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

May 11, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES

UNIVERSAL SICKNESS AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE

RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES

UNIVERSAL SICKNESS AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE

AFTERNOON SITTING

MINISTER’S RESPONSE TO ORAL QUESTIONS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CONTAMINATED FUEL

ABANDONED RAIL LINES

EDDIE REDMOND

NORTHEASTERN ONTARIO ONCOLOGY PROGRAM

POLICE OFFICERS

GUELPH SPRING FESTIVAL

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

VOLUNTEER OF THE YEAR

BEEF AND SHEEP MARKETING

RESPONSES

VOLUNTEER OF THE YEAR

BEEF AND SHEEP MARKETING

VOLUNTEER OF THE YEAR

BEEF AND SHEEP MARKETING

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONTAMINATED FUEL

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

CONTAMINATED FUEL

CANCER TREATMENT

TELEVISION AND FILM INDUSTRY

CONTAMINATED FUEL

COUNTY GOVERNMENT

CONTAMINATED FUEL

INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

TOBACCO TAXES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

SCHOOL OPENING AND CLOSING EXERCISES

TOBACCO TAXES

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WATER RESOURCES

TABLING OF PETITIONS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATES CONTROL ACT, 1989

CHANGE OF NAME AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 / LOI DE 1989 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LE CHANGEMENT DE NOM

GOWGANDA TOWN PLOT LAND ACT, 1989

VILLAGE OF KILLALOE, 1989

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

MINISTER’S DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES

Mr Owen moved resolution 6:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing the unique nature of owned-home leased-lot retirement communities, the government of Ontario should undertake a review of these communities that would include: the apportionment of common amenities and services; tenure arrangements including leaseholds, life leases and condominiums; verification of maintenance and operating expenditures; contractual restrictions on the right of resale of units; the absence of fiduciary regulation; the registrability of leases and the role of rent regulation for these communities.

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

Mr Owen: In addressing this resolution, I would like to point out that in my riding of Simcoe Centre is located the oldest and largest retirement community in Ontario, Sandy Cove Acres. I would like to say at the outset that I have found through the years that the people living in Sandy Cove are a very happy group. They enjoy the camaraderie of living and sharing activities in that community.

However, notwithstanding that, there are problems that have arisen and become apparent through the years in that type of structure.

I would also like to point out that in this province we are relatively new to retirement communities. There are other parts of the world, such as Florida, New England and parts of Europe, that have been involved in retirement communities for many years before we have been. I think we can benefit from their experiences, their problems and what they have done to address some of those problems.

Retirement communities are generally defined as groups of housing units planned for independent older people, most of whom are retired. They normally include common amenities and services, particularly those of a recreational and social nature. Tenure arrangements include leaseholds, life leases and condominiums. Most retirement communities in Ontario are operated as leasehold arrangements where residents own their unit and lease the land for a long-term period of 20 years or less. It is with this type of tenure arrangement that most of the concerns have been identified by myself and by this resolution.

One of the most often expressed concerns in connection with the owned-home leased-lot type of retirement community is the inability of residents to verify the maintenance and operating expenses of the community. Often the lease will provide that the landlord-developer shall have the right to estimate the maintenance and operating cost for the coming year and to charge the tenant-owner one twelfth of the estimate in advance on a monthly basis. The landlord undertakes to adjust for any deficiency or excess.

However, there is no requirement that the landlord-developer provide financial statements or documents verifying expenses. Indeed, if any statement is produced, there is no requirement that it be audited to ensure its veracity or conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. Several associations have expressed the concern that costs other than operating or maintenance expenses, such as sales, marketing or construction costs, may be included in the maintenance and operating expenses charged to the tenant.

I should identify here that most of the retirement communities in this province have associations made up of people who live in those homes and that they have now for the past two years had an association across the province where they equally and mutually share their concerns.

At present. there is no way of verifying this claim they are making. Some residents have complained to me of being charged for directors’ fees of over $100,000 per year, or $148,000 of loan interest without explanation, or gas expenses that would have required the developer’s trucks to operate 24 hours nonstop according to some of these association people.

Under the Residential Rent Regulation Act, operating expenses can be examined by the Rent Review Hearings Board only where the landlord applies for a rate variance greater than the guideline set for the year. There is at present no mechanism available to residents to ensure they are paying only what they contracted to pay. This problem is particularly onerous for the owners of those units that are exempt from the RRRA, that is leases entered into prior to 1 May 1985 for units that had been exempt from rent control under the previous legislation where the tenant is the original tenant. The terms of the lease respecting rent increases will there govern the parties.

In these cases, maintenance and operating costs are not subject to scrutiny by the Rent Review Hearings Board, nor are increases limited to the yearly guideline. Residents are therefore without the ability to verify the amount and nature of the expenses, and at present a number of nonrent-regulated residents face increases of 40 per cent in maintenance charges, according to some of these people.

I would suggest as possible action that at the conclusion of each fiscal year, each retirement community landlord-developer should provide audited statements of maintenance and operating expenses to all the residents in that community and adjustments then could be made in accordance with these statements.

A number of leases in these retirement communities provide that the right to resell the resident’s unit is subject to the landlord-developer’s right of first refusal. Several of the people who have been in touch with me from these communities have expressed concern that these clauses are prevalent in retirement community leases and that they severely limit the right of resale.

The effect of such a clause, it has been suggested, is to restrict a resident’s ability to leave the retirement community by limiting the ability to attract purchasers and by imposing on the resident an additional cost, of at least five per cent of the purchase price, because of the discount he must give to the landlord. In some instances, the resident actually pays an additional 10 to 12 per cent of the purchase price, five per cent to the landlord-developer in the form of a discount and five to six per cent to an agent as a real estate commission for finding a purchaser who is ready, willing and able to purchase the unit.

Additionally, it has been suggested that the right of resale is open to the abuse that once a landlord-developer has purchased the property for 95 per cent of the price, it may be resold by the developer to the original purchaser for 100 per cent of the purchase price. I have seen this happening in the Sandy Cove situation where the estate of someone who had been a resident was trymg to sell. It had obtained a purchaser, the owner had refused to allow the sale to the purchaser, had turned around and then on its own terms to its own benefit had sold to the very same purchaser originally contracted by the estate.

It has also been suggested that in these circumstances the landlord-developer is in effect trading in real estate without a licence to do so, contrary to the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act. The Landlord and Tenant Act prohibits a landlord from acting as an agent for a tenant-vendor “except pursuant to a written agency contract,” which is subsection 125(6) of the act.

What can we do about it?

First, I would suggest that we prohibit the right of first refusal in favour of a landlord-developer or at least prohibit this being done at discounted prices, as is now available to them.

Second, we should permit the advertisement for sale of the units by posting signs on the units. Most of the retirement communities will not allow this to take place at the present time.

Third, I would suggest that if the lease is left as is, then provide that the landlord-developer must disgorge any profit made on resale to the original purchaser within a reasonable time. A registration system would ensure compliance with this requirement.

Let me go on to another concern represented in this resolution. At present, there is no consumer protection regulation of the relationship between a landlord and tenant where the tenant prepays rent at the beginning of a long-term lease. There is no obligation on the landlord to keep any portion of the funds invested for repayment in the event of termination of the lease or refund to the estate in the event of death before expiration of the term.

Similarly, there is at present no protection in the event a landlord becomes bankrupt or is unable to continue the operation of the community and has spent the funds. A civil action for damages is not a satisfactory remedy in this case because of the likely insolvency of the landlord -- which has happened many times, I understand, in the state of Florida -- and the time factor involved in such litigation. What should be done? Although an implied trust may be imposed by law, it has been suggested that an explicit statutory fiduciary obligation be imposed in these circumstances. The trust funds would have to be kept separately, and failing that they could be traced by the tenant.

It has also been suggested that a reporting mechanism be implemented requiring the landlord to produce yearly audited financial statements. At a minimum this would provide disclosure of the handling of the funds. A less onerous mechanism for regulating the relationship and of ensuring the performance of the landlord’s obligations is to require the posting of a performance bond. In the event the landlord failed to maintain the operation, funds would be available to compensate the tenants.

A further problem we have addressed in this resolution is the nonregistrability of leases. Many of the leases in these retirement communities are not registrable under the present legislation, the Land Titles Act or the Registry Act. To be registrable under either an instrument must refer to a legal entity and often in these communities there is no such legal entity because there is no proper lot division such as with a plan of subdivision or a reference plan.

There is no legal description of the land. There may be a developer’s sketch of the lots, but this is not acceptable for registration. As a result, the leases are not registrable as between the tenant and the landlord. They are, nevertheless, enforceable contract agreements. I would suggest here that we require the filing of a reference plan for all such leased-lot communities. This will ensure that each lot has a legal description and is capable of registration.

A further problem is that it has been suggested the act falls short of protecting these retirement communities because of their unique nature. First, they are designed as close-knit communities of independent seniors having similar interests who wish to participate in the social and recreational life facilities. The RRRA, however, creates tensions and divisions among residents because of the statutory exemption for some units from the protection of the act.

First, any lease entered into prior to 2 May 1985 for a unit that was previously exempt from rent regulation where the original lessee remains as tenant is exempt under the act.

Second, as a result of the previous rent review legislation, there is a great disparity among rents. Under the earlier legislation, pre-1976 units were regulated but post-1976 units were not.

Third, the definition of rent under the act excludes any property tax referable to the building. Therefore, the building portion of the property tax is not subject to rent regulation.

Fourth, there is the potential for a pass-through by the landlord-developer to existing tenants of capital expenditures for future phases of the community.

The Rent Review Hearings Board will of course attempt to establish the line between the existing and future tenants in these circumstances. It could, however, be difficult to accomplish where, for example, a landlord installs a larger piece of machinery than is warranted by the existing number of tenants.

Possible action? It has been suggested that the RRRA be made more responsive to the specific needs of a retirement community, first by extending the application of the act to all leases; and second, the act could be amended to require production of source documents and audited statements for all operating and maintenance expenses and for capital expenditures, to eliminate the potential for incorrect pass-through expenses or expenditures. The building portion of the property tax could be subject to strict accounting to ensure no overpayment has been made, and excess amounts levied could be subject to interest payments to discourage overestimation of the tax.

In many ways, municipalities are pleased to have retirement communities because they do not require services such as schools and school and other transportation, recreational facilities, snow removal or parks. There is concern, however, about ensuring the integrity and ongoing operation of the community as a retirement community in the future. Municipalities are concerned they may be called upon to save these communities if the developer, through insolvency or bad marketing, is unable to operate a community as a retirement community. This problem has developed in other jurisdictions. I hope it does not happen here in Ontario, but we should be prepared to see it does not.

Most of the hard services in these communities, such as roads, sewers and water systems, are private and have not been constructed to meet stricter municipal standards. The developer’s abandonment, for whatever reason, could result in a large, unplanned-for financial burden on the municipality to upgrade these services. What I am suggesting should take place here is that the report coming out of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs be used to respond to these concerns more comprehensively than has been done thus far.

I note that there are still five minutes, Mr Speaker, and I would ask if I could reserve that time to address any concerns raised.

Ms Bryden: As the New Democratic critic for senior citizens’ affairs, I am pleased to speak in support of the resolution of the member for Simcoe Centre. The resolution is calling on the government to review the housing arrangements in retirement communities throughout the province.

I gather he is referring to communities where the land is privately owned and lots are leased to home owners. In addition to land rent, they pay fees for common amenities and services. Since he calls them somewhat unique, I think he should have provided us with a more precise definition to make it clear what current housing and financial services legislation now applies to them and what the gaps are.

I am somewhat surprised that a Liberal backbencher has to use a private member’s resolution to bring the need for this kind of legislation to the government. I would have thought a government which has been in power for almost four years would have already reviewed the current legislation applying to retirement communities and would have found there is a serious need for regulation of the diverse home owner arrangements and payment for services in such communities.

I am sure the government is aware of some of the problems being encountered by seniors in these communities. I am particularly surprised that a government which made its concern for seniors a key part of its 1985 election promises has now ignored this field where legislation is apparently very much needed.

In fact, I remind the members that the accord signed in May 1985 between the Premier (Mr Peterson) and the member for York South (Mr B. Rae) shortly after that election contained this clause about seniors. The program for action from common campaign proposals to be implemented in the first two years included this clause: “Reform of services for the elderly to provide alternatives to institutional care.”

This is the problem, that nothing has been done in this particular field to help seniors operate independently in their own homes, to be able to stay out of institutions and not have to pay unreasonable amounts for the kind of housing arrangements they have undertaken in these retirement communities.

I remind the members that it was the accord that I just quoted, between Premier Peterson and the member for York South which made it possible for the New Democrats to vote with the Liberals to defeat the Progressive Conservative government, which had held office for 43 years. This happened in 1985.

The new Liberal government even went so far as to set up an office for senior citizens’ affairs. Unfortunately, it was only a token gesture, since the minister appointed to take charge of it was a minister without portfolio. I often wonder if the resignation from the Legislature of the first holder of that office, Ron Van Horne, the former member for London North who resigned in 1987, was not partly due to his frustration at the impotence of that office.

Certainly his successor, the member for Dufferin-Peel (Mrs Wilson), has illustrated her inability to get many needed changes in legislation for seniors, because she always has to say “I will draw it to the attention of the minister responsible for that area.”

An example is the need for the Attorney General (Mr Scott) to remove the “no pets” clause from tenants’ leases. It is being used by unscrupulous landlords to gain possession of apartments from tenants when they do not like those particular tenants or feel they could rent their apartments at a higher rate if they were evicted.

With no ministry to administer regulatory legislation affecting seniors, the current minister responsible for senior citizens’ affairs is certainly not able to carry out the Liberal promises to help seniors stay in their own homes or to protect seniors who are living in their own homes in retirement communities in the province.

I suspect that this area of regulation for seniors has been so long neglected because the government is not prepared to take on the task of regulating the terms of these seniors’ leases and tenure with the land owners and developers. The only ministers who could bring in legislation and regulations to protect the many seniors who are living in a state of uncertainty about their leaseholds and tenure include the ministers of Housing, Consumer and Commercial Relations, Municipal Affairs, Financial Institutions and the Attorney General. There may be others as well.

Certainly we need the Minister of Housing (Ms Hošek) to bring the rent review procedures and appeals into these retirement communities.

I am somewhat surprised that a Liberal backbencher is moving away from the Liberal fetish against regulation and its worship of the free market by introducing this motion. New Democrats have been accused of wanting too much government intervention. We have opposed most of the deregulation moves of the Liberal government here and the Conservative government at Ottawa. We are now seeing the results of deregulation in the chaos in our airline world, the trucking industry and other fields that have been deregulated.

By asking for the kind of legislation that the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr Owen) thinks seniors need, he is asking the government to go back to the kind of regulation New Democrats have long supported. What we need are regulations to protect people from exploitation by unscrupulous operators in the so-called free market. Does the member for Simcoe Centre realize that he has a tough battle on his hands to convince his own freewheeling caucus to look at more regulation? That is exactly what all the members of this House will be voting for today if they support this motion.

I support it because I believe it is time we recognize that regulation is still necessary when the free market is full of freebooters. If this motion passes, I hope the government will get on with bringing in legislation and regulations as soon as possible to protect the hundreds of seniors who may be subject to exploitation by unscrupulous landlords and developers in retirement communities. The situation is a matter of extreme urgency to the people concerned and I hope the government will bring in legislation before the end of this session, preferably before the end of June.

Mr J. M. Johnson: I would like to just point out that I do not intend to speak on this resolution, but the member for Durham East (Mr Cureatz) and the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr Runciman) both do intend to speak on it. If we pass now, hopefully we will have 10 minutes before the hour is finished.

The Deputy Speaker: Fair enough.

Mr Callahan: I rise to speak in support of this motion, but before I do, it is a very technical question and it is one that perhaps lawyers can understand and deal with.

It is unfortunate that the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms Bryden) had to inject into this entire discussion a question of partisanship. Normally, my experience in private members’ hour has been that there are motions put forward by private members. It is not a matter for partisan argument or criticism, and yet the totality of her speech appeared to be in that vein. That is regrettable.

I might add, as well, that she says nothing has been done by the government. This is the last thing I will say in terms of a partisan statement. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs, in fact, has just recently completed a two-year study of the impact of these types of communities on municipal planning. It’s final --

Ms Bryden: Has it been tabled?

Mr Callahan: Just a second. The member should just relax and lighten up.

Its final report will be released in the spring or early summer of 1989; it may be a little behind, but it is coming. It is expected that the report will establish planning guidelines for the evaluation and development of retirement communities. I suggest that the member is misinformed or she lacks the information in saying that we have done nothing. We have, in fact, and the motion of the member for Simcoe Centre today is most appropriate in that regard.

Let’s get down to try to explain in simple language the problem that exists here.

The problem that exists here is that a developer who has perhaps a 100- or 200-acre parcel of land and either does not wish to go through the normal channels of getting a severance to sell off a specific lot to a person or does not wish to go through the difficulties of filing a plan of subdivision and all of the additional financial payments that requires in terms of sewers, roads, etc, takes that 100- or 200-acre parcel of land and he tries to develop what in essence is, I guess, almost a group home in a sense, because everybody lives on the same piece of land.

They have their own individual units and there is no definition for them in terms of what they really own. They have access and rights to use the total facilities for recreational purposes and so on.

This works very well, except that it does require regulation. The regulation is required to protect seniors from, as the member indicated, unscrupulous people who might try to use this sort of unregulated process to perhaps not deal with seniors fairly.

I suggest that no one is perhaps pointing a finger at anybody whom I know of, but the possibility is there. I think that is the major function of government. It is not to interfere with the free enterprise system; it is to in fact establish an atmosphere within which people of all ages are going to be protected and can be certain that what they are paying or not paying or what they are being allowed to do or not do is in fact something that is lawful.

The member for Simcoe Centre has brought forward a number of concerns. The question of a right of first refusal is not necessarily an unusual one. That is sometimes quite an acceptable one. But when the mutuality between the two parties allows the developer to require a five per cent reduction if he buys it, that perhaps is going a little way towards not giving the seniors the full opportunity to reap their investment should they decide to leave the seniors community.

In addition to that there is the question of the moneys they pay in advance, whatever types of moneys they may be. If they are not held in a trust account and the developer or the owner of this property goes bankrupt, these people are in fact left to the mercy of the creditors. There are a whole host of statutes of this province, the Mechanics’ Lien Act and so on. Where moneys are in fact being advanced, they should be held in trust. I suspect that the results of the reviews by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs into this will come up with some form for holding moneys in trust.

The additional factors, such as the question of being able to dispose of their property, become very significant features in the case of seniors or retired people, because upon their death there can be a very difficult problem in terms of the estate trying to deal with that particular property.

I think seniors move into these communities for a number of reasons. They move in because it gives them the possibility of being outside urban areas, because this is where most of these units are established. It gives them the possibility, as well, of having the flexibility of being able to move between here and some other location, either in Ontario or outside Canada, without having to worry about whether the lawn is cut or the snow is shovelled.

I think that is to be admired. I think that is something we should encourage for our seniors because they are at a stage where they are freed of the obligations that they may have had with children growing up in their earlier years, and they now have the opportunity to travel and to take advantage of some of the sights, sounds and tastes of the world. I think it has to be encouraged.

At the same time, I think we have to be certain that the people who are perhaps most vulnerable in our community are protected adequately. The member for Simcoe Centre also refers to the question of maintenance costs. Without some regulation to stipulate what can go in those maintenance costs, it really becomes what you might call a landlord lease. He or she or it can put anything in it that he or she or it wants. The seniors are trusting. I am not for one minute suggesting many of them do not have good business acumen, but they are trusting and they are people who believe what is presented to them. They do not question it.

Accordingly, I would submit that it is very necessary that we provide for a proper accounting by the owner of this development to the seniors, because without that proper accounting you can wind up in situations where people are perhaps strapped for funds. That may be the case for some retired people. Others may have more money now than they did before because of the freeing of the responsibilities that they had before, but in the main I would think that they are watching their pennies. They may not be watching them because they are short on money.

I think retired people, as well as parents and seniors -- I think I will feel the same way and perhaps everyone in this House will, as we approach our golden years -- attempt to preserve what is left to pass on to their children.

My experience with seniors has been that they work very hard to do that. I have always encouraged them to go out and spend it all. The children do not really deserve it. They worked for it; they should have the fun of spending it. But that does not seem to be the attitude of seniors. They want to look after leaving an estate for their children. Accordingly, they are very frugal. In their frugality, if they are being taken advantage of, and I am not suggesting that I can name any particular situation where that is happening, but if the possibility exists that they could be taken advantage of, that is a very significant item in the law that we should correct.

I support my colleague the member for Simcoe Centre. I think it is of some significance that he brought this forward. It is unfortunate that it is a highly technical issue and it is one that there are a number of ways of solving. For every solution that you suggest, if you rush into it rather than do a study such as the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr Eakins) has done, there may be an equal problem that will arise as a result of that solution.

So I think it is something we have to deal with very carefully and very sensitively to ensure that the members of our community who have contributed so greatly to Ontario are protected as adequately as any other member of society, and perhaps it is even more significant for the reasons I have stated. I am very pleased to speak in support of this motion. I would hope that all other members of the House would see fit to support the motion by the member for Simcoe Centre.

Ms Bryden: Unfortunately, our second speaker has not yet arrived. He is tied up in traffic somewhere. I guess the Progressive Conservative Party is not ready to proceed either. If other speakers can proceed, we would still like the allotment of the second 10 minutes.

The Deputy Speaker: I still have to proceed with the usual rotation, and there being no member from the two official opposition parties, we shall proceed with a Liberal then.

Mr Callahan: I am sure there will be unanimous consent to do that, although I should raise the point, and perhaps this is nasty, that on one occasion when I was late, the honourable member who is asking for that request tried to adjourn the House.

Mr Elliot: I recognize that the member for Wellington (Mr J. M. Johnson) indicated that the member for Durham East may be arriving to speak, and should he do that I will be glad to cut my remarks short and give him the floor. I understand he was under the impression that this motion was going to be put second today, so he was planning on coming in a little bit later in the morning.

I too am pleased to stand for a few moments and speak on behalf of this resolution that was put by the member for Simcoe Centre “That, in the opinion of the House, recognizing the unique nature of owned-home leased lot retirement communities, the government of Ontario should undertake a review of these communities.” It goes on to list a number of things that should be included in that review.

I think this is a very important, timely point at which this kind of resolution should be considered by this House, because the fact of the matter is that this type of retirement community is relatively new and it is very timely that a complete review take place with respect to whether or not the residents of retirement communities are being fairly treated. The allegations out there are that the seniors are being taken with respect to maintenance costs and excessive rents and a whole lot of other allegations. I think in large part this may be very unfair to people who have spent a lot of time setting up very worthwhile communities.

I feel rather close to this, because had I not been elected to this House, I would probably be entering my retirement officially, as of next month, from my own career. For a period of two years or three years, I was looking at a number of different options with respect to my own retirement plans and accommodation associated with that, and this was one of the types of accommodation that my wife, Anne, and I looked at.

There are a lot of benefits associated with it and most of them are economic, because in our preview of what was available out there, it looked like private enterprise people had acquired sufficient acreage to set up a very nice retirement community atmosphere, the advantages being that if you bought into that kind of a situation you are going to be associating with a number of people in your own age bracket and all kinds of recreational facilities are set up.

I think it is unfortunate that if there is the odd exceptional case where advantage is being taken of the people who are resident in these retirement communities, the whole concept gets a bad name because of that, so at this point in time I think the member for Simcoe Centre is right on in suggesting to the government of the day that we do a very detailed review. As the member for Brampton South (Mr Callahan) said, it takes a legal mind to cover all the ramifications of a contract or a lease signed in this kind of situation.

I think what should happen is that people contemplating going into this kind of arrangement should very carefully, through a solicitor, make very specific arrangements with respect to their particular deal, because in particular cases that have been brought to my attention, generally there was a lot of goodwill but very little legal expertise went into the signing of the contract. A lot of the time, it was misinformation or no information being there that was causing the concern.

For example, in the case of maintenance costs, if you sign a contract that says they have to be done by a certain individual and you are locked into that particular person’s remuneration scale, there is very little you can do about it.

These things are signed with the best of intentions usually, and I can see why the owner would want to have continuity with respect to maintenance of such a facility. You want to maintain an adequate level of service in that regard and make sure the community continues to have a good look about it, because there are going to be resales and you might possibly be wanting to enlarge the facility, sell some more units in it. All of that depends upon the community looking really nice from a saleable point of view.

Having said all of that, I do not think the one person who spoke on this motion from the opposition really highlighted the right kinds of information, starting off by saying that they were supporting the motion but then bringing in some things that really do not have very much to do with this kind of resolution that is before us.

I believe it is a good resolution. I commend the member for Simcoe Centre for bringing it to the House at this particular time. I think it is timely. I would hope the particular agencies and ministries of the government that are responsible for this particular area, including that of the ministry that looks after seniors in particular, would take a close look at this motion and come up with legislation and regulations very quickly to cover this very important aspect of our life out there.

As everybody who is watching the population growth in Ontario knows, the very important senior sector of that population is going to be growing at an increasing rate over the next decade or two and it is very important that we treat these important members of our society most fairly, because they have contributed a great deal to society. They have done a lot for Ontario. I think it is only fair that they be treated fairly in their retirement years, so I support this resolution with a great deal of enthusiasm.

Mr Runciman: I am not participating in the debate, but I wanted to put on the record that the member for Durham East, who was planning to speak on behalf of our party, apparently has been tied up in one of those infamous traffic jams between here and his riding in Oshawa. I will also put on the record for our party that we are supporting the resolution.

The Deputy Speaker: Seeing no other members wanting to participate in the debate, does the member for Simcoe Centre wish to wind up?

Mr Owen: Yes, I am delighted to do that. I am grateful and express my appreciation to the member for Brampton South and the member for Halton North (Mr Elliot) for their kind remarks in support of this resolution, and also to the member for Beaches-Woodbine for the support of the opposition party.

I have talked about this matter rather extensively in the past to the member for Durham East of the Conservative Party. That member has a very large retirement community in his riding and from time to time we have shared our concerns about what has been transpiring in these communities and what we thought could be done to improve the situation.

I would like to point out that this government, contrary to what has been stated by the member for Beaches-Woodbine, has addressed many of the needs in these retirement communities. As a matter of fact, many of the protections which are afforded the people who now reside in these communities are there because of the concern, the direction and the dedication of this government.

However, these retirement communities are relatively new to Ontario and we can always do better. As we see them in operation, we see new things which can be considered.

Since I was elected nearly two years ago, I have also discussed the problems of retirement communities with the various ministries. For example, I am very pleased that the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs, the member for Dufferin-Peel, is not only concerned but here in the Legislature this morning showing her concern as she has always in the past for what can be done to improve the lifestyle for these people who have chosen to live in these communities.

I have discussed these difficulties and problems with the Minister of Housing. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has not only expressed concern but has done an in-depth study of retirement communities, and the results of that study are available or will soon be available for the province to look at.

The matters involve consumer and commercial relations, and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr Wrye) has addressed some of the difficulties we have had with regard to registering these leases. His ministry indicated to this Legislature, only a matter of months ago, that the people living in these communities can insist upon registrable descriptions of the lots on which they have their homes and the leases then could be registrable.

On the matter of health, I have discussed these matters with the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) as well. The Victoria Order of Nurses has been very active in going into these retirement communities, with support from our ministry.

I would like to point out that in my area, we had a substation for ambulance service at the south end of Barrie, and up until a year ago it was only functioning during daytime hours. We found out that 60 per cent of the use of the ambulance service at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie came from the south end of Barrie, particularly from Sandy Cove. Because of this, the ministry allowed us to open up 24-hour service, seven days a week, for the ambulance service to address that problem.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food is another ministry which has been involved. The Ministry of Community and Social Services has been involved, because of the visiting homemaker program that goes into these communities. We have the commitment of this government.

As has been pointed out by an earlier speaker, these are complex issues. We want to protect the people involved, but we also want to avoid overkill. Remember, these retirement communities are happy places, they are people places. The people there enjoy each other’s company and the activities they afford to one another. All we are here to do is to try to see that they are afforded the protection that the law can provide and that their happy times in these places will continue.

UNIVERSAL SICKNESS AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE

Mr D. S. Cooke moved resolution 2:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing the inability of the Liberal government to ensure auto insurance protection for Ontarians or progressive reform of the workers’ compensation system and recognizing that numerous government studies have supported the concept of a universal sickness and accident system, the government of Ontario should introduce legislation during its current mandate to implement a universal sickness and accident insurance program; and further, that this legislation should be based on the results of a widespread open public consultation held between now and the introduction of a bill.

Mr D. S. Cooke: I am a little disorganized here because we were just in a House leaders’ meeting and the timing did not work out appropriately. If I take a break to blow my nose or cough or whatever, I am dying of a cold today, and if members were wise they would wear masks or something to keep the virus away from them.

I am very pleased to be able to present this resolution today. In my 12 years as a member of the Legislature, this is the first time I have had an opportunity to be drawn at the beginning and have had an opportunity to present a subject that is near and dear to my heart, but, more particularly, that has been promoted for many years by the member for Nickel Belt (Mr Laughren) from my caucus. That is, of course, the concept of a universal sickness and accident program.

The resolution I have presented to the Legislature today refers to auto insurance. It also, of course, refers to the Workers’ Compensation Board and that system of compensation. It does so because we see a universal sickness and accident system as a solution both to some of the problems we have had with auto insurance for many years and to the complete unacceptability that employers and employees, or injured workers, feel with regard to the workers’ compensation system.

Currently in Ontario, people who are sick from disease or are injured at the workplace are compensated by a variety of programs. People injured on the job are compensated through the workers’ compensation system. People injured in a car accident would be compensated through private insurance and perhaps a lawsuit.

Some people would be protected with sickness and accident programs in the workplaces. Many of the people who live in your riding, Mr Speaker, and in my riding, have the benefits of being organized with a union and, as part of the negotiations at the bargaining table, have the protection of a sickness and accident program.

All too often, however, individuals have to rely on sickness and accident or unemployment insurance or, in the end, if they have no private protection at all, they have to resort to disability benefits through the welfare system in Ontario, which we feel, and I am sure all members of the Legislature would agree, is a completely unacceptable system since the levels are so low and it is a means-tested program.

Depending on where you get hurt or how you come down with a particular illness, you could end up living out your days in the world in poverty. If you come down with an illness and you get workers’ compensation, the benefits under workers’ compensation after a long fight -- if you qualify and if the board agrees to pay you -- are relatively generous if you are at 100 per cent disability.

However, if you cannot prove that you came down with cancer, for example, at the workplace and you do not get workers’ compensation benefits and you end up having to go on the disability program through the provincial welfare system, then you are going to be living in poverty for the rest of your days.

We have all had cases in our constituency offices over the years. I think a couple of the cases that stand out in my mind are people whose spouses or themselves have had multiple sclerosis. Lou Gehrig’s disease is another example of a catastrophic disease.

The story is always very similar: I had a good job or I owned a small business, and then I came down with multiple sclerosis or Lou Gehrig’s disease or some other catastrophic disease. I had no private insurance and, as a result, I have had to apply for welfare and the disability program through the welfare system, and now I cannot survive at the same level that I did before.”

Sometimes there are cases where the spouse has come down with the disease and the other spouse continues to work. Obviously the two of them had been working because today in Ontario it is quite normal and it is also very essential in most cases that both the husband and wife work in order to afford homes and so forth.

When one individual comes down with a disease or is injured and does not qualify for any private system or the workers’ compensation system, then that has a dramatic effect on the family income. They often come into our offices and say, “Why can’t I qualify for the provincial disability program?” Of course, the provincial disability program is based on income, and if one spouse is still working, then the couple do not qualify for the disability program through welfare. As a result, the entire family’s standard of living drops dramatically.

If we had a system of universal sickness and accident benefits, I think many of those problems and inequities and unfairness would be resolved. With one system, the workers’ compensation system, as members know it can be literally months or years before your case can be resolved.

One case that I was very much involved in is a case that was reported in the press, the Pival case in Windsor. Mr Pival, in that case, worked at Wyeth in Windsor, and he developed a brain tumour. He became very sick, eventually died, and during the whole time that he had the disease, we were fighting his workers’ compensation case.

It was a couple of weeks after his death that the Workers’ Compensation Board said that he would be compensated for that disease, as the board had come to the conclusion that it probably did relate to the workplace, but I thought it very sad that he went through his last couple of years alive fighting the WCB and he died not knowing whether his widow was going to be adequately compensated and have financial security for the rest of her life.

If we had had a universal sickness and accident program in Ontario, it would not have mattered whether the brain tumour was related to work or it was outside of work. There would have been a compensation system and that family would have been able to eliminate at least one of the very difficult aspects of the last couple of years of his life.

Currently then, a disabled person can receive income from private disability insurance, unemployment insurance for a time, Canada pension disability, workers’ compensation, car insurance, a lawsuit from the injury, some compensation for victims of crime or the welfare system. The bureaucracy involved in the hodgepodge of private and public compensation plans is absolutely mind-boggling, and obviously the cost of that bureaucracy is paid by all of us.

Whether we pay for the community and social services bureaucracy through our provincial taxes, the bureaucracy of the Workers’ Compensation Board through assessments against companies or the private sickness and accident system through premiums at work, we all end up paying in the end. It is not a matter of instituting some major new government program that is going to cost the taxpayers millions and millions of dollars. We are talking instead about implementing a universal plan that would consolidate all of these avenues of compensation for people, rationalize all of these alternatives and provide some compensation to people no matter where they became sick or were injured.

The WCB alone costs companies, through assessments, billions of dollars. As you know, the welfare system costs millions of dollars. Again, I think that simply reinforces that a rationalization of the system as it is now in place would be not only more humane but obviously cost-effective and much more efficient for the taxpayers of this province.

There would be, as I have said, substantial administrative savings. There would not be costly disputes over the cause of disabilities. There would also be less confusion and expense with a single administration dealing with disability-related income replacement. For example, there would be no need to process welfare assignments or to determine Canada pension plan integration with pension supplements, as currently must be done in our workers’ compensation scheme.

The best examples to illustrate the advantages are disease cases. Consider a worker who develops lung cancer after a workplace exposure to known toxins, some of which are suspected of causing cancer. The worker may have a family history of cancer and perhaps smokes. It is extremely unlikely that such a worker would end up receiving workers’ compensation benefits. First, the workplace exposures and a possible cause for the cancer would have to be identified and a claim made.

Second, the workplace exposure would have to be accepted by the Workers’ Compensation Board or the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal as a probable cause of cancer. Both of these events are unlikely to happen currently.

The administrative costs of compensating for disease claims can be enormous. Various administrations may be involved -- the WCB, CPP, welfare and a private disability insurer. This may create obvious concern about double payment and a consequential cost to avoid it. If a workers’ compensation claim is made, there are likely to be large medical, legal and administrative costs in adjudicating that claim. Anyone who has dealt with workers’ compensation knows that is the case.

The financial concerns are obviously important to all of us, but even more important than that, I believe, is the emotional trauma that people are put through fighting for something while they are also trying to get well or go through rehabilitation or just deal with their disease.

People are concerned that a universal sickness and accident system may take some of the responsibility for cleaning up the workplace away from employers. I think that could be dealt with in a couple of ways. First, we can look at how the system is paid, and we may in fact be able to develop a system that has assessments against employers if they are in an industry that has a lot of compensation claims or if they have a poor record.

More important than that, the current workers’ compensation system obviously has not dealt adequately with sickness in the workplace and prevention of sickness or accidents in the workplace. The primary way of resolving that has to be by the passage of bills like Bill 208 and giving some clear power to the workers in the workplace to be able to enforce cleanups.

We also obviously have to have another enforcement system and fines that act as an incentive to companies to clean up their workplace. I do not think it is adequate to say on the compensation side that higher premiums are going to result in a workplace cleanup. It has not worked now. The way to do that primarily, I think, is through the Ministry of Labour, through huge fines that will act an an incentive when a company has been caught breaking the law and putting people’s lives or health at risk in the workplace. With rigorous enforcement, I believe, of the occupational health and safety laws and substantial fines, that can act as the main deterrent.

It seems to me that the current workers’ compensation system of payment has not deterred, as I have said, employers across this province. At the same time, the current system of compensation has put workers at risk. The risk of years of battles is in itself reason to reform the system. Tinkering with the workers’ compensation system through Bill 162, which in our view is going to put us back even further, is not going to bring about a clear alternative.

There is much we can learn from other countries. My colleague the member for Nickel Belt has been to New Zealand and has looked at the universal system of compensation in New Zealand, and I am sure he will speak in more detail about that, but there are other jurisdictions that have implemented this plan. It is not something that is brand-new. We can learn from their experience and the benefits, as well as from some of the mistakes that have been made over there.

The point, however, remains that the current system in Ontario is unfair and inefficient and needs to be dramatically changed, not just tinkered with.

Mr Laughren: Hear, hear. Well said.

Mr D. S. Cooke: Of course.

I want to read briefly some of the comments that were made in the Thomson report about this issue, because I think that while the recommendations from the Thomson report were not as clear on this issue as we would like to have seen them, some of the statistics and some of the references make the point very clearly. I quote from page 105 of the Thomson report:

“As statistics presented in

chapter 2 clearly indicate, a substantial proportion of social assistance recipients are disabled. Almost 90,000 people -- or approximately 30 per cent of the combined GWA and FBA case load -- are categorized as having some form of disability or impairment.”

In this province 90,000 people, and obviously a lot of dependants in addition to this, are relying on a form of income which has been means-tested as totally inadequate, because they either are sick or have become physically disabled because of an accident. In Ontario, the richest province in this country, it is completely unacceptable that a person would have to live in poverty because he has become ill or disabled. The report goes on to say, on page 107:

“The disparities and inequities of existing income programs for disabled people have been thoroughly and well documented elsewhere. Some of the major shortcomings that force some people to turn to social assistance are outlined below.

“When total disability results from an injury that occurred on the job, workers’ compensation is relatively generous. Earnings replacement amounts to 90 per cent of net income....Not everyone injured on the job will receive benefits from this program, however. Benefits are not provided when the Workers’ Compensation Board...decides that the injury did not result from employment. With many disabling conditions, it is not possible to determine cause. Cases involving back injuries, chronic pain, and diseases that may be occupationally related are particular sources of controversy....

“For people disabled by accidents, compensation may be provided by way of the legal system. In fact, however, compensation is paid only to between one third and one half of accident victims. In addition, some estimates suggest that anywhere from one third to one half of the total system costs are absorbed by administration, insurance companies, and lawyers. Those who do receive compensation can experience delays of one year or longer, and those in greatest need often settle more quickly for lower settlements because they cannot afford” the wait.

Under “A New Approach” in the Thomson report it says: “Our view of the future suggests that the time has come to develop a comprehensive disability insurance system and to move quickly to implement such a program.

“The concept is not new. It has been the subject of numerous studies and reports over the years. A federal-provincial task force has been studying the feasibility of a national disability income program since February 1982. Three options for a disability insurance program have been considered and a report has been submitted to the federal Minister of Health and Welfare.

“Nor is the concept untried: the New Zealand government implemented a form of disability insurance in 1972, and we can benefit from that country’s experience. Australia also tabled legislation...but it died on the order paper...in 1975.”

The point is that time after time we look at issues. We study them for years and years and years and we do not take action because governments tend not to lead on issues like this; especially in this province, they tend to follow.

Now is the time -- and especially this government -- if this government wanted to make a mark on this country and to show the way in a particular area, this is where it could do it. By bringing in a universal plan and leading this country to a different and humane way of dealing with people who have come down with diseases or become disabled through accident, this government would accomplish something it would be remembered for, for years and years, just as the Saskatchewan New Democratic Party government was remembered for the introduction of medicare.

We believe that this type of universal plan is and would be as significant to the people of this province and this country as medicare was back in the 1960s and 1970s.

I want to save myself about a minute to respond at the end but I hope that members of the Legislature will agree with this concept in principle and support it. I obviously hope that the government, which has passed at its own party conventions resolutions supporting this concept, will implement it and not continue just to study and talk about it.

Mr Runciman: Although we appreciate the good intentions of the member for Windsor-Riverside, our party is not going to be supporting his motion. We have a great deal of difficulty with many aspects of it. Certainly his reference to automobile insurance is one that causes us some concern.

We appreciate that the member and his party believe that government is the answer to virtually every problem that faces society. We do not share that view of the world. Although Mr Thomson did make this recommendation and we are supportive of the implementation of the first phase of the Thomson report, there are other aspects of that report that I think merit some very serious consideration by all members of this Legislature before we make commitments to those initiatives which do indeed have sweeping implications for this province.

The member made reference to the New Zealand program. I am sure his colleague the member for Nickel Belt is going to be speaking at length about the New Zealand situation. I hope he will make reference to the fact that recently there have been some very significant cost escalations of the New Zealand program, and we should make reference to the fact that the New Zealand program is not as comprehensive as the one the member is suggesting or the one that Mr Thomson is suggesting.

I think the cost implications of this proposal are significant indeed and while we have some assurances from Mr Thomson and from the member for Windsor-Riverside that these will be met in a reasonable way and that there will not be any undue burden placed upon the taxpayers of this province, I think that those kinds of assurances have to be looked at very closely. New Zealand is a good case in point in that respect, where initially the program did realize some cost saving but the long-range impact has been anything but cost saving.

This also makes reference to universality. That is certainly a topic for heated discussion in this country currently, whether the universality approach is the way to go. If we take a look at the problems of many provincial governments and the federal government in respect to the debt burdens that most jurisdictions currently carry, a good portion of those debts can be related directly to the concept of universality of social programs in this country.

Mr Laughren: Do what the free trade agreement tells you to do, Bob.

Mr Runciman: This is an opinion and a view that I held for some time prior to the free trade agreement. I want to say that this again is an approach of universality, so that someone who is earning a significant income is still going to be covered by this kind of approach.

It is the same situation we have in a whole range of programs. We have a rent control program in Ontario, for example, where we have someone earning $400,000 or $500,000 a year living in downtown Toronto in a rent-controlled apartment for $450 a month. That is the sort of inequity and unfairness that is built into the concept of universality. We can apply it to a whole range of programs at both the federal and provincial levels. It is not the way to go.

We do believe there are some problems out there, especially in respect to the disabled in society. But let’s target our programs for the people who are in real need in society and not have this blanket approach so that everyone is protected and covered and we are all paying stiff fees for this and putting all of our governments into significant levels of debt which are really limiting our ability to get into programs that we really do need in society.

I think the example of Heather and Frank Pearson of Ajax is a good one. Frank has cerebral palsy and is unemployed. He married a gal who is making $14,000 a year. As a result of that income, Frank was cut off from his benefits under the family benefits allowance he was receiving. That sort of thing is totally inappropriate, but it is occurring under current legislation.

Indeed, I agree that we have to address that kind of situation, the one that Frank Pearson in Ajax is faced with; we have to have appropriate programs that will target individuals who are being penalized by legislation currently on the books. There is no doubt there are some real problems out there, but this universal interventionist “government-knows-best” approach is not the one that is going to work best for this province, in our view.

Again, on the government intervention aspect in terms of automobile insurance, I think we know where our friends are coming from and I think the government is heading in that direction. I predicted that in 1987 when they announced the establishment of the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board. Phase 2 of that is no-fault insurance and phase 3 is a crown corporation to operate automobile insurance, to sell automobile insurance in this province.

In any event, this is what I am getting at in terms of the government involvement in all of these programs; I sat through the hearings for Bill 2, as the member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr Keyes) did. I am not sure if anyone else in the Legislature today did.

Some of the testimony we heard before us was that in Saskatchewan, for example -- programs brought in by an NDP government -- every second automobile insurance claim involves a ministerial intervention, if you can believe that. Every second claim involves a ministerial intervention. That is how politicized the process gets.

We see what is going on here now. These people are getting deeper and deeper into this process and getting into more and more hot water because of the ever-growing involvement of government in the operations of this program. They have bought the bill of goods that this is a social policy matter and that government has to play a role.

I think one has to be careful about the further growth of government into all areas of society in this province. Again, I want to talk a bit about New Zealand. I think that perhaps there is more of an argument in respect to New Zealand. I do not buy the New Zealand approach. but it is a national approach; it is not done by a province or a state, it is done by the national government.

I think that whenever you look at this kind of a comprehensive program, it has to be done on a national scale. You cannot look at doing it on a province-by-province basis. If this approach is adopted, we may see even more significant growth in the population of this province than was forecast by the Ministry of Treasury and Economics a few weeks ago when it indicated we are going to have growth of about three million people by the year 2011, I think.

The Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon), by the way, did not know anything about that, and I think that says something about the forward planning of this government. When I asked him how he was going to react to that kind of growth in this province he did not know anything about it. He does not know how they are going to react to it and what it is going to mean to education, health care, waste disposal, a whole range of very critical issues, when we are faced with this kind of growth in population.

This kind of approach in terms of going it alone at the provincial level, albeit we may be the largest province in terms of population in this country, I think has ramifications in terms of its impact on our population growth and a whole range of other areas.

I want to indicate that indeed there are problems at the Workers’ Compensation Board and most of us who have even modest levels of industrial operations in our ridings are faced with situations on a weekly basis whereby people are continually being frustrated with the maze at the Workers’ Compensation Board. Indeed, that is a problem that has to be addressed, and I do not think it has been addressed adequately up to this point.

I had some high hopes with the new leadership a number of years ago that we would see some very positive things take place in terms of a more effective and efficient operation. I have not seen any meaningful signs of that occurring up to this point, but I am still going to hold out hope.

I guess I would like to see someone go into that board who has proven himself or herself as an effective manager in the private sector; someone who can come in and get rid of all the dead wood, get rid of all the red tape, get rid of all of these various stages of delay that workers in this province face in trying to get resolution of their claims and in terms of the problems that industry and business are faced with in dealing with this very onerous bureaucracy, an ever-increasing bureaucracy.

In conclusion, although we certainly agree that there are problems in society, especially with respect to meeting the very real needs of the disabled, we do not agree with the approach proposed by the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr D. S. Cooke).

Mr Ferraro: I rise to participate in this debate with some anticipation.

The member for Windsor-Riverside and the member for Nickel Belt certainly are strong proponents of this particular motion, and I am sure they have had similar motions in the past, being strong socialists as they are. I do not say that disrespectfully; far from it. Just as much as I respect that, I am sure they respect the fact that I am more of a strong free-enterpriser, and I say that with just as much pride, quite frankly.

I think the whole idea does deserve some comment about socialism and universality and more government control. It is worthy of note that at this point in time there is no province in Canada that has a socialist government. I think that says something about the mood of the Canadian people, quite frankly. Indeed, in a global sense, when one looks at very socialistic countries, in fact at communism, which is a significant degree of socialism to say the least, if not the ultimate, one sees a move towards free enterprise and less government control in countries such as Russia and China. I just find that interesting.

I find it interesting too -- and I do want to comment that when the member from the Conservative Party started off --

Mr Laughren: I won’t call you a fascist, I promise.

Mr Ferraro: I just say to my friend the member for Nickel Belt that he should try to control his gums for a little bit. I will listen to him when he speaks.

In any event, the Conservative member for Leeds-Grenville started off by saying that his party will not be supporting this motion. I just want to say right off the top that my caucus has not caucused this particular issue. Indeed, being private members’ hour, quite frankly, I think it should be up to the individual members. Having said that, I certainly hope that indeed members will take a good look at it and make their own decisions, as I am sure they will.

I find it interesting too that the member of the Conservative Party in his condemnation, if you will, of universality, and his condemnation of my government, used the word “interventionist” and all the rest of that. I find it interesting that when I look upon previous actions of his government it is somewhat inconsistent with his viewpoint today.

I speak specifically of 1975, when the Conservative government of the day brought out rent controls, a universal program of controlling rents in buildings that were built prior to 1975. That definitely flies in the face of the comments that were made. Also, very briefly, it brings to mind the Ontario health insurance plan. The Conservative government in Ontario negotiated the deal with the federal government of the day and brought universal medical coverage to Ontario. So there are some inconsistencies.

Having said that, there are also inconsistencies with my friends from the socialist New Democratic Party. I have yet to hear a New Democratic Party member stand up and say, “We’re against small business.” That in itself, in my view, is the epitome of free enterprise.

I suggest with great respect that all political viewpoints have some variants, if you will, in their idea of socialism and free enterprise.

I want to say, and I am sure it will come as no surprise to the member for Windsor-Riverside and the member for Nickel Belt, that I will be voting against this motion,

I suggest that this motion, as far as I am concerned, was doomed right from the start. The reason is not so much on the specific debate dealing with universality of the sickness and accident system, or even the other debate that seems to be prevalent in society: whether or not there should be a guaranteed annual income. I think there is some merit in debating that, and indeed, I support that type of debate.

The difficulty with this particular motion is in the premise. It starts off, and I want to reiterate, by saying: “In the opinion of this House, recognizing the inability of the Liberal government to ensure auto insurance protection for Ontarians....” I want to deal with that specific point. That in itself compels me to vote against the motion. It is, in my view, confrontational and totally erroneous, and it does not do much for the member’s attempt to debate the substance of the motion per se.

The wording, as I reiterated, indicates that he says the Liberal government was incapable of ensuring auto insurance protection for Ontarians. What does that mean specifically? Does it mean that people who require auto insurance in the province of Ontario cannot get insurance? I suggest that is one

interpretation, and it is categorically wrong.

If members would like to present cases to the Ministry of Financial Institutions where people cannot get insurance, I can assure them as parliamentary assistant to the minister that we will facilitate the same. Automatically, members are going to say, “Yes, but it is expensive.” I agree. In some cases, it is expensive. If you have had three or four accidents or you have had some drunk driving charges, you are going to pay for it. I think most Ontarians would agree with that. But the reality is, the wording says, “the inability...to ensure auto insurance protection.” I suggest, to some degree, that is erroneous.

The reality, dealing with auto insurance, is that the government had three alternatives. I have said this before. We could do nothing, in which case the insurance premiums were rising at an unbelievable rate, for good reason as far as the insurance companies were concerned; we could take over the insurance industry, which is advocated by my friends in the opposition, particularly the NDP; or we could take the approach we did take: that was to set up an independent committee, composed of consumers and people familiar with actuarial expertise, to look at the situation.

We have learned much and the public has learned much about the insurance industry in Ontario. We have taken some of the mysticism out of the boardroom and brought it to the forefront, in a very public, open -- albeit confusing perhaps in certain situations, but understandable way.

Members will know that we took that action on 23 April 1987 when we set up the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board.

Mr Laughren: That is intervention in the marketplace.

Mr Ferraro: My friends are saying it is intervention in the marketplace. I would not call it intervention, as opposed to saying it is re-education, if you will. They would advocate that we go in there with the storm troops, automatically seize all presidents of all insurance companies and indeed put in place a socialistic public insurance program without even indicating the costs of such a program. We could debate the ramifications of a public as opposed to private insurance program ad nauseam, I suspect.

I find it particularly interesting, I really do, that every time they advocate a public-run insurance program, they do not talk about the fact that 80 per cent of all premium costs, as we have found out from the insurance bureau, are related to claims costs. I have yet to see them debate or present to the House in any substantive way the costs of a public insurance program, the dislocation of thousands of employees.

The member for Windsor-Riverside talked about bureaucracy. Indeed there is bureaucracy, but I suggest there is a significant amount of bureaucracy in every public or government-run institution or form of intervention, if you will.

The final point I want to make is the last line, which I find particularly interesting. It says all this study of a universal sickness and accident system “should be based on the results of a widespread open public consultation held between now and the introduction of a bill.” I totally agree with that, but I find it totally inconsistent with many of the arguments that have been exuded by the opposition in recent weeks about the fact that the public automobile insurance system, totally public, is ridiculous, a waste of taxpayers’ money. Indeed, it is obviously acceptable now but it was not in previous discussions,

Mr Laughren: First, I would like to commend my colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside for bringing before the House a matter of great importance. I do not believe you need to be a rocket scientist to know that the workers’ compensation system in Ontario is in a mess. Why else do we have Bill 162 out there, which is being opposed universally by the very people it is supposed to help? I think most of us on all sides would agree, if we dropped into our constituency offices, would have to come to the conclusion that the present workers’ compensation system in Ontario is in a mess and is not working.

As far as the automobile insurance system in Ontario is concerned, here we have a government that believes in the free enterprise system, which brought in an automobile insurance board as the only mechanism of setting rates, then overruled the board and said, “We don’t like your rates,” and is bringing in a bill this afternoon that is going to reverse that process. What could be more of a joke than the way this government has handled workers’ compensation and automobile insurance in this province? Nothing could be more of a joke.

It is true, I went to New Zealand about four or five years ago specifically for the purpose of meeting with the people in their Accident Compensation Commission. When I was there, I met with employers and employee groups, government people and people at the accident commission itself. Nobody, including the employers, would go back to the old system. They do not want it. They think the old system was ridiculous.

They have some problems with it. They say, “We don’t like the way some people get covered when they have an accident playing a sport,” that kind of thing; but nobody, absolutely nobody, wants to go back to the old system. The same applies in the western provinces of this country. Once you had, as the member for Guelph (Mr Ferraro) would say “the socialist experiment” of public automobile insurance, once that was in place in those western provinces, did any of them go back when the governments changed and there were free enterprise governments in place? Not one.

Even though they had the opportunity to get rid of the public auto insurance plans in those western provinces, not even a Social Credit government would change it.

Mr Ferraro: They changed the government instead.

Mr Laughren: Well, when the governments changed, they left the public auto insurance in place, so the argument that it is inefficient is absolutely ridiculous.

I would like to quote from a study here in Ontario a couple of years ago by Professor Weiler. This was 1983, so some of the numbers would have to be updated, but this is what Professor Weiler said:

“Suppose that a single person earning $30,000 a year is permanently disabled in an automobile accident on his way to work. If he can establish that someone else is entirely at fault, he will collect tort (legal damages) calculated at $2,500 a month, nontaxable. If the accident occurred while he was at work, perhaps driving a truck, he will collect about $1,400 a month in compensation, again nontaxable. If he was not at work and cannot establish that the other driver was at fault, he will collect $600 a month in ‘no fault’ auto benefits.

If he was injured at home as a result of a crime, such as a burglary, he will collect $500 a month. But if he was injured at home due to nobody’s fault and must rely solely on CPP or Gains programs, he will get only $300 a month.”

What in the world kind of equity is that? There is no equity in accidents in this province.

What we are trying to say to this government is that it really should not matter where you get hurt, the point is you are hurt and you need to be compensated, you need to be treated and you need to get rehabilitated.

That is what the government of New Zealand decided, and the same argument that it is a national plan there and we are only a province could be made for medicare. Medicare started as a provincial program in Saskatchewan. Now it is a federal program administered by the provinces. It makes no sense to make that silly argument that it has to be national. I would prefer a national, universal disability program; no question.

In New Zealand, what happens there is that you can take the plan as a pie, if you will, and divide it into three pieces. If an earner gets injured at work or at home, the employer pays the first week’s salary and then after that the plan kicks in, whether that earner was injured at home or at work. The other piece of the pie is auto, and that is paid for by the car owners of New Zealand. If you get hurt in a car accident, it comes out of that premium. The third is “others,” so that if someone gets hurt at home or, as I mentioned, in a burglary, playing a sport or whatever, then that is picked up.

We have plans here too. We have decided in this country that nobody is going to starve to death, so we pick up the tab anyway, one way or another. What this does is make it a lot more logical.

Chairman David Slater of the Ontario Task Force on Insurance had some interesting things to say about the system in New Zealand:

“Overall, one can conclude that the money flowing through the workers’ compensation system and the automobile fault/insurance system was sufficient to finance the no-fault scheme and that the scheme is almost certainly cheaper than a continuation of the old system. It was estimated in 1982 that the accident compensation scheme resulted in annual savings of over $100 for the owners of private motor vehicles. Similar results have been predicted in Australia and the United Kingdom.

It has been claimed that a similar scheme in Australia would save the country $1 million a day and the Pearson commission” -- which was a UK commission -- “found that a move to no-fault resulted in an annual saving of $84 million.”

Every group that studies a universal program comes out in favour of it -- every group. I would like to have the members opposite, instead of ranting and raving about socialism or free enterprise, take a look in a thoughtful way at studies that have been done on universal programs. I would defy them to show me those studies that say it is not a good idea. Professor Weiler said it was a good idea. The Thomson report said it was a good idea. The Slater commission said it was a good idea. Virtually everybody who studies this program says it is a good idea.

They can get up on their hind legs and say, “No, it’s socialism; we’re not going to buy it.” Fine. They can keep extracting their pound of flesh from those people who are least able to defend themselves in our society; just keep on doing it, my friends. I think they have an obligation to do something better than that, because I will tell them something: The present system is not working, and the sooner they come to that realization, the better.

I happen to believe that people who work are making a real contribution to our society. I think collectively we have decided that the work ethic is not such a bad thing and that when people work they make a contribution to all of our wellbeing, some more than others of course. Therefore, we have a community responsibility to people who get injured, regardless of where they get injured and regardless of fault. In New Zealand, everyone is covered unless it is self-inflicted -- then, of course, it is not covered -- or they are injured in carrying out a crime.

I am appalled by some of the arguments the member for Guelph made. I thought we could have a civilized debate in this chamber on whether or not a universal system was right for the people of Ontario. Instead of that, the government members are getting up on their hind legs and pretending this is a battle over capitalism versus socialism. I want to tell them that if the way they are treating injured workers in Ontario is the kind of benchmark they want to use for the treatment of those people in our society who are least able to look after themselves, then they are welcome to it, but that is not the reason they got elected with a huge majority in this province.

I believe they have an obligation, just as their convention said they did. It was a Liberal convention that said there should be a universal program. The Treasurer said it was an idea whose time is coming. The member for York Mills (Mr J. B. Nixon) -- no relation, I am sure he would want me to say -- also agreed at that same convention that it was time in Ontario we put behind us that vast array of programs. They overlap. They are expensive. They are illogical. They are inequitable in that they pay people different rates for the same kind of injury. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Somebody is going to have to tell me the difference between someone who gets injured on the job and is in a wheelchair for the rest of his life and someone who is born with a debilitating disease and spends the rest of his life in a wheelchair. I ask them to tell me how they justify that morally, paying one person an income several times that of the other person for the rest of his life. How is that fair? How do they justify that?

In New Zealand, they have not brought in sickness. The member for Leeds-Grenville is quite right, it covers only accidents. They are looking at sickness because they see the illogic of the present system. I believe it is a matter of time until sickness is included in the New Zealand plan as well. I very much hope so.

I have enjoyed this debate very much and I commend the member for Windsor-Riverside for bringing it before this House.

Mrs Sullivan: I want to start out with some personal remarks about the resolution itself that is before us. I like and respect the member for Windsor-Riverside. I assume his colleagues do as well because they elected him as their House leader. Although the member has himself expressed with some humility surprise at the confidence his peers placed in him, I have never shared that private surprise. I believe that here is a man who knows the rules of the House and the niceties of its traditions. Here is a man who does his homework on House matters, in the Board of Internal Economy and in the corridors, or maybe even the back halls.

But I am surprised and indeed chagrined that the member has framed his resolution in the way he has. The

preamble is heavily partisan and I believe it would have been useful to have discussed some of the concepts he has subsequently put forward in the debate outside of that partisan framing. I think we all could have benefited from that. Because of that, I will not be able to support this resolution. I also have other reservations relating to the proposal that I will speak to in my remarks on the essence of the bill.

The government has examined many aspects of comprehensive disability insurance since a standing committee, I believe in the early 1980s, recommended this kind of approach. It has participated in a federal-provincial group, which was mentioned earlier, that has studied the prospects for a national disability scheme. More recently, the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board has been asked to analyse two options for no-fault auto insurance.

Those initiatives, along with such others, which once again have been mentioned, such as the Social Assistance Review Committee report recommendations and discussions about a compensation fund for victims of medical misadventure, contribute to our understanding about the implications of a comprehensive accident insurance scheme.

It should be noted that the costs of comprehensive disability insurance could be substantial if adequate benefits were to be provided. The member for Leeds-Grenville has spoken a bit about the situation in New Zealand where the no-fault accident program has met with high benefit and administrative costs that are unfortunate. Given the uncertainty about the future costs of a comprehensive scheme and the administrative complexity that would be required to implement it, reform of the existing array of disability insurance programs may indeed be preferable to one comprehensive scheme. I wish we had been able to discuss that kind of approach in a less partisan way.

We are now in the process of major substantive reforms of the largest no-fault eligibility insurance program in Ontario, the Workers’ Compensation Act. As members know, the workers’ compensation systems, 12 in all through workers’ compensation boards, in Canada are based upon principles that were defined and articulated at the turn of the century. It is our belief these principles are still relevant and applicable today. Workers’ comp occupies an intermediate position between the two primary methods for reimbursing lost income. The methods or models are, of course, on the one hand the tort liability system, and on the other hand the social welfare network.

In contrast to the tort liability approach, which is currently used to settle compensation claims out of motor vehicle accidents, workers’ compensation is based on a no-fault premise in the awarding of benefits. Our system of workers’ compensation is the result of a historic tradeoff. We all know that the tradeoff meant workers in Ontario gave up their right to sue their employers in court, and therefore the opportunity to collect damages for all the economic and other losses they have incurred. In return workers were guaranteed protection against income losses due to workplace accident, irrespective of fault.

It was no surprise to any of us who participated in the Bill 162 hearings recently that several individuals and groups stated that the present system of workers’ compensation is essentially sound. There are reservations, and we are familiar with them. Workers complain about benefit levels, difficulty in proving claims, and delays and poor treatment at the hands of board representatives. Employers, on the other hand, have been heard to complain about the escalating cost of assessments, fraudulent claims and malingering.

But what is most revealing is that both workers and employers were united in defence of the system when it was recently challenged in Newfoundland. Participants in the court case included attorneys general from three provinces and workers’ compensation boards from six provinces and one territory, as well as representatives of employer groups and organized labour.

Under Canadian systems of workers’ compensation, the historic tradeoff of which I spoke earlier has meant that workers receive benefits and rehabilitative assistance without having to establish any liability on the part of the employer. What is essentially a no-fault insurance plan has replaced a legal system that would have involved greater delays and large legal costs.

In Newfoundland, the widow of an employee who was electrocuted contended that the death of her husband was due to the employer’s negligence. She then tried to bring an action against the employer rather than accept survivor’s benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act. In the trial court, she argued successfully that the denial of her right to sue constituted discrimination under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

At the Court of Appeal, however, the court ruled that the scheme of workers’ compensation was neither unfair nor unreasonable. It provided compensation for medical aid, rehabilitation services, job search and medical rehabilitation with no delays in receiving benefits, no legal costs, no dependence upon the solvency of an employer for compensation matters that would arise out of the issue, no issue of liability to be resolved, no reduction in compensation when the injured worker was negligent, and tax-free benefits and coverage for short-term disabilities

The point is that the basic operating principles of workers’ compensation in Newfoundland were proven to be fair and reasonable, and we believe that in Ontario the same applies. As legislators, we must seriously ask ourselves if we want to confuse the principles guiding compensation for auto accidents with those for workers’ compensation.

It is difficult to compare circumstances surrounding accidents in the workplace environment to those as a result of auto accidents. The workplace brings together various economic needs: the need to produce goods and services, the need to earn an income, the need to be productive. Accidents occurring in this environment must be dealt with differently from those occurring on the roads and highways.

There are 500,000 claims filed every year with the Workers’ Compensation Board. Those claims that are eligible to receive benefits do so at the employers’ expense. Some form of universal accident insurance that extends coverage to both the workplace and automobiles would require a different form of financing, which would shift the burden away from employers.

In New Zealand, its form of universal accident insurance has meant that every driver must pay a levy. Every taxpayer also contributes to the maintenance of the program. This is a far cry from the funding arrangements now operating within the Ontario system of workers’ compensation where employers, not ordinary taxpayers or car drivers, pay for workplace accidents.

Again, this approach comes very close to paralleling the social assistance model of income replacement. I think we should be careful not to confuse workers’ compensation with social welfare. Social welfare carries with it the concept that a community as a whole is under an obligation to care for the economic needs of those unable to care for themselves. That is not what drives workers’ compensation.

I believe, as my party has debated and concluded, that there might be merit in a comprehensive disability system in the province. I do not concur that the workers’ compensation system should be dismantled by its inclusion in a comprehensive scheme such as put forward by the House leader of the opposition.

I regret the way the member has framed his resolution and I will not be supporting it at the time of the vote,

The Speaker: Are there any other members wishing to participate? The member for Riverdale for up to seven minutes.

Mr Reville: Seven minutes may seem like a boon to members of the Legislature who have heard me speak for much longer than that on several occasions, and I hope will want to again.

One of the things I found most amazing in terms of knowledge that you pick up as a member of Parliament was a meeting I had that was chaired by the then member for Sudbury East, Elie Martel. We were looking into concerns that workers had about the response our society makes to loss. We talked to a person who described the different outcomes that were possible for people in Ontario today who had suffered a catastrophic loss, who had become, say, quadriplegic.

In Ontario, depending on how that misfortune befalls you, there is a remarkably different future ahead of you. If, for instance, you are born with a disability that is profound, probably what will happen to you in this province is that you will get family benefits, $300, $400 or $500 a month.

If, like Barbara Turnbull, you are working in a convenience store and you are shot and become a paraplegic, then you will get $500 a month from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

If you slip and fall in your own kitchen, suffer a profound trauma and are rendered a paraplegic, again, you may get family benefits.

If you are crushed in a workplace, and the Workers’ Compensation Board decides you have suffered a work-related injury, then you will get a percentage of the salary you had earned.

If you go to the lottery system of the courts, as did the parents of the young fellow in Brampton who suffered a terrible bodily injury while riding on a dirt bike -- originally the courts awarded $6 million and found liability against the municipality of Brampton; half of which, of course, was for gross-up. It was overturned on appeal and he got nothing. If his parents should die, as I guess one day they will, then he will be on family benefits.

If you win the court lottery and you get the $6 million, you pay $3 million of that to the federal and provincial governments for taxes. You are left with $3 million. The amount of money it costs you to pay for the services you need -- an attendant perhaps, renovations to your home, a redesign of your work career; and this has happened to people.

I know of a lawyer, for instance, who suffered an injury that left him a quadriplegic. He was able to rearrange his law practice so that he could continue to work out of his own home. He made an income of about $60,000 a year, which members of this Parliament would think was a fairly significant amount of money. After that gentleman got finished paying for his attendant, his special equipment and his medications not covered by health insurance, he was living below the poverty line.

Those are the kinds of outcomes a person in this province can expect. I think it is wrong that you get a terrible outcome or a modestly bad outcome or a slightly-below-the-poverty-line outcome depending on which category you fall into. I have never heard a description that more makes the case for a universal sickness and disability plan than those kinds of real-life stories, which regrettably happen to people all the time in Ontario.

In those cases where a system has been developed and put in place, you then go and fight with that system for the benefits you are entitled to, and we all know, every member of this House knows, how hard a fight that can be. In many cases, those benefits are more theoretical than real, but at least you have access to the system.

The woman who falls off the chair in the kitchen may have no access to a system like that. If I am run over by a garbage truck in front of my house, perhaps the city of Toronto’s self-insurance will kick in and I will be one of the lucky ones who gets the $6 million, but I suspect I will not be. Even if I do get that, it will not cover all my expenses.

The New Democratic Party has been talking about universal sickness, accident and disability plans for sometime. We began to talk about them with particularly topical vigour when in fact the gnomes of Zurich began to do strange things to reinsurance moneys about two years ago. Municipalities found themselves unable to afford insurance, hospitals found themselves unable to afford insurance and groups like the Rose Parade people, who are volunteers, could not afford to pay the municipalities insurance money so that they could have their parades. All sorts of voluntary activity was cut off at the knees.

I think society has to plan to compensate people adequately for loss. The best way to do that is to support the resolution of the member for Windsor-Riverside.

Mr D. S. Cooke: I would like to thank the members who have participated in the debate and respond to a couple of points. First of all, I would like to say something to the member for Halton Centre (Mrs Sullivan) who said that the evidence is that the workers’ compensation system is basically sound. I would like her to go tell that to the Bendix workers in my area who worked with asbestos or the gold mine workers in this province. There are many others who would say to her that she is totally and completely wrong.

To the member for Guelph, I always thought that it was our party that was accused of being overly ideological. He has proven to me today that he and his kind of instinctive approach to these types of issues show that ideology prevents us from finding some basic solutions. This government has to decide whether they are here to simply get re-elected or whether they are here to eliminate the injustice and unfairness that currently exist in this province. If they want to eliminate some unfairness and injustice, they would show the way in Canada by bringing in a universal sickness and accident program.

The Speaker: We will now deal with private members’ notice of motion 6, Mr Owen’s resolution.

RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES

The Speaker: Mr Owen has moved resolution 6.

Motion agreed to.

UNIVERSAL SICKNESS AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE

The House divided on Mr D. S. Cooke’s motion of resolution 2, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Grier, Kormos, Laughren, Mackenzie, Martel, Morin-Strom, Pouliot, Reville.

Nays

Adams, Bossy, Brown, Callahan, Cleary, Collins, Cooke, D. R., Cordiano, Cureatz, Dietsch, Elliot, Epp, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Fleet, Hart, Henderson, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Kanter, Keyes, LeBourdais, Lupusella, MacDonald, Mancini, Marland, Matrundola, McClelland, McGuinty, Nicholas, Oddie Munro, Offer, Owen, Pelissero, Pollock, Polsinelli, Poole, Reycraft, Roberts, Runciman, Ruprecht, Smith, D. W., Sola, South, Sullivan, Tatham, Wilson.

Ayes 12; nays 48.

The House recessed at 1211.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MINISTER’S RESPONSE TO ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr B. Rae: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to raise with you a question of privilege regarding the conduct yesterday of the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley), if I might have a few moments to put forward my point.

The Speaker: Very good.

Mr B. Rae: This is the first time in my experience as a member of any Parliament when the members of a legislative body have been treated, and indeed the public health of the province has been treated, with such contempt by a minister of the crown.

Between the official opposition and the third party we asked a particular, specific question to the Minister of the Environment yesterday not once, but a total of 13 times. We asked a very specific question. The minister refused to answer that question on each occasion. He then went out of this place, was prompted by the principal secretary of the Premier (Mr Peterson), members of his own staff and the government House leader, and 45 minutes to an hour later met the press and answered that very specific question as soon as it was asked by members of the media.

I simply want to signal to you, sir, that I regard a minister who would treat the House in this kind of way, who would treat in this way legitimate questions put to him very specifically and clearly, who would refuse to answer that question and then choose to go outside and almost as a casual kind of aside refer to the time when he knew about the contamination of fuels in this province, as treating this House with contempt, as treating the privileges of members of this House with contempt.

What is the point of having a question period if after spending a length of time asking a very specific question, the minister just ignores that question and chooses instead to stonewall it until he is told by his advisers that his tactic of stonewalling is simply not going to work? It shows contempt for the House. More important, it shows contempt for the people of this province and for the public health of this province. That is why this minister should resign.

Mr Harris: I would like to take a couple of moments to comment on the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition, certainly to support everything he has said and put forward and also to indicate to you, Mr Speaker, as you reflect upon our comments today, that it may be you will want to reflect on them and think in a serious way about the rights not only of the members of this House, but indeed of Ontarians, and about what question period is, what the purpose of question period is.

I do not want to restate the facts of the situation. I think they are clear to all members and I think the Leader of the Opposition has stated them very accurately. I would add to the importance of the comments that were raised by the Leader of the Opposition that I believe, sir, that the public is increasingly wondering what question period is for. Is it a time for members on all sides of the House to get information, to get answers to questions and to find out what is going on?

Is it a time, through that questioning, as is our duty, for that information to be made public and to be available to the public or is it some kind of game? It really concerns me that the public seems to be getting this sense.

I say on behalf of my party that we do not think it is a game. Yes, politics enters into this; partisanship politics enters into it. But we do not think that is the principal reason for question period. The contempt that was shown for both parties of this House yesterday and for all the public of Ontario, through us, by the Minister of the Environment is unacceptable.

Mr Speaker, I do not know what ruling exists for you as our leader, as our parliamentary arbitrator. I do not know what vehicle exists for you to perhaps censure the minister. Indeed, I suggest to you that this minister ought to resign. Indeed, I suggest to you that there may not be that vehicle there for you and it may be that you may have to convene a meeting of key representatives of all parties in this House to look at what authority and what powers you have when such a blatant abuse of our rights as we saw yesterday is allowed to take place.

Hon Mr Conway: If I might briefly address the point of privilege the Leader of the Opposition has raised, in dealing with it I would like to make two or three observations.

The first is that I spent almost all of yesterday in the House. I heard my colleague the Minister of the Environment answer a number of questions put by my friends in the opposition during the course of question period. I want to say that the Leader of the Opposition has made a number of charges about who prompted whom. I think those are allegations he might want to really think about because he accuses me of doing some things that certainly do not square with my understanding of the reality of which I was part.

I must say that not only did the Minister of the Environment participate in question period, but he was in his place later in the afternoon addressing the situation at some length in the emergency debate that was asked for by the opposition. I well remember yesterday afternoon around five o’clock the Minister of the Environment setting out in some detail, once again, the situation that concerned honourable members opposite.

As well, in so far as a contempt of the House is concerned, I have to say that the people who watch the daily proceedings of this Legislature would probably share with me a concern that if there is a contempt of this House, it is when honourable members duly elected to do business and to debate the issues of this province in this place simply walk out and refuse to participate, as we saw yesterday.

I have to say to my friends in the opposition that of course they have a right and a responsibility to ask questions, and the government has a right and a responsibility to answer those questions. It is up to the opposition to decide how they choose to ask their questions, and it is equally up to the government to decide how it chooses to answer those questions.

I want to say to the opposition House leaders that we have seen from the government perspective activities here over the past number of months that concern us and I am sure concern the reasonable people of Ontario. We see ministers not being allowed to introduce bills and we see ministers of finance -- the provincial Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) -- not being allowed to read budget.

We have to say that there are in fact developments here that we believe are not very responsible, that are contemptuous of the place and of the traditions. We would say the opposition bears a very considerable share of the responsibility for some of those activities.

I just want to say, concerning the point of order, that the Minister of the Environment was here yesterday, both during question period and during the emergency debate; he gave an accounting of his actions in a way that I think explains what his department has been about, and it was not the Minister of the Environment who walked out of this chamber yesterday, but rather the opposition.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I have listened very carefully to the three members who have spoken. As I understand, the Leader of the Opposition rose on a point of order and it turned into a point of privilege.

I recall that on many other occasions in this House similar points have been raised and I, along with other Speakers, have made rulings on similar circumstances. As the members will know, the Speaker is here to make certain that the standing orders, as set out under power of the members who are sitting here, are maintained as I understand the standing orders, particularly during question period.

It is not up to the Speaker to state that a minister must answer in any certain way. I think I have tried to fulfil that as well as I could in the past. I must also say it is up to the Speaker not to become involved in what takes place outside the House. However, there have been occasions when I have reminded members that it is common courtesy to make announcements within this House.

I feel it is not a point of privilege.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CONTAMINATED FUEL

Mr Mackenzie: Members of this House have been treated to the spectacle of thousands of Ontario citizens being exposed to some of the most toxic and deadly contaminants in our industrial society: polychlorinated biphenyls, where a minor spill will close plants or even highways, and dioxins and furans, which are a real danger to health in even minute amounts. These chemicals, mixed with fuel by sick and unsavoury characters, have been shipped to Ontario. Their use can contaminate homes, hospitals, garages and greenhouses.

Gas station attendants and construction workers may be more directly affected than others by the nature of their contact with contaminated gas at the pumps and the use in construction of fuel for machines and heavy equipment. Here the real need to bid low makes cheaper fuel a real incentive. These workers can be exposed at levels that would not be allowed in a plant with a straight PCB spill.

This shocking disregard of the health and safety of workers and the public is underlined by this government’s hesitation in bringing in fundamental health and safety legislation such as Bill 208. The government has put a minister’s ego and an investigation ahead of the public’s right to know in terms of a threat to its health. This government listens to a powerful employer lobby that says current levels of death and injury in the workplace are acceptable and that the right to manage business should supersede a joint, equal and co-operative right to a safe and healthy workplace.

If that is the position of this government, it will stand condemned and convicted of accessory to workplace slaughter in the eyes of workers across this province. The Premier (Mr Peterson) should wake up and listen to his heart and not to the corporate wallet and proceed with Bill 208.

ABANDONED RAIL LINES

Mr Pollock: Approximately two years ago, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr Kerrio) invited me to join him to fly over the abandoned railroad line known as the Marmora subdivision. The day was an ideal day for flying and we had a good view of the abandoned railroad line. The minister had an excellent chance to assess the terrain and acquaint himself with that particular part of eastern Ontario.

The former Minister of Tourism and Recreation committed funding for a feasibility study. This document contained the pros and cons and costs and revenues of this being a recreation trail. The government has appointed an interministerial committee of four different ministries; namely, Transportation, the Environment, Tourism and Recreation, and Natural Resources. Their job was to hear briefs about abandoned railroad lines all over Ontario.

There have been many other jurisdictions that have taken over abandoned railroad lines; to name a few, Quebec, Michigan and Florida. These states and that province claim they are a boost to the tourism industry. Florida regards its abandoned railroad lines as state park corridors. When is the Ontario government going to assume responsibility for some of these abandoned railroad lines?

EDDIE REDMOND

Mr Adams: The Peterborough Petes are the élite of the Ontario Hockey League. They are the club with class, decade in and decade out.

The Petes were founded in 1956 and have produced more National Hockey League players than any other OHL team. There are currently 40 former Petes in the NHL. Coaches Nielsen, Greene, Bowman, Martin and Keenan all graduated from the Peterborough club.

The Petes have always been concerned about the education and social life of players, as well as hockey skills. Players drafted to Peterborough become a real part of the community.

Coach Dick Todd and the 1988-89 Petes are worthy representatives of this fine tradition. They have won the club’s sixth OHL title and are once again representing our province in the Memorial Cup.

The Peterborough club meant a great deal to Eddie Redmond, who died last week. Ed joined the Petes’ executive in 1968 and remained associated with the club. He followed its successes and was especially proud of this year’s team.

I am sure my colleagues will join with me, the people of Peterborough and the Peterborough Petes hockey club in offering condolences to the Redmond family. Eddie Redmond was a distinguished sportsman and citizen of this province.

NORTHEASTERN ONTARIO ONCOLOGY PROGRAM

Mr Laughren: I have written the following letter to the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan):

“I have received a copy of a letter written to you by Dr R. Corringham, director of the northeastern Ontario oncology program. Dr Corringham has, understandably, taken offence at a conversation he had with your deputy minister, Dr Martin Barkin, on Friday, May 5, just three days before your scheduled visit to Laurentian Hospital on May 8.

“Dr Barkin told Dr Corringham that if he raised the question of Dr Anthony Ho at the press conference then there would be no more visits from the minister and no more ‘goodies’ for Sudbury.

“Madam Minister, what is going on? When you allocate funds for the cancer treatment centre in Sudbury, you are not doing us a favour, you are carrying out your duties as a Minister of Health. You are spending public funds, not your own, and certainly not Dr Barkin’s. I personally don’t give a damn if I ever see your face in Sudbury, but you have an obligation to fund the northeastern Ontario oncology program without engaging in ‘bully-boy’ tactics and intimidation.

“I can only assume at this point that Dr Barkin was acting on his own and that you will offer an apology to Dr Corringham, who has worked tirelessly to make the cancer treatment centre a reality.”

POLICE OFFICERS

Mr Runciman: I rise to speak once again in support of police officers across Ontario and to recognize the concerns they have expressed over many provisions of the Race Relations and Policing Task Force report now under consideration by the Solicitor General (Mrs Smith).

The Police Association of Ontario says that police are petrified by some of the proposals and that many of them must have been drafted by, and I quote, “an idiot.” I agree, and like many police officers I am concerned about how this trendy, soft-on-crime Liberal government will react to these proposals.

This is a government that sends two cabinet ministers to the funeral of a man shot by police while driving a stolen car, yet fails to say one word of condolence to the family of an Ontario Provincial Police officer killed in the line of duty.

This is a government that restricts the weaponry of police and will not permit soft-tipped bullets, while at the same time the criminal element utilizes Uzi submachine guns and high-powered rifles.

This is a government that spouts endless rhetoric about fighting illicit drugs, but takes virtually no real action to combat the growing menace.

This is a government that ignores the reality of street gangs and their increasing violence.

This government, this Liberal government has, through its anti-police rhetoric and action, severely shaken police morale and is doing its best to thwart the efforts of our police to maintain the high degree of safety that is not only a custom in our province, it is taken as a right.

GUELPH SPRING FESTIVAL

Mr Ferraro: On a more pleasant note, I am pleased to have this opportunity to make sure all members of the House are aware of the Guelph Spring Festival and indeed to invite them all to one of the highlights of the Canadian artistic calendar.

The festival opened last Friday in Guelph and will run until 3 June, a period in which my city will be, without question, the entertainment capital of Canada. The members may already know this festival started in 1967 as a national vocal competition, but now serves as an international showcase for everything from children’s concerts to world premieres of ballets and operas.

This year’s program alone, for example, will include the first North American visit of Moscow’s Poliansky Choir and the world premiere of a murder-mystery detective opera written especially for the festival. The festival was set up 22 years ago to honour one of Guelph’s favourite sons, Edward Johnson, who was a renowned opera singer and former general manager of New York’s Metropolitan Opera.

I know the members of this House will make every attempt to be part of this four-week celebration of the arts and would want to offer their best wishes to the festival’s artistic director, Louis Applebaum, the staff of the Edward Johnson Music Foundation and everyone involved in putting Guelph and Ontario on the cultural map of the world.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mr Philip: No one can question the value of the Ontario Human Rights Commission in bringing about a fairer, more humane and more sensitive society, but at the present time its ability to do so is clouded by a series of allegations of mismanagement, irregular hiring practices and favouritism.

We have seen resignations of key staff people and indications of poor morale among the staff crippling the work of the commission. Leaders of visible minorities have wondered why members of their communities have been passed over for key appointments, and the minister himself has admitted that in the past few days he has received numerous phone calls from groups and individuals wondering what is happening to the commission.

In spite of this, the minister, rather than showing leadership, has acted as an interested spectator. Even today, we have an indication that he has no statement to present to the House to tell what action he intends to do to take care of the matters and allegations of the Human Rights Commission.

It is time for the minister to act; it is time for him and this government to establish a royal commission to look into the allegations. Nothing less will clear the air; nothing less will serve the people who feel that they have a grievance; nothing less will serve the interests of those people who feel that they have been abandoned by this government.

VISITORS

The Speaker: That completes the allotted time for members’ statements. Just before I call the next order of business, I know all members would want me to draw their attention to three former members in the lower west gallery: Pat Hayes, Ross McClellan and Milton Gregory.

Mr Brandt: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not know of anyone who served in this Legislative Assembly by the name of Milton. Could you qualify who that might be?

Mr B. Rae: This Bud’s for you.

The Speaker: If I made a mistake, I apologize.

Hon Mr Sweeney: I welcome our former colleagues back to the House again.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

VOLUNTEER OF THE YEAR

Hon Mr Sweeney: For the past three years my ministry, with the assistance of the volunteer bureaus of Ontario, has been honouring volunteers, who are the backbone of our social service agencies in the community, with the Community Service Award.

Each year, one person is selected from that list of 40 Community Service Award recipients to receive the minister’s award as Volunteer of the Year.

I am delighted to be able to introduce my ministry’s Volunteer of the Year for 1988, Larry Knapp of Sault Ste Marie. Today Larry, his wife Rhea and son Philip are seated in the east gallery and we welcome you.

[Applause]

Hon Mr Sweeney: This is truly an exceptional person. Larry is a representative of all the wonderful volunteers -- young and old, from all sectors in the community -- who give of themselves in order to improve the quality