the people of this province. I may have made a mistake in trying to find a common bridge between the Leader of the Opposition and the left-leaning member for Leeds-Grenville, but I see that has now occurred.

The leader agrees that they are good pals and everything, but I will say that I never deviate from my one criterion, and that is that with respect to this party we reach to protect the public of this province in a way which is sensible and in fact sensitive to the needs of the people. I will never deviate from that. I will step in where required to protect the interests of the public. I will not shirk my responsibility in that manner at all.

Mr Brandt: As an aside, let me just say that the member for Leeds-Grenville has been called many things, but very few times has he been called left wing -- I want members to know that -- or particularly a friend of the Leader of the Opposition.

KINDERGARTEN

Mr Brandt: My first question is to the Premier and it is with respect to the throne speech which was read yesterday. The Premier will recall the

section relating to the extension of programs for students in kindergarten and the half day that was going to be made available through his government for four-year-olds and a full day of kindergarten classes for five-year-olds.

Government officials we have contacted have indicated to us that this will require some 50,000 student spaces in order to fulfil the Premier’s commitment made in his throne speech. I know that the government would not make such a commitment without a very full, a very thorough and a very detailed analysis of the cost.

Would the Premier simply share the cost of this program, what he feels it is going to amount to in terms of the total cost for providing these spaces, and will the Premier indicate and make a commitment that his government is going to pay for those costs?

Hon Mr Peterson: First of all, let me say to my honourable friend that I am delighted he is here to ask such an insightful question. We were all worried that my honourable friend was going to be so upset by the rumblings in his own party that he was going to leave and not be here in this House with us. I would say to my honourable friend: They may not like him, but we do like him on this side of the House.

I am glad my honourable friend asked that question, because I think he understands the significance of this initiative. As my honourable friend will know, this government believes in improving the quality of education. We started some time ago in bringing the student-teacher ratio down in grades 1 and 2. We will be continuing in the long term with offering child care to five-year-olds and four-year-olds. Many of the studies, my honourable friend will be aware, say that it has a significant impact on their capacity to learn. This is a significant new thrust forward.

My friend has done some research over the last couple of minutes to give him some new insights into the significance and importance of this program. Let me say that it was worked out in quite significant detail and at the appropriate time in this House the minister will stand, in conjunction with the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon), and give him all the details, and I am sure he will stand up and squeal with delight.

Mr Brandt: The Premier has made my day and I am so delighted to hear that he likes me. I just cannot tell the members how that has fulfilled all of my aspirations for this day’s question period.

I have not as yet heard an answer to my question, however, so I will help the Premier with some of the research that has been done in connection with the cost of this program.

The analysis that we have taken on this side of the House would indicate that the 50,000 spaces that are going to be required to fulfil the Premier’s commitment are going to cost a minimum of $162 million and probably considerably more than that by the time all of the program is fully implemented.

I would simply like to ask the Premier one more time -- it is a very simple question: Is it his intention to have his government, the province of Ontario, pay the full cost of the program or does he intend, through the kind of unique approach he uses to some problems over there, to introduce perhaps a new lottery that he could call Kidtario or something like that?

Hon Mr Peterson: That is the most creative idea my friend opposite has had in a number -- we will write that down and we will study it, but we do not believe in funding education through lotteries, as my friend obviously does. But I do appreciate his idea.

I can tell him that this program, like all the other ones, will be funded appropriately, by a very generous and insightful and thoughtful Treasurer, at the appropriate time.

Mr Brandt: The Premier may think that is an adequate answer. I have asked him whether or not his government is prepared to pay for the cost of the program he is introducing.

I want him to know that an analysis of the promises he has made through his Minister of Education (Mr Ward) to date would indicate that the government has broken a number of promises which total some $3 billion. That is what has happened under his government. We have another promise which is heaped upon that -- $3 billion in broken promises.

Very simply, is it the Premier’s intention to hold to his commitment to fulfil the costs of what this program is going to cost -- obviously he has analysed it; we do not have to wait for the Treasurer’s budget to find out this information -- or is he, one more time, going to shove the cost of these programs on to local boards of education?

Hon Mr Peterson: I say to my honourable friend, of course we are going to fund it appropriately. It will all be in the budget when the Treasurer brings it forward and the member will be delighted.

Mr Brandt: Appropriate funding in the past has been raising taxpayers’ costs at the local level far too frequently.

ROUGE VALLEY

Mr Brandt: My next question is to the Minister of the Environment. I would like to pursue, if I might, the same question with respect to the Environmental Assessment Act and the minister’s proposals in regard to the Rouge Valley.

The minister will be aware that the greater Toronto area, which is studying this entire matter at the moment, may well make a recommendation today in connection with the Rouge Valley and its use as a possible dump site. Within the last week, the Minister of Skills Development (Mr Curling) indicated, in remarks that were attributed to him, that the province of Ontario intends to protect the Rouge Valley. By that, I would take it to mean that he will protect the Rouge Valley against a dump site and also against the possibility of a highway being constructed in that particular area.

Will the minister today confirm to this House that it is his intention to undergo a complete environmental assessment -- the answer to that question which he did not respond to when it was raised by the opposition party -- and will he in fact indicate that his government is prepared to do everything possible to preserve the Rouge?

Hon Mr Bradley: As the member would be aware, the Premier (Mr Peterson) has said on a number of occasions that the government of Ontario will in fact be protecting and preserving the park land in that area. He would be aware as well that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr Kerrio), under the auspices of his ministry and through the conservation authority, has provided a good deal of money already for the purchase of land and for the operation of a park.

We, as a government -- and I am sure I am speaking on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources, who has jurisdiction over parks -- as the Premier has said intend to have the valley protected for park purposes. That is the policy of this government. A number of discussions are taking place; the municipalities have been involved; the conservation authority has been involved; there has been some public involvement in terms of residents of that particular area who have given input. At an appropriate time, the government will make an announcement as to its policy in the entire area.

I know the member shares with our government the feeling that the Rouge Valley is rather a unique place, and that we intend to preserve it as an urban wilderness area.

Mr Brandt: I can recall, with some degree of interest, the response of the now Minister of the Environment whenever the environmental process was bypassed for whatever reason when he sat in opposition. Here we have one of the most sensitive parcels of land left in the greater Metropolitan Toronto area and we cannot get a straight answer out of him as to whether or not he will make sure that the application of the environmental assessment process is fulfilled to the letter of the law.

Since he will not answer that question, will he answer the question in regard to the offer that was made directly to him by the federal government in connection with a $10-million park? Is he now prepared, since he is constantly indicating that the federal government is not prepared to enter into a partnership with him on various programs, to commit that he will enter into a partnership with the federal government to develop a proper park land in the Rouge Valley?

Hon Mr Bradley: I am going to talk about it positively. I do not want to sound negative on this day. There is a new federal Minister of the Environment to deal with, so I will try to be very positive about this.

We see that $10 million as an excellent deposit on the ultimate cost of the development of this area. I remember when the previous minister, Mr McMillan, came to that part of the province and indicated his support. I expressed at that time again, as did the Minister of Natural Resources, happiness that the federal government was prepared to begin to involve itself financially in such an undertaking. We welcome it. But I think the minister who is responsible for parks would indicate to you that the final cost of the acquisition of land and the appropriate looking-after of the area would be several times the $10 million which has been suggested.

Please let me say that I think it is an excellent start. We welcome them in joining in the program that the Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources have announced to retain this area for park purposes. We welcome their contribution to our plan, and if they wish to bring more money --

The Speaker: Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr Brandt: I want to try one more time to see if the minister will in fact respond to a very direct question in connection with the ultimate use of that property and the process that will be used in order to reach a decision acceptable to all of the councils that surround the Rouge Valley, in response to the interest they have expressed directly to him by indicating they do not want a dump in that particular area.

I want to ask the minister a very clear and very simple question: Is he prepared to require that the full environmental assessment process be fulfilled with respect to any undertakings in the Rouge, or is he going to continue to dance verbally and hope that he can get off the hook on this somehow so he does not have to respond in terms of specifics? What is the intention of his ministry? It is a very simple question.

Hon Mr Bradley: There has been some speculation that the member has referred to as to what might take place in that area. It is probably inappropriate to comment on that kind of speculation.

I have seen no such proposals coming forward for the Rouge Valley at the present time, other than the park land proposal, which the Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources have made reference to.

I think the proposal that I have seen that the member makes reference to, which is speculation, is in fact not one which is in the Rouge Valley. I think he is talking about some lands which are in Scarborough at that point. I would say that there will be a very careful assessment of anything that is brought forward for the purpose of development of any facility in that area. It must meet all of the requirements of the Ministry of the Environment as it relates to the environmental assessment process and as it relates to all aspects of any proposal that would be brought forward.

There will be a public hearing under the auspices of the Environmental Assessment Board, as there is in these instances. I imagine that would be the case for any proposal that is brought forward.

KINDERGARTEN

Mr R. F. Johnston: My question is to the Minister of Education and regards the rather limited goals set for kindergarten, which turn out to be even less significant than we had thought.

The minister must be aware that the vast majority of school boards around the province already have the programs he is talking about, and the majority of the ones that do not are the growth boards, which cannot accommodate them.

I want to ask a question around half-day junior kindergarten as it relates to the York Region Board of Education. They estimate that 20 per cent of their schools cannot accommodate one more portable. Therefore, they have to consider enormous renovation costs to do what the ministry is requesting, because it is not putting money into this. They either have to bus junior kindergarten kids from one part of their ward to another or provide inequality of access, depending on their growth areas, to their existing areas. What is the minister suggesting those boards to do with this particular announcement that came out yesterday?

Hon Mr Ward: I am delighted that the member for Scarborough would raise the issue of this very important initiative, one that I believe represents a very important investment in our future in this province.

Many boards throughout Ontario have been offering junior kindergarten programs; very few, I might add though, have full-day senior kindergarten programs, only nine out of 178 boards clear across the province.

There is no question that these initiatives will have associated with them significant costs, but over the course of the past year and a half, having listened to parents throughout this province and having received input from teachers and very many other interested parties, I believe it is essential we proceed. I believe the people of this province are prepared to pay the costs associated with this initiative.

Mr R. F. Johnston: The minister has his head in the sand when it comes to these growth boards and their terrible problems of space. Let’s deal, if we can now, with the issue of full-time senior kindergarten. Talking to Ms Parrish of the Peel of Board of Education, which has 558 portables on hand at the moment I remind the minister, she estimates that to go to full-time senior kindergarten in that board alone would cost $77.5 million.

I was trying to think of my second supplementary. Ms Parrish gave it to me and I would like to pose it to the minister on her behalf. What the hell are the growth boards going to do now that the minister has raised everyone’s expectations to levels which cannot be met?

Hon Mr Ward: I point out that the member should know by now that this government has participated in a very large way in trying to help local boards of education meet their accommodation needs, a responsibility that does rest with local boards under the regulations and statutes of this province. I will let the figures speak for themselves.

In the last two years, our allocations have created space for an additional 120,000 students during a period of time in which total enrolment growth in Ontario has been 45,000. Sure, it will take some time to meet the backlog of needs, but the member will know that even in the growth regions our allocation program is producing additional accommodation at a much greater pace than the pace of enrolment growth.

I also point out to the member that many boards within those growth regions in fact do offer junior kindergarten programs, because they have made a choice at the local level that these programs are indeed important. I believe they are important to the 50,000 parents of 50,000 four-year-olds in this province who do not have access to these programs. I do not think their ability to access this program should be limited to their ability to pay the costs. They should be available for each and every child.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Burlington South.

Mr Jackson: My question is also to the Minister of Education.

Mr R. F. Johnston: Then why are you not changing the Education Act to mandate four year old attendance?

The Speaker: Order. The member for Scarborough West has asked a question and a supplementary.

Mr R. F. Johnston: I’m sorry; I promised the Speaker I would not heckle today.

The Speaker: You did. New question, the member for Burlington South.

Mr Jackson: I am going to ask basically the same question, and we will keep asking these questions until we get the answers. Yesterday in its throne speech, the government stated that the federal government must honour its funding commitments to joint programs. That seems to contradict exactly the practices of the provincial government with respect to funding commitments for local school boards.

Last Friday, the minister announced school capital allocations in the Halton region, and we find out now that 50 per cent of all the new capital allocations for schools, for new classrooms, must come out of the local ratepayer. We want to know, now that the government wants the Halton Board of Education to introduce junior kindergarten programs where those programs are not being provided, where is the minister going to get the additional classroom spaces to implement those programs? Where is he going to put those children and who is going to pay for those programs?

Hon Mr Ward: As I indicated in a response to the previous question, the member knows full well that this government has participated very substantially in a program to assist boards meet their capital needs. It seems the member for Burlington South has a very short memory. Let me take him back to his days as a trustee with the Halton Board of Education when, some five years ago, that board embarked on a $35-million expenditure plan, all at local taxpayer expense because the government of the day would not participate in capital programs.

The government of the day had, over five years, an expenditure level that was less than the annual commitment to boards given by this government, given because we believe it is appropriate and the needs of our children come first in our school system. Frankly, we intend to meet the needs that are out there. We intend to ensure this program is fully implemented in every region of this province and we intend to provide the support necessary to see this is done.

Mr Jackson: The numbers thrown around by the Minister of Education certainly are not designed to illuminate the truth of what is happening in capital allocations to school boards. In fact, what he will not put in any of his press releases is that he is $163 million late with the flow of that capital money. That speaks of the strength of his commitment.

If we can go back to Halton, on Friday, he announced $23 million worth of new schools and renovations for that board. On that same day, the minister unilaterally reduced the percentage contribution that comes from his government and he did that without prior consultation. As a result, $11 million is now going to have to be raised by local taxpayers with what he calls long-term debt financing. Since the kindergarten initiative is dependent on finding new classroom spaces, is it not just another one of his sexy Liberal promises that is going to be built entirely on the backs of taxpayers from their wallets?

Hon Mr Ward: I would just say to my friend how short his memory is and take him back once again to his days as a trustee in the region of Halton when all those costs were being borne by the local ratepayers. Last week, it was my pleasure to announce a program that will generate $1.1 billion worth of school construction in this province.

I do not think we should lose sight of the fact that over the course of the past three years alone, some 200 new schools have been under construction in this province and that enrolment in all our schools is still some 200,000 students less than it was in those schools just 10 years ago. It will take some time, I will acknowledge, to make up for some of the backlog of needs that has accumulated over the years for some strange reason, but I can tell the member that we will continue to provide that support to local boards to meet the needs of all the children in this province.

DISCLOSURE OF ADOPTION INFORMATION

Mr Miclash: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. In 1986, when adoption disclosure amendments were presented to the Legislature for first reading, the minister spoke of a need to strike the best possible balance between the right to individual privacy and the right of adoptees to know about their past. We all favour a more open approach to adoption disclosure. However, I am concerned that adoptive parents do not receive the kind of support that has been so appropriately provided to the adoptee and the natural parent.

I would therefore like to ask the minister if he would consider providing counselling to adoptive parents in recognition of the fact that sensitive information about an adoption can be disruptive to the family unit.

Hon Mr Sweeney: When we made the changes the honourable member speaks about, we indicated clearly, with respect to the final decision that would affect the birth parent and the adult adoptee in terms of the opportunity to have a meeting, that it would require the consent of only those two. That was a change from the previous legislation which also required the consent of the adoptive parent.

However, we indicated at that same time that the range of services that was contained in those changes would be available to any party to the adoption process. That certainly included the adoptive parents at that time and certainly includes them today. We are not in any way suggesting the adoptive parents should be left out of the procedure. The only change we made was to not require the active consent of the adoptive parent. But as far as counselling services are concerned, that is certainly available to the adoptive parents as well.

Mr Miclash: I thank the minister. My question is, how are the adoptive parents made aware of the availability of these counselling services?

Hon Mr Sweeney: That does pose a small problem because the present procedure calls for the adult adoptee and the birth parent to have both registered their names on the adoption register. When that happens, they are both approached by staff of my ministry and asked whether or not a reunion is desired. If they say yes and if they both give their consent, that is done. There is no requirement in the existing legislation to involve the adoptive parents in any similar way.

However, any adoptive parent, I am sure, would be aware of the fact this process is under way. A simple request from any office of the Ministry of Community and Social Services would bring the necessary counselling support if that is what they would require.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Health. I am sure she will know that my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr Reville), my friend the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr Pouliot) and I went to a number of communities on James Bay last week. It was a revelation to the three of us. We spent four days in a number of communities, talking about health care and a number of issues, but focusing especially on health care.

I would like to ask the minister a question about Attawapiskat, a community she knows because she visited it herself. A coroner’s jury reported earlier in 1989 on the tragic death of a young woman named Rita Koostachin who died in June 1988 after falling off an all-terrain vehicle. It took six hours for her to be properly transported and cared for.

When the minister was in Attawapiskat, she received a letter from the chief and the band which outlined a number of areas of concern. One of these specifically was the question of why there are no ambulances in this community, and I might point out to the minister there are no ambulances in any of the communities we visited.

The second recommendation of the coroner’s jury in the death of Rita Koostachin is that there should be an ambulance vehicle that is associated with the hospital, that is attended by professionals and that is there on a 24-hour basis. There are over 1,000 people in this community. It is completely isolated.

I wonder if the minister would not now agree, after the tragic death of Rita Koostachin and the report of the coroner’s jury, that it is now time to provide ambulances for these communities.

Hon Mrs Caplan: As the Leader of the Opposition knows, I was in Attawapiskat and I am aware of the conditions there. What I have said very clearly to our native communities is that while we do not wish in any way to interfere with their aspirations or enter into any kind of jurisdictional dispute with the federal government, we have appointed a native health coordinator within the ministry to help us meet the needs of the native communities in this province.

Mr B. Rae: The appointment of another civil servant is, I am sure, going to cause joy and celebration to spread all throughout north of the 50th parallel. In fact, I am sure as they hear this news, they are cheering on the shores of the Albany River and on the Attawapiskat, right across up to Hudson Bay. That is not the issue. The question is, what are the services that are going to be provided in these communities?

I asked a very specific question to the minister. She was asked that same specific question when she was there last summer. We now have a coroner’s jury that says an ambulance is essential in order to save lives and advance the interests of people whose lives are threatened because of the absence of services.

I want to ask the minister specifically, why is there now no ambulance service in Attawapiskat? Why is there no ambulance service in Fort Albany? Why is there no ambulance service in Moose Factory? Why is there no ambulance service in Kashechewan? What is she going to do to see that there are ambulance services in these communities?

The Speaker: Order. There are four questions there.

Hon Mrs Caplan: As the Leader of the Opposition would know, the remoteness of the James Bay coast presents very special challenges to meeting the needs of the native people. We are very aware of that and I want to tell him that ministry officials are going to be in the James Bay area in May, meeting with the communities to discuss ambulance services specifically and the health needs of those communities in general.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Runciman: My question is for the Minister of Financial Institutions. I am sure many of us are intrigued by the decision-making process within this government and I think the Leader of the Opposition’s call for the minister’s resignation was quite appropriate. Although I consider the minister a friend, I do not think there is any question this whole issue has been terribly mismanaged by this government.

The basis for the minister’s decision was common knowledge a year and a half ago. The standing committee on administration of justice -- witness after witness -- and his own study by William M. Mercer Ltd indicated there was going to be severe dislocation if they went ahead with their new rating criteria. I would like the minister to explain to taxpayers and consumers across this province why he waited until the last minute and why he wasted millions of their dollars by doing that.

Hon Mr Elston: The honourable gentleman is out looking for friends, having won the friendship of the Leader of the Opposition whose presence in Toronto awaits only his departure for Ottawa to replace Ed Broadbent. My friend the member for Leeds-Grenville is asking me about waste. I can tell him, as I told the other people who asked the questions, there is no waste involved there when you consider the amount of information we have generated to understand exactly what goes on inside a very complex insurance industry.

We have taken the industry apart

section by section. We have looked at the components that have gone into the costs associated with the premiums we pay in this province and we have looked at those in a very technical and detailed manner, in a manner which we now know provides the consuming public of Ontario with information they never had before so that they can be wiser consumers in the purchase of their products. We have also found that in going through that entire process, it has moved our judgement as a government to look more towards product reform as a manner in which we will provide the protections required by the people of the province.

Our decision-making processes should not be any mystery to the member or to that other party. They should not be any mystery to the public. We want to protect the interests of the public. We want to protect the interests of the consumers of this province. We are doing so. In fact, we are committed to ensuring there is fair and equitable protection at a fair and equitable price for consumers across Ontario.

Mr Runciman: I guess $7 million of taxpayers’ money flushed down the toilet is a Liberal example of money well spent. I guess if it goes to Liberal worthies and a so-called independent board that can be disregarded in a moment, that is well-spent money.

This minister knew a year and a half or two years ago as well that the only precedent with respect to the system the government put in place in Ontario was what has occurred in the state of Massachusetts. I want to talk about forward planning. We know many companies are not writing auto policies in Toronto now. Thousands upon thousands of Metropolitan Toronto drivers could be forced into high-cost Facility Association insurance this summer in the coming months.

I wonder, in terms of the minister’s planning, is he simply going to scoff at the opposition again and say it is not going to happen, or is he doing any planning? How is he going to deal with this crisis that is probably going to face thousands of Metropolitan Toronto drivers this year?

Hon Mr Elston: I have tried to deal with the questions of the honourable gentleman, the member for Leeds-Grenville, in a reasonable fashion. I have to repeat, however, for the people of the province so that they understand what is happening, that there is no waste in that.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that the $7 million that was spent has provided for us the detail, the background, the understanding with respect to the insurance industry in Ontario that is not so found in other parts of the land. In fact, we know what is going on inside the insurance industry now and we have decided that we will move to look more clearly at product reform. In fact, we have already taken several initiatives on the basis of the hearings.

The strange part about this is that when the member stands up and speaks to his public audiences, and when the members from that opposition party stand up and speak to the public, they use some of the material that was generated at the public hearings in front of the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board to say, “We have to have reforms here, here and here,” some of which we have already announced as a government, to move towards better driver education, better standards of control of accident costs and things like those.

In addition to that, we have moved further to refer to the board in a very public manner a review of products that may help us reform the system to be even fairer in the appreciation of the problems created by automobile accidents. We are doing the work that is required for forward-thinking and for the protection of the people in the province.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr Faubert: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Last week, the Toronto Star carried an

article that speculated about a possible announcement on the extension of the Spadina subway line to Sheppard Avenue, north from Wilson Avenue. In this article, it was mentioned that the province has said it prefers a York University extension to the Sheppard subway proposal. As has been well noted in the past, the Sheppard subway would provide the essential transit link between the Scarborough Town Centre and the North York Centre, as well as have the benefit of attracting commercial development on nodes across the route itself.

Can the minister advise the House if the government has established a preference between the Sheppard subway and a York University line?

Hon Mr Fulton: I thank the member for his question and his ongoing interest in the transportation needs around Metropolitan Toronto. He would be aware that last May in this House, and in other forums, we announced a transportation strategy for the greater Metropolitan Toronto area and the four surrounding regions.

He would probably be aware that today Metro Toronto council is debating some of the options that have been reviewed and presented within that document. One of them, of course, is the extension of the Spadina line. He would also be aware that, in that connection, some time ago we announced a million dollars’ worth of funding to in fact ensure and protect the Sheppard corridor, not only within the defined area as outlined in the Network 2011 report but also in fact to extend that protection right through to the Scarborough Town Centre.

Mr Faubert: I am pleased that the decision has not been made on the York University-versus-Sheppard line; but in addition to the protection of the right of way, can the minister advise the House what else has been done to ensure that the Sheppard subway remains the viable alternative that it needs to be?

Hon Mr Fulton: The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere will be well aware that there have been numerous negotiations ongoing with both the Toronto Transit Commission and members of Metro council. Indeed, I met only recently with the various mayors and the chairman of the Metro corporation. We share an interest with them in getting on with needed transit projects within the Metro area. There is a variety of options available, on the table, well known to them and well known to the public, with three or four options.

We consider the Spadina extension as proposed to provide perhaps the maximum number of options as we proceed. It does not in any way preclude an east-west link along Sheppard or any other location.

LUMBER INDUSTRY

Mr Morin-Strom: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources, in the absence of the Premier (Mr Peterson).

In yesterday’s throne speech, the Liberal agenda for the province totally ignored northern Ontario and in particular one of the most important industries in northern Ontario, the lumber industry. This industry is under severe threat and in fact has lost, in the last week, another 800 jobs. We have heard of considerable losses, in fact in the home community of the Minister of Northern Development (Mr Fontaine), in Hearst, with the closure of Lévesque Lumber; in Sault Ste. Marie, where some 500 workers in the mills and woodlands associated with G. W. Martin have been laid off indefinitely as well.

The minister knows that the softwood lumber tax is at the heart of the matter. This government went along with that agreement. It has done nothing to put the funds that have come from that and that have gone to the provincial government back into those communities and back into that industry to ensure the long-term future of those workers. The Liberal response to the softwood lumber taxes has gone --

The Speaker: Order. That is a speech. Do you have a question?

Mr Morin-Strom: Will the minister tell us what he is going to do in order to ensure that workers in the lumber industry in northern Ontario will have a future in Ontario?

Hon Mr Kerrio: The comments that were made have absolutely no credibility. This government has made it a high priority to address the problems in northern Ontario. There has been a great deal of money expended to move my branch of forestry into northern Ontario, which is the first time that kind of initiative has been taken in the kinds of numbers that we are talking about. The fact of the matter, and one point that the member does make, is that the export tax is a major problem.

The other thing that he has said is absolutely not a matter of fact. This government has fought from day one not to go along with the export tax. We are not the only government in Canada to have taken that stance. Alberta stands just as firmly as we do in objecting to what the federal government did when it sold out our softwood lumber industry. I want to be fair and answer the questions the member poses; but they are so full of inaccuracies, how do I respond to something that does not make any sense?

The fact of the matter is that we stood firm against the 10 per cent. Alberta has. They have been trying to get us to put replacement measures in. We were not willing to do it.

Mr Wildman: Let’s deal with reality. Tomorrow 300 mill workers and woodlands workers will be laid off at Lévesque Lumber in Hearst. There is nothing in the throne speech at all about northern Ontario, much less anything dealing with this government’s response to the crisis in the lumber industry that has meant a total of 1,700 jobs has been lost. There is nothing from this government in the throne speech.

Can the minister explain why there has been this slap in the face to the mayor of Hearst, Gilles Gagnon, and to the workers in the lumber industry, in that the government has failed to respond to his request in a letter to the Premier (Mr Peterson) of 4 April 1989 when he pointed out the urgent need for assistance to ensure the lumber manufacturing industry in Ontario regains its competitive position? Why is there nothing in the throne speech outlining the steps Ontario intends to take for adjustment assistance for the industry and for the workers who have been hurt by the 15 per cent tax, since more sawmills are going to be closed in the future as a result of it?

Hon Mr Kerrio: There are a few things that have to be brought into perspective when one talks about this particular issue. I certainly am just as concerned as the member is, and many people on our side are, about the impact of the softwood lumber tax on our softwood lumber people, but that does not take away from the fact that this government has made a major commitment to planting, to aerial spraying and to some $80 million spent last year to protect the forest from fire.

We have been very active in the important aspects of protecting our forests. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr Kwinter) has an involvement with restructuring and doing some of the things that we can in order to address the problem of workers being displaced.

It is very high on my priority list. I would like the members on that side to know that it is a very important priority of this government to do everything that can be done for those people who are displaced.

Mr Wildman: Let’s deal with reality.

Hon Mr Kerrio: If the member were really interested he would not be shouting at me. I listened to what he had to say and I think it is appropriate he should do the same on an important issue like this.

The Speaker: Order.

HOUSING

Mr Harris: I was hoping today that the Minister of Housing could enlighten us as to why the Liberal government is virtually ignoring Ontario’s housing crisis. The throne speech is a document which lays out for one and all those directions and issues the government believes are important in the coming year. My question is: Why did the minister fail to make representation to the Premier to have housing included in this document?

Hon Ms Hošek: The member opposite knows very well that housing has been a high priority of this government for a number of years and, in fact, we have demonstrated our commitment to making sure there is action on the housing problem in a number of very concrete ways.

His question gives me the opportunity to detail them for the people in the House. As he knows very well, in the last budget the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) said there would be $2 billion of Canada pension plan funds available for building nonprofit housing in this province. I have been all over the province in the last number of months announcing 21,000 units of nonprofit housing to be allocated and to be built.

There are groups of nonprofit volunteers from churches and ethnic organizations, Rotary clubs and legions all over the province right now who are involved actively in the building process as a result of the commitment this government has made to making sure the supply of nonprofit housing in this province is massively increased. So right now, all over the province, there are people planning and actively involved in building as a result of our commitment to housing.

Another thing we have been doing that is very important, I think, is working with the municipalities to make sure the supply of housing comes on stream more quickly and that our goals for making sure housing is affordable --

Mr Harris: I have in this hand last year’s throne speech, where there were 14 specific housing thrusts that were mentioned as priorities of the government. I have in my right hand this document, the throne speech we heard yesterday. Not only does this speech ignore housing, it fails to mention a single accomplishment over the past year from the 14 specific thrusts that were mentioned here. I find this, quite frankly, rather bizarre. I would ask the minister this.

We want to know why there was nothing in the throne speech, and I think she owes this House an explanation as to why it was not in there. Was it because she does not believe there is a crisis out there? She reiterates the litany of what she is doing. Or is it that she acknowledges there is a crisis, but she really does not know what it is she should do about it, or does she simply not have the clout in cabinet?

The Speaker: Thank you. Order. The question has been asked.

Hon Ms Hošek: The member opposite knows that our budget in the Ministry of Housing today is twice what it was in 1985-86. The reason the budget is so high is all the commitments that have been made and that are being actively acted upon right now.

If the member opposite were more in touch with what was going on in his riding, he might know that more than 240 families in North Bay are now benefiting from the fact that a low-rise rehabilitation program has rehabilitated their housing. He would know that there have been 265 subsidized units put into North Bay, in his very riding, in the past two years. That is up from 16 such units that were present when his government was in power -- from 16 to 265 subsidized units.

If the member opposite is having trouble paying attention to all the things that we have been doing in the housing sector all over the province, I think that is a serious difficulty. We continue to pay attention to our commitment to housing and are working actively to build, to implement, to make very real the commitments that we have already entered into to make sure that the housing needs of the people in this province are more adequately met.

PETITIONS

PROPOSED BUILDING SITE

Mr R. F. Johnston: I have a petition which, as well as being made out to the mayor and council of the city of Scarborough, is in fact addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor as follows:

“To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Whereas high-density residential development is being proposed adjacent to an abandoned dump site near Gerrard Street East and Clonmore Drive in the riding of Scarborough West, we insist that a full environmental impact study be carried out prior to excavation and construction of the proposed project.”

There are 138 signatures and I add my signature and my support.

SCHOOL OPENING AND CLOSING EXERCISES

Mr Pollock: I have a petition signed by approximately 800 people which reads as follows:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Whereas we believe the amendments to regulation 262 relating to the collective recitation of the Lord’s Prayer in open or closed exercises in public schools deprive many Ontario citizens of their established freedoms, we therefore object to the loss of our freedoms.”

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

NATUROPATHY

Mr Epp: I have two petitions, one from a number of residents of Stratford. It reads:

“To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Whereas it is my constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of my preference;

“And

whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

“We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment.”

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr Epp: I have another petition from my own constituency with hundreds of names on it and it reads:

“We, the undersigned, ask that there be a moratorium on clear-cut logging in Ontario until the problems of soil erosion, soil compaction, gross waste of wood, inappropriate site selection and harmful effects on plants and wildlife have been addressed.

“We further ask that the following measures be immediately adopted:

“That public and private sector funding for reforestation programs be increased to allow both long-term monitoring and expansion of programs to a large enough scale for sustaining future forestry;

“That current monocultural methods of reforestation be changed in recognition of the known dangers of this approach;

“That logging companies be compelled, by law, subject to financial penalties, to monitor and maintain reforested areas.”

SOUTH CENTENNIAL MANOR

Mr Pope: I have a petition addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg to petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

“The Ontario government okayed renovations and staff increases to cover extended care services at the South Centennial Manor in Iroquois Falls, Ontario.

“That same government is now reversing its decision, after the completion of the project, and is planning to limit extended care services in the South Centennial Manor, which in effect, would place a number of our senior citizens, without choice, out of the manor and into the hospitals.

“We, the citizens of Iroquois Falls and surrounding areas, protest the Ontario government’s decisions to limit extended care service in the South Centennial Manor.”

It is signed by 1,242 residents of Iroquois Falls and I have affixed my signature to it.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Miss Roberts: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to May 31 1982 have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present seven or 10 years.

“The proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

There are 29 signatures and I have affixed my name to it as required by the rules.

SENIOR CITIZENS’ APARTMENTS

Mr Harris: I have two petitions. One is to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Whereas in 1973 the Ontario Housing Corp. constructed a senior citizen complex, consisting of a senior citizen apartment building situated at 135 Worthington Street West, in the city of North Bay; and

“Whereas it has come to our attention that senior citizen apartments have been rented to nonseniors;

“Be it resolved that we the undersigned support the establishment of a regulation whereby senior citizen apartments be made available to seniors only.”

I have signed this petition and it is signed by a couple of hundred petitioners. It is the third such petition on the same subject that I have tabled in this Legislature.

TOBACCO TAX

Mr Harris: The second one is to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

“We would urge the provincial Treasurer and the government of Ontario to maintain tobacco taxes at their present level.”

I have affixed my signature to that as well. This is signed by several hundred petitioners and, I am sure, it enjoys the overwhelming support of my colleague from Carleton as well.

NATUROPATHY

Mr Elliot: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

“We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment.”

There are approximately 70 signatures on this petition and I have affixed my signature to it too.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr D. R. Cooke from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs presented the committee’s report and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr D. R. Cooke: Briefly, this is a report we feel is a focused report unanimously asking the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) to: first, consider in the budget the recommendations of phase 1 of the Social Assistance Review Committee; second, set up a cross-ministry, cross-budget analysis of what that accomplishes; and third, consider a permanent round table on social and economic policy. It also includes a number of taxation recommendations and a number of other areas that the committee feels should be given priority consideration in an upcoming budget.

On motion by Mr D. R. Cooke, the debate was adjourned.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

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

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 194,

An Act to restrict Smoking in Workplaces.

Motion agreed to.

The Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Mr Sterling: Committee of the whole House.

The Speaker: Some members said, “No, committee of the whole House.”

Hon Mr Conway: The question, as I understand it, is the ordering of Bill 194 for the next stage. Certainly it was our expectation that it would go to third reading. I am interested, if anyone wants to illuminate me otherwise.

Mr Harris: I think the committee members will recall that the member for Carleton (Mr Sterling), who has very ably represented my party on this, indicated that he felt this bill should indeed come before committee of the whole House. He indicated at the committee stage that he would be asking for that to take place. Therefore, I suggest the next logical step for it to go through is committee of the whole House before proceeding to third reading.

Hon Mr Conway: I am taken a bit by surprise because I certainly do not recall --

The Speaker: Order. Is there agreement that it go to committee of the whole House?

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Elliot from the standing committee on general government presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Bill 170,

An Act to revise several Acts related to Aggregate Resources.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

MOTIONS

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Hon Mr Conway moved that the appointment of the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr M. C. Ray) as deputy chairman of the committee of the whole House be continued for the second session of the 34th Parliament.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Mr Conway moved that, notwithstanding standing order 71, private members’ public business not be considered until the first Thursday following the completion of the throne debate and that the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot items 1 to 4 inclusive.

Motion agreed to.

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Mr Conway moved that, notwithstanding standing order 2(a), the House shall meet at 1:30 pm on Thursday, 27 April 1989 and Thursday, 4 May 1989.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PORT BRUCE BOAT CLUB ACT, 1989

Miss Roberts moved first reading of Bill Pr1,

An Act to revive the Port Bruce Boat Club.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1989

Mr Kanter moved first reading of Bill Pr19,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

The Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 37(a), Mr Kormos moves that the ordinary business of the House be set aside, Wednesday, 26 April 1989, to discuss a matter of urgent and pressing concern; namely, the crisis in auto insurance for Ontario drivers created by the government’s incompetent and incoherent response to rapidly increasing insurance rates; namely, its rejection of public insurance in favour of an auto insurance board, which the government continues to undermine in the face of growing refusals by the industry to write insurance policies in Ontario.

I wish to inform the members of the House that notice was given in ample time; it was given on 20 April at 12:20 pm. Therefore, this motion is in order and I would of course listen to a representative from each party for up to five minutes discussing why this motion should be debated this afternoon.

Mr Kormos: It is essential initially to take a look at the position that the government has indeed taken with respect to the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board.

On 5 December 1988, the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr Elston) said in this House:

“I am quite prepared to leave the hearing and the determination of the rates with the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board. They have proven in the past, with respect to their previous three hearings, that they do a very thorough and reasonable job...and in fact make recommendations where there is a deficiency of same upon which to make good and valid recommendations.”

He further said, “The mandate of the board is to establish fair and equitable rates with respect to insurance.” He went on to say: “We will then have the board making a determination for us. That is the mandate, the legislation speaks to that as the regimen under which we are operating, and that is in fact what we have at the present.”

Further, on the same date, speaking again of the auto insurance board, the Minister of Financial Institutions said, “I expect that this hearing, which is starting next Monday...and which is open to all public participants, to be no less thorough and come up with what in effect will be fair rates in Ontario.”

Two days later, the Premier (Mr Peterson) said in the House: “We are constantly trying to build a system that serves the consumers well. Obviously we look at the examples in other provinces -- the problems of startup, the problems of rates, the political manipulation” -- he said “the political manipulation” -- “all of that kind of thing -- and we think our approach is comprehensive and addresses the problem in a real way.”

Once again speaking of the Ontario auto insurance board on 12 December, the Premier said, “It is an independent board, there to represent the public interest.”

Two days later, on 14 December, the Minister of Financial Institutions said that after the board conducts its hearing and sets its rates:

“Then not only will we be sure that the rates are fair, but that the people of the province are getting the coverage that insurance is designed to provide them in a reasonable manner, a cost-effective manner and in a manner which provides them with the coverage which they require to protect their interests in the event of accidents.”

On 10 January 1989, the Minister of Financial Institutions had this to say, speaking of the board once again:

“They are carrying out that policy directive now, which is to look at the industry, examine it, study it, see what goes into setting rates and then set a range of rates. They are doing that now.”

On 26 January, the Premier in the House, again speaking of the automobile insurance board, said, “The independent board will make its own judgement.”

On 13 February, the Minister of Financial Institutions, referring to the government, said, “We like the competitive marketplace.” He said, “I think what the honourable gentleman would like to tell the people of the province is that he was wrong about the board in his criticism of it” -- and he was referring to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr B. Rae) -- “that he was wrong when he said it could not come to a fair and reasonable rate, that he was wrong when he said the hearings would not amount to anything.”

Similarly, the Minister of Financial Institutions a short time later, 16 February, said it is important, “...to deal with the critical issue, whether we are under a public or private form of supply of auto insurance....”

Some $7 million later, the board and its whole purpose, its whole mandate, having been scuttled -- notwithstanding the comments of the Minister of Financial Institutions on 14 December which promised that there would be “coverage that insurance is designed to provide them in a reasonable manner...and in a manner which provides them with the coverage which they require to protect their interests in the event of accidents” -- now the government is seeking an insurance company plan of no-fault insurance that is designed to limit and, in many cases, exclude the benefits that are provided to injured parties, one which even the insurance industry says will not produce the saving to the industry or the benefits to Ontario drivers that the government is hoping for.

I am speaking specifically of the comments of Bill Star, president of Kingsway General Insurance Co. reported in the Toronto Star.

The Speaker: The member’s time has expired. The member for Nipissing.

Mr Harris: I actually regret that I am on my feet today -- perhaps everybody in the chamber as well regrets that I am on my feet -- discussing this particular issue. I am somewhat of a traditionalist. I respect intensely the traditions of this Legislature and of Parliament and of parliamentary democracy. We are losing some of these traditions, I do not think for the good of democracy, little bit by little bit, piece by piece.

One of the traditions is the throne speech and the traditional moving and seconding of that throne speech, which would take place today. More exciting, of course, is the response the next day from the Leader of the Opposition and the response the following day from the leader of my party.

It is with a sense of regret that this is before us in this particular manner and it is with a sense of regret that I tell you I will support this motion that the debate proceed today, but I want the members to know that I do not come to that conclusion very comfortably or very easily.

The way this government has handled automobile insurance really is a shame. It is a crying shame that politicians have been asked, this minister has been asked, by the Premier to respond to a statement that he made back in 1987, when he said, “I have a plan to lower auto insurance rates.” The Premier cannot be seen to have said something that is not fact. So then the great charade began, the hustle by his colleagues and his party to dream up something, when it is obvious that he did not have a plan, he was talking through his hat.

So $7 million, a considerable amount of legislative time all went into a process to respond to this silly statement that the Premier made during the 1987 campaign. We saw minister after minister, we saw the Premier, we saw Mr Kruger stand up time after time. “This will work. You guys in the opposition don’t understand what you’re talking about. You’re wrong. All the critics are wrong. Bob Rae is wrong. Bob Runciman is wrong. The leaders are all wrong. The insurance industry is wrong. The consumers are wrong. We know what we’re doing. We’re right.”

We listened to that for a year and a half while the government bungled away $7 million. When precisely what happened is what we told the government would happen, it then -- and why Mr Kruger did not resign, I do not know, other than that he is a Liberal crony, a hack bought and paid for by those people. He stood up time and time again and said: “This is an independent board. No politician interferes with this board. I will make the decision. The Premier said that; the minister said that.”

Hon Mr Conway: It’s vicious.

Mr Harris: You bet it is vicious. You bet it is, and it is vicious that we have to debate this today.

The Premier comes along at the last minute and cuts the rug out from underneath all the commitments he made and everything he said. He leaves no credibility with anything that he does as a government. Who can trust him when he does things like this?

Then he had an opportunity, after he changed the rules midstream and cut out Mr Kruger, to show us indeed what he planned to do. Where is the bill? Why is this not Bill 1? Why has he not come to the opposition and said: “Gosh, we made a terrible mistake. We’re sorry. We apologize. You were right. We were wrong. We need to do something now to effect a change”? Why has he not come to us and said, “Could we debate this in the first couple of weeks”? We would have accommodated that.

The Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

Mr Harris: He did not do that. That is why this motion is on the floor today.

The Speaker: Order. The member’s time has expired. The government House leader.

Hon Mr Conway: I want to say at the outset that I have known the member for Nipissing for seven or eight years. I know him to be a vigorous debater but really quite a fairminded fellow. I hope that upon reflection, he will really think about what he said in so far as the person of John Kruger is concerned. I know that in the heat of debate we all say things -- I have said things that, upon reflection, I have wanted to amend. I am not going to put words in anybody’s mouth, but I really would ask my friend from Nipissing to think seriously about what he said about a public servant, who does not have the opportunity to come and defend himself in this chamber.

Having said that, I, like the member for Nipissing, am a traditionalist. Today we gathered to begin, or we thought we gathered to begin, a time-honoured tradition following the reading of the Lieutenant Governor’s speech. From our point of view, we have come today to hear two of our colleagues move and second His Honour’s speech, a very important part of this legislative process. These members are prepared to begin that process today. I must say that it would be my preference to do as tradition would suggest and proceed in that fashion.

I have, in the course of this afternoon, talked to my friends, the opposition House leaders. I have indicated to them the concern of the government, that here we are on the opening day of the session, that is, the day following the reading of the Lieutenant Governor’s speech, and we are asked to debate a motion for an emergency debate that has been with us over six days.

The date stamp here is 12:20 pm, 20 April 1989. This emergency debate request was placed in the Speaker’s office over six days ago. I think that says something about the extent to which this is viewed as an emergency by the sponsors.

I know my friends in the New Democratic Party would say this is the first opportunity they would have to debate the question of insurance. I want to say to my friend the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr Kormos) that one of the really significant advantages afforded to members of the Legislature by the throne speech debate and the budget debate that will follow is that it is a general debate, in which all members will have an opportunity to stand in their place and address whatever issues interest them, quite frankly.

Mr Hampton: Auto insurance.

Hon Mr Conway: I have to say to my friend the member for Rainy River (Mr Hampton) that if we had the throne speech debate beginning, there would be ample opportunity for the members of the Legislature, regardless of their party affiliation, to stand up here and address the insurance question or any other area where it is felt the government is doing either very well, or perhaps in the view of the opposition, not as well as might be imagined.

I do not take the request lightly. I want to make clear on behalf of the government that we want to get on with the business of the Legislature. I said earlier this afternoon to the opposition House leaders that we want an orderly process of events here. We respect the right of the opposition to take a vigorous

part in these debates, but they have to understand that the government has a program that it wants to proceed with. I have to say that this throne speech debate we will begin soon will afford ample opportunity, as will the budget debate, for every member of the opposition to stand up and to say whatever he or she wishes to say, within the rules, on any matter that is properly before the House at that time.

Having said that, I have a sense that if we do not allow this to proceed this afternoon, we might waste an afternoon’s opportunity to proceed with the public’s business. I have been home for six weeks and the taxpayers of Renfrew expect me to be here today, getting on with the public’s business. I do not have the time or patience today to begin the session with opposition pyrotechnics that just waste public money and legislative time.

I want to say that recognizing the opposition’s desire to debate insurance, we as a government will allow this debate to go forward this afternoon, quite frankly because I do not want to contemplate the alternative, which is wasting an afternoon on bell-ringing. But I want my friends in the opposition to know that we are here to do business, the business that was outlined yesterday, and they should not confuse patience for weakness on this side, because we are here to do a job and we intend to get on with that job.

The Speaker: We have now completed sections 37(a), (

b) and (

c) of our standing orders. Members in attendance have heard the pros and cons for this debate, I have now under standing order 37(

d) only to put the question, shall the debate proceed?

Motion agreed to.

The Speaker: I remind members that they have the opportunity to debate this matter. Each member will have an opportunity to speak for up to 10 minutes. The debate will continue until we have run out of speakers or the clock will strike six. The first speaker will be the member for Welland-Thorold.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Kormos: If there are comments to be made about wasting taxpayers’ money, then comments must be made about the $7 million that was spent on the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board, which was scuttled on 16 April by the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr Elston).

At the same time, when one speaks of doing the right thing and doing the public’s business, we have to be aware that it was only after a persistent campaign by the opposition, the New Democrats, that the minority Liberal government established that auto insurance board to determine insurance rates and to review premium increase applications.

We have to remember that board is the creation of a Liberal government promise of 23 April 1987. The policy announcement of that day stated clearly that the steps announced by the government -- the creation of the board, among other things -- were intended to benefit and protect consumers.

It was said then that the response to “shabby treatment in the marketplace” of consumers by the insurance industry was “inadequate” and that “in view of those circumstances, the government had decided that it was necessary to take immediate steps to protect Ontario consumers.”

On that day it was announced, on 23 April 1987, that a “series of legislative initiatives were being established to increase the fairness of Ontario insurance rates.” It was promised that an auto insurance board would be created. It was promised that the government would gain control and management of the motor vehicle statistical information base. It was promised that there would be a cap on rates until the insurance rate review board dealt with the rates applicable to the policyholders’ classification.

It was promised that there would be the establishment of a consumer insurance bureau headed by an insurance advocate with a special focus on auto insurance. And that advocate, we were told by the government, would have the authority to appear before the rate review board.

Drivers in this province were told in April 1987 that “premium rates will no longer be determined in isolation by vested business interests,” that “consumer groups, individuals and the government...will be able to argue their cases during public hearings conducted by the board.”

Each and every one of those specific promises was specifically broken. Indeed, across the province, drivers not only feel a great sense of betrayal, but they express a great sensation of having been overtly and boldly lied to.

The control of the statistical database has remained very much with the insurance industry, and indeed problems with data and understanding the implications of the data have plagued the entire rate-setting and profit-setting process. The government took off the cap not once but twice, so that rates have increased by 9.2 per cent, prior to the most recent increase, since the so-called pre-election cap.

There was no consumer advocate, notwithstanding constant cries for one on the part of the opposition and an illustration of a need for one as the course of the hearings was under way. There was no submission from the government, no position set out by the government at all.

The board, as a result of that lack of direction, failed to recognize the original purpose of the legislation as it was set out in the original announcement, because it was said then: “It is clear to the general public and it is clear to” -- the government -- “the automobile insurance rate structure is arbitrary. While overall profitability increases, some consumers continue to pay unjustifiably higher premium rates with no recourse for their shabby treatment in the marketplace.”

It was also said by the government that “in a system where automobile insurance is mandatory we must place the interests of the consumer first.” Well, that is precisely what the government and its auto insurance board have failed to do.

Indeed, in 1987, the Premier (Mr Peterson) knew car insurance rates were too high. In the four and a half years since 1983, premiums in Ontario increased by almost 65 percent. That, no doubt, explains the promise the Premier made on 7 September 1987, one that has been quoted oftentimes in this House and elsewhere. He made a promise to the public that he had a very specific plan to reduce car insurance rates. Once again, that is a very specific promise that was very specifically broken. Indeed, drivers across the province have a very strong sensation of having been lied to.

The Ontario Automobile Insurance Board had the responsibility to interpret the legislation before it, quite frankly with a single fact in mind, and that was the original purpose of the legislation. Even according to its author, that purpose was to protect consumers and to place the interests of consumers first.

In its decision on profitability the board stated that the proposed underwriting margins are based on a balancing of the interests of consumers, investors and insurers. It remained, however, that the overriding consideration in determining rates was the factor of profitability.

It remains impossible to justify, as indeed at the time it was impossible to justify, the kind of return on equity that the board had accepted when one takes into account the extraordinary profitability of all the other aspects of the insurance business. According to the board’s own figures, the return on equity for all other business was 26.89 per cent for the year 1987.

In that the purpose of the legislation as it was originally proposed was to protect consumers, the board and the government betrayed those consumers by giving priority to the profitability of the private insurance industry. The board should have dealt primarily with the question of the impact of rate increases on consumers and should have made a quite different determination on how Ontario’s insurance industry should be run.

Of course, much has been said about the way public plans operate, as opposed to the private insurance industry as we have it here in Ontario. Published evidence clearly shows that private industry spends far too much money on administration and litigation, compared with the more efficient and rational public plans. It also shows, taking the period from 1983 to the present, that rate increases in Ontario’s private system have far exceeded those in public plans.

I recall questioning the Minister of Financial Institutions about the concerns we had as to the premium rate that a 65-year-old driver with 40 years’ driving experience would pay in Scarborough, compared to the cities of Winnipeg, Regina or Vancouver respectively, especially when I discovered -- it is common knowledge -- that the rates are some 35 per cent, 50 per cent or 30 per cent less in each of those municipalities.

It was suggested it was a comparison of apples and oranges to suggest that a 65-year-old driver in Scarborough was somehow in the same category as a 65-year-old driver in Vancouver. Indeed, that suggestion is quite right. It is a matter of apples and oranges. It is unfair to compare a driver in Scarborough with one in Vancouver, because the accident rate in Vancouver is almost three times higher than it is in the city of Scarborough. Yet its premium rate for a 65-year-old driver with 40 years’ driving experience remains some 30 per cent less than in the city of Scarborough.

The auto insurance industry has cried poverty for many years. It is remarkable that an industry that insists it cannot make any money fights so hard to maintain its hold.

We do not have to look far to see where some of the exorbitant premiums that are being gouged out of drivers are being spent: $1 million by the Insurance Bureau of Canada in its futile campaign in British Columbia to subvert the insurance Corp of British Columbia; hundreds of thousands of dollars to date on its current campaign, glossy ads, television and radio, with its 1-800 number; over $100,000 invested in Liberal candidates during the last general election; advertising campaigns, glossy booklets and brochures that are in the range of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars.

It is remarkable, in view of the fact that public auto insurance was introduced in Saskatchewan as far back as 1946, that political parties which at the time were the opposition and opposed those plans -- as they did in Manitoba and British Columbia, since the introduction of those plans -- formed the government and yet those same political parties have not dared tinker with or dismantle the public driver-owned nonprofit insurance plans in those provinces.

Why? Because they work, are more efficient and provide insurance that is affordable, that is provided fairly, that encourages good drivers to keep on being good drivers, and similarly, that discourages bad drivers by imposing higher rates.

The government has indicated that a public system is not being studied. Rather, it has thrown all of its cards on the table and relied solely upon a no-fault system that the insurance companies advocate, one which is designed to increase profits --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Carrothers): The member’s time has expired.

Mr Kormos: -- for the insurance industry and in no way to reduce the premiums or with a view to fairness or affordability to drivers in the province.

Mr Runciman: I, as well as my colleague the member for Nipissing (Mr Harris), regret having to deal with this matter at this time and in some respects going against the traditions of the House. But as a party we felt we had to support the motion because indeed this is an emergency situation, certainly in the minds of the members of the opposition parties, and I believe in the minds of a great many members of the public. The auto insurance fiasco is perhaps the most telling example of the leadership vacuum in this province.

What has happened in the past number of weeks has been a very serious blot on the reputation of the Minister of Financial Institutions, a reputation, I might add, that has been so carefully cultivated over the past year or so.

I mentioned earlier in question period that I like the minister and respect him, but in this instance he has very seriously fumbled the ball. He has to take the heat for what happened. He is the minister. He had to be hit between the eyes with a two by four before he took some action.

He has the unmitigated gall to stand in this House today and say that he was doing it in the best interests of consumers. Let’s face it, he was doing what he perceived to be in the best interests of the Liberal Party of Ontario. He does not really give a damn about consumers, and the action or lack of action that he and his colleagues have taken with respect to auto insurance in this province in the last two or three years is clearly indicative of that. There is no question about it.

I believe quite sincerely that the minister should step aside. I very strongly support the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr B. Rae) earlier today. This has been terribly mismanaged. It has been incompetence of an unbelievable level, but at the same time this minister has the temerity to stand here and smile and joke and not admit that he has very seriously mismanaged this whole issue.

I want to support my colleague the member for Nipissing as well with respect to comments he made earlier about the need for the resignation of the chairman of the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board. The chairman has been quoted publicly as saying, “The minister may have knee-capped me on this, but if he hits me again I may consider resigning.”

The fact is that was the second time this minister and this government had kicked the chairman in the teeth, if you will. We go back to the auto insurance issue with respect to seniors. The board made some very specific recommendations with respect to seniors. The government started to feel some political heat, did another flip-flop and came out with concessions, again undermining the credibility of this so-called independent board. Mr Kruger turned the other cheek on that occasion as well.

Here we have such a serious slap at that individual’s credibility, not to mention the board’s credibility.

Months and months of work, millions and millions of taxpayers’ dollars and the minister, within a day or two, overturns the whole thing, going against everything that he and his colleagues had said for months, going against what the Premier had said in chastising the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr Kerrio) who had the gall at the time to say, “This is exactly what is going to happen: the cabinet is going to overturn and we will have the final decision-making authority.” The Premier gets up and publicly chastises the Minister of Natural Resources for making such a suggestion and what happens?

It is exactly what the Minister of Financial Institutions does, throws all that work out the door.

We are not just talking about the $7 million of taxpayers’ money; we are talking about the millions of dollars that were spent by the insurance companies as well to go through the hearings process, to provide their submissions, to prepare their submissions. We are also talking about the millions of dollars spent by insurance companies in this province to convert their systems to be able to handle the new rating criteria the minister put in place.

Who is going to absorb those costs? The minister knows who is going to absorb them: Joe Consumer. Whether it is going to be through their home policies or through some other means, the consumers of this province are going to assume those costs. They are going to absorb those costs that the minister has placed on their shoulders, an additional burden on top of the $7 million that the minister, through his incompetence, has placed on the shoulders of the consumers of this province. There is no other answer for it -- sheer incompetence.

We can go back to Mr Justice Osborne’s report, which I think cost the taxpayers about $1.5 million. Again, the minister and this government did not have the patience to wait for Mr Justice Osborne. So what do we have? We have a report that cost millions of dollars put on the shelf, flushed down the toilet.

The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr Wrye), the man who is supposed to represent consumers’ interests in this province, can sigh and groan. Where was he around the cabinet table with respect to the way Mr Justice Osborne’s report was treated, flushed down the toilet? Where was he with respect to the $7 million of taxpayers’ and consumers’ money flushed down the toilet? Where was he with respect to the millions being spent by insurance companies that consumers will have to shoulder in this province? He was not representing their interests. If he was, he did not do a very effective job.

We can go back to the way this whole matter has been dealt with from the outset. We can talk about the Premier’s commitment in September 1987 that he had a very specific plan to lower auto insurance rates in this province. Where is that very specific plan? I guess that went down the toilet with the millions of taxpayers’ dollars. He did not have a very specific plan. He misled the people of this province, and that is going to come home to roost. Those guys can make all of these ad hoc, seat-of-the-pants, crisis, panic-driven decisions, but ultimately they are not going to be able to avoid it.

They misled, they deceived the people of this province, and that is going to come home to roost at some point in the future.

I want to talk about another aspect, which the minister would not even deal with in question period this afternoon. Again, it deals with their forward planning or lack of forward planning, lack of foresight. They really do not know where the devil they are going on this issue. But we know that many drivers in Metropolitan Toronto, for example, are going to be faced with increases, despite the cap he has placed on it, because auto insurance companies are simply not going to write policies in Metro. The return is not adequate, so they say.

What are we going to do? We are going to see those drivers forced into the high-priced facility. He does not have an answer for that. He does not know how he is going to deal with it. Again, he is going to have to be hit between the eyes with a two by four. We are going to have this seat-of-the-pants kind of decision announced Wednesday after cabinet that we are going to do something else that is devastating to the long-term interests of the consumers of this province. That is the way they act, that is the way they manage. It is very disturbing, to say the least.

All of this information was available a year and a half to two years ago. I went through the standing committee on administration of justice hearings. We had witness after witness tell us what was going to happen. We had a report commissioned by Mercer, by the justice committee and by the government, which told us ex