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

December 4, 1986

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L075 - Thu 4 Dec 1986 / Jeu 4 déc 1986

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ELECTION FINANCES AMENDMENT ACT

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

ELECTION FINANCES AMENDMENT ACT

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

ROYAL ASSENT

AFTERNOON SITTING

VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SENIOR CITIZENS' SERVICES

TRANSMISSION LINE

NEWSPAPER'S ANNIVERSARY

SUNDAY TRADING

PENSION FUNDS

BRAVERY AWARDS

INTERVENER FUNDING

VISITOR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SECURITIES INDUSTRY

ONTARIO ARTS COUNCIL

ORAL QUESTIONS

ALCOHOL ON OPP BOAT

SUNDAY TRADING

RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION LEGISLATION

LIQUOR BOARD HIRING PRACTICES

SUNDAY TRADING

SALE OF APARTMENTS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

SALE OF LANDS

NURSING HOMES

PENSION FUNDS

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL PARKS COUNCIL

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

SUNDAY TRADING

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ELECTION FINANCES AMENDMENT ACT

Ms. Fish moved second reading of Bill 153,

An Act to amend the Election Finances Act, 1986.

The Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes for her presentation and she may reserve any portion of that for her windup.

Ms. Fish: I am very pleased to rise today to move second reading of Bill 153,

An Act to amend the Election Finances Act, 1986. I am pleased because I believe this act begins to address one of the many difficulties that women in our society face when they look to the opportunities presented to them to enter electoral politics and find themselves in a situation where they can, for example, join us in this chamber, our colleagues federally, our colleagues municipally or even those on school boards.

This bill speaks only to the opportunities for women running provincially. The bill specifically is very simple and very short. It simply exempts from the election spending limits that will govern us in all future elections any of the expenses related to child care on behalf of a candidate in a campaign. In other words, campaign funds could be spent on the candidate's child care expenses without being entered into the campaign expense record, which must, of course, be forwarded to the Commission on Election Finances.

I believe this seemingly small and simple step will, none the less, be fairly significant -- for women who are seeking elective office at the provincial level. That comes from two things. First, we know the election limits that will face all candidates at the beginning of the next general election and thereafter average out, on the basis of a formula, to approximately $46,000 per riding. Of course, that is a sliding scale that deals with the numbers of eligible electors and so on, but it is approximately $46,000.

It is also fairly simple to calculate what child care expenses might be for a parent, particularly a woman, seeking elective office for the 37-or-so-day period of the writ, providing child care for one child only. If we look at what expenses might be for a nonsubsidized day care space, for example, or support in the home for that mother, it would take a very short time, working on simple minimum wage calculations and a 40-hour week, to come up with expenses approximating $2,000 for that period.

It is fair to say that those expenses are probably undervalued, knowing, as we do, that 40-hour weeks are rare in political life at the best of times, and perhaps rarest of all during a campaign in a writ period. The $2,000, approximately -- again, it would vary with the region and with the circumstances, but it would be a minimum of about that -- is a substantial expenditure when one puts it into the context of the limits that, quite properly, are being placed on campaign expenses.

However, care for the children of a candidate is surely a necessary expense in the course of this period, and particularly necessary for women candidates, who are most often responsible for the rearing of their children. Clearly, if we are serious in this House, as I believe we all are on all sides, we will want to ensure that a mother is not penalized in her attempt to gain a seat in this Legislature by virtue of having to include within campaign expenditures the cost of child care.

We all know lack of money and lack of access to money are a part of the complex number of things that have historically discouraged women of this province from seeking electoral office, particularly to this Legislature. We know as well that the particular difficulties faced by women have been recognized by all the parties represented here, and additional special structures and encouragements have been established by each of the parties to recruit more women as candidates and to provide some help to those women in their efforts to run, recognizing that some help is needed. That might, for example, be a special fund for assistance, special selection procedures or what have you.

In my party we have established a task force to examine quite a range of things that merited doing. One of the items under review was the issue of the impact of legislation such as that governing election expenses. This bill flows from that very careful and detailed review by the task force identifying steps that should be taken to assist women who are running for elective office.

The historical view of women in Ontario politics is a pretty devastating one, and every step we can take to encourage more women, I think, would be agreed upon by all sides.

Let me take just a moment to review some of the history. Since 1867, there have been 19 women elected to the Legislature -- only 19. The first women who were elected joined this Legislature in 1943, some 26 years after women gained the right to vote in Ontario. Of course, it was not until 1972 that the first woman was appointed to the cabinet in this province.

10:10

More recently, while some 69 women ran for office in the 1985 election, including 18 from my party, only nine were elected, three for each party. An additional woman has joined us as a result of a by-election that occurred shortly after the general election. In 1971, 17 women ran for office for the different parties and only two were elected. In 1975, seven of the 39 women candidates were successful. Two years later, 44 women ran and six were elected. In 1981, 45 were candidates and again only six were elected.

This brief history tells us that at least within the past decade and a half there has been a fairly steady increase in the numbers of women for all the parties presenting themselves as candidates for election to this Legislature, but the numbers are exceedingly small. This simply has to be an area of concern to all of us.

To talk about increases over a very narrow base can give a high-sounding statistic or percentage but does not reflect the fact so very few women are presenting themselves here. This is in the face of the fact that women account for a little more than half the electorate and participate in the vote at the same level as men. Yet they continue to occupy less than 10 per cent of elected parliamentary offices.

We also know that women who seek public office tend to be unmarried, childless or older with grown children. One study of Canadian female candidates that was undertaken not long ago found that nonmothers were twice as likely as mothers to contest their first election before the age of 40. In other words, this relates directly to the traditional and continuing role of women in child care and child-rearing, being principally responsible for parenting.

Although women are having their children later in life, perhaps moving it from the early 20s to the late 20s or early 30s, none the less, this still means there are families with very young children and mothers with prime responsibility for parenting and for caring for those young children among the majority of women who are 40 or under.

With the importance of the role women play in parenting, the importance of the support they must be given in the area of child care and parenting so as to genuinely encourage more women to come forward as candidates, is shown in the fact that study after study here in Canada as well, as in the United States, indicates that the role of wife and mother, with responsibility for parenting and child care, does not inhibit women from political participation, save and except for standing for elected office.

The studies clearly indicate very extensive participation rates for women with young children in politics, but not as candidates. We know women are taking places in all our parties as organizers, executive members and delegates, but are stopping short of what everyone would agree is the next logical step, direct candidacy.

We know motherhood is a relatively nonflexible occupation. It places very real limits on the opportunities for women at present, given the lack of support structures. We know, for example, that at home mothers may find it considerably more difficult to develop some of the political skills and social networks necessary for successful candidacy. Notwithstanding many of the changes that have occurred in society, we also know women who work outside the home too often face a double day of responsibility in caring for their children in a prime fashion in addition to work done outside the home. Political candidacy for many might turn that double day into a triple day.

If we believe, as I think we all do, that the democratic system is built on the principle of equal access to political power, then it is clear we must move to ensure that the laws governing our election provide for a genuine equality of access.

I have no doubt that there may be some who feel this amendment, in its very practice and general application, would likely be of greater benefit to women than to men. Although the language is neutral and would clearly provide the opportunity to deduct child care expenses to a man who may be a single parent or may himself be the principal child care giver within the family, none the less, we know the target here is clearly women. There may be some who feel that somehow provides for a bit of additional help that takes the opportunity for political activity out of balance, out of an equality position.

I argue to the contrary. There are times when our laws must be changed to provide special help to some within our society to bring their participation, their genuine access to our system, into balance. I believe this is one of those cases where an opportunity for women to participate with greater equality and, we hope, in greater numbers will be enhanced if we move with this amendment to provide that additional help we know will speak most directly and in general to the women of this province.

Having said that, neither I nor those others who support this suggest that this small, simple and direct amendment will somehow magically eliminate all the many barriers that now exist structurally and culturally for women seeking elective office in our society; nor do I suggest that if it is adopted, as I hope it will be, we will suddenly see women making up 50, 60 or 70 per cent of this Legislature come the next election rather than something in the order of eight per cent. However, it is a step in the right direction, and it does speak to at least two of the structural and cultural limitations that currently face women.

Structurally, it will reduce in some measure the financial and logistical limitations to the candidacy of many women, particularly those younger women with young families. Culturally, it will signal to women and society at large that we as legislators, speaking for the whole of society in Ontario, are willing to recognize responsibility for child care and gender equality in the Legislature.

We know that in the past couple of decades particularly a major transformation has taken place in Canadian society. I mentioned earlier that couples are having fewer children and having them later in life. We know there are far more single-parent families than there were 30 years ago. We also know an overwhelming portion of those single-parent families are mother-led. They are very often led by women who live on incomes below the poverty line.

We know as well that the rate of participation by women in the labour force has risen rapidly, and participation by mothers of young children has risen the fastest of all. More than half of our families now have two income-earners. We know that is rarely a matter of choice and very often a matter of necessity.

These changes have been recognized in many of the shifts we have made in our policy and legislative framework. One of those has been in the acknowledged increase for child care options. We talked of child care policies, day care spaces, early childhood education, extending an additional subsidy where it is required and enhancing the skills and training of those to whom we give one of the most important jobs in our society, that of caring for our children for our future.

To this point, we have not taken the next logical step in the application of that understanding of the importance of child care and applied it in a particular way to assist those who would come forward as part of the political process within this Legislature.

10:20

I believe this bill will do that. It will provide a signal culturally. It will afford additional assistance structurally. Most important, it will move us in the vein I believe we have all expressed the wish to go, which is to provide greater opportunity for genuine participation and true access to elective office by 50 per cent of our population.

I very much hope that members of this chamber will join me in supporting this amendment, this small but important step.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the member wish to reserve the remaining time for her completion?

Ms. Fish: I intend to reserve about two minutes.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. One minute and 45 seconds.

Mr. Warner: At the outset, I wish to congratulate the member for St. George on her excellent speech. Naturally, along with all other reasonable members of this assembly, I will be supporting the bill. I do not know how any person can vote against it. Further, I hope the government will see to speedy passage of this bill, as we saw recently with another opposition member's private bill. The government co-operated and the bill was made into law. That is what has to happen with this bill. As the member has indicated, it is a small but significant step towards trying to ensure greater access for women to participate in the political process.

I notice we have a school group with us this morning. Whenever I meet with school groups, one of the questions I ask them is whether they can tell me how many women are elected to the assembly. It is fascinating to hear the answers. Usually, the answers are somewhere around 30, 40 or 50. School children believe there are at least 30, 40 or 50 women elected to this assembly. Usually, they are quite shocked when I tell them there are only 10. Then I ask them the next question, because kids study math in school. Is that 50 per cent of the 125 seats? Of course, they know it is not.

Obviously, the pitch to those young girls in elementary school classes is that they may very much want to seek out a political career as something to aim for, because we need a balance of view in this assembly. Historically, we have never had it. Historically, what we have had are men's views about how the laws should be structured and how society should be developed. That has to change. It is changing; attitudes are changing.

I want briefly to relate a little story that tells me that there are some changes in attitudes and yet there is still a long way to go. A former colleague of mine when I was teaching told me of friends, a working couple, who, when they had their first child, sat down and discussed between themselves how they were going to share the responsibilities of raising their child.

The couple decided that the husband, who was a teacher, would take a leave of absence for a couple of years and stay home and raise the child. The mother, who had a career in her own right, would continue with the career beyond the normal maternity leave. That is what they decided to do. He was quite pleased to have the opportunity to stay home with his child and do all the normal household duties. She continued with her career, which I believe was in law. Members will not believe the scorn and derision that were heaped upon this poor man by his former friends, teaching colleagues, relatives and neighbours.

Unfortunately, even some of the women in the neighbourhood were somewhat suspicious of this activity, of why he was staying home raising the child.

In some countries that is not unusual. We have a long way to go. Where we start is with the attitudes, because if we do not change our attitudes about the sharing of responsibilities when raising children, the sharing of responsibilities in maintaining a home, then how can we hope to break down the barriers so that more women will participate in the political process and, indeed, participate in all of society? The barriers are still there. It is still a male-dominated society. We have made some progress, but the barriers are still there.

One just has to look at the basic economic structure of who runs the country and how it is run, at all of the institutions, to know that it is still male dominated. There has to be an equality between the sexes. I am very confident that this will come about, but it takes a determined effort, especially on behalf of those who are elected to hold public office. It is incumbent upon politicians at all levels, municipal, provincial and federal, to show leadership wherever possible, to demonstrate that this will be a society in which men and women will share equally, that they will have equal responsibility and that they will enjoy the benefits equally.

We can no longer tolerate women receiving less money for the work they do than men receive. Surely we cannot tolerate the notion that only women will have the responsibility of raising children and of maintaining the home. That is a responsibility that needs to be shared with men. In fact, quite frankly, it seems to me that when women become liberated, so do men. Men become liberated from the traditional role that has been thrust upon them. They become liberated so that men and women can enjoy life on an equal basis.

I really look forward to that day. The member for St. George, who has done quite a bit of research into this area, will recall that it really is not very long since women gained the right to vote. Can members imagine? A basic democratic right, which we take as a principle in a democratic society, the right to cast a vote, was denied to half the population. That is absolutely incredible. While that right has now been established, we certainly have a very long way to go.

In conclusion, [ want to commend the member for St. George again for introducing a measure that not only is obviously fair and will be of assistance to women who are seeking public office, but also raises the bigger question of trying to establish the kind of attitudes and the kind of atmosphere in which women will be encouraged to participate.

While she is right on the figures with respect to the number of women who came forward as candidates and the number who were successful, part of the reason for there not being greater success is that all parties have been guilty in the past of allowing women to be candidates mostly -- not entirely, but mostly -- only in those ridings that were not winnable. How often have parties, including my own, come forward and said, "Our priority is to have good women candidates in those ridings that are winnable for the party"?

There are a few exceptions, but basically women who came forward to stand as candidates ended up in ridings where the party really did not have much of a chance of winning. That is why, although there were 40 or 50 women candidates, only six were successful. It is one of the reasons.

10:30

Again, I am very appreciative of the member bringing the bill forward. I hope the government will see fit to make sure this bill is passed before Christmas, so that if we have an election next year, which many are anticipating, this bill will be of some help, especially to women candidates, but also, perhaps as the member mentioned, to some single-parent fathers who would like to run as candidates and would appreciate child care being an allowable expense.

Ms. Bryden: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I point out that of the 10 women in the House, four are present here this morning. That is a greater percentage than the number of male members of the House here.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of privilege. The member for Oriole.

Ms. Caplan: I rise in this private members' debate to discuss, perhaps in a broader context, the issues that have been raised by the member for St. George. Since we will be discussing the Election Finances Act in the not-too-distant future, I believe it is important now to discuss a little bit of the history of that act in Ontario and the changes that are being proposed for that act in the future.

The history in Ontario has been that, to date, election expenses, costs and fund-raising, all of which are covered by that act, were handled very differently from the federal act. In the federal act, there was a limit on how much a candidate could spend during an election in each riding constituency, but there was no limit on how much could be raised.

In Ontario, there was the opposite. There was a limit on how much could be raised and contributed on an individual level and on a corporate level, but there was no limit on how much could be spent during an election by an individual candidate in the riding. What we are seeing in Ontario is a fundamental change in that act. The change will reflect the fact that there will be spending limits for the first time in all constituencies in this province based upon calculated population figures. This will ensure a fairness within ridings and ensure that excessive amounts of money are not spent during campaign periods.

I think we should discuss as well for a moment the process of those amendments, how they have come about and how that new act will be before this Legislature in the not-too-distant future. Rather than just the government making those decisions, there was a decision to have an all-party, ad hoc committee sit down to discuss election finances reform, which is really what this is all about. I think the process has worked extremely well. Involved in that process, as well, has been the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses and its recommendations.

One of the things the commission has been wrestling with is what are partisan and nonpartisan campaign expenses, what would be of benefit to the candidate and what would be of benefit to encourage candidates in a nonpartisan sense.

While this particular issue before us this morning is one of child care, there are other issues that commission is discussing at this time. Reforms will be brought forward that I believe will remove some of those barriers, not only that of child care. Many people may not know that many candidates must leave their gainful employment during the campaign period and not have any salary with which to feed their family.

The suggestion is -- and this would benefit men and women -- that during the campaign period, salary should be permitted as a nonelection expense for those who are not rich, for those who cannot afford to leave their job and take an extended leave of absence for the 37 days of the campaign period.

There are many other barriers. Why are we doing this? It is to encourage as wide a participation in this Legislative Assembly as possible, not to exclude people because of financial circumstances, because of a mortgage they have to pay or because they have children who have to be fed.

I also take issue with the view that child care will be of specific benefit to women. While it will be helpful because of the knowledge and understanding that this was the traditional woman's role in the family, I believe that has changed and that in many families there is a sharing, as parents, of caring and nurturing. I do not see child care as strictly a women's issue. It is a parenting issue and a societal issue.

Child care expenses, which will not be considered campaign expenses because they are nonpartisan expenses, will be of benefit to both male and female candidates to make sure that during the campaign period children are cared for in an atmosphere where both parents may be participating in the campaign, because that often happens. Whether the candidate is male or female, the other partner or other spouse may want to participate during the campaign. We have come to a point in this Legislature in 1986 where we recognize that child care is an issue for men and women and not just for single women or single parents, male or female.

I believe the election expenses act that will be coming forward with the full support of the government will go further than what the member for St. George has suggested, in looking at the barriers to candidates from all walks of life entering the arena to participate in this great democratic process. Child care is just one, but a very important one of these. I believe there has been all-party agreement that it is a nonpartisan expense that should be recognized in the act.

It will particularly encourage women to run as candidates by recognizing that fact, but it will be of equal benefit to men who want to ensure that during the campaign period there is support in the household and that a double burden is not placed on their spouses for child care, as it has been in the past.

We in this House have a responsibility for the formation of legislation that will remove barriers to all in our society. Our act must reflect that. Whenever we make a fundamental change in the way our campaigns are funded and run, we have to look at the implications for our society to ensure that this Legislature reflects our entire population.

Almost every day, when I enter this Legislature and walk up the great staircase, I look at the picture of the Fathers of Confederation staring down on me and I think of what Ontario and Canada were like in 1867 at the time of the Fathers of Confederation. Whenever I have a school group visit this Legislature, I point it out to them. I say: "In 1867, that was a reflection of Ontario and Canada at the time. The people in that picture are unique. They are all men. This reflects the reality that women did not have the vote at that time. They are all white. This reflects the difference of our society and how Ontario has changed."

This is another step in ensuring that we as legislators do what we can to encourage the participation and successful election to this Legislature of individuals from every segment of our society, so that we do not have a Legislature that does not reflect our society, one that says, "Because you have to work for a living and you are not rich, you cannot afford to take time off from work to run." That would inhibit and be a barrier to participation. We want one that says, "During the campaign period, we recognize your family's needs and household responsibilities, whether male or female."

Our society has changed and many men are accepting responsibility as full parents in the running of households. I do not want to diminish that. By placing a child care provision in the act, I do not think we will be doing anything other than recognizing the reality that exists today, which is that families share parenting and child care responsibilities. It will not be of partisan benefit to any one candidate, nor will it be of sexist benefit to any one candidate. All it will do is remove yet another barrier to segments of our society to allow them to participate fully in this process.

10:40

With the all-party support that has been occurring on the committee, there has been full caucus consultation.

I believe the amendments to the act that will be coming forward very shortly -- I hope before the end of the year, but certainly before the next election -- will reflect those kinds of changes to make sure that in Ontario the Election Finances Act reflects our society as it is today, reflects the strong family values that we have and reflects the desire to encourage participation in this Legislature by people from all walks of life, people new to this country, people who perhaps do not have the resources or the background of the Fathers of Confederation, those who today have child care responsibilities.

I believe this amendment today is deserving of support.

Mr. Gillies: I am very pleased to join in the debate on the very worthwhile motion put forward by my colleague the member for St. George and to indicate my wholehearted support for it.

Some years ago, before my election to this chamber, I participated as a member of a task force that was set up by Premier Davis within the Conservative Party to look at the role of women within our party, and I guess implicitly the role of women within the political system within our province, and to see what we might be able to do to encourage more women to assume senior responsibilities within our political system and within our party, to run as candidates and to serve as members in this chamber.

That was, as I recall, back around 1978. Our party has since had another major initiative, chaired by Jane Pepino, representative of women and members of our party from across the province to look again, at the mid-point of the 1980s, at this very vital issue.

What bothers me somewhat is that some 10 years after that original study, in which I participated, I am not sure that the amount of progress has been made that should have been made. When I say that, I guess I am implicitly critical of my own party. I would not want to suggest for a moment that I believe we lag in any respect with regard to women's full participation in our part of the political spectrum as compared to either of the other two parties. I do not believe that to be the case.

Regardless of some rather unfortunate and misleading headlines arising out of our party's annual meeting in Hamilton, women are as fully represented in the executive chambers and in the decision-making bodies of our party, easily as influential both in numbers and in talent as they are in either of the other two parties participating in the political process in this province. But having said that, I really think none of us is doing enough and none of us is doing well enough.

When I was first elected to this chamber some six years ago, as we walked in and took our seats along the back row of that side of the House at the time -- I see my friend the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) smiling at that; I understand that -- we looked at this sea of male faces and saw a sprinkling of women. Here we are in 1986, and it is really not very different. Women are shamelessly underrepresented in this chamber, because I happen to believe they face a number of obstacles that we do not face who run as males to be members in this assembly.

First, there is the phenomenon, which I believe again is common to all three parties, that in all too many cases women are offered as candidates in seats that are not considered to be winnable. In other words, in a mad scramble to offer women as candidates for this Legislature, all too often the party hierarchies offer up numbers of female candidates, because that is great public relations at election time; but all too often, if one looks at the statistics, the women are offered as candidates in ridings that are not considered easily winnable for those respective parties.

This is not a record of which we who participate in the system in this province should be proud -- not at all. Women make up 51 per cent of the population of our province. The day should come, in my estimation, when women should be half the candidates, and they should be running without prejudice to their chances of victory or the type of riding in which they are offering themselves for nomination or election.

They should be equally represented across the province, in urban and rural ridings, where there are excellent chances of any one of the parties taking the seat and where there are not. That would be only fair and just. That is the day when we can say that women have reached a position of true equality within our political system. Ultimately, we are looking at a day when half the members of this chamber will be women, which would be a step forward.

I was on a platform last night in my own riding for a very important announcement with two fine ministers, the Minister of Communications for Canada, the Honourable Flora MacDonald, and the Ontario Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro). I said to the men present at that assemblage that I had long advocated equality of women within our political system, but I did not know they were going to overtake us so soon.

Some of the finest people participating and having some of the greatest contributions to make in our political system are women, and we all know it. I will add parenthetically that the women elected in politics in Canada are often person for person and pound for pound more talented, because it is that much harder for them to get in. Almost without exception, the women participating in our system are first-class, dedicated and articulate people.

All this brings me to the bill being proposed by my colleague, the member for St. George. For all the right reasons, this assembly has moved in the direction of limiting campaign expenses at election time. We could discuss the reasons at some length, but I believe we all share the goals. A person's ability to be elected to this chamber should not be determined by his ability to raise outlandish amounts of cash.

People of all means, backgrounds and professions and with any number of types of organization should be able to run credible campaigns and have a good crack at being elected to this chamber. For this reason, limits have been put on spending at election time so that, as much as possible, we can put people on a relatively equal footing, come the beginning of a provincial election.

The problem with that very good initiative is that women candidates who want to offer themselves and whose husbands are working -- I never thought we would hear the day we would have to say that -- have an increasing need for child care so that they can campaign and fulfil their other responsibilities as a candidate and know their children are being well cared for.

Under the act as it is now structured, those expenses have to be declared as an election expense. With the motion being put forward by my colleague the member for St. George that will change. It has to change because, inadvertently, with our election reforms, we have created another barrier to mothers offering themselves as candidates for this chamber.

I am sure it was not the intent of the drafters of the election expenses legislation that this be the case. It was not our intent that this happened, but it is a possible ramification. By adopting Bill 153, we can ensure that women can take care of their child care expenses during the 37 days of a provincial election campaign without regard to having to be under the spending limits prescribed by law.

This is one of those bills that can be supported by every member of the assembly in good faith, with the knowledge that it is a good reform, not partisan by any means and not particularly controversial.

With that in mind, it would be my sincere hope that this bill will pass the assembly today and will then proceed, if necessary, to committee and to third reading. It happens all too seldom that this is the case with a private member's bill, although we have seen a couple of encouraging examples of late. Perhaps we should add this very worthy motion to those examples of an initiative made by a private member that becomes the law of Ontario.

10:50

Ms. Gigantes: I rise, like my colleague before me, to support this resolution placed by the member for St. George, and I do so with just a few personal comments.

The way the member for St. George has expressed her concerns in putting forward this amendment is quite correct. One knows even without reading a lot of academic studies that women who are being elected to our parliaments at the provincial and federal levels are women who either have not had children yet or whose children have grown.

Over the last 10 years, we have certainly seen women participating and providing real and fresh leadership at local levels of the government. I think particularly of the area from which I come, Ottawa-Carleton, where in both the municipal field and the school board field women have provided great community leadership over the last 10 to 15 years.

We know women are not seeking election to provincial and federal office very often when they are in the age group where they have young children at home. I have talked to women who have been thinking about running provincially and federally over the last few weeks and months who have young children.

I know very well the kind of struggle they go through in their own minds about what it would mean, first of all to their families, to go through five or six weeks of very intense campaigning and organizing for the care of children during that period, and then the thought also of what happens if one is elected, where the necessity for child care arrangements of a great deal of complexity becomes really obvious and very important to families.

As a person who myself sought election back in 1974 and was elected in 1975, I know the choices one faces as a candidate who is the mother of a small child are very harsh choices. In fact, in my own situation, because I had been an employee of a crown corporation, the CBC, I was forced, in seeking the nomination in 1975, to quit my job and wait out the months to the election with no major sources of income available to me and my young daughter.

I had to rely on personal loans from friends and on cash in the meagre amount of a pension I had built up by being a member of the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists and believe me, it was not very much. I also had to depend on the principle that was expressed by members of the Carleton East New Democratic Party riding association, that a candidate who was a woman who was in a situation where child care expenses and living expenses were a major problem should receive support from the constituency association.

The members of that group many years back really gave in practice an example of the kind of forward motion that we are looking for when we support this resolution here today. We want to be able to say to men and women in this province, "If you have children, perhaps there is even more reason we would like to see you elected." Very often members of this House may feel that we grow distant from our families, our friends and the ridings we represent because we are forced to be away for many days of many weeks of many years. It is awfully important to members of this Legislature to have a sense that families are well cared for and that children are well cared for.

For women to be able to feel that and to feel they are welcome as candidates and members of this Legislature, we have to make special provision, as this motion calls on us to do, to indicate to women that there has to be and will be extra support, extra consideration and extra help in a very tangible way if they are going to be candidates and go on to be elected representatives of this Legislature.

In a way that has particularly to do with our political structures, this motion expresses the kinds of thoughts and feelings society is coming to very slowly -- much too slowly -- on a number of issues that affect women, women and children in the family setting, and the role of women in society in the larger sense. The very least we can do is to support this motion and hope for amendments to our election expenses legislation.

We all owe the member for St. George a thank-you for having initiated this motion. We also owe her a commitment that we will support this initiative on behalf of a new view of the place of women, of the place of women and children and of the place of families in our society.

Ms. Fish: To reiterate briefly, the language of the bill is gender neutral; so it does apply to all candidates, whether men or women, with children to provide child care expense support.

Within our society, the principal responsibility for child care continues in the main to be that of women. If this amendment is adopted, as I am pleased to feel it will be, it will clearly provide additional incentive, support and encouragement to women.

As my colleague the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes) has indicated, it sounds a clear signal that we value considerably the importance of having in this House people who have families and who have responsibility directly for their future.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Swart moved resolution 68:

That in the opinion of this House, recognizing the massive problems that exist in Ontario's auto insurance system, namely, excessive premiums and escalating rates generally; good young male drivers paying three to five times average rates; all drivers in a household penalized for one driver's record; new drivers of any age paying penalty rates; the growing number of uninsured drivers in Ontario; arbitrary cancellation of insurance or massive premium increases for frivolous reasons, and inadequate or nonexistent no-fault compensation, and, recognizing that the Slater commission has failed to propose recommendations to resolve these problems and, in particular, failed to investigate and report on the financial and other benefits of the public auto insurance plans as practised in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia; and recognizing that Mr.

Justice Coulter Osborne has not been instructed to make any in-depth investigation and report on those plans either, the government of Ontario should appoint immediately a respected firm of financial and accounting consultants (like Woods Cordon, who did the previous study in 1978) to make a comprehensive study and comparison of the rates and policies of the western public plans with those of Ontario so that the public of this province know the true facts concerning a major auto insurance alternative which could be made available to the people of this province.

11:00

Mr.

Swart: I would move that in the opinion of this House, recognizing the massive problems that exist in Ontario's auto insurance system, namely, excessive premiums and escalating rates generally; good young male drivers paying three to five times average rates; all drivers in a household penalized for one driver's record; new drivers of any age paying penalty rates; the growing number of uninsured drivers in Ontario; arbitrary cancellation of insurance or massive premium increases for frivolous reasons: and inadequate or nonexistent no-fault compensation; and recognizing that the Slater commission has failed to propose recommendations to resolve these problems and, in particular, failed to investigate and report on the financial and other benefits of the public auto insurance plans as practised in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia; and recognizing that Mr.

Justice Coulter Osborne has not been instructed to make any in-depth investigation and report on those plans either, the government of Ontario should appoint immediately a respected firm of financial and accounting consultants (like Woods Cordon, who did the previous study in 1978) to make a comprehensive study and comparison of the rates and policies of the western public insurance plans with those of Ontario and report within four months so that the public of this province know the true facts concerning a major auto insurance alternative which could be made available to the people of this province.

Mr. Speaker: I noticed there were some changes in the wording. Did you mean that to be?

Mr. Swart: You are correct, Mr. Speaker; I made a few minor changes in the wording.

Mr. Speaker: The member has moved notice of motion 68. He has up to 20 minutes and he may reserve any of that time for the windup of the debate.

Mr. Swart: I doubt that the ballot item I have before the House will be accepted quite as unanimously as the previous one has been, but it may well be and it should be.

This party and I personally attach significant importance to the issue of insurance before us. There is no question that it is an important issue to the bulk, if not all, of the people in this province. It is a $3-billion issue annually. The present insurance crisis is damaging a lot of people and businesses in our society. The problem is not lessening; it is getting worse.

The Financial Post recently reported that since 1985 the cost of auto insurance has increased 19 per cent. It said, "When the dust settles next year, the average rate will be about 38 per cent above the 1985 level."

Mr. Offer: I am sorry to interrupt, but I notice the clock is not running. Is that a malfunction?

Mr. Swart: I am sure the Speaker has a watch and will watch the time very closely.

The insurance crisis is substantially changing our way of life. It is a matter that must be dealt with in our society. It is not being dealt with and has not been dealt with since this crisis started in the spring of 1985.

In addition to the do-nothing attitude of the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Kwinter) in resolving the problem is his slavish adherence to the insurance industry and his real desire not to know what is taking place. He has been questioned in the House repeatedly from the beginning and asked questions such as: "How much have the rates increased? Are those kinds of increases justified?" He simply does not know. He does not answer the questions. To this day, he does not know. He does not know how many people are driving without insurance.

The other day, when my colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) brought up the case of a tavern owner who could not get insurance and did not have insurance, the minister said he did not know of a tavern owner in Ontario who did not have insurance. When I talked to the executive director of the Ontario Hotel and Motel Association, he told me that fully one third of all the tavern owners in this province are operating without insurance.

When it comes to insurance, this minister is the minister of ignorance. He will say he has appointed the Slater commission to investigate and now the Osborne commission, but it is worth noting that they were not representative of the public in this province. They were not asked to investigate rates in other jurisdictions and other systems compared to Ontario. They did not even go outside Toronto. They were not and are not charged with getting the full and comprehensive information. In fact, their main purpose is to stall and to bring in the kind of report the minister wants.

It is something like the Ontario Advisory Committee on Liquor Regulations, where he appoints his own parliamentary assistant as the chairman and the members of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, rather than having representatives of the people of this province.

It is not that the minister does not know because he has a low IQ; it is simply that he does not want to know. There are none so blind as those who will not see, and he really does not want to see. He blindly follows the philosophy and the wishes of the insurance companies.

In no case is this more apparent than in his refusal over and over again to look at the real alternative of public auto insurance and public insurance generally as practised by the governments of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia, even though the overwhelming bulk of the studies show that the insurance system of those provinces is far superior to our system in this province. In fact, it has been so superior that the successive Liberal, Conservative and Social Credit governments have not only kept those plans almost intact, but have also praised them as being of great benefit to the people of those provinces.

I may be slightly incorrect in saying the minister does not want to know about the advantages of those plans. He already knows. He wants the public of Ontario not to know the advantages of those plans. That is why we have this resolution before us today. It is the reason this resolution has been changed. Members of this House, particularly the Speaker, will know that my original resolution called for the implementation of public auto insurance in this province by January 1, 1988. I know the philosophy of the government of this province. I know the philosophy of the people on our right.

Mr. Warner: They are both the same.

Mr. Swart: They are both the same.

I know that resolution would not pass, but it seemed reasonable that if I brought in a resolution just asking for this full, independent, in-depth investigation, even the most right-wing people in the Liberal and Conservative parties would at least want to know. Therefore, I have changed the resolution to ask only for the investigation, to bring out the full facts in the comparison between the public auto insurance system and the system we have in this province. Frankly, I would sooner debate the merits of the system, but I think this resolution, for the purpose of this House with the complexion of this House, is more appropriate.

I do not want the minister or his spokesperson, his parliamentary assistant, who I assume will be answering this because the minister is not here -- the fact the minister is not here is an indication of his indifference to the massive problem of insurance that is faced by the people of this province.

Mr. Pierce: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I think a bill of this importance requires the attention of the government. At present, only two government members are in the House.

The Deputy Speaker: This is private members' hour. We are cutting into the time of the member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, could you tell me whether that time is correct or whether it is somewhat shorter than that?

The Deputy Speaker: Yes. That is correct.

Mr. Swart: Let not the minister or his parliamentary assistant get up here today and say Mr. Slater did that comparison. The facts are that he did not look at it in depth. If either one of them gets up and says that, he should point out to me where in his report he shows a comparison of the rates and the policies.

It is not going to be done by Mr. Justice Osborne either, because he has not been directed to make that in-depth study. The parliamentary assistant may get up and say that, according to his terms of reference, he is supposed to look at private versus public delivery of a no-fault system of automobile insurance, but we know very well that does not direct him to make the in-depth comparison.

11:10

In fact, Mr. Slater had the same direction and he did not do it. Therefore, Mr. Justice Osborne is not going to do it either. The reason is that the government over on the other side does not want that kind of comparison. It would love to have something like the Slater report, which, incidentally, says this about the public plans that Government insurance companies in Canada have been well run:

"When not overburdened by social missions and unreasonable restraint on their premium rates by their masters, they have been quite efficient. They have all been efficient performers in recent years. They have also managed to achieve a few social goals as well as provide good-quality insurance services.

"The insurance companies have managed to put a little more of the revenue dollar into claim payments than, on average, private insurers have in Ontario, but the advantage is not much."

However, he never quantified it. He brushed it off with that kind of terminology.

The people of this province ought to have the right to know the full details as provided by an independent, competent and philosophically unbiased financial accounting firm, such as Woods Gordon, of the public plans in those three western provinces versus the private plans here. What is wrong with having the 1978 report updated? Do we not want to know the contrasts in administration costs among the western plans, the public plans and the private plans? Why do we not want to know the contrasts in the costs of claims settlements?

Why do we not want to know the full comparison of the rates between the public plans and the private system here? The people of this province ought to have the right to know and not be misled by the insurance people of this province.

I want to point out to this House one of the most blatant demonstrations of distortion that I have seen in a long time. I have in my possession a copy of a letter dated August 5, 1986, signed by the general manager of the Facility Association -- that is the organization composed of all the major insurance companies -- D. D. McKay, and sent to Brian Crowe, president of the Ontario Motor Coach Association. I quote verbatim page 3, where Mr. McKay refers to the British Columbia public plan:

"I was interested in the quote that was attributed to you." I break in here to say that it was a quote in the Globe and Mail attributed to Brian Crowe, when he asked that they have a public insurance plan in this province, as they have in British Columbia. Then Mr. McKay goes on to make that quote from his letter:

"`We are told by people out there in BC that the system does not lose money. So if it is no drain on taxpayers' money, why should we not have the same system in Ontario?'"

That was Brian Crowe speaking. Here is what Mr. McKay says:

"I am not sure what people told you that the system does not lose money, but starting in 1985, the following figures will indicate the loss suffered by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia-Auto Plan: 1981, $101,937,769 lost; 1982, $108,891,265 lost; 1983, $97,505,000 lost; 1984, $118,468,000 lost; 1985, $84,823,000 lost," for a total loss, according to Mr. McKay, of $522 million for the British Columbia auto insurance plan in the last five years.

Then he goes on to say:

"I have no idea who your source of information was in BC., however, you may quote the figures that I have mentioned above to them as they are accurate. They are provided by the provincial government to the Canadian Underwriters' Statistical issue. We find it very unfortunate that so much unsubstantiated information should be made public through the media as, generally speaking, the facts are available, they are usually less dramatic and not particularly newsworthy, and may be of little interest to the public."

Mr. Pierce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I apologize to the presenter, but I brought to the attention of the House once that there were two members of the government in the House and the number has now swelled to three. We are dealing with a very important private members' bill, and I think it deserves more attention than it is getting from the government. I request that you call a quorum.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

11:17

The Deputy Speaker: Carry on, the member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I regret we lost this time right in the middle of my giving some very valuable information. I was reading part of the letter of D. D. McKay, the general manager of the Facility Association, one of the top insurance people in this province. "Obviously, Mr. Crowe was perturbed when he got that letter showing a loss of almost $512 million in the B.C. plan over the last five years."

That is after he had asked for a similar plan in this province. To continue my quote from the letter:

"He took further steps to check the accuracy" directly with British Columbia, with Manitoba and with me. Contrary to Mr. McKay's statement he "found that the Canadian Underwriters Statistical Issue of May, 1986 showed.... the following net profit for the B.C. plan: 1981, $616,000; 1982, $3.2 million; 1983, $5,611,000; 1984, $9,564,000; 1985, $73,562,000; for a total five-year profit of $92,553,000," when Mr. McKay had said the loss was $522 million.

"Simply, Mr. McKay had done was use the underwriting income figures before the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia investment income had been applied. That is more than just giving misleading information. That is deliberate distortion$. It is noteworthy, too, that a copy of Mr. McKay's letter went to Mr. John Weir, the Superintendent of Insurance for Ontario; Mr. John Lyndon, President of the Insurance Bureau of Canada and Mr. J. B. Nixon, Special Assistant to the Honourable Monte Kwinter, Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and none of them took the trouble to correct it.

"If a public official provided that kind of false information and did not correct it, he would be required to resign and that is exactly what Mr. McKay should do.

"Those unsavoury tactics are not just confined to officials of the insurance companies either. Mr. Kwinter, in defending the increasing rates by the insurance companies, said to me in the House on October 14.... `In the latest figures available for 1985, for every dollar of premium that was taken in on automobile insurance, $1.31 was paid out in claims.' That statement is factually incorrect. The $1.31 mentioned was not just for claims, but a substantial share was used for expenses in settling those claims.

In addition to that, the contrast was misleading because on top of the $1 income for premiums was the huge investment income of many hundreds of millions of dollars received by the insurance companies.

"Apart from the distasteful ethics that is demonstrated by these statements and many other similar statements, it shows the desperation of the defenders of an insurance system that is indefensible and their own recognition that the public auto insurance systems of the three western provinces are far superior to those in Ontario."

I realize it would be embarrassing for the minister if we had this accurate comparison. In his view, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. In the spring, the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) asked on his questionnaire whether his constituents would like to have insurance like that in Manitoba. In his Conservative riding, a Conservative member found that 80 per cent of the people wanted public auto insurance.

This government has self-righteously pounded its chest about the right to know, that we should have freedom of information. It was even invoked last night by the member speaking on rent review. That is what this resolution is all about, about freedom of information so that the people of Ontario know the difference between the public plans in the west and the system in Ontario that has broken down.

Mr. Offer: I am pleased to join in this debate. I regret the member for Welland-Thorold lost some valuable time in once more indicating his concerns with respect to the insurance question. Second, I regret there was a change in his private member's notice of motion without informing all the members of the House so that those who wished to refer and comment on that motion did not, will not and have not had the opportunity of proper notice.

This is the third time I have risen with respect to concerns about insurance posed by the member for Welland-Thorold. I realize there are very important trilogies in many different areas. The trilogy provided by the member for Welland-Thorold is one more important trilogy, but it is more akin to Curly, Larry and Moe.

I would like to comment specifically on the resolution proposed by the member. In particular, he indicates that "the Slater commission has failed to propose recommendations to resolve the problems and, in particular, failed to investigate and report," among other things.

The Slater task force provided 98 recommendations. There was an intensive work period. There was a determination and commitment on behalf not only of the chairman, but also of all who were involved in that task force in addressing the problems surrounding the insurance industry and making recommendations to the government.

Far from being a failure, the Slater task force provided an important and necessary addressing of problems and concerns. It was a success not only in meeting its mandate within its time period limitations, but also in its honesty in addressing the problems and concerns of people surrounding the insurance industry. Therefore, I take great exception to the member for Welland-Thorold's attacking that commission and all who had a part to play in it and the very good work they did.

There is no question that the recommendation of the Slater task force that received the most interest is that which called for some form of no-fault insurance. Dr. Slater specifically recommended that the province move to a no-fault or partial no-fault insurance system to be delivered through private insurance companies and not through the government. The main reason for this recommendation was the concern of the task force with the longer-term implications for the equity, efficiency and affordability of the present system and the steady increase in average settlements and awards for bodily injury.

It is not surprising that Dr. Slater's no-fault automobile insurance recommendation received substantial but mixed responses from various interest groups throughout this province. Notwithstanding the various and mixed responses, one thing was certain and there was consensus. Virtually everyone indicated that more information is required before we move in a responsible manner towards the recommendation indicated in the Slater task force.

Virtually everyone except the member for Welland-Thorold feels that more information is needed and that more questions should be asked about the impact of the recommendation in the Slater task force before we can responsibly move in that direction. I believe that is a responsible response to that recommendation.

The second point raised in the notice of motion is that "Mr. Justice Coulter Osborne has not been instructed to make any in-depth investigation and report on" plans with respect to no-fault insurance. The member for Welland-Thorold has once more indicated in his trilogy that the implementation of the Osborne commission will not be addressing questions. I believe he has even used today words to the effect that the people of this province will not know the true facts, in the opinion of the member for Welland-Thorold.

I think we should go through what Mr. Justice Osborne has been mandated to look into because the member for Welland-Thorold somewhat neglected to indicate it. He will be considering and reporting on "the adequacy, timeliness and fairness of compensation to accident victims under the present tort system." He will be commenting on "the effectiveness of the tort system as a deterrent in compensation mechanisms" and on "the implications of removing tort liability as a basis for compensation in automobile accidents and replacing it with a no-fault system."

He will be commenting on "the cost savings and effectiveness of a no-fault system for compensation for claims arising out of automobile accidents; the appropriate design of a no-fault automobile insurance system for Ontario, including the effectiveness of deterrence in a no-fault system; the effectiveness of rating systems related to driver performance and standards for ratings under such a no-fault automobile insurance system; the desirability of a modified no-fault system with some form of threshold at which recourse to the tort system would be allowed; the basis for determining compensation for injury or death in a no-fault system; dispute resolution and appeal processes for claims in a no-fault system; the need in a no-fault system for a catastrophic claims fund or pooling mechanism to protect small insurers; private versus public delivery of a no-fault system of automobile insurance, and the role of government in any proposed no-fault system."

The member for Welland-Thorold apparently understands and has the answers to all these questions. The people of the province want to know these answers. Mr. Justice Coulter Osborne in his commission is going to address these questions properly and provide answers to these concerns, notwithstanding the rantings and ravings of the member for Welland-Thorold.

11:30

The third point in the notice of motion talks about appointing "immediately a respected firm of financial and accounting consultants (like Woods Gordon, who did the previous study in 1978)." It appears the member for Welland-Thorold is disappointed that his friends at Woods Gordon have not been commissioned to conduct the study.

I point out to the House, and in particular to the member, that Woods Gordon will still have a chance. As the Minister of Financial Institutions stated in his announcement of the task force, Mr. Justice Osborne may request any additional powers or resources necessary to carry out his duties and functions. Thus, there is still a chance that the friends of the member for Welland-Thorold may be able to make input, but only if Mr. Justice Osborne believes and feels such input is necessary and warranted.

We cannot repair the system by adopting another province's solution. It would be like transplanting blindly the Rocky Mountains on the Niagara Escarpment. What we can do is learn from the experience of other jurisdictions that have different systems, and that means delving into their weaknesses as well as their strengths. We are not looking for merely a better system of auto insurance. We want the best, because that is what the people of this province both desire and deserve, and the Osborne commission will take us a long way to providing that to the people of this province.

Mr. Sheppard: It is with pleasure that I rise to speak on the resolution of the member for Welland-Thorold today. I am certain that we are all concerned about the current problems regarding insurance coverage. We have all been affected by them in one way or another, either personally or through constituents.

The rising cost of auto insurance can be attributed to several factors: (1) more claims are being made; (2) the cost of accidents is increasing via car repairs, material and parts, and newer cars are also harder to fix; and (3) court awards for personal injuries are increasing at an alarming rate.

Ironically enough, it is not those multimillion-dollar claims that we sometimes read about that are the real problem. The concern lies with the average claim -- for example, the fender-bender where the level of awards has been steadily increasing. People have a tendency to use these reported multimillion-dollar awards as a justification for increasing premiums. People read about these huge claims and feel they too are entitled to more. Society has become engrossed in an attitude of entitlement, if you wish.

It is foolish, however, to blame the entire crisis on people and their lawyers. Naturally, people who pay regular insurance premiums feel they are entitled to a fair and just compensation when they suffer a loss. It is essential, however, that society in general, and the consumer in particular, receive and understand the basic message that a more generous civil justice system has to be paid for.

Another part of the problem is that of reinsurance. Some reinsurers are treating the North American market as a whole. This attitude has been unfair to Canada because we have a very different tort system and, generally, we have not seen the types of claims, along with astronomical awards, that have been seen in the United States. It is perceived that if changes can be brought about to our tort system, this would allow insurance companies to price their products more accurately.

I am not in favour of government insurance as such, but there are other means by which we can do our part to alleviate the insurance crisis. One method is to restrict or lower the size of these astronomical awards. One option to consider is to impose a certain dollar limit on personal-injury lawsuits. This would ensure a more stable environment for industry to predict the future and to price its products. Furthermore, amendments could be made to the Courts of Justice Act to allow awards for serious injuries to be distributed via annuities as opposed to one lump sum. This method could prove advantageous in several forms.

To begin with, tax on future care costs would be eliminated. Second, the number of false claims would most likely decrease. For example, if an injured person who had received a long-term annuity was discovered to be participating in physical activities contrary to his injuries, his annuity could be cancelled without recourse. Furthermore, because the payment would be in annuity form, the chances of a claimant losing his award through faulty investments and the chance of his blowing all his money would be eliminated.

For claims that result from bodily injuries arising from automobile accidents, some form of no-fault insurance should be implemented. This method has advantages and disadvantages, which I will outline in a moment. The general public is ripe for such a proposal, provided it is run by a private insurer and not by the government. No-fault insurance offers reasonable costs to the consumer, as savings are achieved through the lack of litigation. Because there is no need to prove who is at fault, there are no lawyers or court fees. This type of insurance also offers adequate compensation to about 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the population, not to mention fast payment after proof of claim.

The mandatory no-fault compensation program referred to in the Slater task force on insurance would establish automatic coverage to such an extent that most people would not have to purchase additional insurance. As it is, more and more people are driving without adequate insurance, and some are driving without insurance at all.

One reason our tort system is so highly regarded, however, is that we have the freedom to sue and the right to have each claim individually appraised. With no-fault insurance, the right to sue is generally fortified. Additional coverage could be made available to allow victims to sue in the event of death, disfigurement or serious impairment of body functions. To most Ontarians, the right to sue and to receive more adequate compensation for those who are seriously injured remains vital. I am optimistic that this proposal will reduce the magnitude of awards presented in personal injury cases, while still allowing the plaintiff his right to compensation for losses and damage suffered.

While a

schedule of payments would create the more stable market required for insurance companies, there is no guarantee at this time

Mr. Warner: On a point of order: Does the chair see a quorum?

The Deputy Speaker: No, a quorum is not present.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

11:39

Mr. Sheppard: While a

schedule of payments would create the more stable market required for insurance companies, there is no guarantee at this time that premiums would level off or be reduced. The key to stability in the insurance and reinsurance market, however, is predictability. In other words, if the insurance industry could accurately predict future claims at the time of pricing, we would not be faced with sudden increases of 600 per cent to 700 per cent per year.

As members of this House, we can assist the industry in creating a more stable market. As I mentioned earlier, there are no other means by which we can help alleviate the insurance crisis without taking over the industry as such. We could bring forth amendments to certain statutes to restrict and lower the size of awards currently being doled out.

The insurance industry is concerned with the recent legislation changes to the Family Law Act. This act could be amended to require that no eligible claimant shall be awarded damages for loss of guidance, care or companionship unless the loss of such amenities are shown to be serious or permanent. Let us know that to remove the right of family members to make a claim would be regressive, not to mention unacceptable. However, if these claims were limited to serious injury only, this would surely reduce amounts that insurance companies would have to pay.

Furthermore, amendments could be made to the Environmental Protection Act. The onus is on the little guy who cannot afford the insurance. The Pollution Liability Association insurance pool has thus far approved only limited coverage.

As I said earlier, the insurance industry has to be able to look into the future to price its product. This legislation only contributes to a climate of uncertainty and unpredictability.

There is no doubt the future holds its share of challenges and difficulties in the auto industry. More people are purchasing cars and travelling with them. As a result, bigger and better roads are being built. Car models themselves are changing and becoming more complex, yet not as heavy as they used to be. Repair costs are outrageous, and so are court awards.

The western provinces have government-run insurance. They operate a general insurance plan and an automobile insurance plan. Overall, they have been faced with continuing losses. I understand the British Columbia government is halting its involvement in public insurance and has transferred its general insurance plan back to the private sector.

We can help overcome these difficulties in the insurance sector, not by taking over with government-run insurance but by implementing legislative changes.

Mr. Reville: I am delighted to be speaking to this resolution, not just because it is an honour for me to be backing up the member for Welland-Thorold, who clearly knows more about this issue than either my friends on this side or those on the other side of the House. They should be listening to him. He does not rant and rave; he tells the truth with firmness.

Since I know members are listening carefully to the debate, they will understand the reason this resolution should pass. If the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer) were to listen to his own remarks -- he will probably read them tomorrow in Hansard -- he would see why we should have the true facts concerning a major auto insurance alternative. If my colleague from the Progressive Conservative benches were to listen to his own remarks, which were riddled with inaccuracies, he too would want to support this resolution so he could learn the true story of a major auto insurance alternative.

It is not a problem of soaring repair costs or court awards, although some modest changes could be made on gross-ups. The New Democrats do not believe the tort system has caused this crisis in auto insurance. We believe the greed of the private insurance companies is causing this crisis.

Time and time again, we hear from the Minister of Financial Institutions that there is no crisis or that the crisis is in hand and one of his famous studies or commissions will solve the problem.

Every day, in many households across this province, somebody is suffering from the auto insurance crisis. At this moment, someone is driving very near the Legislature without insurance because he cannot afford the premium, and that is a very dangerous situation indeed. There are people whose insurance premiums have gone through the roof, through absolutely no fault of their own but because they happen to reside in the same dwelling with someone who has picked up a few points.

They do not even drive the same car, but they are being penalized because of their association with someone who has his own car and has had an accident or has picked up some points. It is absurd that such a situation should occur. It is the responsibility of the government to intervene to make sure that intolerable situation ceases.

There are a number of truths the province should hear. Some of us have children who are approaching age 16. Some of us are lucky enough to have children who are past that age. Young drivers, particularly young male drivers, have been terribly penalized in this province. They get penalized before it is determined whether they are safe drivers. That is an absurd situation.

A study such as is proposed would determine that decreasing the rates for young drivers who are safe drivers would not increase the rates for older drivers; that is one thing a study such as this would show. It is exceptionally important that a study such as this would show how the systems compare in their ability to ensure that everyone has insurance. Do we consider it appropriate that there may be as many 200,000 drivers on our roads with no insurance of any kind? What is the public cost of that? What is the percentage of uninsured drivers in those provinces that have public auto insurance? Are we not interested in knowing the answer to that question?

We would be able to determine from the study whether it is necessary to penalize every driver in a household for one driver's record. The study would show that. Parenthetically, the study might be able to deal with the old bogy of tort as a deterrent. I do not think you will find one tort lawyer in this province who believes tort law is somehow a deterrent to sloppy driving. People are not thinking about the possibility of being sued when they make an illegal left-hand turn. What they are thinking about is the possibility that they will be stopped by the police. They do not think about lawsuits.

The notion that tort is a deterrent is one of the goofier notions that is abroad, and I am sorry to hear my colleagues in this Legislature using it.

We would find out from this study how appeal boards could work in a public auto insurance system; how, if you decide the bureaucracy has not dealt with you fairly, you would appeal it and what kind of mechanism would be in place and what your chances of justice would be under a system of public auto insurance.

Another thing we would like to find out has to do with a serious problem that happens every day and perhaps every hour of the business day: insurance companies arbitrarily cancelling contracts. They call up and say: "Guess what? It is gone." They leave you with no insurance. They leave you at the mercy of the Yellow Pages, trying to find an auto insurance company that will help manage the risk you are exposed to and ensure that people are not left uncompensated for any damage they might suffer.

It would satisfy once and for all the conflict about what the rates really would be. I believe the member for Welland-Thorold. If the government, in its championship of the private auto insurance industry, is so sure that its rates can stand up to the member for Welland-Thorold's rates, then why does it not vote for this resolution? There it will be, and they can say: "See? We have proved our point." They will find that the public auto insurance plan proposed by the member for Welland-Thorold will lick the pants off any private auto insurance plan in the world.

11:50

I want the members to know that when an insured calls up about the public auto insurance plan and speaks to the member for Welland-Thorold, he will be well dealt with, if somewhat loudly. Those of us who have an office within a mile or two of the member for Welland-Thorold know he does not need modern technology to get his point across. Sometimes he is heard in Algoma. Sometimes he is heard in Rainy River. Wherever he is heard, they know that he means what he says and that what he says is right.

This Legislature should support this resolution proudly, strongly and firmly, so we can all know the truth about a very appropriate auto insurance alternative that works exceptionally well in parts of this country. We should not be nervous; neither should we be ashamed of importing from the west something that works well there.

I say "Shame on the member for Mississauga North" for suggesting we cannot learn from our brothers and sisters in the west. Of course we can. There is a kind of smugness in Ontario that has gone on far too long. It makes the rest of the country sometimes wonder whether we are not too smart for our own good here in Ontario. We have a lot to learn from the western provinces that have public auto insurance.

When this Legislature supports the resolution of the member for Welland-Thorold today, we will discover how much we have to learn.

Mr. Knight: The member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) has commented on the other speakers. I hope he will stay in his place and listen to some further and more accurate comments on the resolution.

When I first read the resolution moved by the member for Welland-Thorold, I found it a little rambling and long-winded. I am not speaking about the member's speaking style; I am sure they are not connected in any way, shape or form. More specifically, the resolution is simplistic, shallow and misdirected and has error in fact. As was indicated by the member for Mississauga North, Mr. Justice Coulter Osborne has been asked to consider in his study private versus public delivery of the no-fault insurance system.

Also, Dr. Slater did make recommendations, contrary to what the member for Welland-Thorold indicated. I know the honourable member has the two-volume report by Dr. Slater. This is simply a condensation of the 15 pages of recommendations that were made on many of the items the member has indicated in his

preamble. Perhaps the member does not agree with those recommendations, but they were certainly made. I hope that in his closing remarks, the member will refer to those.

Mr. Swart: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I am being misquoted. I was not talking about recommendations; I was talking about an in-depth study with a detailed report.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member may correct his own comments. He may disagree with the others.

Mr. Knight: The resolution says the Slater commission "has failed to propose recommendations to resolve these problems...."

The rating system is a factor of our compensation system and, perhaps more so, of the frequency and severity of the accidents that are the basis for the rates. It is different in Ontario from that in the western provinces. The frequency of accidents is a lot greater, as is the severity. This province has more truck traffic than any of the western provinces, which increases the insurance premiums, inasmuch as truck traffic and private passenger autos are carried by the same insurance companies.

The public is demanding a better compensation system arising out of our tort situations. We need stability. We need to even out the costs of our compensation system, and we need to put a lid on the costs. This can be accomplished but not by the means of a public delivery system.

This government has been proactive in trying to make sure costs are being reduced. It has been a facilitator of industry-based insurance pools, such as the liability pools at the time the crisis was brought to our attention, and of reciprocal insurance exchanges, most recently the United States product liability insurance pool. We have brought in legislation to establish the Canadian Insurance Exchange, to expand the capacity of farm mutuals to write insurance and to provide a framework for Ontario's participation in a national compensation plan.

This government has instigated discussions with the federal government on the matter of gross-ups. It has called on the Ontario Law Reform Commission to expedite its examination of double recovery, prejudgement interest, gross-ups and the Family Law Act. We have been active in in-house consideration of Good Samaritan legislation and the limitation of actions on policies. We have asked the insurance industry to come up with a new rating classification study. We commissioned the Slater report, and we all know its recommendations.

We have recognized the call for an investigation of whether no-fault insurance should be brought into play in Ontario and have asked Mr. Justice Osborne to report on that within a one-year period.

12:00

ELECTION FINANCES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Speaker: Ms. Fish has moved second reading of Bill 153,

An Act to amend the Election Finances Act.

Motion agreed to.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Speaker: On the next item, I must say a word or two to the members to clarify the resolution before the House. When the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) placed the resolution, I noted he added the word "insurance" on the third last line after "public." He also added the words "and report within four months."

I placed the motion stating that it was the member for Welland-Thorold's notice of motion 68, which he placed before the House and gave the proper two weeks' notice, according to the standing orders. I point out to all members that according to standing order 71(k), "No amendment may be made to a motion under this standing order."

Therefore, I am accepting the motion as printed in Votes and Proceedings, because that is the way it will be recorded in Votes and Proceedings. We will deal with notice of motion 68 as printed.

The House divided on Mr. Swart's resolution, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Bernier, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Consens, Dean, Fish, Gigantes, Gillies, Grande, Grier, Hayes, Henderson, Jackson, Johnston, R. F., Lane, Laughren, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, McFadden, McLean, Mitchell, Morin-Strom, Philip, Pierce, Pollock, Pouliot, Rae, Ramsay, Reville, Rowe, Runciman, Sargent, Sterling, Swart, Warner, Wildman.

Nays

Brandt, Callahan, Caplan, Conway, Fulton, Harris, Hart, Knight, Miller, G. L, Offer, Newman, Reycraft, Sheppard, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sorbara, South, Wrye.

Ayes 39; nays 18.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to a certain bill in his chambers.

Assistant Clerk: The following is the title of the bill to which His Honour has assented:

Bill 51,

An Act to provide for the Regulation of Rents charged for Rental Units in Residential Complexes.

The House recessed at 12:11 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: I ask all members of the assembly to join with me in recognizing in the Speaker's gallery a delegation from Shanghai in the People's Republic of China: the secretary-general of the Science and Technology Commission of the municipality of Shanghai, Shui Hailong; the director of the Science and Technology Centre of Exchange with Foreign Countries, Quian Yongming; the director of the Shanghai Light Industry Bureau, Shen Lianda; the

interpretation staff member of the Shanghai Science and Technology Commission, He Yingwen; and the People's Republic of China consul general, Gu Mingda.

Please join me in welcoming our guests.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SENIOR CITIZENS' SERVICES

Mr. Dean: Yesterday the Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens' Organizations and the Ontario Coalition for Nursing Home Reform cosponsored an excellent public forum on the government's white paper on services for seniors, A New Agenda. Since neither the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens' affairs (Mr. Van Horne) nor his special adviser were able to join me in attending this event and did not see fit to send any other representative of the government, I want to take this opportunity to share with them some of the comments made.

The forum was held specifically to provide an opportunity for public response to A New Agenda. It is too bad the minister for seniors' affairs is not here, so I could tell him on behalf of the people who took the time to organize and attend this forum that the failure of his government to send a representative to listen to the discussion was a major disappointment. It forced the panellists to try to explain and defend this government's policies.

Those who attended had a lot they wanted to say to the minister about his white paper. They wanted to tell him they did not find it to be a new agenda at all, containing nothing that was innovative. They wanted to tell him that while the paper talks about co-ordinated services, they feel that services are still fragmented and issues are dealt with in isolation. They wanted to discuss with him the flaws they are finding in the implementation of the integrated homemaker program. They had expected to be able to tell the minister that they feel there needs to be a minister for seniors' affairs with real clout and with control over spending, something he does not have now.

TRANSMISSION LINE

Ms. Gigantes: I would like to express deep concern about Ontario Hydro's plans to route a 500,000-volt transmission line right through the middle of the community of Bridlewood in the city of Kanata. Three thousand people have written to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) objecting to this misguided route.

The route is totally inappropriate. Hydro plans to locate the line in the existing corridor, which is only 275 feet wide and far too narrow, even by Hydro's reckoning. The proposed 16-storey transmission towers would be in the centre of the community adjacent to homes, two large parks and a future school site, in violation of Hydro's own list of constraints. Hydro admits these massive, unsightly towers are "out of character with the community," and there is more and more medical evidence showing health effects on people living near a high-voltage line.

The proposed route of this line through Kanata was an arbitrary joint board decision of November 1985. The joint board rejected all the suggested routes. The route right through Bridlewood was not even discussed at the joint board hearings. The city and a local citizens' group appealed the joint board's decision, but cabinet upheld that decision in May.

A new and preferable alternative route to the proposed route now exists. In September, the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton approved an extension of Terry Fox Drive, which would be a much better route for the line.

Cabinet must reverse its decision to approve the joint board route, because it is a route that does not serve the best interests of the public. It is not too late for cabinet to go back on its ill-considered decision. Construction on the line has not begun and the survival of a thriving and rapidly growing residential community is at stake.

NEWSPAPER'S ANNIVERSARY

Mr. Epp: I want to read a statement on behalf of the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) who, unfortunately, cannot be here at this time.

On Monday of this week we learned that the Globe and Mail was celebrating 50 years in publication. The Honourable Mitch Hepburn, the Liberal Premier of Ontario, dominated the front page of the first issue. Last Monday the Thamesville Herald held an open house celebrating its 100th anniversary. Orval Schilbe, editor and publisher, and Mrs. May Schilbe, executive editor, have reported they do not know what was on the first page of the original edition 100 years ago, November 4, 1886. The earliest edition they have been able to acquire is dated November 7, 1886.

In any event, unlike the Globe and Mail, which claimed to be politically independent 50 years ago, the Thamesville Herald still remains politically independent today. In the anniversary issue of November 19, contributing columnist Rev. Burr writes, "For 100 years the paper has supplied all the news fit to print and likely some that unfortunate souls wish they had not printed." Today the Herald feeds the local citizens with news and views for only 30 cents per copy. One can only wonder what the cost was 100 years ago.

I invite the members of this Legislature to join me in recognizing the efforts of the Schilbes and wishing them continued success in the future. May the Thamesville Herald hold its masthead high some 100 years hence.

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. Sheppard: A young lady in my riding was recently informed by a large department store chain that if she could not work on Sundays, she would be fired. The reason she is unable to work on that particular day, not that she needs an excuse, is that she teaches Sunday school to a group of 140 youngsters at St. Peter's Anglican Church in Cobourg.

Yesterday the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) made a promise that no one could be fired and if such a threat occurred, the individual would call his office. He said: "I want to hear about it. Give me a call at 965-1664." As it stands, a call was placed to the minister's office this morning at 9:05 a.m., only for the caller to be told the Attorney General is in Ottawa today, that no one was available to assist and perhaps the caller could call back after 10 a.m. as someone might be there then.

At 10:14 a.m. another call was placed to the Attorney General's office, only for the caller to be told once again that there was still no one there who could assist. The caller's name and number were recorded, however, and the caller was assured that someone would get back when the person arrived.

The large department store has since retracted its statement that it will fire anyone, but what concerns me is the fact that people are encouraged to call the Attorney General's office with their concerns over this matter, only to be told no one is available to help them. As of now, at 1:20 p.m., no one from the Attorney General's office has bothered to return not only this person's call but perhaps countless others as well.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. Mackenzie: I am pleased the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Kwinter) has seen fit to close the loophole we have been raising in this House for some time in terms of the ability to take private bridging or early retirement pension and collect that as well as the Canada pension, if they choose to take advantage of the new change in Canada pension regulations. It is a positive move.

I would like to give credit not only to the large number of workers and trade unionists across this province who I know have inundated the Premier's office with letters -- and I presume some of them have arrived on the desk of the minister -- but also to this party for the questions we have constantly raised on it. While I do appreciate this, and am letting the minister know it, it would have been nice if he had made the announcement in the House, where perhaps some of the credit could have been attributed, rather than by a four o'clock news release in the galleries.

BRAVERY AWARDS

Mr. Offer: I am proud to rise and inform the House of the recipients of the Region of Peel Police Citizen's Citation for Bravery and Citizenship.

They are Stacey Boyd and Donald Gilbert, who together contributed to removing an intoxicated driver from the road, thereby saving the driver and possibly others from injury or death; Susan McDonald, who rescued a woman from an attacker and has been credited by Peel police as saving that young woman's life; Michael Burke and Ronald Cormack, who saved a woman from a life-threatening circumstance; Brian Dennison, who rescued an elderly, physically disabled gentleman from a house fire; Anthony Magro, whose description and vigilant observation aided police in an assault case; David McIsaac, who saved a woman's life in a threatening situation; and Kathy Ward, who was instrumental in aiding police in the arrest of six people on break, enter and theft charges.

13:40

These nine award recipients are indeed the finest examples of citizenship in this province. As Peel Regional Police Chief Doug Burrows indicated, they are to be congratulated for their spirit of co-operation in helping to fight violent crime.

INTERVENER FUNDING

Mr. Andrewes: Once again, I want to appeal to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) to bring forward legislation to address the matter of intervener funding. In its annual report, the Environmental Assessment Board expressed the frustration it has experienced in dealing with this issue. The courts have suggested that the government give intervener funding early legislative consideration.

The minister knows that the credibility of the environmental assessment process is at stake. In his own riding, the fairness of the environmental assessment hearing on the industrial toxic waste treatment facility proposed for west Lincoln is being seriously questioned. The perceived imbalance in the process caused 1,500 people at a rally in St. Catharines last weekend to ask the minister to reconsider the whole site selection process and the proposal itself.

Can we expect an early Christmas announcement?

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: I ask all members to join me at this time in recognizing and welcoming the Speaker of the Alberta Legislative Assembly, the Honourable David Carter.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SECURITIES INDUSTRY

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: On June 11, I announced that the government had decided to adopt in principle the main recommendations of the report of the Ontario Securities Commission with respect to entry into and the ownership of the securities industry.

My recommendations were designed to allow increased participation by domestic financial institutions and nonfinancial investors and by foreign security firms in the securities industry in Ontario. Our intention was to secure the growth of Toronto as a major centre of international finance and as a centre of Canada's capital markets.

When I made my announcement, I indicated I had directed the OSC to work closely with securities market representatives in order to develop the best structure for the industry. I also stated that in the light of the rapidly changing nature of the capital markets in Canada and around the world, we would be prepared to consider allowing Canadian financial institutions and others a higher ownership level than announced and would await the results of the OSC's consultation with the industry.

I am pleased to report that the consultative process between the Ontario Securities Commission and the securities industry committee has worked extremely well. It was the consensus of all the groups consulted that a substantial liberalization of the ownership rules, beyond the levels indicated in my June announcement, was required. Other events in the fast-changing capital markets have also led us to a broader opening of the industry.

It has recently become clear that the role of Canadian banks and other federal financial institutions in the securities market is in the process of being greatly expanded. The most obvious example of this expansion is the formation by the Bank of Nova Scotia of a subsidiary that is a full-service securities dealer. Scotia Securities has been registered in Quebec and is beginning to carry on business there.

Banking is a matter that under the Constitution falls to the federal government. Securities regulation is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. Accordingly, each level of government has a role to play in structuring our financial markets.

Ontario and the federal government have discussed the issues and our respective spheres of responsibility. I am pleased to report that fact, as co-operation between us is essential to the efficient working of our markets. While my understanding is that the federal position is not yet settled, I am hopeful that banks and other federally incorporated financial institutions will be allowed a major participation in the securities industries through subsidiaries.

We are prepared to accommodate the expanding role of banks in the financial markets and to recognize the merging of the four pillars that has occurred in the global markets. Indeed, the changing nature of the four pillars has been a matter of discussion at federal-provincial meetings for the past two years.

As a result, I am announcing today a much broader opening of the securities industry than was contained in my June announcement. The new rules will come into effect on June 30, 1987. On that date, Canadian financial institutions -- banks, insurance companies and trust companies --will be allowed to own up to 100 per cent of a securities dealer. In addition, other Canadian investors will also be allowed to own up to 100 per cent of a securities dealer.

Nonresidents will be limited, however, to a 50 per cent interest in a Canadian securities dealer in order that Canadian investors may have some lead time to invest in and secure the growth of the Canadian industry. In one year's time, on June 30, 1988, nonresident investors will be allowed to own up to 100 per cent of a Canadian securities firm.

Foreign dealers who wish to enter the Ontario market directly will be allowed to register on June 30, 1987. There will be no capital limits on foreign dealer registrants from that date onward. However, the activities of these foreign dealers will be limited to exempt market activities under the Securities Act for one year. This provision is designed to allow a period of adjustment for the domestic industry and new Canadian investors. From June 30, 1988, foreign dealer registrants will be able to engage in the full range of activities in our securities market.

The opening of the securities industry I am announcing today will see major changes in the structure of our capital markets. It will allow free play to Canadian financial and nonfinancial investors, as well as welcoming both direct and indirect investment by nonresidents. The adoption of the principles I am announcing is designed to ensure that our financial markets are so structured that Toronto will be able to maintain its rightful place, not only as the centre of Canada's capital markets but also as a major international financial centre.

While we are permitting federal financial institutions to enter the securities industry, I wish to make it clear that securities regulation remains a matter of provincial jurisdiction. Accordingly, federal financial institutions will only be allowed to enter the securities business in Ontario if the core functions of such business are carried on through a subsidiary registered with the Ontario Securities Commission and subject to its rules and regulations. The carrying on of core securities through a subsidiary is essential for effective regulation and for the implementation of conflict-of-interest rules.

At the same time, I want to assure the House that, along with these changes, we will maintain strict regulations to protect users and other persons who engage in activities in the securities market.

Mr. McFadden: We received with interest the statement by the Minister of Financial Institutions concerning entry into and the ownership of the securities industry. There is very clearly a need for Ontario to change its regulations and its approach in securities legislation, as well as in financial institutions legislation in general, to reflect the changing world financial marketplace.

The thing that seems a bit strange about the announcement today is the fact that in the budget last spring, the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) stated that he had some real concerns about the concentration of corporate ownership in Ontario. This subject was referred to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs for that committee's study. The standing committee is currently in the middle of a study mandated by the Treasurer and this House to look at the concentration of corporate ownership in financial institutions.

Now we have a statement setting out the government's policy that very clearly suggests and will lead to a concentration of corporate ownership in the financial institutions sector. That is very strange. Why, then, did the Treasurer talk in his budget about the concentration of corporate ownership, refer it to a committee of this Legislature, which committee is in the middle of it, and then this minister brings out this statement, which seems to run totally in the face of the concerns raised by the Treasurer prior to any recommendation of the standing committee?

That has to be the question. I do not know what the minister is proposing to do, but it hardly seems worth while for committees of this Legislature to carry on with mandated studies if the government, months before the recommendations of the committee come out, suddenly makes a decision that effectively could render a decision of the committee redundant or, if the committee report is adopted and runs contrary to this position, could force the government to change a recently announced policy.

I suggest that this is an example of where the left hand really did not know what the right hand was doing. Very clearly, the Minister of Financial Institutions is heading one way and the Treasurer's direction to a standing committee of the Legislature is going in an entirely different direction.

Mr. Ashe: I would like to comment on the statement read today by the Minister of Financial Institutions on the expansion of the securities industry and the ownership of same.

We have not had an opportunity to have any feedback from the industry or from federal authorities, but if what the minister says in the statement is true, it appears that on this occasion he has been able to carry on some dialogue with the industry and the federal authorities. I hope he has done a better job than he did when he was talking about Bill 116, relating to another aspect of his ministry which is before committee. His dialogue at that time was deficient.

Off the top of our heads, as has been indicated already by my colleague the member for Eglinton (Mr. McFadden), it appears that what the minister is doing is in the right direction in the context of reaffirming that Toronto has been, should be and will continue to be the financial capital of Canada. At the same time, I suggest there is a bit of conflict between the Ministry of Financial Institutions and the Ministry of Treasury and Economics. I hope that somewhere along the line in this process they will be able to resolve their differences.

Mr. Rae: Let me deal with the statement by the Minister of Financial Institutions. It is takeover time on Bay Street just as it has been takeover time on Wall Street and in all the western economic world. This government is doing absolutely nothing about this. On the contrary, the statement the minister made today indicates that for the space of about the first five minutes it will be a wide-open game. As soon as those five minutes are over, as the minister well knows, it will be either eat or be eaten and we will have no more competition downtown than we have had in the past.

It is the height of hypocrisy for the government to express concern in the Treasurer's speech, through the words of the descendant of the United Farmers of Ontario, about corporate concentration and what is going on. When it comes to dealing with Goodyear and the corporate cannibalism that now is the hallmark of our economic system -- not corporate responsibility and not job creation, but the shuffling of paper, the merging of firms and the firing of workers -- this government not only is sitting on the sidelines and doing nothing about it but also is indicating in the statement by the minister today that all this has carte blanche and is okay.

With respect to the final paragraph, where the minister talks about regulation, we are already beginning to appreciate from events in the United States the incredible abuse of insider trading, the incredible use of information with respect to mergers and the sudden enrichment of individuals in the space of five minutes as well as the collapse of the morality and the legality of much of what is going on in the securities business.

To enter into this type of a free-for-all without a systematic study of the changes that are needed in our securities law is irresponsibility of the highest degree. The whole basis of the system has been the four pillars.

If the government eliminates the four pillars, which it is now doing, any rules with respect to cross-ownership, which it is now doing, and any rules with respect to preventing people who are in the business of making money from taking other people's money and turning other people's money into their money, and if it fails to deal with that with new regulations, a new law and a new set of public responsibilities, it is simply asking for it. The Ivan Boesky phenomenon in New York is going to be repeated, if it is not being repeated today right here in Toronto.

It is something this Liberal government ought to be doing something about. Instead, it is encouraging a free-for-all, corporate irresponsibility and a casino economy that knows no morality other than greed and no limitations other than self-serving pursuit of individual interest and profit.

Workers and people are suffering. The government simply stands by, watches it all happen and says, "It is eat or be eaten," to use the words the Premier (Mr. Peterson) used today in the House. If it is eat or be eaten, let that be the epitaph of the Liberal Party of Ontario when it comes to dealing with corporate irresponsibility right here in our province.

ONTARIO ARTS COUNCIL

Hon. Ms. Munro: I would like to inform my colleagues in the House that this morning the Ontario Arts Council announced that Christopher Wootten has been appointed to succeed Walter Pitman as executive director of the council.

Mr. Wootten comes to us from Vancouver. He brings with him extensive and broad experience in arts management. He was director of programming for the cultural and entertainment program of Expo 86. He founded the Vancouver East Cultural Centre, produced numerous Canadian theatrical productions and was artistic director for the Vancouver International Children's Festival.

I know members all join me in welcoming Mr. Wootten as the new executive director of the Ontario Arts Council, an agency of the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture.

However, along with the pleasure I have in welcoming Christopher Wootten comes a sadness at saying goodbye to Walter Pitman. In his six years with the council, Walter has done a great deal for culture in Ontario. He has appeared in every part of the province inspiring and encouraging the arts community and the general public. To a large degree, we can thank Walter Pitman for the flourishing cultural life we enjoy in Ontario today.

During my time as Minister of Citizenship and Culture, Walter Pitman's incredibly detailed knowledge of arts in this province and, I might add, his wonderful sense of humour have been invaluable.

Many members in this assembly will remember Walter as the deputy leader of the New Democratic Party. Some of the members on the opposition benches will remember him well as a scrappy young NDP Education critic back in 1968-69. It is to education that Walter returns. He has been appointed director designate of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

His background in education is impressive. As well as having been a teacher, a professor and a dean, he has been, among other things, president of the Ontario Educational Association, president of the Canadian Association for Adult Education and president of Ryerson Polytechnical Institute. As a fellow educator, I can only say that if the arts must lose Walter, then I can think of nowhere I would rather he use his talents than in education.

As members have noticed, Walter is with us today in the members' gallery, along with Sonja Koerner, the very able chairperson of the Ontario Arts Council. Please join me in wishing one of the finest and most dedicated persons of any political stripe ever to sit in this House all the very best in his future appointment.

Mr. Andrewes: I want to offer our congratulations to Christopher Wootten, who obviously comes eminently qualified to this post with the Ontario Arts Council. He will inject enthusiasm and creativity into the activities of the council based on his very strong background and experience.

In doing so, I want to express our party's appreciation to Walter Pitman for his years of service and devotion to the arts council. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) quietly said that our loss would be OISE's gain. We are fortunate the government in its wisdom saw fit to leave that institution intact so that Mr. Pitman's skills can continue to be applied in the province.

Mr. Rae: We join with the Minister of Citizenship and Culture in wishing Mr. Wootten well in his new responsibilities at the arts council.

I hope Walter does not make the mistake of inhaling all the comments that have been made today; it will have a very serious effect on his health. However, we all want to celebrate the career of Walter Pitman. I say to the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) that we look forward to a productive career for Walter Pitman at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, so he will continue to lead an institution that deserves the full support of all members of the Legislature. I know the kind of scrapping Walter Pitman --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Scrapping is good for you. It made you what you are.

Mr. Rae: Scrapping is good for one's health. It has certainly been good for mine over the years.

I know the kind of scrapping Walter Pitman had to do as Education critic will not have to be repeated in fighting for the survival of OISE but rather in fighting for the expansion and thriving of OISE.

14:01

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. Pope: First, it is totally unacceptable that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) are not present today. We have absolute chaos with respect to Sunday openings in this province, for which they are responsible. They do not even want to show up. The Attorney General put himself in the middle of this conflict with the former Solicitor General, and he does not even have the guts to show up here this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That question was to whom?

ALCOHOL ON OPP BOAT

Mr. Pope: My question is to the Premier. With respect, the Premier was wrong in the way he has handled the matter of the former Solicitor General, the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Keyes). It should have been immediate and total.

Can the Premier explain to this House and the people of this province why he has asked the member for Kingston and the Islands to resign only as the Solicitor General and has allowed him to remain in the cabinet as Minister of Correctional Services, as part of the justice field, when he has a charge outstanding or about to be laid under the Liquor Licence Act?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am sorry the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) could not be here today, but I am glad the honourable member is here to ask this question.

I reflected on this matter, and the conclusions I came to are the conclusions the member is aware of. As he knows, this matter became public a couple of weeks ago or so. At that point, the then Solicitor General stood up and admitted the facts in question and admitted to making a mistake in the circumstances. We immediately ordered a police report, and that came back.

I am sure the member has had time to read that police report and reflect on it. The Attorney General decided to make that police report public, even though that is not the custom, because of the particularly sensitive nature of this matter and given the fact that it was the Solicitor General who was involved.

The police report said that in ordinary circumstances, had it been an ordinary citizen, a charge would not be laid. That is what it said, and I recommend that the member read it. It said a warning would have been forthcoming. Given the fact that he is Solicitor General, I asked him to step aside pending a resolution of this matter. That is why I came to the conclusions I did.

Mr. Pope: That is totally unacceptable. The Premier did not ask him to resign from cabinet. He asked him to step aside as Solicitor General. We are talking about someone who is or is about to be charged with a provincial offence. We are talking about someone who has to show a standard of conduct because he is part of the justice field.

In all fairness, the Premier should look at the standard of conduct in this Legislature and in Legislatures across this country. When someone is alleged to have committed a provincial offence, he immediately resigns, not from one of his posts but from all his cabinet posts.

I want to know why the Premier trivializes all these matters. Why did he trivialize the resignations of the member for Oriole (Ms. Caplan) and the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine)? Why does he not set a standard of conduct in the government of Ontario of which we can all be proud by asking for immediate resignation when these allegations are made public and by sending those involved totally out of cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not trivialize the matter; I think the member does. That is the difference.

When judgements are required to be made -- I made the judgement, and I accept responsibility for it -- one has to use common sense, reason and judgement in the circumstances.

I expect the member to stand up and hoot and holler, as he generally does on almost every issue. However, I happen to disagree with the member's analysis of the situation. I have told the member that all the facts are there for him to see. In spite of his legal training, he would rather judge someone guilty before there has been a fair hearing of the matter. It is the member's right to come to those conclusions, but I have to disagree with him.

Mr. Pope: The Premier knows full well that we are not talking about judging someone guilty. We are talking about someone who has been or is about to be charged with a provincial offence. We are talking about a standard of conduct we have a right to expect from the Premier and his ministers in the government of Ontario, one the Premier still does not appear to understand.

The Premier has mismanaged this issue for the past six months. He has had three ministers resign from their positions. He admitted to the standing committee on public accounts that he did not want to get involved in it, but he neglected to administer or enforce any guidelines respecting conduct of his cabinet ministers.

When is the Premier going to fess up, get this issue under control and have some standards of conduct for his ministers of which we can all be proud?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If the member is going to quote me, in the circumstances he would want to quote me accurately, which he has not done.

I think the matter is under control. Mistakes were made, admitted to and action has been taken. The member is entitled to argue that the action taken was inappropriate. If the member wants to call for blood, he has every right to do so. That offends my sense of fair play and, in the circumstances, common sense. The member is entitled to scream all he wants about it; perhaps that is the role of the opposition in the circumstances. However, I think the matter has been fairly dealt with. I also think it will be judged to have been fairly dealt with by people across this province.

I look back to other circumstances; one would have to ask whether decisions would be