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

December 15, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L122 - Thu 15 Dec 1988 / Jeu 15 dec 1988

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS AMENDMENT ACT

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS AMENDMENT ACT

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

EASTERN ONTARIO

HOSPITAL WORKERS

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM

HUMAN RIGHTS

ROOMERS, BOARDERS AND LODGERS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS

HEALTH INNOVATION FUND

POLICE TREATMENT OF VISIBLE MINORITIES

RESPONSES

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS

POLICE TREATMENT OF VISIBLE MINORITIES

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

HEALTH INNOVATION FUND

POLICE TREATMENT OF VISIBLE MINORITIES

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

HEALTH INNOVATION FUND

SEASON’S GREETINGS

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT’ S RECORD

EDUCATION FUNDING

RETAIL STORE HOURS

ONTARIO HOME OWNERSHIP SAVINGS PLAN

HOME CARE

PROPOSED LANDFILL SITE

INSURANCE COMPANY INSOLVENCIES

WINE INDUSTRY

AMBULANCE SERVICES

ASSISTANCE FOR DIABETICS

TUITION FEES

COURT FACILITIES

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

PETITIONS

HOME CARE

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND / CAISSE DE RETRAITE DES ENSEIGNANTS

HOME CARE

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

STANDING ORDERS

ADJOURNMENT OF HOUSE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INDIAN LANDS AGRREEMENT CONFIRMATION ACT

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERVENOR FUNDING PROJECT ACT /

LOI SUR LE PROJET D’AIDE FINANCIÈRE AUX INTERVENANTS (CONTINUED / SUITE)

INTERVENOR FUNDING PROJECT ACT /

LOI SUR LE PROJET D’AIDE FINANCIÈRE AUX INTERVENANTS

THIRD READINGS / TROISIÈME LECTURE

GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT

FARM PRACTICES PROTECTION ACT

ONTARIO HIGHWAY TRANSPORT BOARD AMENDMENT ACT

TRUCK TRANSPORTATION ACT

ARIANN DEVELOPMENTS INC. ACT

GEORGE A. MCNAMARA MEMORIAL FOUNDATION

CITY OF SAULT STE. MARIE ACT

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10 am.

Prayers

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Offer moved resolution 45:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing the rapid and continuing growth in Peel region in the residential, commercial and industrial sectors and further recognizing the existence of a very busy international airport in Peel, the location of Peel between Hamilton/USA and Metro/southeast Ontario and the significant increase in the number of medium and heavy trucks in Peel, this Legislature strongly urges the Minister of Transportation to direct the continuation of Highway 407 westward from Highway 427 to Highway 10.

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

Mr. Offer: I will first indicate that I will be reserving some time at the end in terms of my windup.

In dealing with this matter, we are dealing with a matter of extreme importance to the Peel region. I have had the occasion of meeting with a number of members from the region of Peel. I have met with my colleagues the member for Mississauga West (Mr. Mahoney), the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland), the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Sola), the member for Brampton South (Mr. Callahan) and the member for Brampton North (Mr. McClelland).

I think that on an issue such as this there are no politics; there is not political partisanship. It is a need on which all of us speak in one voice, and that voice is urging the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) that when the decision to continue the building of Highway 407 is made, it must be made such that it proceeds westward from Highway 427 to Highway 10.

I have been fortunate to have received a report by the region of Peel. That report was carried out by the transportation policy division of the Peel planning department under the direction of Peter Allen, the commissioner of planning, and Douglas Thwaites, the director of the division. This was a study team dealing with the whole question of transportation in the Peel region. That team was made up of Dr. Ali Mekky, project manager and senior planner, Jack Thompson and Rick Warner as intermediate planners and Ray Backie as junior planner.

To begin, I think we have to give some backdrop to this resolution. In November 1987, regional council received a letter, dated October 20 of that year, from the Minister of Transportation confirming the immediate construction of Highway 407 from Highway 400 to Highway 427. It was noted in the letter that, “The first

section of Highway 407 will include a transitional extension westerly on the Highway 407 alignment to ensure good traffic distribution around the Highway 407-427 interchange.” In addition, the Ministry of Transportation staff indicated, “A similar extension is to be required to Dufferin Street to distribute around the Highway 400-407 interchange.”

No one disagrees with that decision by the Minister of Transportation. It was a good decision; it was a right decision; it was a necessary decision. But as I say that it was good, right and necessary, so too I state that it is good, right and necessary that the next decision by the Minister of Transportation be made in dealing with extending Highway 407 westward from Highway 427 to Highway 10.

The region of Peel’s report was based on two very important reasons: first, to assess the urgency of Highway 407 being extended into Peel and, second, to assess how the need to extend Highway 407 into Peel compares with the need to extend Highway 407 easterly from Dufferin Street. That is important, because what we are dealing with here is comparing the relative needs, comparing the relative growth in all of the regions each to the other. Obviously, the three regional municipalities most affected by decisions on the construction scheduling of Highway 407 would be Metropolitan Toronto, York and Peel.

Therefore, in determining the appropriate priorities for the next stage and subsequent stages for the construction of Highway 407, the region of Peel -- and my remarks today are largely borrowed from that report because that is a good, exhaustive and extensive report. This report studies all the sections of Highway 407 from Highway 403 in the west to the east Metro transportation corridor in the east. Not only does it deal with the particular areas and their relative growth patterns, but it also deals with different time frames, from the mid-1980s to the turn of the century, up to 2010, I believe.

I would like to, if I might, talk about three criteria for comparison, the first being population. The study by the region indicates that the future growth in both population and employment within the Highway 407 corridor is higher in Peel than in Metro and the region of York combined. This is not a political decision; this is a fact based on empirical evidence.

The region of Peel has been quite exhaustive in making it very plain that in terms of population growth, the growth in Peel from 1985 to 2011 will exceed the rate of growth in both York and Metro combined. Population growth from 1985 to 2011 in the corridor in Peel is projected to be about 366,000. In Metro, it is approximately 4,500 and in York, about 270,000, for a combined Metro-York total of about 274,500, which is over 90,000 less than that in Peel.

A second factor for comparison is the one dealing with employment growth. When we talk about employment growth, we are talking about the increase in jobs within a municipality, still using the same time frame, 1985 to 2011. In that period, that increase is slated to be projected at about 245,000. In Metro, it is projected to be about 74,000 and in York, about 121,000. Again, the projection for the combined York and Metro growth is about 50,000 less than in Peel alone.

We are not saying that York is not experiencing, in many ways, the same type of dynamic growth that is found in the Peel region. We are saying, however, that the growth in Peel, in terms not only of the residential but also of the industrial, commercial and retail sectors, is of such magnitude as to warrant the Minister of Transportation making the decision to extend Highway 407 westward.

A third factor I would like to bring to the attention of this House is what is known as employed labour force. That is measured as those people living in an area who work either within or outside of the municipality within which they live.

Again, we will use the time frame 1985 to 2011 because in that time frame it is anticipated that the ELF, or employed labour force, in Peel will be over 200,000. This is important because in Metro, it is projected to decrease by about 6,000 while in York it is projected to increase by about 130,000. This results again in a Metro-York total of about 124,000, which is almost 85,000 less than in Peel.

When we take a look at this one aspect, this one criterion, the growth in employed labour force in the corridor in Peel is so great that it exceeds York’s projected 2011 growth figure of about 130,000 10 years earlier. I know, and certainly from my discussions with my colleagues the member for Mississauga South, the member for Mississauga West, the member for Mississauga East, the member for Brampton North and the member for Brampton South, they are all well aware of the vast growth that is taking place in all our ridings in terms of the residential, commercial and industrial sectors. This cries out that there is an absolute urgency that Highway 407 be extended westward from Highway 427.

When that initial decision was made by the Minister of Transportation -- I know that the member for Mississauga South is in the House and we were members of this Legislature at that time -- for the provision of the first stage of Highway 407 from Dufferin Street to Highway 427, I know the member for Mississauga South will recall that I said that decision was good for Peel and would be of assistance primarily to Mississauga and Brampton in terms of traffic going easterly and that would result in a positive impact in the Peel region.

I was able to justify, I was able to speak strongly in favour of that decision by the Minister of Transportation. That decision was made, that decision is right, but that decision is now in the past. We are now looking upon future decisions. I think it is absolutely essential that this House -- I hope to have the support of all members of this Legislature in urging the Minister of Transportation to make certain that when that decision is made, it is made in such a way that Highway 407 will be extended west from Highway 427 to Highway 10.

In the time permitted -- and I take note that it is winding down quite rapidly -- there are five factors specific to the Peel region which I would like to touch on.

The first factor is one which I have spoken about in terms of comparison with York and Metropolitan Toronto, that is, the growth in population in Peel. In 1971, the population in Peel was about 260,000, which was about the same as Halton and Durham. At present, the population of Peel in 1988 is about 644,000, which equals that of Halton and Durham together. Between 1971 and 1985, the population of Peel increased by about a third of a million, which is, as is very easily understood, a substantial increase compared to other regions. Peel’s growth was more than that of Metro Toronto, York and Halton combined.

I indicated earlier and I would like to reiterate the large increase in employment in Peel as a second factor. I indicated earlier and I would like to reiterate the large growth in employed labour force in Peel.

One factor I have not indicated, which is very critical and very topical at this point, is the presence of the Lester B. Pearson International Airport. As we all know, that is located in Peel and adds large volumes of traffic to Peel’s road network. This international airport is one of the busiest airports in North America and serves Canada’s largest business and travel area. This is the primary terminus for over 65 air carriers and the base for over 20 general aviation operators.

We know from recent reports that there is some concern with the operation of the airport, that that is being looked at and rectified. We also know that a third terminal is being constructed and that a further runway is being discussed. All this will add a greater urgency to the necessity of Highway 407 to be extended westward from Highway 427 to Highway 10.

A fifth point which I would like to bring to the members’ attention is very peculiar, that is, the large number of medium and heavy truck movements in Peel. In Peel, due to the large industrial, commercial and service activities growth in Peel, as well as its location between the United States and Metro, many of the main arteries in Peel carry significantly high percentages of truck traffic.

The continued growth in Peel has attracted over 300 trucking companies to base their operations in Peel. This is a factor that is very specific to the Peel region and again cries out, demands, that the Minister of Transportation, when making that decision as to the further extension of Highway 407, have that extension go westward from Highway 427 to Highway 10.

I have indicated in my opening remarks that I will reserve some time to wind up. I ask all honourable members to support this resolution based on the criterion of comparison and the criterion of factors related specifically to the Peel region in urging the Minister of Transportation, when ready to make the decision, to extend Highway 407 westward from Highway 427 to Highway 10.

Mrs. Marland: It is a pleasure for me to rise this morning in support of the resolution of the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer), his resolution being:

“That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing the rapid and continuing growth in Peel region in the residential, commercial and industrial sectors and further recognizing the existence of a very busy international airport in Peel, the location of Peel between Hamilton/USA and Metro/southeast Ontario and the significant increase in the number of medium and heavy trucks in Peel, this Legislature strongly urges the Minister of Transportation to direct the continuation of Highway 407 westward from Highway 427 to Highway 10.”

I think at the outset it is important to place on the record the ongoing struggle that the region of Peel seems to have as the poor cousin of Metropolitan Toronto. I think it is significant to tell you that at the end of 1985 and very early in January 1986, there was quite a lot of concern expressed in the region of Peel by two very important people, in terms of intermunicipal transborder transportation planning. One of those people is Peter Allen, who is the planning commissioner for the region of Peel.

Mr. Allen was trying to make a very strong statement at the beginning of 1986 about his concern as to where the transportation corridors were going to be. I think it is important for all of the regions around the Golden Horseshoe area to work together. Obviously, no growing region should have or does have priority over another, but also it stands to reason that where we have traffic flow between municipalities and between regions, there is no way that once the car, for example, driving east from Mississauga hits the Etobicoke border that it has any choices about continuing through Etobicoke if it is on its way to downtown Metro and, of course, the same in reverse.

The regional officials have said that within 15 years Peel, York and Durham regions combined will have surpassed Metro in population, if present trends continue. With Halton added, the four regions and Metro will have more than five million people compared with two million in Metro. In 1986 alone, those regions of Peel, York, Durham and Halton had hoped to undertake nearly $2.5 billion worth of residential, industrial and commercial development, which was up 20 per cent over the two previous years. Now we know that prediction has been surpassed in the region of Peel.

Mr. Allen, the planning commissioner for Peel whom I mentioned a few moments ago, said in a report that: “Peel was not consulted when Metro’s rapid transit plan, called Network 2001, was prepared. Traffic at the Peel-Metro border is expected to double in 25 years, but the present road capacity cannot be significantly increased.”

I think that statement shows the need for consultation among all the regions and also emphasizes the very important role that the provincial government must play in overseeing the planning for all of these areas together. Peter Allen also noted that Metro’s population is expected to show only slow growth between now and the year 2011, while Peel’s increase alone will be to 1.1 million people.

Frank Bean, who is himself a former Mississauga city councillor and the longest-serving regional chairman in Ontario, said the neighbouring regions sometimes get the impression that Metro regards them as poor cousins. Mr. Bean also said he has impressed upon the Metro chairman, Dennis Flynn, that Metro must realize it is not living in a cocoon. I guess now, since the election last night of Alan Tonks as Metro chairman, that Frank Bean at this point will have to start emphasizing his concerns to the new Metro chairman.

At this point, I think it would be appropriate to congratulate Frank Bean, as of last week newly re-elected as chairman of the region of Peel. Going into 1989, Frank Bean will in fact be entering into his 10th year as regional chairman. We appreciate the work, dedication and commitment that he has given to the region of Peel in his role as chairman. We share with him the concerns that he has been trying to express over his years in that position and with regard to this particular problem of transportation corridors.

Mr. Bean has also said in the past that if Metro is not prepared to be more sensitive to the neighbouring regions, they will have to make a joint pitch to the Ontario government for fairer treatment. That is the pitch that I think is being made here this morning, and it is one that I am hopeful the Ontario government will listen to and recognize, because it is not an unreasonable request.

The importance of the extension of Highway 407 west from Highway 27 to Highway 10 is certainly well demonstrated when you look at the population increases, particularly when we have a very extensive report that describes the anticipated growth in the areas to be served by Highway 407 as follows: From 1985 to 2011, the population increase alone in that area will be 55 per cent and the employment increase will be 72 per cent. In both cases, over 55 per cent of the total growth anticipated is projected to occur within the boundaries of the region of Peel.

From an operational perspective, the modelling that has been done indicates that even if built by 2001, Highway 407 in Peel will be operating at capacity at the time it is built with significant sections operating under forced-flow conditions. I think those of us who have to commute today on the Queen Elizabeth Way understand very clearly what forced-flow conditions mean.

Conversely, the sections of Highway 407 within York will operate significantly better and will have the ability to accommodate some future growth. This indicates a need for a higher priority being given to the Peel section. From a user-cost perspective, which I am sure the government is always concerned about, the relative benefit-cost ratio for the extension west through Peel compared with east through York is very significant. This means that every dollar spent to extend Highway 407 into Peel region will reap over five times the benefit to its users compared to an extension to the east through York.

We would also like to place on the record that future extensions should include the construction of Highway 407 west of Highway 10 to Highway 401 with the objective of this

section being operational by the year 2001.

I hope that the Minister of Transportation and the cabinet of the Ontario Liberal government will support this resolution and solve the traffic problems in Peel.

Mr. Mahoney: It is Mississauga day in the Legislature, I guess, with the member for Mississauga North’s resolution. Obviously I am pleased to rise in support of it, but I would like to give members of the House and you, Mr. Speaker, some information to justify the request that this

section of Highway 407 be moved up in priority and be the actual first leg of Highway 407 built, rather than going to the east, which I must admit would be contrary to the wishes of some of our honourable members who represent areas in Durham, York and other parts of the province.

Mr. Ballinger: Hear, hear.

Mr. Mahoney: The member for Durham-York says “Hear, hear,” but while there is no denying that there is growth in the east and on the north boundaries of Metro, clearly there is also no denying that the growth rate in Peel has been surpassed by no area in the entire country and, for that matter, in North America. The growth figures are quite clear, and they are substantial.

In 1974, the Regional Municipality of Peel Act created the new region of Peel and the new city of Mississauga merged from smaller communities such as Streetsville, Port Credit, Cooksville and the then town of Mississauga, and many villages, such as the villages of Malton and Erindale. All of these communities came together to form the city of Mississauga in 1974.

The population at that time was about 120,000 people. In 14 years, that population in Mississauga alone has grown to approximately 410,000 people. It is unprecedented growth and with that growth, of course, as anyone trying to get out of Mississauga this morning would agree, there are severe traffic problems. In fairness, the traffic problems this morning were caused by a substantial power failure to some 40,000 customers in the Mississauga and Milton areas, but it just really drove home the fact that the volumes of traffic, when a problem occurs such as a power failure or a bad storm, is so substantial that it simply becomes catastrophic and impossible to move throughout the city.

It is interesting also to go back a little bit in history. The member for Mississauga South will recall when both she and I were serving as members of city council and the debate in the late 1970s and early 1980s was raging about whether or not to build Highway 403 through the city of Mississauga. Indeed, as the city councillor in the area where Highway 403 was going through a substantial number of backyards, I was very actively involved in that debate. It was not a question of whether or not the residents in my community wanted the highway. It was really a question of where it was to be located.

Originally, we were told that it was going north of the hydro towers. It turned out that the ministry had planned, under the then leadership of James Snow, the Minister of Transportation and Communications of that day, to actually build the highway south of those hydro lines, and residents will recall that very acrimonious and difficult debate we went through.

In fact, the member for Mississauga South will recall that she and I and the mayor and others had to lead a delegation directly to Premier Bill Davis’s office, to ask him to intervene and convince the minister of the day to put up proper noise berms and sound attenuation walls to protect the residents in the Erin Mills community and the central part of the city of Mississauga from the expected increase in noise from the traffic.

In any event, the highway opened. I remember the day well. There was not a car on it; we had a ceremony and there was a ribbon-cutting. At that time, as members can imagine, the major east-west arteries through Mississauga were the Queen Elizabeth Way, Dundas Street and Highway 401 at the top. It was curious to see how short a time it took before Highway 403 became almost another parking lot.

The traffic volumes have risen substantially. It is literally “stop and go to slow,” to use the radio announcer’s colloquialism, in rush hour traffic. It is hard to understand where all the cars come from. Clearly, they came from the growth in our region and regions to the west of us. I should tell the members also that it is not just residential growth and it is not just residential communities that this extension which the member for Mississauga North refers to in his resolution will serve.

The city of Mississauga has been really thought of improperly, in terms of being a suburb. The reality is that it is a city unto itself and is a net importer of jobs each and every day into our city from areas outside of the city of Mississauga; in essence, meaning that more people come to work in our city every day than leave. The traffic flow is not only to the east; it is also very substantial to the west.

The member for Mississauga North referred to 300 trucking companies. I met with the Ontario Trucking Association yesterday in my role as a small business advocate. They informed me that Mississauga is considered the trucking capital of not just Ontario, hut indeed all of Canada. I think all you need to do is spend some time in the Dixie Road-Highway 401 area to find out that is true.

One of the previous speakers referred to Lester B. Pearson International Airport. I understand that we have problems again this morning: there were some 22 aircraft lined up on one runway to take off. But the reality is that we have the busiest airport in Canada, and one of the busiest airports in North America, sitting right in the middle of the city of Mississauga. How are we to get the traffic to and from?

We can talk about public transit systems, and we should be moving toward more viable ways of moving the public in public transit systems, but the reality is that our commercial, industrial and residential communities are extremely reliant on the automobile and the truck as methods of moving goods and people. We want to do all we can to encourage car pooling and van pooling and to take vehicles off the road wherever we can, but we have to be realistic and understand that the traffic is there and it must be moved.

Our city has experienced a tremendous growth in the high-technology area. I have had the opportunity to participate at the openings of the offices of a number of new corporations that have come in from the United States, perhaps as a result of free trade or perhaps just simply because their particular products are not subject to duties or tariffs in any event. But we have a tremendous increase in the number of high-tech industries that are opening in our city.

As a result of that, of course, our employment figures increase and those people have to get to work somehow. Both the speakers from Mississauga have referred to the region of Peel. I also have some statistics that I would like to share with the members. I would like to share some examples of improvements that would occur if Highway 407 were put into place, as requested in this resolution. For example, Winston Churchill Boulevard, according to region of Peel staff, would have a 25 per cent reduction in volume capacity ratio and the level of service would improve from a present rating of F to a D.

Mississauga Road would reduce 16 per cent in volume capacity ratio; Mavis Road, 17 per cent; Highway 10, 17 per cent; Highway 410 leading into Brampton, 21 per cent; Dixie Road, which is terribly congested, would reduce nine per cent, and Highway 7 across the top of Brampton would reduce up to 28 per cent in volume capacity. Adjacent arterial corridors such as Steeles Avenue and Derry Road will experience significantly reduced congestion, and there will be improved interchange operation at Highway 401, Highway 403 and Highway 410, and also at Highway 401 and Dixie Road which is a disaster area, and at Highway 401 and Highway 427.

There would be substantially improved truck movements and improved safety. It really would allow for orderly growth. One of the downsides, if this decision is not made in the way the resolution lays out, is that there would be tremendous impact on land use development and future growth due to inadequate roadway facilities, according to the staff at the region of Peel.

In

summary, I want to congratulate the member for this resolution. I totally support it. We cannot argue against growth in Durham, York or even in some parts of east Metro, but we must look at the facts. If we analyse the figures and the growth, the facts say clearly that the region of Peel is growing at the quickest rate. We have more problems and congestion and we need this extension very badly.

Mr. Charlton: I rise this morning to speak to this resolution presented by the member for Mississauga North. I will be supporting this resolution, but I want to say at the outset that I am not very happy about having to do that. I will go into a number of reasons why.

The fact we are here today debating a private member’s resolution to try to ask the government to do what it should have done anyway is the first reason I am not very happy about having to be here supporting this resolution today.

The second reason is an extension of that reason and of the fact that although in this Legislature and in the municipal councils around this province we have talked about planning till many of us have become nauseous, the need for this resolution is a reflection of our failure in the area of planning the development of this province in an orderly fashion.

We are still in a phase of development in this province where we bump from crisis to crisis, rather than thinking through the growth and development of the urban centres in this province and the interconnection between those centres, whether it be highway, rail or bus interconnection. I guess the member for Mississauga West mentioned it during the course of his comments, specifically about Highway 403 and Mississauga, when he essentially said, and I am not sure if this is quoting him exactly, that Mississauga had not developed properly, that it was a problem.

Mr. Mahoney: I did not say that.

Mr. Charlton: It is not an exact quote, but if he goes back to Hansard he will find the reference to which I am referring.

Mr. Mahoney: It is not even close.

Mr. Charlton: At any rate, the member was exactly correct -- we can all take the time to check his quote -- in terms of the inappropriate way the development has occurred.

I recall being in this Legislature 11 years ago when members were standing in this House talking about their fears of the way the greater Metro region would develop and about the transportation problems it would cause, yet in 1988 we are here yet again, trying to push to see put in place a partial resolution of the problems that were prophesied.

In Hamilton, we have just been through a 10-year battle that at some points got particularly nasty, around an east-west freeway across the top of the escarpment and a north-south freeway down through Redhill Creek Valley in order to try and resolve some transportation problems that had not been thought through and had not been planned for in the Hamilton-Wentworth region.

Again, the member for Mississauga West made reference in his speech to the industrial growth that has gone on in Mississauga. Much of the debate around our expressway and freeway situation was around an industrial park; in fact, it had been placed where it never should have been placed in the first place.

We have a situation here where some of my colleagues from the north would likely have real difficulty supporting this resolution because of the disastrous situation they face in terms of road transport in the north, a situation where they get $30 million in a budget for road construction, or if my recollection serves me correctly, about 20 miles of highway in northern Ontario. To northerners, it becomes a serious joke when they have to look at the transportation problems they are faced with.

Mr. Wildman: I do not mind as long they build the same kinds of roads in Peel that we have in the north.

Mr. Charlton: The member for Algoma perhaps has a very good point there.

I recall that 30 years ago, when we built subdivisions in this province, we would put in the sewers and the water and a gravel road and no sidewalks, and new home owners moved into mud patches. It used to be four, five, six, sometimes seven years before you had a paved road and sidewalks in those new subdivisions. We finally came to the conclusion that was not an appropriate way to continue to build residential developments in Ontario.

We now see the developers in this province required to put in the paved roads and sidewalks along with the housing developments. It is a very logical and well-thought-through process, but we have not gone the next step. We have not had the province, the senior level of government in terms of development issues, seriously looking at where and in which municipalities those housing developments are going in, and at what rate they are going in.

Are they going in in an orderly fashion? Do the roadway systems that are in place allow for a real accommodation of that new survey, or do we need to put in a better roadway infrastructure before we allow that new subdivision to go in? We do not plan and we end up in situations such as we have now in Peel, specifically in Mississauga, where to remedy a problem we need an extension of the 407 westward.

We also need an extension of the 407 eastward. We also need major changes to the Queen Elizabeth Way complex down into the Niagara Peninsula. Those members who get on to that route on a daily basis know the problems that exist. We have been through a 10-, 12- or even 15-year debate around the GO train service, and Hamilton and Oshawa. We heard comments in the Legislature just recently, this week, about the new stations that have been opened in the Oshawa area. A member had to stand up here in the House and raise the issue, “Well, we have the service now, but we have no way to get to it because the parking lots are all full.”

This is a clear indication of the almost total lack of planning that goes into the building of the transportation infrastructure in this province. That to me is the very essence of the problem with this resolution.

I certainly understand why the member for Mississauga North has brought the resolution forward. On the other hand, I am saying to the member for Mississauga North that if each of us, as members of this Legislature who have real transportation problems that affect the communities we live in, brought forward a private member’s resolution to try to goad the government into resolving the transportation problem he has in his own community, there would be so many private member’s resolutions on transportation issues being passed by this Legislature that we would be no further ahead.

The government would have all these resolutions the House has passed and it would still have to allocate dollars to those it could budget for.

I will support the member’s resolution, but I am not happy to have to do that because of what it reflects of the failure of this government and the previous government to deal in a planned way with the growth and expansion of development in the province, leaving us in the position of stumbling from crisis to crisis as we allow growth and development to occur without the infrastructure in place to accommodate that growth.

Mr. Jackson: I am very pleased to rise this morning and support the resolution by the member for Mississauga North. I am delighted that he and his party are taking this occasion to renew their interest in and support for these critical public works and for the importance and integrity of a strong transportation network in southern Ontario.

I know that members of the Progressive Conservative caucus have been made aware of these concerns. We did not need a private member’s bill to bring the matter to our attention.

I know that the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) has shown outstanding efforts in his area in support of this and other projects that build on this badly needed transportation link and the completion of those projects.

It is appropriate for me to comment that the Conservative caucus, at least, has been well apprised. It is the number one priority of the member for Markham and he has brought it to our attention.

I will be supporting the resolution, but I invite the member to support not only his project but the extension of Highway 403 in Halton region, which also satisfies all the conditions he has set out in his resolution. It lies between the Hamilton-United States areas and Metropolitan Toronto. It is necessary because of the rapid growth we are experiencing in Halton region adjacent to Mississauga.

This Highway 403 linkage also serves the needs of Lester B. Pearson International Airport and Hamilton Airport. As all members of this House are aware, there has been considerable discussion in the media about further utilizing this airport in the Hamilton area to relieve the congestion around Pearson.

I am afraid the member for Mississauga North and his constituents are going to be in for a disappointment, because they share an empathy with the member for and the constituents from Burlington South who have come to realize that they cannot expect the Peterson government to act on the facts, reasons, logic and sound management decisions that should come from this government, but are not coming from this government with respect to transportation construction.

When asked these questions, the government has been on record as stating that highway programming is not an exact science. That is what it indicates as the reason it has been unable to complete these projects. In other words, do not expect things to happen.

Most members of this House are aware that an efficient transportation network is essential for many reasons, one of which is commerce, primarily to help industries with a competitive advantage, which is important to their profitable position and the creation of jobs. Our standard of living is part of the needs that are met by an efficient transportation system.

Also, there are millions of dollars earned in tourism. American tourists have been coming to southern Ontario. They overcome the most expensive gas prices they will ever see. They overcome probably the most expensive food and clothing prices they will ever see, as tourists in this area. But one thing Americans and other tourists who come to our province will not tolerate is sitting in traffic jams that are akin to what we hear and see is going on in Los Angeles.

Transportation, therefore, is a government investment and we certainly hope that implicit in the member’s resolution is that he will communicate to the minister that we recognize its importance.

This resolution is important to the residents of Mississauga and the greater area, but it is also important to the residents of Halton when we look at the Highway 403 extension. It is apparent there is somewhat of a contradiction on the part of the government in terms of its stated support during the last two provincial elections and what it is actually realizing in terms of the commitment of dollars to southern Ontario road construction.

In fact, in 1987-88, the Liberal government spent $296 million on highway construction. However, in 1988-89, the Liberal government’s spending will be $249 million in highway construction. That is a decrease of $47 million. It clearly demonstrates the decreasing priority this Liberal government is placing on transportation construction. That is why I hope the member is not too optimistic about the government acting on his resolution.

Another contradiction is what we see from our Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), who controls the purse-strings of the highway construction the member is looking for. We saw the largest single tax grab in our history in 1988. Did any of that new money go towards the member’s resolution, or for that matter to the 403 extension and the needs in Halton region? No, it did not.

In fact, the Minister of Transportation, according to the Provincial Auditor, inappropriately intervened. I quote from the auditor’s report. He said, “We were informed that several projects were undertaken based on ministerial override.” Projects of lesser importance, roads without even fatality ratings, were given priority over construction requests similar to that of the member for Mississauga North and the requests we have been articulating in Halton region.

We had, for example, an 11 per cent increase in revenues for this province, but our transportation budget was cut by $47 million, so we have a reduction in priority, a reduction in spending, and in fact a ministerial override to complicate matters.

The member himself will be making a strong pitch for his highway construction needs, but another concern we have is that despite all the traffic volume figures he quotes in the House, despite the recognized growth that his community, like Halton, will experience, and despite the money we will save because of increased efficiencies -- in spite of all these good arguments -- we have a government that appears not to listen to those facts and to the sound reasons being presented by all members of the House today.

I urge the Minister of Transportation and the Treasurer to look seriously at the project in the resolution, as well as the project in Halton, because the two are interconnected. I ask the government to stop referring to the fact that highway programming is not an exact science. I ask that the needs of the region of Halton and Mississauga be met as a priority.

Mr. Offer: In terms of my final three minutes and 45 seconds, and with the permission of the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson), if I may, I will give two minutes of that to the member for Brampton North.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. McClelland: I want to thank my colleagues for giving me the opportunity to add a few words to the debate on the resolution this morning.

My friend the member for Burlington South has mentioned the impact of this resolution on his community. I want to add, on behalf of my colleague the member for Brampton South and myself representing Brampton North, that the need for looking at the extension of Highway 407 westward would also impact Brampton significantly.

As I came in here this morning, I spent some 35 minutes travelling a little less than five kilometres. There is no question in my mind, as we look at the tremendous growth in the area of Brampton North, that the pressures will continue.

By way of example, our city council has recently approved a development that will bring some 70,000 new people into the riding of Brampton North in the next few years: 14,000 homes, 70,000 people. That is obviously going to bring tremendous pressures. There is no question that the need for Highway 407 linking to Highway 10 will be realized in a very significant manner in the next few years.

I want to associate myself particularly with the comments of my colleagues in support of this resolution this morning, most particularly my colleague the member for Mississauga North, who put forward the resolution, and my colleague the member for Mississauga West. I want to thank them for the work they have been doing for the greater region of Peel. Brampton is a very important part of that region and we are among the highest-growth areas in the province.

I think the resolution is very timely. It is one that looks to the future and looks to the future of the community I represent as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity of speaking to this matter and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Offer: I would like to thank all my colleagues for their support of this resolution. I have every confidence and faith that when that final decision is to be made by the Minister of Transportation, it will be made on the basis of the evidence which has been put forward very well by the region of Peel and by all those who have been involved in the compilation of such an exhaustive report.

In conclusion, it could best be stated as it is stated in the report of Peel:

I think it is fair to say that it will enhance development not only in the region of Peel but in all surrounding regions. The information provided to me by the region of Peel and the comments made by the honourable members in this Legislature provide a force, an argument, a reason and a justification that the Minister of Transportation should extend Highway 407 westward from Highway 427 to Highway 10.

MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS AMENDMENT ACT

Miss Nicholas moved second reading of Bill 191,

An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): The member will know she has up to 20 minutes to make her presentation and may reserve any portion thereof.

Miss Nicholas: It gives me great pleasure to move my first bill in the House and to discuss it here this morning.

My bill is aimed at making our consumer knowledgeable. I would like to just outline briefly what it entails in short form and then perhaps go into a bit more detail as I move along.

What this bill entails is that you will be notified, when you purchase a car, how long it is going to take for it to be delivered to you if it is being ordered from the manufacturer. How many of us have gone in to buy a car and been told by the salesperson, “It’s going to take six weeks for this car to be delivered; no problem.”

Purchasing a car now is perhaps the second-largest purchase that consumers will ever make in a lifetime -- it may be the largest if they have not bought a house or cannot afford a house -- so it is a proud day for them when they go out and purchase their vehicle. When they are told it is going to arrive in six weeks, what happens when it does not arrive in six weeks?

What this bill aims at is trying to get the dealer or the salesman not to say it will be six weeks when he does not know how long it is going to be before it is delivered. What we are asking for is that the consumers know how long it will take for their car to be delivered.

Also, if they are notified it is going to be over 90 days before the car is delivered -- that is, 13 weeks or three months -- and they do not want to wait longer than 90 days or three months because the salesman said six weeks and now they get notified that it is going to be over three months, and they do not want to wait that long, what this bill provides for is that at that point they get their deposit returned immediately. They do not have to wait three months for their deposit to be returned; they get it returned immediately and they can seek another way of purchasing their car.

The second

part involves what happens if they are notified after they have purchased their car that they are going to get delivery after a rebate period has expired. If the manufacturer offers a rebate of $500 or $750 and it is on the date of delivery and they now know that their car delivery is going to be beyond that rebate period, then what happens is that they get their car and they no longer get the $750 to apply against the cost of the car. In this bill, if it appears as though the delivery date is going to be beyond the time in which the rebate is offered, the purchaser can get his deposit back and decide on an alternative way of purchasing his car.

I would like to go back to the first point, about notifying how long car delivery will take. The contract is quite complex. We look at it and fill in all these little boxes; they ensure that every option you are putting in your car is listed on your contract. In addition to that, it lists your trade-in and how many miles it has. It gives the purchase price, the date of the purchase and all these particulars. But the one thing that is not on your contract when you sign it is when you should expect to receive your car. That is not on the contract anywhere.

I will bet here, today, that more often than not the salesperson does provide you with an estimate of how long it is going to take for your car to come. They are going to say six or seven weeks, and you have no recourse when it does not arrive in six weeks, none whatsoever. He is promising something that he cannot deliver.

Perhaps a shoddy salesman might promise something he cannot deliver. He might say four weeks -- anything to make that deal on that day. He cannot promise delivery of that same vehicle any faster than the dealer across the street who is selling the same model and same make, but he has said to you, “Four weeks.” Perhaps you have believed him because he said, “I’m going to get that for you in four weeks.” Salesmen really do not know at the time of signing the contract how long it is going to take to get that car.

The manufacturers have approached me since I put this bill forward and they say they cannot even tell for two or three weeks how long it is going to take them to provide that car. How can the salesman at the time of signing the contract say how long it is going to be?

I think it is very important that we put it into more than just a verbal agreement because when you come back in six weeks and say, “Where is my car?” the salesman says, “Another two weeks,” “Another three weeks,” or whatever. It is only a verbal contract; there is no recourse, and there you are still waiting for your car.

If you know it is going to take more than three months for your car to be delivered you may still want it, if it is going to take 90 days or three months. You may say: “Yes, that’s the way I want my car. I’m going to wait for that car.” At least you know how long it is going to take.

If one is in the position, which many of our members are not, of wanting to buy a Jaguar, and goes in and buys the Jaguar, they will say that it is going to take six months for the car to come. They know it takes six months, maybe a year to get a Jaguar. The point is that you say: “I really want a Jaguar. I’m going to wait six months for that car to come.” But at least you know how long it is going to take. If you are told that it is going to take more than three months, you may say: “What I’d like to do is buy another car.

I’d like to buy one off the lot.” Quite often when you purchase one off the lot these days, it is loaded with all the extras: two-tone paint, air-conditioning plus upholstery. Either there are all sorts of extras in the car, or it is a bare care: it has a stick shift, no radio and absolutely nothing going for it. You might go for the car with the extras or you might go for the bare car and say, “I’m going to take this home and put in my own radio.”

If you knew that you were going to have to wait three months to get your car, you may not want to wait that long. What happens if your own car is breaking down? That is why most people go out and buy a car: because their car is breaking down and they need a new one. They are going to wait three months; they do not want to wait three months. They are travelling on the Toronto Transit Commission as an alternative and it may not be convenient for their business.

They may incur repairs to their trade-in car. Their trade-in car may break down in those three months and they have to go and fix a car that they plan to use for only a few more weeks. They incur the cost because they are waiting three months for their car. They might just be without a car and they are waiting for three months after.

The point is that if they want to wait three months, they can and get the car that they want. But if they do not want to wait, if they are going to be told it is going to be longer than three months, they are going to be able to get their deposit back and make another deal. That will be fair and equitable to knowledgeable consumers, and they will be happy and better for it.

What this bill requires is that after 14 days of signing your contract, you will be notified of the potential date of delivery of your car. Currently, there is no obligation to notify. You wait 90 days and then they may say to you it is going to be another two or three days. But until that 90-day period, they do not have to tell you when your car is coming. You may have a salesperson who says, “Listen, I know when your car is going to be built,” and tells you, but there is no obligation. But I can tell members that in most instances they do not try to find out when your car is being delivered unless you really push them and say, “I want that car; when can I get it?”

At 90 days, of course you will say, “I’m willing to wait another four days if it is going to be 94 days,” but if you had known at the outset that it was going to take 94 days for your car to be delivered, I think you might have thought differently of it. In this way, you have to wait the 90 days, find out your car is not being delivered and then, if you do not want it any more, go elsewhere and wait another period of time for another car or buy one off the lot, or do something else.

If your car is going to be delivered in less than 90 days -- if it is going to be delivered in 88 days -- the point is you are still bound by the contract, you are still taking that car, but at least you know you are going to be waiting 88 days for your car to come. At least you are a knowledgeable consumer; you know how long it is going to take and you can make other provisions, but you are not still waiting every day for this magic car to arrive after four or six weeks, as promised.

This bill may provide people with alternatives. If they find out it is going to be more than 90 days, they may buy the one off the lot that I have mentioned. They might buy a different model. They might go elsewhere for a car that might be in inventory at a dealer’s. They might buy a demonstrator. They might seek alternative modes if they knew it was going to take a quarter of a year for their car to come. Yet they might decide they really want that car and they will wait.

The second part of this bill is the rebate portion. Many of us have seen a little ad in the newspaper, where it says, “$750 back.” How many people read the little line at the bottom that says, “Your car must be delivered before” -- in this instance -- “December 31, 1988”? If your car is delivered January 2, there is no rebate. When you bought that car and you counted on that $750 towards the purchase price and you find out on January 2, “Sorry, it’s past the date of the rebate offer -- it was aimed at getting rid of the inventory; it was aimed at this, or it was aimed at that -- you don’t get $750,” I would say that really reflects on the manufacturer.

It may not have been the manufacturer. The manufacturer knew that it could not provide the car in time, but the salesman may have said six weeks’ delivery. If it is November 1, you think: “Okay, that is December 15 or so, and I have two weeks’ leeway. Things can slow down, but I am still going to qualify for the rebate.”

Then what happens is the manufacturer says: “Oh, but those are taking 10, 12 or 14 weeks. The salesman should have known that.” But there you are: The rebate period has expired, you have no rebate, and you are still bound to your contract to buy that car.

In many instances people may still want that car; but they may not. Had they known that they would not be getting the $750 rebate, they might have made a different deal. They might have bought a car off the lot with one or two extra options. It was $300 more, but they could have bought that, got the $750 rebate and been further ahead than buying a less glitzy car from the manufacturer without the extras and not qualifying for the $750.

I think it is important that the consumers know what is involved when they purchase a car in terms of the delivery and what are the obligations in terms of paying the rebate if it is delivered beyond the time. Many people may seek alternatives, or may buy different options on their car, but they may very well just decide to continue with the car. I would say that $750 would make a big difference when purchasing a $10,000 or $12,000 car in terms of the rebate, qualifying for it and perhaps budgeting to purchase your car.

The problem is that you may base your decision on something you are told by the salesperson. I tell you today that I have been assured that a salesperson cannot tell you at the time of the contract when you are going to get your car. When they say six or eight weeks, they really do not know. Should we be keeping this information from the consumer?

The intent of this bill is to protect the consumer. The agreement is against unfair sales practices. I applaud the manufacturers who produce the cars; they are doing an excellent job in Canada of producing cars that we can all be proud of. They are innovative each year. There are more styles and more kinds. We should be proud of that.

Imagine the consumers who wonder why a manufacturer has not produced their car in the time in which the salesperson promised it. They may not purchase another GM or Ford that was made here because they blame it on the manufacturer. But it was not the manufacturers’ fault at all. They have a schedule. They try to do it in a manner that is prompt and efficient. In fact, they cannot deliver the way the salesman has promised.

This particular bill is to seek equity at the dealer level and to recognize that the date of delivery is a mere verbal contract between the salesperson and the consumer and that the salesperson cannot do anything to provide that car in the time in which he has promised. Many people are frustrated when six weeks pass and they do not have their car; they call the dealership and are told, “Well, it’ll be a few more days.” After 10 weeks, at that point, the salesperson might actually check for them when it is coming.

Consumers should not be put in that position; they are making a very important purchase in their life. They should be entitled to know when they are getting their car, when they should expect it and when they can drive off that lot proud with their new car. That is the intent of the bill. I ask the members to support it today.

I would like to reserve the rest of my time to the end.

Mr. Farnan: Car sales is an honourable profession. In fact, a former Premier of Ontario was a motor vehicle dealer and salesman. Many of my friends in Cambridge run car dealerships; they are fine corporate citizens contributing to our community -- hospitals, minor sports and every conceivable charitable organization.

The employees and staff of these dealerships, for the most part, are dedicated professionals -- men and women doing a job and doing it well; knowledgeable and informed; courteous for the most part; nonpressurized sales, attempting to fit the customer’s financial circumstance to his or her purchase. They are employees like any other group of employees. They live and worship in the community. They raise their families. Their lives revolve around their families, their neighbours and their friends. They attempt to provide honest, efficient service. They earn community respect and recognition for this service.

As in any other profession, men and women in car sales are protective of their good name, integrity and reputation. They are career professionals. They invest in their future by the quality of the service they provide. They are honest; they would rather lose a sale than make a questionable deal.

Despite all of this, there are circumstances beyond the control of car sales personnel and they may make a contract to supply a car by a specific date and not be able to deliver it, through no fault of their own.

Like any profession, there will be exceptions to the high professional standards set by the majority, individuals who compromise the integrity and honesty of their colleagues by the use of either pressurized sales or by making promises to be able to deliver a car by a specific date, knowing very well they cannot make good their promise.

I preface my remarks to Bill 191 with these comments because I do not believe the bill in any way reflects on the honesty and integrity of car dealerships and the men and women who work there. Indeed, I believe that the professionals within the industry will welcome these amendments to the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act. I believe the industry will make the necessary adjustments to make the changes that these amendments call for.

Professional motor vehicle dealers, more than anyone else, are conscious of the importance and significance of the purchase of a car. Next to purchasing a home, it is the most important financial purchase made by most individuals and families. Due to the increasingly essential importance and need and due to our reliance on the car as a means of transportation, it is a purchase that is also repeated several times in a lifetime and increases its significance. Cars must be replaced as a result of wear and tear and as a result of accidents.

It is essential then that we have built-in protections for the consumer. The consumer has the right to know in advance precisely when the car will be delivered. The sales staff may quote four to six weeks, there may well be standard waiting periods stipulated by the manufacturers and the manufacturers may not be able to meet their time deadlines. This will often result in embarrassment for the sales staff. I think you will find that professional sales staff will warn the prospective purchaser of the potential for delays and very often will stipulate a prolonged time delay in delivery, based on their knowledge and experience of the industry.

The amendments contained in this bill will provide the purchaser with a specific time, 90 days, in which to expect delivery. The fact that the purchaser can cancel his order if this deadline is not met will put considerable pressure on the manufacturers to develop more efficient delivery schedules.

I can tell members that if this is the result of the amendments to the act, there will be no happier people than the professionals in the motor vehicle sales industry. The professionals in the industry will also welcome the fact that individual car salesmen will be less inclined to make promises of delivery dates that they cannot honour. The reputation of the many honest professionals benefits when we curb the abuses of the few.

The amendments recognize that, even with the more specific deadlines, unavoidable delays can occur. However, the amendments contained in Bill 191 provide the purchaser with additional flexibility.

Currently, if the car is not delivered within 90 days, the purchaser can cancel the agreement and is entitled to a return of any deposit paid. However, the purchaser has to wait three months to exercise this option. This bill will require the dealer to inform the purchaser of how long it will take for delivery, and if it is in excess of 90 days, the purchaser can re-evaluate whether he is in a position to wait three or more months for the car, and if this is not appropriate, seek an alternative mode of purchasing a car; for example, to buy a car off the lot, to choose a different model or go elsewhere.

Finally, the amendments suggested deal with the whole area of rebate offers. Most, if not all, rebate offers are recoverable only if the car is delivered within the period of time the rebate offer lasts. A purchaser may very well enter into a deal on the basis of counting on receiving a $750 rebate towards the purchase price. Presently, if the purchaser had known that he would not be entitled to the rebate because his car is being delivered after the rebate offer has expired, he might have made a different deal or not entered into the deal at all, because he needed $750 to be able to pay the purchase price.

This bill allows the purchaser to cancel the contract if he is not entitled to the rebate offer.

My friends, consumer and commercial relations is a whole area that requires a finely tuned system of checks and balances. We are dealing essentially with the provision of goods and services and we must attempt to balance the needs and rights of the consumer with those of the manufacturer and sales divisions. Quality goods, quality service and clearly defined rights and responsibilities for both the consumer and the provider are necessary. This is particularly true in an area that affects such a significant percentage of our population and the item being purchased is such a considerable investment.

I believe that for the most part we are very well served by the dedicated professionals in the motor vehicle sales area, but that the motor vehicle manufacturers must develop greater efficiencies to allow the sales personnel to provide a service which is reliable in terms of delivery dates. It stands to reason that the sales personnel in a motor dealership, those honest professionals, would like nothing better than to be able to sit down across the table from the customer and say, “Look, these are the delivery schedules of the manufacturer. This is what I can promise you,” and then to be able to deliver on time.

I know that the member, in moving this bill, recognizes the fact that what she is attempting to do with this bill is to build in expectations that can be lived up to, expectations that the purchaser can understand, that can be explained to the purchaser so that he will know that when he makes the contract he will indeed have a car delivered 90 days after that contract or at whatever time is stipulated.

Bill 191, in my view, is an excellent bill. It contributes the fine-tuning that is necessary to balance the consumer rights and industry responsibilities. I commend the member for Scarborough Centre (Miss Nicholas) and I urge the unanimous support of the House for private member’s Bill 191.

Mr. Runciman: I am afraid that I have to inform the member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan) that unanimous support is not forthcoming.

I find it passing strange that he spends some time praising motor vehicle dealers in his own area and at the same time he is supporting legislation that is in effect coming down very hard on them for the responsibilities of manufacturers, which, indeed, he suggested was the case. He is supporting legislation that is really, in our view, directed at the wrong people. I have to wonder if indeed prior to making his comments here today he discussed this particular piece of legislation with motor vehicle dealers in his own area to see if they shared his views in this respect. I suspect that kind of support would be limited, to say the least.

In any event, we think this legislation treats all motor dealers as bad actors. The member for Cambridge indicated that most are very honourable people doing a good job and serving their communities, and we share that view. As a result of that, we do not like this sort of legislation which tars them all with the same brush and indicates, because there are a few bad actors out there, that the government once again has to intervene and has to stick its nose into the private sector. In effect, what this is doing is attempting to kill a mosquito with an elephant gun, and we are not going to be supportive of that kind of initiative.

The member who is sponsoring this legislation, the member for Scarborough Centre, mentioned her concern about individuals purchasing Jaguars. I just want to emphasize that point. I know that not too many members of this assembly are in the fortunate position to even have the opportunity to consider the acquisition of a Jaguar, but apparently that is a major concern of hers. Perhaps she should have considered retitling this legislation the Wealthy Consumer Act or perhaps the trendy Toronto set legislation. Something along those lines may have addressed her real concerns and sent the message out very clearly.

It is interesting to know that the member for Cambridge is also very supportive of those people out in his community who are searching for a quick response in terms of getting their Jaguar delivered to their homes. It is very interesting to know that is also a concern of the member for Cambridge. In any event, we do not doubt that there are some problems out there. They do exist, but there is no doubt in our view that this legislation is an overreaction.

As the member for Scarborough Centre should be aware, there is a legislative review process under way dealing with all consumer legislation at the provincial level. That process involves, as I understand it, consultation with all the players in this area, including the auto associations. Again, I have to pose the question. The member is going to have time to respond, but I think it would be interesting to know whether, in preparation of her piece of legislation, she consulted with any of the auto associations and what kind of reaction she got from them in respect to the wording of her bill.

I talked about the member for Cambridge. It is surprising when you think about the nationalistic approach they traditionally take; you would think that because of their support for things Canadian, they would all be driving three-cylinder beavers, but in effect, that is not the case. We see the member for Cambridge supporting a Jaguar purchase, apparently, and in my own riding I was astonished to see the candidate who ran for the New Democratic Party a couple of years ago driving around the community in a red Lada. This is from the party that supports Canadian manufacturers and everything Canadian.

It certainly raises a lot of questions and a lot of doubts about the real commitment in respect to that party.

We want to talk about some of the specifics in respect to this legislation and I would like to put a few things on the record in the limited time I do have.

Imported vehicle dealers -- and this again touches on manufacturers like Jaguar, Toyota, etc. -- do not give delivery dates to the customers. It is because they cannot. The vehicles are manufactured offshore, for the most part, so delivery is virtually impossible in many instances to guarantee in terms of the tight time frame the member is suggesting in her legislation.

Within a month, the manufacturer can give the dealer, the customer, the expected date of delivery. If subsection 23a(2) becomes reality, lawyers have advised the auto dealers that it would allow customers to sue them if vehicles are not delivered on or before the delivery date promised. One effect of this could be a tying up of the small claims court and, in essence, rather than helping consumers could have the ultimate effect of driving up the cost of motor vehicles.

Miss Nicholas: Oh, the only way the little guy gets justice is small claims court.

Mr. Runciman: I want to make sure the member heard that. It could have the ultimate effect of driving up the cost of motor vehicles.

Mr. Kanter: Did Bill Davis write that?

Mr. Runciman: Listen, we are having interjections from another member of the trendy Toronto set. I am sure the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Kanter), we should put on the record, probably does drive a Jaguar. We are very understanding of where he is coming from.

Mr. Farnan: Would you not like to have a few more Toronto members yourselves?

Mr. Runciman: Not a bad idea.

Once a car is ordered, the information is sent by computer to the manufacturer, where the process begins and within a month the ordered vehicle is given a serial number. Once the vehicle is serialized, it becomes a dealer’s vehicle and if the purchase order is cancelled by the customer after this serialization, the dealer is still committed to taking possession of the vehicle and may have to take a loss to sell it from his lot. I do not know if the member for Cambridge was aware of that.

It is a very important consideration when we are trying to reach a decision in respect to this particular piece of legislation and the message it sends out. We realize that this is a private member’s resolution, and it may not go beyond this stage, but, even if it does not, I think it sends out the wrong message. We have to appreciate that one out of every seven people in Ontario works for the auto industry or related businesses.

We are now moving into a free trade environment in this country, and I think, with some justification, that this government has developed a reputation as an antibusiness government. It has never hesitated to stick its nose into the private sector. One recent example of that, of course, is the auto insurance field, where the government has got itself into a sorry mess, indeed, and the consumers of this province into a sorry mess, as well.

That is the sort of initiative that this government is becoming known for, and this bill follows along those same lines in going into areas where there is no real need, with a very significant intervention on the part of the government. We simply cannot support it.

I understand that the member who submitted this piece of legislation has had a negative experience in this area. We can appreciate that and we can appreciate the feelings she may have as a result of that situation. I am not sure if that is the case or not, and she may wish to comment on that in her summing up as well. We all draw on life’s experiences, it is part of our role in here as well, to assist us in reaching decisions and taking positions.

But I think as legislators we have a special responsibility in terms of how we draw on those life experiences, especially the negative ones, to ensure that we do not overreact and perhaps in some circumstances take advantage of our special position in the community. I simply wanted to offer that cautionary note to the member.

In any event, we feel that this is a regrettable piece of legislation. We remind members that there is a legislative review process under way. The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, in the new year, is going to be bringing forth legislation which will deal with matters such as the concerns the member has brought forward, and perhaps -- I am hopeful anyway -- in a less heavy-handed manner, in a less intrusive manner in terms of intervention in the private sector.

Mr. Haggerty: I want to add a few comments on Bill 191, moved by the member for Scarborough Centre, which addresses the consumer’s concerns when a motor vehicle dealer cannot deliver a new vehicle within 90 days of the offer to purchase or prior to the cancellation of the manufacturer’s rebate expiry date.

The member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) did not comment on that section. It says: “An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act.” A normal contract form is signed by the purchaser and dealer, as the member for Cambridge had said in his comments, and the 90 days has worked very well, I think.

I have a copy of an agreement here and I happened to pick it up from my trustworthy dealer in Port Colborne, who happens to be a General Motors dealer. It says: “Delivery by dealer: It is mutually understood and agreed that when the motor vehicle herein described is a new motor vehicle and the dealer is unable to make delivery within three months of the date of the contract, the dealer shall forthwith notify the purchaser on expiration of the three-month period.” To go on to another

section of it, “The agreement may be extended within five days,” and there is a penalty clause in there, too, I guess. So there is a working agreement there that is acceptable to all consumers, pretty well.

There may be the odd problem there. I have had some concerns brought to my attention in which a person who was buying from offshore had to wait eight months. It was a specially made car, you might say, from Japan, but he loved the car and he waited for it and he got it; but there was an additional expense to it that he was not too happy about. On two occasions it was brought to my attention.

There are some protection measures there now that I think we can accept. A proposed amendment set out in the bill requires dealers to notify consumers of the expected date of delivery. The times that I have bought a number of cars, I never had any problems in this area, but the explanatory note is “The bill requires motor vehicle dealers, within 14 days of entering into an agreement for the purchase and sale of a new motor vehicle, to notify purchasers of the expected date of delivery. This date is made a term of the agreement.

“The bill provides purchasers with the right to rescind an agreement where the expected date of delivery is later than 90 days after the date....”

The bill also addresses consumer concerns when the automobile dealers cannot deliver a vehicle within the 90 days’ time or when the consumer will lose the benefit of the manufacturer’s responsibility, particularly where the loss of a rebate is at issue on delivery past the closing date. I think the member for Cambridge mentioned the efficiency in the manufacturing area. They could perhaps be a little more prompt in this area. It does not happen that often.

The amendment enhances the consumer’s choice by allowing the consumer to make buying decisions as soon as the dealer is aware that the vehicle will not be available rather than having to wait the normal 90 days’ delivery by the dealer on conditions of sale on contract. Where the dealer is unable to make the delivery within three months of the date of the contract, the dealer shall forthwith notify the purchaser of the expiration date of the three-month period. I find no difficulty with the intent of the bill in this area.

The member for Scarborough Centre says that Bill 191 clarifies and consolidates the rights and obligations of the consumer and the seller. I think that is the key to the intent of the bill. It also ensures that the manufacturer accepts a large share of the principal transaction’s fairness; that is, fairness of the circumstances and the practices involved in the purchase of an automobile. We often forget the word “fairness” in this particular area. A person is purchasing perhaps one of the largest items that he will be buying outside a home.

The bill, as I read it, establishes a clear understanding of the contract on the part of the consumer, which will include some measure of consistency between the oral and written terms used when contracting to purchase a motor vehicle and warrants fair notice of the onerous provisions of the unusual contracted clauses in the agreement of purchase. I suppose when you get into the agreement, there are about 10 of them in there that you should read when you sign an agreement. Although you may have a trustworthy salesman, you should still read the contract, because you will take a second look the second time you sign it. You will say, “Should I have gone this route?”

The member for Leeds-Grenville mentioned, and I am sure members are aware, that the minister responsible for consumer protection, that is, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye), in tabling the legislative review project’s directions report and supplementary working papers on June 28, 1988, said the release of this report was the first step in revamping Ontario’s consumer protection laws. Specific legislative proposals will be developed after extensive public consultation to allow for discussion of the principles of marketplace fairness.

One of the key proposals made by the legislative review team was the consolidation of Ontario consumer protection laws into foundation statutes or a consumer protection code that would embody the rights, responsibilities and remedies of consumer transactions.

I can assure the members that the minister will be reviewing all the comments raised by members during this debate on Bill 191, as well as the comments from outside the Legislature from consumers and industry. I personally will be supporting the bill in principle.

Mr. McLean: I want to speak briefly on Bill 191. I have some concern with it. I have bought several new cars over the years and I have yet to have a problem with the dealers, mainly Chevrolet. However, I have bought others in recent years.

There is one part of this bill that has me very concerned and that is with regard to the authorization and the powers that the registrar has. He can refuse to grant or renew a registration or propose to suspend or revoke a registration.

There are a lot of powers in this bill on which I do not think it is necessary to bring in legislation which makes people and dealers come to a 90-day-or-less agreement. When we look at the sections dealing with the registrar -- and there are several of them -- and the tribunal, it certainly is cause for concern.

The amount of money that motor vehicle dealers in Ontario pay in taxes since the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has put on the extra one-cent sales tax is unbelievable.

I think the automobile dealers are very well respected in Ontario without having further legislation placed upon them and demands placed upon them, because the members opposite and I are well aware of what happens when there are more restrictions put on car dealers: we will be paying more for our automobiles when we purchase them.

I have never had a problem, and I do not know too many who have. What happens with regard to the legislation if they make a certain deal with a dealer that says it will be 110 or 120 days and they anticipate getting the car in that time? However, it may be 130 days. Are they going to be penalized or penalize the dealers because it is 10 days too late?

I have never had a problem borrowing a car or trading a car at any dealership and I think they are putting a very heavy onus on the car dealer. But not only that, they are questioning the integrity of the car salesmen who I believe have a code of ethics they follow. There is no doubt that you always will find one or two bad apples in the basket, and you are going to find the same thing with regard to the car dealers.

What would happen if this legislation were passed and the machinery dealers and the farmers decided, “Well, I ordered a piece of machinery; I want that delivered in June.” Is there going to be legislation now for the farm dealers?

The ministry is only just touching one segment of society and there are many others. What about the trucks? There are the truck dealers. This is the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act they are talking about here. Does it say that it covers the purchase of trucks or tractor-trailers?

There are so many things involved in this legislation that I am afraid that we are all going to pay more if this type of legislation is proceeded with. They are questioning the integrity of the car dealers and the car sales people. The government has come on and put another one per cent sales tax on the price of all these vehicles, and here we are looking at more problems for the dealers.

I think there are enough regulations in place today on car dealers. I know there have been many who have had their licences taken away because of some irregularity or some things they have done. They are covered under the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. This is adding one more burden to it.

I see the member’s point of view -- from her perspective -- of why she would think the 90 days after the date of the agreement would be satisfactory. I have no problem with that. But I think when you start tying down to specific dates, you are going to start to create a problem.

I just wanted to put those few remarks with regard to this bill on the record, because I think that I have yet to have a complaint about car dealers in my area who have misused people, or anybody complaining because his car has not been delivered on time.

I happen to believe this is one more area where a government wants to put more of a burden on to the car dealers, the dealers who pay most of the sales tax in Ontario and I think their integrity is being questioned.

Mrs. LeBourdais: I am very pleased to support my colleague the member for Scarborough Centre in this particular bill. I am surprised that the member for Leeds-Grenville brought up the suggestion that the member was trying to impugn the dealers in any way. I think, as consumers, we have a right to know exactly what we are getting into when we purchase something. I think the responsibility is on the dealer to know within a time frame of perhaps a couple of weeks when the delivery of his product is going to be available.

We are all aware that car dealers and car manufacturers, like other segments of the business society, cannot always meet a very specific time framework, but I think there is leeway within this to allow for that.

As a consumer, when a car is a part of day-to-day life, part of work life and part of social life, if you are planning a trip, you would like to know within a short period of time when you can expect delivery of a particular car. There is the old suggestion of “Buyer beware,” and I think we have to beware because in many cases we, the public, have been led down the garden path. This helps to ensure, both to the manufacturer and to the consumer, a

schedule and deadline that both have to meet. Both have a responsibility and each has their own share of that responsibility.

The ad that the member used to indicate a rebate program, gives you all the details, including red ink to emphasize particular details at the manufacturer or the dealership both. Since these ads are usually paid for both by the dealership and co-opped with the manufacturer, they tell you all the highlights they want you to know about, but the details of the rebate that they would allow you on a specific vehicle, the fact that it is not available after a certain time limit, is not only not in red ink, it is at the bottom of the page.

I am not a typographer, but it seemed to me that type is certainly no larger than five point type, and I am sure many of us could not even begin to read, or perhaps it would not occur to us to read.

We would assume that if there is a rebate on the car that we are to purchase, that rebate would be there from start to finish. Until this morning, quite frankly, I was not aware that the rebate had a time deadline. Although it is in the ad, although in theory, therefore, the dealership or the manufacturer have covered themselves, I am just wondering how often a dealer would specifically make the point to you that if you do not take delivery, the onus is not on you to be able to do anything about that. You cannot control the delivery date, and yet you are the individual who will lose out if the dealer or the manufacturer is tardy in any way.

I feel very comfortable in supporting in whatever way I can this particular bill.

Miss Nicholas: I just wanted to make a few comments in response to those made by the members today. I agree with the member for Cambridge that most dealers are very upright, are trying to make a sale, make a living and are great, but I wonder if they know that promises are being made by their salesman, which they, as dealers, cannot ever hope to keep.

If the dealer knew that those promises are being made that the car will be delivered earlier, and they knew that their customer may be disappointed and may go elsewhere when they buy their second, third, fourth and tenth car -- because apparently each person buys approximately 10 cars in his or her lifetime -- they would welcome this legislation. They would welcome it if they knew that there were expectations being put out and not being met.

I would like to comment on the member for Leeds-Grenville and his comments that this is directed at the wrong people. I disagree with that. The consumer goes in and signs the contract with the dealer. That is the right person to direct this to. If there is a lawsuit, then they can third party the manufacturer. That is a quote that I learned in law school some time ago. That is what they can do. But the contract is with the dealer, that is whom they sign it with and that is why this legislation is aimed at the motor vehicle dealers.

He missed the $750 rebate totally. We are not looking at people with Jaguars, as he suggests, we are looking at the Chevette, the person who goes out and spends every last penny he has either financing or paying for his car, and who does not have another $750 to pay for it when he does not qualify for the rebate. This merely says to someone, “If I do not qualify for the rebate, I want to back out and make another deal.” They may still need the car. They are still walking to work in their rubber boots or going by the Toronto Transit Commission or in their Volkswagen Rabbit that has 500,000 kilometres on it.

If they knew that the rebate would expire and they would not get the $750, I bet they would try to make another deal. So we are not looking at the people with the Jags, we are looking at the everyday consumer.

The argument the member for Leeds-Grenville made was that there might be an overwhelming number of people going to small claims court. I tell him that small claims court is the only way that a consumer, an individual, a citizen of Ontario, can get what he or she rightly deserves. It is a great asset that we have in our court system. We do not make people go to the county court or the Supreme Court for a little claim. They go to small claims court on their own, they tell their woes to the justice of the peace or to the judge who is in front of them and they get justice.

This bill focuses on the bad apples. It focuses on the sales people who are promising delivery of a car in an amount of time that they should not promise. They do not know when that car is going to be delivered. They are making a verbal contract and the consumer finds out after six weeks that his car is not coming in six weeks, not in eight weeks, and it may in fact be 89 days and he has to wait for three months; and he is not a knowledgeable consumer.

The member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) was saying how happy he has been with getting his cars and that he gets them on time. The bill does not hurt him then. He gets his car, he gets it on time and everybody is happy. The whole intent of this bill is for people who have been told they are going to get their car earlier, then later. There has been no research done on that. The salesman promises something he cannot deliver and you wait and wait.

With regard to the farmers, I ask what good is a combine or a vehicle in December if the guy needs it in June? How is he going to reap his harvest if he does not have the vehicles, the machinery necessary. He makes the deal for the farm equipment, he says it is going to be there before he has to sow his oats, he is ready for it, and the alternative is a manual hoe. I say this is good legislation and the farmers will welcome it, to know that their vehicles are going to be coming in on time.

This is against car dealers who are misusing the system. I think most of them are great. I have been satisfied with the cars I have received. Those who are waiting an inordinate length of time would welcome this legislation, to know that they could get their deposit back and make another deal elsewhere.

If it means the manufacturers are going to estimate it longer, if they are going to say it is taking seven weeks instead of six and the car comes after six, is that not all the better? It has come early, you are even more surprised by it and your expectations have not been diminished.

So I say this is a good piece of legislation, we are getting a knowledgeable consumer and I ask members to support second reading of this bill.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Offer has moved resolution 45.

Motion agreed to.

MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Speaker: Miss Nicholas has moved second reading of Bill 191.

All those in favour will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 12:01 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Allen: There are times when the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) makes Scrooge look like Santa Claus. When Sharleen and Claude Girouard were married last May, these two disabled adults had no idea they would be so miserably handled by the minister and the ministry. Contradicting its original advice, the regional office cut Sharleen off both her family benefits and her drug card. Claude’s take-home pay of $968 was only $68 more than Sharleen’s monthly medical bills, so they appealed the case.

Against the advice of the Thomson report, the ministry refused to continue her status until the appeal judgement was delivered. Against all legal requirements to deliver judgement within 40 days of filing, the Social Assistance Review Board took 79 days to reject the appeal. The ministry in the meantime, in providing some special assistance, somehow concluded that the Girouards could afford to cover about 25 per cent of her medical bills, so they have been going into debt at the rate of $200 a month.

The Girouards are showing serious side-effects of this ordeal. The SARB recommended using

section 8 of the act for an order-in-council solution, but the minister refuses. But elderly women without resources are often given minimal standing with a payment of $2.50 per month by an order in council so they can qualify for a drug card. Would not even Scrooge consider that much for Sharleen and Claude Girouard?

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. McLean: My statement is for the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward). The minister recently gave the go-ahead for the Simcoe County Roman Catholic Separate School Board to build a new $2-million St. Ann’s school in the town of Penetanguishene. That was certainly good news, because I do not believe the group of existing portable classrooms provides pupils with a proper learning environment.

But now for the bad news. The board’s plea to expand the projected basic eight-room unit by three or four additional rooms has been turned down by this ministry. Officials with the ministry told the board to put this request for more rooms in the annual capital forecast. That means there will be no decision on this request until at least April 1989. With a contract of about $2 million about to go out for tender and a target completion date of next September, this request will come too late.

The minister must realize that it makes more sense to build a school like St. Ann’s to a proper size right from the beginning; it will undoubtedly be less expensive to complete the project all at once, rather than undertaking it in a piecemeal fashion.

A similar situation exists at Patrick Fogarty Secondary School in Orillia. This school is made up of portables and there is no gymnasium.

It was this minister’s government that brought in Bill 30 which extended funding to the separate school system in this province. They brought in the funding legislation but they failed to provide the necessary funding to follow.

EASTERN ONTARIO

Mr. McGuinty: A major step has been taken by the government of Ontario in recognizing the economic development needs of eastern Ontario. This week, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) announced a community economic development program for eastern Ontario.

This program will allow communities in eastern Ontario to develop their own unique plans for economic growth. There will not be any Toronto-imposed solutions, as in the past; rather, local people will make local decisions. This program will foster community self-reliance and local initiative in economic planning. Over the next five years, the eastern Ontario communities will receive $25 million to help them develop long-term economic plans and to help finance specific development projects.

This new program shows that eastern Ontario is now being heard at Queen’s Park as never before. The Liberal government at Queen’s Park has shown that it cares about eastern Ontario, unlike previous Conservative governments. As the outgoing chairman of the eastern Ontario caucus, I wish to congratulate my Liberal colleagues for the work they have done behind the scenes to make this program a reality.

To the voters of eastern Ontario I say, in the words of our esteemed colleague the Treasurer of Ontario and Minister of Economics (Mr. R. F. Nixon): “You ain’t seen nothing yet. There’s a lot more to come, thanks to your hardworking Liberal members of the Legislature from eastern Ontario.”

HOSPITAL WORKERS

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a statement directed to the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan). For two years now, hospital workers of five Hamilton area hospitals have waited for a raise, and they are about to go through another Christmas without receiving one. I am talking about St. Joseph’s Hospital, Burlington, St. Joseph’s Hospital, Hamilton, Hamilton Civic Hospital, Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital and Chedoke McMaster Hospitals.

Tory and Liberal governments have denied them the right to strike. Instead, the nursing aides, orderlies, cooks, kitchen and cafeteria employees and maintenance, housekeeping and laundry staff are saddled with the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act. The Canadian Union of Public Employees has asked for changes to speed up the decisions of the arbitrator, but the government is not listening.

In two years, the workers’ rents have gone up twice; groceries are more expensive; clothes cost more. The government has found time to increase taxes, like the sales tax, but the government’s arbitrator has not found time to give the workers a raise. The members are victims of Ontario’s health care system, just like the patients waiting for beds all across the province. They are suffering from the effects of the squeeze on health care funding.

Health care workers deserve better. If they are essential employees, as they are called, then they should be a priority. Soon Christmas will come and, once again, they will have gone without their raise. I do not think it is fair. I do not think this government is treating these workers fairly. They should be paid what they are worth.

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM

Mr. Runciman: I rise today on an urgent matter affecting the future of 10 individuals in my riding who are awaiting action from the Ministry of Community and Social Services. These individuals enrolled in the municipal employment program are presently on welfare. They have successfully completed a job readiness training program. They have been offered on-the-job training and the possibility of full-time employment. However, employers are refusing to hire them because there is no provision for workers’ compensation coverage for welfare clients placed in jobs under provincial programs. Employers do not want to be liable in case of a work-related injury.

The ministry was advised of this problem in early October and promised that coverage would be provided within a month. Nothing has been done so far, in spite of numerous calls to the ministry. This is a most frustrating situation. A worthwhile initiative has been stalled by inaction. These people have the chance, some for the first time in their lives, to break the cycle of welfare and poverty, become gainfully employed and gain a feeling of self-esteem. All this is in danger of being lost because of either indecision or disinterest on the part of the ministry.

It might seem like a small matter in the eyes of someone who has never been in a position of dependence, but it is of utmost importance to the 10 individuals who see their opportunity for a better life lost to them because of government inaction. I urge the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) to investigate this matter immediately and so make possible a brighter future for people who have been given a chance to improve their lot in life.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr. Fleet: December 10, 1988, was a celebration of International Human Rights Day and the start of Human Rights Week in Ontario. December 10 was also the 40th anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We recognize that day because we acknowledge the inherent right to dignity, freedoms and self-determination of people anywhere in the world.

There are fundamental freedoms of conscience, expression and association and other basic liberties which we enjoy in Ontario, largely without ever thinking about them. Unfortunately, these human rights are unjustly denied to citizens of many other countries.

Last Saturday, I joined members of the Ukrainian, Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian communities in a rally at Toronto city hall and on the steps of Queen’s Park to protest the ongoing harsh denial of basic human rights in the Soviet Union. Thousands of prisoners of conscience still remain in psychiatric hospitals and prisons throughout the Soviet Union. The struggle for basic freedoms by the women and man on the street in the Ukraine and the Baltic states is far from won. We must not forget their fate.

I urge all Ontarians to join me in support of the international struggle for human rights so that the people of the Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and other oppressed countries will be truly free.

ROOMERS, BOARDERS AND LODGERS

Mr. Breaugh: The Premier (Mr. Peterson) has spoken out against what are known as exclusionary bylaws, bylaws which are passed by some municipalities, essentially aimed at doing away with rooming houses or people who are not related living in the same quarters. The Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) has also spoken out against this practice. The general intention of the government has been to remove exclusionary bylaws from the municipal books.

The problem is that neither the Premier nor the minister have gotten around to doing this. The problem is that for Hannah Cook and her 12-year-old daughter, the city of North York, the city with a heart, has decided that it does not want to have anything to do with rooming houses. They face eviction over the Christmas period because of that municipality’s exclusionary bylaw.

Would it not be nice if just before Christmas the Minister of Housing and the Premier actually did what they both said they wanted to do and ended exclusionary bylaws?

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I am pleased to inform the House that this ministry is taking prompt action in response to the interim report of the Pharmaceutical Inquiry of Ontario, the Lowy inquiry, which was received this week.

I am announcing today that all medically indicated drugs and drug-related therapies in the treatment of cystic fibrosis and thalassemia will be provided to all age groups who require them. The drugs and therapies will be made available through designated hospital programs, effective January 31, 1989.

It is my priority to ensure that these two special groups, who can face catastrophic drug costs, have equity in access to the drugs they need. Currently, people up to age 18 have their drug costs covered while most adults do not.

Dr. Lowy’s interim report estimates there are approximately 860 cystic fibrosis patients in Ontario, of whom about 300 are over 18 years of age. There are approximately 125 diagnosed thalassemia patients, about 25 per cent of whom are over age 18.

The report points out that adults with cystic fibrosis can face drug costs as high as $8,000 per year; those with thalassemia sometimes have bills of up to $25,000 per year. The Lowy inquiry estimates the cost of providing drugs and drug therapy to all cystic fibrosis and thalassemia patients in Ontario will be about $5.1 million annually.

Dr. Lowy’s interim report also notes that the current special authorization system used with the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary is not acceptable. The program began in 1974 and was originally intended for use in rare instances where drug products not listed in the formulary were considered necessary by a prescribing physician for the care of an eligible patient.

Many of the drugs currently available under special authorization, however, are of very limited therapeutic value according to the Lowy inquiry. It concludes that in recent years special authorizations have become highly permissive and now cost over $50 million each year. Since more than 1,600 drug products are now listed under special authorization, the program is not only expensive but administratively cumbersome.

I am therefore announcing today that the special authorization system will be reformed to reflect its original intention. As of January 1, 1989, new drugs will only be approved for special authorization based on the advice of the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee.

As of April 1, 1989, all drugs available under the Ontario drug benefit plan will have to be recommended by the DQTC and the committee will make its recommendations based on therapeutic effectiveness. I will immediately ask the DQTC to examine all drugs now available by special authorization, to assess their therapeutic effectiveness and to recommend whether they should be included in the July 1989 formulary.

Our objective is to make sure that all drugs available to Ontarians through government-funded programs are effective for improving health and contributing to quality of life.

When the Pharmaceutical Inquiry of Ontario, headed by Dr. Frederick Lowy, was established in March of this year, I said then that our intention was to place the inquiry on an action footing so that prompt, appropriate responses could be developed to its recommendations. Today’s announcements honour that commitment.

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am pleased to announce today a change in the manner in which provincial court judges in Ontario are to be selected.

I intend to establish the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on Judicial Appointments, a group of qualified and highly motivated individuals, to advise me on all future appointments to the bench. They will, I believe, inject essential public input into what many consider to be an informal process.

The committee will interview and select candidates before making final recommendations to the Attorney General. This model, which is the first of its kind in Canada, is a modern appointment system dedicated to seeking out candidates of merit from all branches of the profession.

The lay-dominated advisory committee will do a great deal to remove any unwarranted criticism of political bias or patronage in appointments to the judiciary while enhancing community and public involvement and reinforcing confidence in the judiciary and the justice system. Such a committee, with a broad base of representation from across the province, will ensure that the justice system reflects the needs, the values and the attitudes of the community as a whole.

The Advisory Committee on Judicial Appointments will have the following mandate: First, to develop and recommend comprehensive, sound and useful criteria for selection of appointments to the judiciary, ensuring that the best candidates are considered; and second, to interview applicants selected by it or referred to it by the Attorney General and make recommendations.

The committee will operate as a three-year pilot project and will be in a position to review candidates beginning in March 1989. In the interim, we will of course continue to fill judicial vacancies when necessary. It will include nine members led by Chairman Peter Russell, professor of political science at the University of Toronto, who has had a most distinguished academic and professional career. Joining him will be five additional nonlawyers, one provincial court judge chosen by, but not from, the Ontario Judicial Council, one lawyer chosen by the Law Society of Upper Canada and one lawyer chosen by the Attorney General.

I believe the judicial appointments advisory committee will combine public understanding with the needed expertise of lawyers and the judiciary. It is through this balance of common sense and legal standards that government can realistically expand the public’s access to justice and improve service to the community.

In the west gallery is Professor Peter Russell, the first chairman of this new committee, the first of its kind in Canada, and I would ask the House to welcome him now.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: May I be the first to congratulate the Attorney General on this excellent statement.

HEALTH INNOVATION FUND

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I wanted to set the tone, and may I go on to say that I wish to inform the House that the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy is now inviting grant applications to the health innovation fund.

The $100-million fund is tangible evidence of this government’s commitment to exploring new and innovative ways of providing health services to the people of Ontario. It also demonstrates our desire to provide the financial support needed to plan and evaluate new and cost-effective approaches to health care delivery.

This fund has been created specifically to encourage creative new programs and to test pilot projects that might not otherwise qualify for funding.

Over the next four years, funds will be made available in a number of areas. About one third will be used to undertake a comprehensive health status survey, sponsor several hospital-in-the-home pilot projects and encourage further development of community health services, health service organizations and comprehensive health organizations.

The balance will go towards grants for innovative pilot projects conducted by community groups, individuals, health providers and researchers, as well as projects identified by the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy.

Criteria for the grants have been established and two competitions will be held each year. To be considered for grants, projects must address an important consumer health need and not duplicate existing services. In addition, individuals and groups submitting proposals must be sponsored by a nonprofit organization. The fund will not be used to support capital construction of facilities, high-technology diagnostic equipment or projects already funded from another source.

The health innovation fund is intended to promote five major objectives of this government for the future of Ontario health care:

1. To promote positive change in consumer attitudes and behaviour towards personal health and family health;

2. To improve equities in health across the province;

3. To test new, more effective ways of delivering services;

4. To improve access to existing health services for individuals and groups that experience difficulty in seeking out appropriate care; and

5. To foster improved co-ordination of health programs and services.

Innovation does not come without risks, but neither do the rewards. We need to forge partnerships among providers, consumers, business and government in developing new approaches to health and health care delivery. I am confident that the health innovation fund will be a major catalyst for achieving these goals.

POLICE TREATMENT OF VISIBLE MINORITIES

Hon. Mrs. Smith: On Tuesday of this week, I announced the establishment of a task force to address the concerns of visible minorities about the interaction of police with their community. I also advised all members that this task force would be chaired by Clare Lewis, public complaints commissioner on matters involving the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force.

This afternoon, I am pleased to announce the appointment of four other members of the task force. They are Dr. Ralph Agard, president of the board of directors of the Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto; James Harding, president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police; T. Sher Singh, a Toronto lawyer and past chairman of the Council on Race Relations and Policing; and another member of the task force who has agreed to serve, but this has not yet been confirmed with her employer.

As members are aware, the task force was established as a result of recent concerns raised about the relationship between visible minorities and the police. The task force is viewed by the government as an effort to ensure that discrimination or even the perception of discrimination on the part of police officers in this province does not take place.

The terms of reference for the task force are to inquire into and report on:

1. The current training members of police forces receive as it relates to visible minorities;

2. Ways to improve this training and education, both for recruits and on a continuing education basis;

3. The hiring practices and promotional processes, including employment equity programs;

4. Ways to improve the interaction of the police with visible minorities through the establishment of liaison officers, committees, community education programs and cross-cultural training;

5. Ways in which a monitoring system may be established to provide for a regular review of the interaction between visible minorities and the police; and

6. To review the policies and practices of the police relating to the use of force.

The government is most concerned about the situation and perceptions which have led to this task force. I am confident that when the task force reports back to me in two months, its findings will provide us with practical recommendations to deal with these serious concerns so that we can ensure equal treatment by police for all minorities in our society.

RESPONSES

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS

Mr. B. Rae: First, on the good news front, I would like to congratulate the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) for his announcement today. I think it is long overdue that we have a better process for appointing provincial court judges.

If I may say so, I am particularly delighted that Mr. Russell has agreed to serve as chairman of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on Judicial Appointments. All of us who know Professor Russell know what a talented and capable person he is and what a sense of the importance of the integrity of the judiciary he has. I am delighted he has agreed to serve as chairman.

I would also like to congratulate the Attorney General on the appointees to the committee who at first blush, from the people I know, certainly reflect a wide range in the community. We have a way to go to get really good appointments to the bench. I am just delighted to see the Attorney General taking these steps.

I would like to also congratulate him on choosing a former New Democratic Party candidate, Mr. Cressy, as one of his appointees to the federal judiciary appointee committees. I am very pleased. That is the good news.

POLICE TREATMENT OF VISIBLE MINORITIES

Mr. B. Rae: Now I would like to turn to the statement made by the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith). If we ever needed proof that this government was simply going by the seat of its pants on this very important issue, nothing would indicate it more clearly than the announcement today by the Solicitor General of the makeup of a committee. She does not even have all the names of the people who are on the committee.

My copy of the statement names three people and then it says, “a female member who has yet to be confirmed.” If you are going to make an announcement about the formation of a task force and give the community the sense that you take this task force seriously and you take its composition seriously, surely you would want to wait until you had everybody appointed before you proceeded.

I might just add on this point that I say with the greatest of respect to the Solicitor General, we have had many task forces on this very subject. The critical question is not the task force. The critical question is what the commitment of government is to lead and to deal with problems when they arise. We do not have a new or different policy by this government on the use of force. We do not have from this government a different policy on what happens when police officers are involved in potentially criminal action.

We have had over the last year several indications that this government believes that the best people to investigate the police when they are involved in actions of a potentially criminal nature are the police themselves. I can tell you that I disagree fundamentally with that proposition.

I said to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) after the Donaldson incident, that we have to find a different way, a way that gives everybody a sense that the system has integrity when these investigations take place. You have to have a prosecutor in charge who is completely independent of the government, completely independent of the police. That prosecutor should be taking responsibility for any criminal investigation from the time the act is committed.

I believe the government is going to have to come to that conclusion in order to give this process some integrity and in order to give it the support in the community that it needs. This government has had ample opportunity to do that. It has chosen consistently not to do it. I do not think another task force is going to get this government to move.

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mr. Reville: Responding briefly to the statement by the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) today, I am very disappointed that all we have got out of the Lowy inquiry after it has been meeting for a little less than a year is a couple of little tastes of the kinds of reform that we are going to need to have. Yes, we are pleased to see that the drugs in respect to cystic fibrosis and thalassemia will be paid for, but this is creeping pharmacare that is creeping far too slowly.

A number of very serious problems remain to be addressed by this government. It is interesting that it has finally, two years later, taken the advice of the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee and is going to look at the special authorizations.

The minister should know that all over this province there are people who are being made sick by drugs that are inappropriately prescribed for them. The taxpayer is paying for both the prescription and treatment to help them get over the effects of the prescription.

HEALTH INNOVATION FUND

Mr. Reville: In 15 seconds -- there is $100 million for health innovations. Sure, we welcome that, but that is $25 million a year. That is about one fifth of one per cent on a health care budget of $13 billion and you have to wonder who really is going to get this money.

POLICE TREATMENT OF VISIBLE MINORITIES

Mr. Brandt: I want to respond to the statement of the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) with respect to the task force and again remind the Solicitor General that my colleague the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves) did, in fact, offer a solution to the ongoing problem, not only of race relations with respect to the police department but a methodology that could be put in place that would review this entire matter and bring before this House recommendations that could be implemented.

The Solicitor General knows, as I do, that the response of the black community to her proposals has been less than positive at this point. If the perception is that the government -- and I am not suggesting that this is necessarily the case, because I have a little more faith in the minister than this -- may not be willing to open the doors widely in this particular matter and that the government may, in fact, have something to hide, then her task force will not be a suc