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

October 30, 1986

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L057 - Thu 30 Oct 1986 / Jeu 30 oct 1986

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

CONSTRUCTION DELAYS

AUTOMOBILE SAFETY

CONSTRUCTION DELAYS

AUTOMOBILE SAFETY

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LAYOFFS IN SUDBURY

GO TRANSIT

RECOGNITION OF SENIOR CITIZEN

LIBERAL-NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY ACCORD

CONFERENCE ON NORTHERN COMPETITIVENESS

DR. R. GORDON BELL

DAY CARE

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

RICK HANSEN

ORAL QUESTIONS

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION LEGISLATION

PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

MINAKI LODGE

PCB SPILL

LAYOFFS IN SUDBURY

PENSION FUNDS

RENTAL HOUSING LOAN

DETROIT INCINERATOR

MINORITY-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

OBSTETRICAL SERVICES

USE OF LOTTERY FUNDS

SUNDAY RACING

VISITOR

PETITIONS

DRUG PRICING

SUNDAY RACING

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSES TO PETITIONS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LEGAL AID AMENDMENT ACT

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME AMENDMENT ACT

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME AMENDMENT ACT

PROVINCIAL OFFENCES AMENDMENT ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

CONSTRUCTION DELAYS

Mr. Offer moved resolution 50:

That in the opinion of this House, recognizing that purchasers of new homes are severely inconvenienced by multiple extensions of completion dates, the Ontario new home warranty program immediately investigate what further protection could be given to these purchasers.

Mr. Offer: As I have indicated with respect to the moving of resolution 50, it is necessary to recognize that new home purchasers are being "severely inconvenienced by multiple extensions of completion dates." In this province, we have the Ontario new home warranty program, which provides protection in certain instances to purchasers. It is incumbent upon this Legislature, and I ask it to support this resolution, to send a clear, strong message to the building sector about our deep concern with respect to this problem.

This is a matter of growing concern to a growing number of people in this province. It is causing great inconvenience, turmoil and upheaval to many families and their home lives. In my riding of Mississauga North, where there are approximately 160,000 people, there is a vibrant new home industry. Many people are purchasing homes, and I have styled this resolution because of problems that have been experienced by my constituents with respect to multiple extensions. They have asked and expect me as their representative to bring this matter to the Legislature, and indeed that is what is being done today.

I would like to indicate at this time that this matter has been raised in the ministry and that the government certainly is involved in the matter. They are keeping abreast of what is happening with respect to the new home industry and the inconvenience to many people throughout the province, not only in Mississauga North.

At this time in many parts of the province a great number of people are finding themselves in the fortunate position of being able to purchase new homes. For those fortunate enough to so purchase, there is the Ontario new home warranty program, established by a piece of legislation designed to protect the purchaser from defective workmanship. The program in Ontario, as far as my investigation has been able to uncover, is probably the second largest program in the world. We have the only legislated program in Canada and one of only three or four in the world.

There has been conciliation in more than 25,000 disputes. Most likely there has been a saving to home owners in this province of hundreds of thousands of dollars with respect to legal costs and, in many cases, legal recourse. We have paid out more than $21 million in claims to several thousand home owners, and more than 75,000 disputes have been resolved by correspondence.

It is necessary at this time to understand the claim that what we are dealing with is very much a private sector, free market problem. We are discussing matters of importance to the new home market and its reliance on the building sector. It is important to realize that we must impress upon the builders of homes in this province that people are relying more and more upon their expertise in the building of new homes.

The warranty program is, as I mentioned, set up by a piece of legislation designed to protect the purchaser. In the main, it is a good piece of legislation. It provides among other things that a person's deposit or money paid for any extras up to $20,000 is protected through this legislation. This means that after a person has paid a deposit up to $20,000, if the builder runs into financial difficulty or the home is not completed because of some problems the builder has experienced, the program will refund the money to the purchaser.

In addition, if a builder has not completed work on a new house in a good and workmanlike manner, for which the builder is responsible, the program provides a procedure in which the purchaser can have the work completed through the program at no cost. With respect to this, it is important to note that this protection to the purchaser will be secured only if the purchaser notifies the program within one year from the date of formal completion of the purchase transaction.

Also, the new home warranty program provides the purchaser with protection against an unwilling builder if there exists what is called a major structural defect. This protection is available to the purchaser for a period of five years from the date of formal completion of the purchase transaction.

This is a major piece of protection afforded the purchasers of new homes. It is a unique piece of legislation in this province, and it deals and attempts to deal with consumer protection. Yet, for the very reason that we have this legislation, problems arise.

10:10

First, the purchaser is generally unaware that his deposit and money paid for extras is protected by the Ontario new home warranty program to a maximum of only $20,000.

Second, the purchaser is unaware that the program will apply in most circumstances only to uncompleted work if notification procedures have been carried out within one year of the date of completion.

Third, the protection is applicable only to work done by the builder that is not completed in a good and workmanlike fashion. Protection under the act is not afforded to the purchaser where the builder has failed in whole to provide something he has contractually agreed to provide, and a major structural defect is the only item protected for five years under the Ontario new home warranty program. In large part, the Ontario new home warranty program is protection afforded to the purchaser for one year from the date of formal completion.

I believe it is incumbent upon this Legislature to send a clear message to the building industry that to preserve the health and confidence of that sector, this information should be made known to prospective customers before they enter into binding contracts. It is necessary for the building sector to provide this information on the provisions of the new home warranty program to prospective purchasers so these purchasers can fully and properly avail themselves of the protection offered by the program.

I have had much discussion, not only with my constituents but also with others who have been affected in this province, and the single largest concern that has been given to me is that they did not know. It was not necessarily a criticism of the plan or of the act; they were unaware of the provisions.

By passing this resolution today, members of the Legislature can send a clear message to the building sector that we expect that information to be made known to the their purchasers. I believe the building industry must meet not only the challenge of building a home but also the challenge of informing the purchaser of his or her rights and privileges under the program.

I have been in contact with the Ontario and Toronto home builders' associations, and there is indeed a code of ethics, with which I have been provided. One part of that code deals with dealing honestly and fairly with customers. I believe that providing this information to prospective customers before entering into binding agreements of purchase and sale will go a long way to providing and meeting that point of the code of ethics.

I have been provided by the associations with customer awareness brochures with respect to renovations, mortgage financing, purchasing guides, building site inspections, community involvement and purchase contracts -- what a person should do from the time he enters into a purchase agreement to the day on which he completes that agreement. It is clear that the building association is prepared to give this information to prospective purchasers.

It is clear also that we have to send a message to the building industry that all parties in the Legislature believe it must get on with the task at hand. Although we have in general an effective new home warranty program, and I believe an industry able to convey that program, it rests with us in the Legislature, as I have indicated, to send the strong clear message that we expect them to provide the purchasing public with this information. By doing so, they will be fully and properly meeting the part of their code of ethics that indicates honest and fair dealing with respect to their customers.

There is more that we have to do. Concerns have been raised with respect to what other items or conditions we can ask the building industry to have to make certain that extensions of closing dates do not take place. In this respect, we have to realize that at this time the new home building industry in Ontario is buoyant and vibrant, there is great demand for new homes in this province and working capacity is being stretched to the limit. In many cases, there are good and valid reasons for the delays in closing.

The question we have to ask is, in the event that there are good and valid reasons for delay, be it weather, working capacity or extreme demand, what obligation is there on the building industry to inform the purchasers at the earliest possible time of the necessity for an extension? How should they inform the purchaser? When should they inform the purchaser? Should it not be incumbent on the building industry to make certain that initial closing dates are realistic to the market and the demand available?

I have heard talk about interest paid on deposits. Should not interest be paid on the deposits of people purchasing new homes? That is clearly a matter of contract and negotiation. Perhaps most important, we have to ask ourselves whether, if interest is paid on deposits, that would in any way alleviate the multiple extensions of closings. We have to take a long, hard look at that concern.

Although I believe there is room for interest to be paid on deposits, I also believe we would be fooling ourselves to think that in itself would alleviate these multiple extensions of closings. We have to realize that the building industry is as anxious to complete the transactions as are the purchasers and that the interest paid on a deposit might not do much in making that happen.

What about consumer protection and information? What about provisions in the agreement that deal with multiple extensions of closing? What about provisions that deal with the right of a purchaser to rescind his agreement? What about information as to what the Ontario new home warranty program does and does not provide?

The building industry should immediately look at providing standardized clauses with respect to consumer information to be inserted in a clear and undeniable manner in their agreements so greater information can be given to the purchasers of this province as to their rights and privileges.

I see that I have three minutes or so of my initial 20 minutes.

There is much that can be done by the building industry. From my discussions with purchasers who have suffered severe inconvenience, their number one concern is that they were not informed; they did not know what was going on and they did not know what their rights and privileges were. The building industry should make certain that the provisions and protections under the Ontario new home warranty program are brought clearly and unmistakably to the attention of the purchaser.

It should immediately investigate the advisability and feasibility of providing standardized clauses in agreements in a clear and simple language that is understood by all. That would go a long way to providing protection with respect to information that the purchasers of new homes in this province so sorely need and so greatly desire.

10:20

Mr. Speaker: The member has two minutes and 12 seconds for his wrapup.

Mr. O'Connor: The government's handling of this issue is a classic case of too little, too late. This has been a serious, ongoing problem for thousands of Ontario home owners and prospective home owners for the better part of this year and the government has been well aware of it. I have a batch of newspaper articles from which I could quote at length that fairly and accurately document the problem that has existed throughout this year. There were headlines as far back as February and March 1986 in the Toronto Star. I will quote one, "Builders Aborting Home Deals Could Create Real Uproar."

The minister and this government have been aware of this problem throughout this year. After meeting with groups of people in my riding who were affected by this situation, after discussing the problem with town officials in Oakville and after developing a five-point program for the alleviation of some of these difficulties, I wrote a lengthy and thoughtful letter as early as March 12 to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) to try to assist in this situation.

After repeated requests for a reply and after incessant nagging of his office to get something out of him, on May 16, in excess of two months later, he deigned to send me a two-paragraph letter thanking me for my thoughtful letter of March 12. Big deal; how did that help the situation?

After further pushing and badgering his office for some substantive reply, I finally got a second letter, dated July 31. I must admit the minister was improving. This time the letter had three paragraphs. However, the letter was similar in nature and wording to the first letter. He did indicate that he recognized it was a problem and that he was prepared to refer it to his staff and to the Ontario new home warranty program to monitor the housing market to determine what might be done. Again, big deal.

The problem has been well known by this government through the newspapers and through representations from myself and other honourable members representing ridings in the Golden Horseshoe area, where the problem is most severe.

Throughout the piece, many have urged upon the minister the requirement for some legislation to better protect prospective new home buyers. The minister's consistent response -- I will give him credit for being consistent -- has been that he will not legislate, that there is no way he will interfere in the free market in this circumstance. Again, the papers document this as do his letters to me and as does his response as late as yesterday to questions put to him in the House by members of our party.

He whined to us about the difficulty of legislating in areas where circumstances -- I admit there are some -- make delays inevitable and unavoidable in relation to weather and lack of supplies. It is difficult to legislate in that area, but there is much that he could do.

I commend the honourable member who proposed this motion for reviewing some of the areas in which legislation might be appropriate. However, after a year of full knowledge of the problems and with very substantive proposals put to the minister as solutions, what has been the government's response?

It is a private member's motion which, in reading the motion and setting aside the verbiage, recommends that the Ontario new home warranty program immediately investigate -- that is a curious word "investigate." Here we are, nearly in November, and the minister decides, through his parliamentary assistant, this group should investigate. We have been investigating all year. We are well past the point of investigating. We know all about the problems. What we want are some solutions to the problems.

Mr. Jackson: That is asking too much.

Mr. O'Connor: It seems it is asking too much of this government. As I say, we have investigated and we have met with the people involved. I have met with town officials and others. We have put together a program which, again for the record, I would like to put to this House so it will not be lost on this government. As I said, it is a five-point program, and it is the policy of this party. It would go a long way to solving a lot of the problems that are getting worse as time goes on.

1. This government should introduce legislation requiring builders to pay interest on deposits at a reasonable rate for the period of time commencing with the completion date set out in the agreement of purchase and sale until the date of closing.

At present, I have people in my riding who have waited in excess of a year. I know of one person who has waited in excess of two years -- the delay has gone on for two years -- for the commencement of his home. He has put down a deposit of $25,000. Under current law, he is not entitled to any interest on that deposit whatsoever. Of course, the builder holding the deposit can invest it and make interest for himself.

There is thus a great incentive for builders to want to delay the commencement and the completion of these new houses, not only for purposes of gaining a little interest on these fairly substantial deposits but also because of the rising house market, in which prices increased this year in the Metro area by 30, 35 or 40 per cent. There is great incentive to want the purchasers to get out of their deal so they can resell that lot and that house to someone else for perhaps 40 per cent more than they did to the waiting purchaser. It makes eminent sense that the incentive to want to delay should be taken away from the builder by requiring him to pay interest when a delay is created.

2. The government should also introduce legislation prohibiting the sale of any lot prior to registration of the subdivision.

As my friend has pointed out and as the minister has pointed out, some of these delays relate to registration delays, red-tape tie-ups at the municipal level. If that problem were eliminated, a good deal of the delays could be eliminated. Why do we not legislate that simple point?

3. The government should promote the establishment of municipal information centres to inform prospective buyers of the stage of development and any problems that might occur in registration if the legislation outlined in item 2 is not implemented.

Again, my friend referred to better information and co-operation with the builders in that respect. I commend him in that regard, but surely that promotion should come from this level, with a requirement that these information centres be set up so home buyers are adequately advised as to the potential for delays and problems in the purchasing of their new homes.

4. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations should develop standard new home purchase agreements that are directed more towards consumer protection.

At present, these agreements are drafted by the lawyers for the developers; they are horrendously one-sided. If there were some ministerial input that required a better balance between the home purchaser and the builder, providing him with some of the protections I have mentioned in items 1, 2 and 3 right within his agreement, that would be of assistance. That does not require legislation; it can be done at the ministerial level without legislation.

5. The minister should sponsor advertising campaigns to warn prospective buyers of the pitfalls of buying a new home, including the possibility of legitimate delays involving labour, weather and related purposes.

Again there is no requirement for legislation there. The excuse the minister has used consistently for doing nothing, nothing at all, in this area is that he cannot legislate because it would disrupt the situation more than help it. At least three, and perhaps more, of the points we have suggested by way of a program do not require legislation. The ministry should at least move in that area. It has been blatant in its lack of response and lack of protection for the people of Ontario in this regard.

10:30

Yesterday the minister took issue with a point I made, that there are thousands of people involved. From checking around with some of the members who represent ridings in areas that are affected, I suggest the figures are well into the thousands. It is not an insignificant number of people. If we go around the Golden Horseshoe and Toronto, they are, and we are, well into the thousands. I see the parliamentary assistant nodding in agreement perhaps at that point.

The government has fallen down badly on this issue. It has not done the job it was elected to do. I suggest that if it could swallow its political pride and adopt some of the points of this program, much of what is now a problem could be met in the near future.

Mr. Swart: In rising to speak on this resolution, I must say I have not decided yet whether I will support it. It purports to do something for the hundreds and thousands of home owners who have had problems with closure, but it is such a weak resolution that it has little meaning or substance. It largely appears to be an apologist motion for the government in power in this province.

The first thing we have to recognize is that the present home warranty program, and particularly the composition of the board, is inadequate to provide neutrality, because it is a board composed of builders. At least to some extent, they are going to protect their own. By having them do the investigation, we will not get a totally neutral report.

I want to recognize that the home warranty program has provided some very substantial benefits to home owners, but not nearly as much as it should have were it an independent program. I am not terribly happy with the proposed Ontario Motor Vehicle Arbitration Plan to give protection to buyers of new automobiles, but it is much more independent than the board of the home warranty program, which is totally an industry board. It is rather ludicrous to have it investigate. There should be a committee composed of consumers, and some of the people from those homes where they have had the major problems should be on that committee, not just the builders in this province.

I was a bit amused to hear the member say that this was a free market problem and that the government perhaps had to intervene in this issue. His minister has stated over and over again that he wants to leave everything with the marketplace. He certainly has with regard to insurance, and we know what has happened to the people. Now we have his parliamentary assistant saying they had better intervene. They had better intervene, but it had better be meaningful intervention and not what is contemplated in this resolution.

The member suggested this House should send a message. If this is the only message we are going to send from this House, it is going to be so weak it will not change a single thing.

I too wrote to the minister. The member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor) stated that he wrote a letter setting out his party's policy. I wrote a letter setting out my party's policy, and I suggest it will do a bit more for home owners who are caught in this terrible situation of closing dates not being met and sometimes going on for six months or a year afterwards. I sent that letter to the minister on July 30. I want to put some of it on record.

I stated to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations:

"The problems of house builders pushing back completion dates has reached a magnitude requiring decisive action by you, including the introduction of legislation. Some developer-builders are using unrealistic closing dates as a gimmick to promote sales. Further, they are consciously delaying completion in order to get a higher price from the agreed purchaser or from a new buyer if the original backs out because of the delay."

I pointed out that the harm from this practice, and often it is severe, is always to the buyer.

"Frequently, they have sold their home or given notice to the landlord and have no place to live. They may end up paying more than the contract price or cancelling the contract, yet the price of purchasing another home will have risen since the first contract was signed. Always, the buyer is the loser while the developer-builder benefits."

Deer Run Estates in Bolton is another recent horrible example of this widespread problem, and I am aware of it in Mississauga and elsewhere in this province. I talked about the responsibility of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to deal with these very real problems. As the member for Oakville has already stated, he said he is going to leave it to the free market; he is not going to introduce any legislation or even any regulation.

This is what our party proposed in my letter to the minister:

"A law to provide fairness to new home buyers is absolutely necessary and need not be complex or difficult in administration. First, it would be mandatory that standard agreements of sale-purchase be used." Even the minister has admitted that would be desirable. I suggest it should be mandatory.

"Second, the completion date on the agreement would be binding. Where it is not met by the builder-developer, substantial penalties would be paid by the developer-builder to the purchaser.

"Third, where there is a long postponement of completion, the buyer would have the option of cancelling the purchase contract, with the down payment refunded and interest and penalty levied against the builder.

"Fourth" -- this is important -- "an independent panel, including consumer representatives, would be established with authority to waive part or all of the late completion penalty if it was established that the delay was beyond the builder's control," whether it be from strikes, unavailability of materials or whatever the case might be.

I said to the minister:

"I urge you to prepare legislation based on the foregoing principles and announce immediately that it will be introduced when the Legislature reconvenes in the fall. If not, I will be tabling my own private member's bill for debate and vote." I intend to do that.

Instead of having something from the minister, what we have today is this weak-kneed resolution from the parliamentary assistant that will do nothing to resolve the existing problems or prevent them from arising in future.

I want to make one other point, because it is important; it is relative to the Rembrandt Home Owners' Association. If there is any group of people in this province who have this long, ongoing problem, it is the Rembrandt Home Owners' Association. They took it up with the Conservative government. The minister at that time, who now is looking after horse racing, promised the government would compensate them and take some action on it. The Liberals brought this up time after time. It was not just some of the critics; even the man who now is Premier (Mr.

Peterson) brought this up as Leader of the Opposition and demanded that the government compensate them. Eventually, the Rembrandt Home Owners' Association took it to the Ombudsman, and the Ombudsman made a recommendation that they be compensated.

Orland French had an

article about this in the Globe and Mail a few days ago. He said: "Even the intervention of the Ombudsman's office has not helped. The Ombudsman looked into their case and decided they warranted assistance from the government." The Ombudsman decided there had been enough negligence on the part of the government -- this was before the home warranty plan -- that they should be compensated. "The Legislature's standing committee of the Ombudsman also recommended to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations `pay or cause payment to be made' for the repair of damage."

10:40

What has the minister done about it? He has refused to accept the recommendation of the Ombudsman. A letter sent to the Rembrandt Home Owners' Association by the minister, after giving all the reasons the ministry should not do it, states: "In this particular case, this ministry did attempt to mediate the dispute between the Rembrandt Home Owners' Association and the builder. Unfortunately, these efforts did not lead to a satisfactory solution. It is now the view of my ministry and the government that it would be inappropriate to comply with your recommendation and that of the standing committee on the Ombudsman."

If the member who introduced this resolution wants the government to show its good faith in dealing with these kinds of problems, he will go to the cabinet and say, "You have an obligation to look after and compensate these Rembrandt home owners." That is the way he can begin to show he means this. The next very important step is that the government bring forward legislation to protect these people. A weak-kneed resolution is not sufficient for the problem we have in this province.

Mr. Callahan: I am pleased to rise to speak on this motion. I would like to approach it from a slightly different angle. One of the difficulties that exists today is that most purchasers commit, not a cardinal sin but certainly a very large mistake, by not taking offers to purchase to their lawyers before they are signed. The difficulty which arises is that no contract is a standard contract. In fact, contracts become more and more complex every day. They acquire more and more pages attached to them. They contain more and more rather unusual terms, though nothing dishonest.

For that reason, it is very important that a person planning on purchasing a home take that contract to his lawyer. That is the largest responsibility of the lawyer, which is reflected in his fees, as I think my colleagues in this House who are of the legal profession will agree. If the purchaser fails to do that, he is then bound by the terms of the agreement.

When one couples this with the fact that homes today are being built and sold in great numbers -- in fact, so much so that homes are being sold even before they are built -- it in some respects causes problems for the prospective purchasers. What happens is that if the developer has sold the home already, he can move his tradesmen on to the next lot, work a little bit on that one and then move on to another. Of course, that results in delays to the purchasers, who, understandably, are expecting to complete a transaction on a particular date. They may have taken steps such as those suggested by the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) and expect they are going to be able to move in.

The reality of life is that the increase in the value of real estate has been so dramatic for the past 10 years, and still continues, that very often when the person signs the contract, by the time closing comes around he has already acquired a rather significant capital gain, so he does not complain much. He is happy to extend it, because to extend it is to have an asset which is growing in value.

The danger exists -- and I do not for one minute suggest that the bulk of builders out there would ever do this -- that a builder may use noncompletion and extensions of deadlines to the detriment of an unsuspecting purchaser in that the purchaser may decide he cannot continue to wait for this house to be built and may very well decide to get out of the contract. Of course, the capital benefits will accrue to the builder. In addition, in the wording of most contracts, the purchaser will lose the interest on any deposit that he has paid on which interest may have been accruing if he had some foresight.

To go to the home warranty program, perhaps the terminology might be changed a bit. The word "warranty" seems to produce a feeling that builders responsibilities are greater than they are. The home warranty program is excellent in that it provides certain protections for home owners, but within the framework the word "warranty" could sometimes be misleading to a purchaser.

I can honestly say the program has taken positive steps to try to bring to the attention of the public, including real estate agents, prospective purchasers and so on, its functions and limits. If a purchaser takes his contract to a lawyer before it is signed, he will recognize he is paying, under most contracts usually, the fee for the home warranty. This can be in the neighbourhood of $200 or $225, I believe. One would think he would want to have an assurance on what that warranty covers. As my colleague indicated, there is a limitation on the listing of defects in workmanship that expires after a year, and one loses any benefits one had.

I have run into experiences where purchasers have not even realized they have to go out seven or eight days before the closing to list all the defects on this warranty so that those are covered, because that is all that is covered. This is not a problem that is going to be solved in any single fashion by tinkering with a piece of legislation. It is going to be helped only by a number of things. It is going to be helped by making the public aware of the provisions of the home warranty program in a current and up-to-date fashion, and that is being done.

I understand that within the past few weeks this program has produced videotapes for distribution to various public areas so that people can educate themselves about the program.

In addition to that there will be a responsibility, and perhaps we are sending a message as well to the real estate agents. They are a very responsible group in this province and will accept that message from this Legislature in passing the bill, but perhaps they should be a little more comprehensive in explaining what the program is and how it protects the buyer. If they fail to do that, the real question in a nutshell boils down to knowledge and the ability to benefit from that knowledge. If one does not have that knowledge, one can put the best programs in place and people will never reap the benefits of them.

In the main, it falls to the responsible parties involved in these transactions with purchasers that there be this indication of what the program provides. Perhaps it should also be highlighted in a preprinted form that would be attached to every offer to purchase and would tell them exactly what the home warranty program provides. In that way, if they do not choose to go to a lawyer beforehand to have it explained, people will at least know what they are dealing with, and that is of some significant advantage.

It is very important that this program continue to exist, because it does provide protection for home owners, but only if they understand the limitations and the scope of the program. Having paid for the protection, one would think they would want to know what it is.

I will support the motion of the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer), because it may jog the memories of those people who are responsible for providing this information to the purchasers and make them aware that, in doing this, they enhance their own profession. If we find situations coming up -- and they may come up because of the turnover of real estate -- where people have paid a fee and are losing their rights under the home warranty program because of delays, it is going to put the whole program in jeopardy.

In the long range, the people who will suffer from that will be the public; in addition, the building profession will lose the good name it has in the main. In the larger building units, as in every bushel of apples, there are a couple of bad ones. Basically, they are responsible people and they should be doing everything possible within the framework of their profession to make certain that people are well informed so there will not be any people hurt and it will not spill over on to their untarnished reputations.

I am going to support the motion made by my colleague.

10:50

Mr. Cousens: I rise to speak about the problems of the new home buyer in our province. We are encountering one of the largest rates of growth of any community in the country, probably even in North America. In my riding in the southern York region, 6,000 homes are under construction in Markham, about 4,000 to 5,000 in Vaughan and another 3,000 to 4,000 in Richmond Hill. Eighty per cent of the homes are being built by reputable, good contractors and builders and are houses that are being sold without any problems, but 20 per cent or under are having problems the like of which people do not deserve to go through.

What are we doing about it in this government? Nothing. The Ministry of Skills Development is not putting the money in there to help find or train tradesmen to do the job. Therefore, it is no wonder builders are having trouble.

We see the Ministry of Transportation and Communications doing next to nothing to increase public transit by train in our area. We are seeing nothing done about roads that go in. We are seeing nothing done by the Ministry of Education for schools. There will be 7,000 or 8,000 young people without schools next September. We are seeing a myriad of problems in our growing communities and these problems are being generated by the lack of support and concern from the government.

There is no financial protection for the new home buyer when he goes to get his mortgage. The mortgage and finance companies will hold the price of a mortgage for nine months, but if a delay goes beyond that length of time, buyers may well have to renegotiate their mortgage. Interest rates being stable for now, it has not been a problem. It could be a problem if interest rates started to rise next year as people realize the bad job the government is doing.

We do not see any consumer protection. For a person who buys a house, there is often nothing but an artist's rendering. There should be a rule that says: "No artist's rendering. What you get is exactly what is in this picture." One will see landscape, trees and all kinds of other things that might not be possible because the houses are jammed together and the sidewalk is right up to the door.

I am concerned that home buyers in Ontario are not getting the protection that consumers get when they buy a condominium. Condominium buyers have a 10-day cooling-off period; the ink is wet, but they have 10 days in which they can rub it out. We do not have any protection. The ink is still wet, and that contract made between the new home buyer and the builder is in effect. Why do we not change it so that there is some protection for the new home buyer?

When one is buying a cottage, there are three things one looks at. The three rules are location, location and location. If one is buying a new home, the first rule should be the builder; the second one the builder; and the third one the builder.

What is a builder doing for one? How reputable is he? How good is he going to be? What can one do to depend upon him to fulfil his responsibilities? We have to do a lot of things. Fortunately, the Toronto Home Builders' Association is trying to do a job. It is trying to discipline its members from within, and I am grateful it is doing that, but a small number of bad apples are doing an awful lot to hurt the rest of the industry, especially the consumer who is about to make his biggest investment.

We need new regulations on the building industry, a self-regulating body to be implemented to monitor the performance of builders, similar to the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario. Lawyers are registered, accountants are licensed, real estate agents are licensed and surveyors are licensed; they are all licensed. This prevents unscrupulous people from acting in their businesses.

Why do we not license builders personally rather than by a name, a numbered company that can change when it decides to go out of business and do something different? It could prevent unscrupulous, dishonest, disreputable builders from re-registering and restarting up. The industry should begin to regulate itself more.

I agree that we have to expand the mandate for the new home warranty program. We should look right from the very beginning stage when a person signs a contract for a new home. That is when HUDAC should begin to have more of an interest in it; the time should begin then so that the new home buyer has some protection.

Maybe we should begin to look at least at giving people interest on their deposit money in cases where there is a delay in building a house. Maybe we should begin to look at expanding the protection limits of HUDAC from the $20,000 set in 1974 to something more realistic today. Maybe HUDAC should begin to start looking after the leaky basement. A leaky basement is the big problem people have when they have a house, believe it or not, and it is not covered under the new home warranty program:

Let us not deal with HUDAC in one area. Let us look at the whole subject and expand it. Let us have more information on builders. At present, if people want to check out their builder, how do they do it? Where do they get the information? How do they find out how many conciliations that person has had? I believe there should be a central registry that would give new home buyers objective evaluations of builders, possibly giving them a rating. The existing available information to a new home buyer is very limited, and that could be improved.

Why does the government not come up with an ombudsman for building, for new building, for new home buyers, so they could go to someone who would help to arbitrate disputes between the builder and the buyer? Such an office could be part of the new home warranty program. It would have the power to make decisions up to a certain level of cost. Car manufacturers are doing that now, and it is working out extremely well.

Why do we not do something about the inspectors who are making the inspections for the warranty program? What training and expertise do they have? Should there not be a stated, specific level of training to help standardize and give the public a degree of protection? Some inspectors have extensive building experience and others have minimal. There is little or no value to some inspections when there is no consistency and there are no base standards.

How about the final inspection? This is something we could all begin to do to help new home buyers when they are about to take over their home. The final inspection is often rushed. The builder has a

schedule and he has three or four to inspect that morning, the new home buyer's family is in the car waiting to take over the house and the truck is coming up the street to deliver the furniture. More time should be given to that final inspection and more guidance given to the new home buyers so they know what to check off. Maybe at that point the builder could give a final certificate saying the house is complete, and then there is a point at which the new home warranty program can say, "All right, that is the time the house was completed and handed over to the buyer."

I believe there has to be far better disclosure in the contract between the new home buyer and the person he is buying the house from so there are no hidden charges and that there should be a way of describing what all the costs are rather than à la carte. Sometimes the new home buyer is taken because he does not have all the information he should have. There has to be some way to protect the new home buyer other than by sharing it with a lawyer. Maybe one of the most important things we could do is have more information disseminated to new home buyers across the province so that they become aware of their rights and what is being done and what is not being done.

For instance, why do we not come along and change the agreement by attaching to an offer of purchase a description of the neighbourhood, of what is going to be there, things such as schools, stores, shopping and roads? Could that not be attached to an offer and become something the builders in new subdivisions are compelled to give, so there is some honesty and people are not surprised later? We have to have far more openness and far less secretiveness, so the new home buyer is truly protected.

I have a serious problem in my riding and I am concerned that many people who are unlucky do not have any recourse. They do not have anyone to turn to. I would support anything we can do to give more teeth to the new home warranty program. I would do anything to help the builders themselves to have more policing strength over the bad builders and to support the good ones. I would also support the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations looking at all the acts that affect all the areas in order to help the buyer.

11:00

Mr. Offer: In the short time left to me, I would like to personally thank the members who have taken

part in the debate.

I take note of the comments of the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens). However, there is one thing about which I was somewhat concerned; that is, not one suggestion was directed towards the problem of delayed closings.

I thank the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan) for his thoughtful comments on the obligation and responsibility of the legal profession.

I thank the member for Welland-Thorold, yet I regret his reservations about allowing this Legislature to send a message to the building industry. I am concerned that there are more words than actions, and I ask for his support in this resolution.

I thank the member for Oakville for his comments. I would like to touch upon two things, the first being the interest paid on deposit. As one who practised in the real estate market for many years, I think we have to properly and honestly ask ourselves whether that will alleviate the problem of delayed closings. I think we know what the answer is; the answer is no. The builders have as firm a desire to complete the transactions as the purchasers.

Second, with respect to the standard agreement, in the new home industry we have, by and large, a standard agreement; many of the clauses are the same. My concern is that I want standardized provisions within the agreement clearly brought to the attention of the consumers of this province so that greater information and protection can be afforded to them. With that, I believe the purchasers of this province, not only of Mississauga North but also of all ridings, will be properly and fully protected.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): This ends the debate on item 21.

AUTOMOBILE SAFETY

Mr. McCague moved resolution 22:

That this House recognizes the improved safety resulting from eye-level brake indicators on automobiles and strongly encourages the Minister of Transportation and Communications to take appropriate measures to encourage the seeking of mandating of their installation on all new vehicles manufactured for sale in Ontario and to encourage citizens of Ontario to retrofit their vehicles.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member has 20 minutes for his presentation, and he may reserve any portion of it for the windup.

Mr. McCague: I am pleased to have the opportunity to present this resolution to the Legislature and would like to reserve any time remaining after my remarks to be used at the end.

I realize that part of this resolution has been answered by the federal government at this time. This resolution has been on Orders and Notices for about a year, and as of September 1, 1986, it is necessary for all car manufacturers selling in Ontario to have the lights installed on those vehicles. Therefore, I will spend the bulk of my time today talking about the installation of these lights on cars that do not have them.

The rear-window brake light is simply a third stop light mounted on the centre line of the vehicle between the top of the rear window and a point no less than three inches below the edge of the window.

In 1978, a United States field test evaluation of rear lighting systems was done to establish the effectiveness of different rear lighting and signalling systems. This was the concept that was tested. It was to provide a single, centre, high-mounted stop light at the approximate eye level of the following driver. The stop light was positioned on the vehicle's trunk, just beneath the centre line of the rear window. This stop signal was supplemental to the normal stop light.

Second, it was to provide two high-mounted stop lights, one on each side of the trunk, directly below the rear window, at the approximate eye level of the following driver. These stop lights were supplemental to the normal stop and turn signal lamps of the vehicle, to separate the present lamp from the stop and turn functions of existing signal lamps in the vehicle and provide no redundancy.

Approximately 2,100 taxicabs in Washington, DC, participated in the study. Four groups of equal size were formed to evaluate the rear-end collision experience of vehicles configured in terms of the three design concepts, as contrasted with the experience of a conventionally configured or control group.

During the 12-month study period, the four groups accumulated approximately 60 million vehicle-miles under a broad range of weather and road conditions. Drivers in the several groups had been matched for age, sex and prior accident records. During the 12-month period, the four groups experienced a total of 1,470 accidents, of which 217, or 15 per cent, involved taxicabs being struck in the rear while in operation.

The most significant finding of the study was that the taxicabs equipped with the rear lighting configuration involving the addition of a single, centre, high-mounted stop light had fewer than half the rear-end collisions experienced by the control group.

This reduction was achieved whether measured in terms of absolute number or frequency of accidents or in terms of accident rate per million miles travelled. This finding apparently is statistically reliable with a possibility of less than one in 10,000 that the results would occur by chance alone.

In addition, the effectiveness of the single-light configuration increased during night-time operation and under conditions where there was almost complete certainty that the stop lights were illuminated just prior to or at the time of impact.

Further, the mean cost to repair the cabs with this rear lighting system was lowest by an order of magnitude among the systems tested, indicating that these accidents were less severe than accidents involving other stop light configurations.

While the rear-end accident rate of cabs with a single, centre, high-mounted configuration was impressively lower, the rear-end collision rates of the other two experimental groups were similar to that of the control group.

It was concluded that the supplemental single, centre, high-mounted stop signal has the potential to dramatically reduce the occurrence of rear-end collisions on a national scale. It was recommended that the findings in this study be verified by further testing the single-lamp concept in a different geographical area and with a different type of passenger vehicle.

The conclusions drawn from the results of this study are as follows:

The mounting of a single, high stop light on the rear of a passenger vehicle will reduce the incidence of rear-end collisions by half, as compared with the accident rate for vehicles not having the additional lamp.

This reduction of rear-end collisions is due in some way to the enhanced conspicuousness of the stop signal since it was found to be more effective both at night, as opposed to during the day, and for situations where it was highly likely that the brakes were applied prior to the impact.

Also, the effectiveness of the high-mounted lamp increased during night-time operations and under conditions where it was more certain that brakes were being applied just prior to or at the time of impact.

Where the presence of a single high-mounted lamp did not prevent a rear-end collision from occurring, it did reduce the damage suffered by the lead vehicle in such collisions.

The damage estimates for vehicles having single high-mounted lamps were 38 per cent lower than the damage estimates for control vehicles.

It can be concluded that the single high-mounted lamp resulted in faster brake application in the following vehicle, resulting in a slower speed at impact and therefore less damage to the lead vehicle.

11:10

It was recommended that a second field study should be conducted to validate and verify the findings of this investigation. The second study should attempt to replicate the experimental conditions of the present study, comparing the lamp with the control configuration using a fleet other than taxicabs and a city other than Washington, DC.

A second study sponsored by the US Department of Transportation was commissioned, and a final report came out in May 1980. This study confirmed the effectiveness of an auxiliary high-mounted stop light in reducing collisions. The present study used 5,400 telephone company passenger vehicles, half test, half control, which accumulated 55 million miles during a 12-month continuous data collection period.

The results showed a statistically significant 53 per cent reduction in relevant rear-end impact rates in the test group as compared to the control group. These findings were thus consistent with the previous study on taxicabs, which showed a 54 per cent reduction in rear-end collisions.

Both studies suggest not only that the rate of rear-end accidents is decreased but also that the cost is less for accidents that occur involving the test vehicles. Both studies also suggest the effectiveness of auxiliary stop lamps may be even greater at night and in the hours of dawn and dusk.

An important difference between the present and the previous study is in the population of drivers used and the nature of their driving. The previous study used taxicabs. Cab drivers operate routinely in highly congested areas: airports, bus and train terminals, city streets. Cab drivers are, in our opinion, aggressive drivers who change lanes, turn and stop more abruptly and more often than the average driver does. In part this is due to seeking, picking up and discharging fares and attempting to complete each run quickly. Cabs, moreover, do not generally shuttle between specific locations familiar to them.

In responding to a call they often must search for an address, and the associated driving is of an uncertain, stop-and-go nature. Such is the nature of taxicab operations.

The population of drivers in the present study is quite different, however. They are not under the pressure of being paid by the mile or the metre. They do not routinely operate in congested areas, as do taxicabs. Their driving patterns conform much more to those of the general public than does the pattern of the cab drivers. The telephone company drivers use much less hunting behaviour, in that they do not seek passengers from the street, nor do they search for a high number of unfamiliar addresses.

The present population of drivers is, in our judgement, a very safety conscious and conservative group. Accident reporting is compulsory, and safe driving is a fundamental requirement of continued employment. As such, the accident rate for the telephone company vehicles is lower than for the general public. They have relatively few drivers under age 20 or over age 55. They operate for business purposes, and they drive mainly during daytime business hours. Walk-around inspection of each vehicle is mandatory before a driver takes a vehicle out of the garage or off the company lot.

Thus, in many respects the sample of drivers and vehicles in the present study would seem to have provided a stringent test of the possible benefit of the auxiliary stop lamp. In fact, one may wonder how the lamp could show a 50 per cent reduction in relevant rear-enders, as was found. Much of the answer lies in the nature of the accidents involved. Even the most defensive of drivers is vulnerable to impact from the rear, and so to find a reduction in relevant rear-enders similar to that found with taxicabs is not as unusual as might first appear.

It may also be noted that the previous study used full-sized vehicles, all of which were Chrysler products. Theoretically, the effect observed in that study might have been limited to vehicles of that manufacturer, possibly because of the manufacturer's configuration of the tail lights in the control group. The current results, however, indicate that the effect holds for all the major US vehicle manufacturers and across a wide range of model years from 1970 to 1979.

In sum, the driver population used in the taxicab and telephone company fleets would appear as extremes that bracket the driving public fairly well, with the exception of recreational driving, alcohol involvement and young drivers, say age 16 to 20, or elderly drivers, age 55 and beyond.

The benefit of the auxiliary stop lamp observed in the current study is a conservative estimate of its true potential for reducing rear-end accidents.

In the vehicle signalling and lighting community, there has been much discussion as to why a given configuration of lamps would or would not be an improvement over existing design. By and large, laboratory and simulation investigations have been inconclusive. Controlled driving studies have not been much more encouraging.

One reason for the lack of results is that in a laboratory or controlled driving experiment, one must control the risks to the subject drivers; therefore, the driver is not exposed to the normal day-in and day-out hazards of driving. In addition, most subjects in an experiment consider the activity as a test of their abilities; therefore, they are alerted and are generally on their best behaviour.

The foregoing conditions tend to eliminate the potential alerting function of a novel stop-lamp configuration in a controlled experiment. Thus, the study is reduced to comparing driver reaction times for different displays in reactions made by attentive subjects. Once signal intensity is above threshold, however, it is difficult to demonstrate significant differences in reaction time because of test conditions. Attention-sharing studies in which the driver presumably is distracted by secondary tasks attempt to get around this problem; nevertheless, they also are conducted on alerted subjects.

A large field study offers some release from these constraints and thus may be more likely to reveal effects that are otherwise masked. This appears to be true for the current study and the taxicab study.

One question is why a single, high-mounted auxiliary stop lamp would be effective where dual high-mounted lamps apparently are not of additional value. The previous study evaluated dual high-mounted lights, and there are sparse data on the dual high-mounted lights on the Buick Riviera and the Oldsmobile Toronado. In the foregoing situations, the dual high-mounted lamps were completely redundant to the standard lamps, both functionally and in terms of essential visual geometry.

The single, centre, high-mounted stop lamp, however, has certain unique properties. First, it is an unambiguous signal that the vehicle's brake pedal is being depressed. The auxiliary lamp never serves as an ongoing or turn signal,

whereas at night, the standard lamps require the following driver to detect an increase in the brightness as a signal from depression of the brake pedal and the single lamp merely requires detection.

One might argue that in the daytime, both the single, auxiliary lamp and the other lamps operate in the same way, especially where the turn signals are separate and a different colour. Yet there is still a degree of ambiguity, because during the early morning and at dusk, in rain, haze or fog, some vehicles will be running with their present lamps on while others will not.

I will reserve the remaining time until the end, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Charlton: I rise this morning to support the resolution of the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. McCague). Having said that, I think members will have to pardon me if, during the course of my comments, I express some cynicism and sarcasm. The resolution deals with a very important issue. That is why I feel I probably will have to express a little bit of cynicism and sarcasm.

The member explained in his opening remarks that the resolution has been in Orders and Notices for a year. I understand that and it is a fair comment. That does not detract from what I feel about the whole issue of vehicle safety on our highways and thoroughfares.

11:20

The eye-level brake indicator at the back of cars is to me a symbol of almost complete failure on the part of our society -- in the case of Ontario, represented by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications -- to provide significant leadership in the quest for safety on our roads and highways. I say it is a symbol because there are so many other examples sitting out there, unfulfilled, that could provide increased safety to the motorists and pedestrians of this province.

This resolution has been on the order paper for slightly more than a year. For a short time before the last election, the member who has placed this motion was the Minister of Transportation and Communications and could have made the changes this resolution talks about. Prior to his stint in that ministry, he was in the cabinet of this province for a number of years and should have been leading the fight for these changes.

The eye-level brake-light indicator we are talking about in this resolution is only a small symbol of the things we should be seriously looking at in this province, through the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, to provide leadership for the people of this province in highway and road safety.

We have heard discussions for five or six years about the studies that have been done elsewhere about headlights. We are right in the middle of a week of "leave your headlights on" because studies from around the world clearly show that having headlights on at all times while vehicles are in motion can provide a significant reduction in accidents. Our governments have been talking about it. To some extent, the auto industry has accepted its eventuality but has opposed its immediate implementation for a number of years. We do not see it happening in terms of government regulation at the provincial or federal level. The talk is still there, and eventually it will happen.

I suggest that the actual regulation, whether it is eventually provincial or federal, will not be put in place until all the major auto manufacturers have done it anyway. This is the case with the example we have today. The former minister, the member for Dufferin-Simcoe, is correct that, although his motion was moved or tabled last year before the regulation came into effect, as of September the regulation was in place after all the auto makers had already done the job.

We have seen the airbag debate hanging around for 10 years, and there is still no final resolution to that debate. We have also seen growing concern over impaired driving in Ontario. It has been escalating over the course of the past few years. The former Attorney General, Mr. McMurtry, picked up that battle some years ago and the present Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has gone through this House with some amendments to legislation to proceed to increase the pressure in the battle against drunk driving.

On the other hand, in the real world, we have known about technologies that could provide real assistance on the question of impaired driving. There are very simple devices called breathalysers, which we use after the fact in today's approach to drunk driving, which are installed in the centre of steering wheels and refuse to allow an inebriated driver to start his car.

Why will we not take on the auto makers? Why will we not force the installation of those kinds of devices that will greatly enhance the safety of motor vehicle operations in our province? We will pass a regulation installing those kinds of breathalyser switches in cars probably eight to 10 months after the major auto makers have already put them in place.

Why are we not providing the leadership in the approach we take to highway safety? Why can our governments, which have access to all the studies constantly being done worldwide, not take the facts that are provided to them in those studies and provide the leadership to ensure that an absolute minimum of people are put at risk as a result of the inappropriate operation of vehicles in this province?

One of the things we knew a long time ago about the operation of motor vehicles is that a vehicle which is unsafe puts not only its driver but also a great many other people at risk. We set up an auto inspection system that most people refer to as the safety check to try to deal with that. It was a good start, but it was inadequate in the ultimate sense of safety on our highways. One has to go in for the safety check only if and when one is selling a car to someone else. Once a person has had his car safety-checked, it is good for as long as he keeps that car.

Everybody knows that is not adequate to protect the public. Other jurisdictions have gone to annual safety checks. We have not taken that step in Ontario.

We also know there are technologies whereby, because of the computerization the automobile industry has developed today of its own volition, we could be making small additions to the computers that run the ignitions of our automobiles. The computers that already tell us when there is a problem with our braking system could also tell us we cannot start that car until that problem is rectified.

As I said, this motion before us today is but a symbol of our failures to provide real leadership for the people of this province in terms of protecting them on our highways and streets, both as drivers or passengers in vehicles and as pedestrians.

I will support the resolution because it is a symbol. We need to get on with the job of getting over that hump, overcoming the failures of the past and ensuring that our Ministry of Transportation and Communications becomes the leader in safety in the future.

Mr. Knight: I am pleased to be able to offer some comments on the resolution put forward this morning by the member for Dufferin-Simcoe. I have not indicated that I was pleased to participate in a debate, because I did not consider there would be a debate as such on this resolution. I will be surprised if any members of the House are opposed. I commend the member for Dufferin-Simcoe for bringing it forward.

As the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) has indicated, it is possible to discuss many other aspects of vehicle safety and attempts to reduce accidents on the highways. This is only one particular recommendation the member for Dufferin-Simcoe has brought forward, and I think it is worthy of acceptance by all members.

It is an indication that the member for Dufferin-Simcoe was dedicated in discharging the responsibilities he held as Minister of Transportation and Communications, a position in which he served long and well, though perhaps not as long as his predecessor and perhaps not as well as his successor. Certainly, he discharged his responsibilities with a high modicum of dedication.

11:30

The resolution is important because it is necessary to publicize that older motor vehicles should be retrofitted with a centre, high-mounted auxiliary brake light. That is important because, as we look at the statistics tabled recently by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications for the road safety report for 1985, we see they show there were 190,000 accidents and 109,000 personal injuries. Even though the incidence of fatal accidents has been decreasing over a number of years, and we are all thankful for that, the number of accidents in total is remaining constant.

Of course, the reason for that is the increased number of vehicles on the road. I understand there are now in the order of five million cars in Ontario. Some mornings, as I am coming in to Queen's Park, I wonder if perhaps they are all parked along the Gardiner Expressway. I am sure others think they are parked on some of the other highways on the way into Toronto.

However, the accidents we are particularly interested in are those caused by rear-end collisions. The statistic on this is not accurate because of the source of the information, in that when a traffic officer fills out an accident report on a rear-end collision, he may not always charge the driver responsible. Indeed, the driver of the car behind is not always responsible. Sometimes the charge laid is other than the one statistic I can refer to in the annual report, which is the only statistic that indicates the number of rear-end accidents, where there is a charge of following too close.

In any event, that represents approximately 10,000 accidents in Ontario each year. Therefore, if there is anything we can do to help reduce the number of accidents, it is something we should encourage. The installation of that centre, high-mounted auxiliary brake-light system would be a way to reduce those accidents.

I would like to correct the member for Dufferin-Simcoe. He had indicated that part of his resolution had been addressed -- which is correct, in that the Canadian government has now requested that all vehicles manufactured in Ontario will now have such a system installed -- but the fact is that it was gazetted for the manufacturers only as of October 1. They wanted to have it in place for September 1986, but there were some holdups. Therefore, it will be effective January 1, 1987. That would mean the 1988 model year.

I believe the Americans have made it mandatory as of 1986. New vehicles here will have the auxiliary brake-light system installed, beginning next year. We have to make sure the message is taken to the public that older vehicles should have this system installed. I would like to indicate that the government of Ontario has already taken steps to deliver that message. That is not to say there should not be more publicity brought to the issue in the future.

Since the member for Dufferin-Simcoe indicated that his resolution had been in Orders and Notices for a number of months, I would not want to preclude the possibility that his resolution precipitated the action on behalf of the government; but inasmuch as it was not something the member brought forward when he himself was the minister, I suspect this precipitation was not a result of the resolution.

In November 1985, the minister did release to the media a communication, an urging, a recommendation that all owners of automobiles in Ontario outfit their cars. That was made by way of a news release issued on November 6, 1985, wherein the minister indicated -- as studies in the United States have demonstrated, as the member for Dufferin-Simcoe has indicated -- a high-mount brake light seems to be the most effective way to prevent rear-end collisions and that the minister would encourage all motorcar owners to install the single high-mount brake light on their vehicles.

In the spring of 1986, I believe, the minister encouraged the government ministries to make sure their vehicles were equipped with such a system, and I understand that all vehicles in the government pool now have such systems installed. I also believe Ministry of Transportation and Communications passenger cars and vans will be equipped with such a system. The cost is somewhere around $15,000 for between 200 and 300 vehicles. When one considers that it takes the elimination of a couple of accidents to recover that cost, it is an indication that we should be pursuing such an objective throughout the entire province.

In the spring, the minister also sent a communication to all members of the Legislature encouraging the installation of such a system. I presume all members of the Legislature now have such a system installed in their car, including the member for Dufferin-Simcoe.

I suggest that when we do install such a system, we make sure we use only a single, centre-mounted brake light. A number of installations have been undertaken with what I would refer to as gimmicky installations, where one has two lights, one mounted on each side. Some look like strobe lights and seem to work in concert with the car radio. There are others that are appropriate but that appear not to have the same safety value as a single light in the centre.

I suggest that perhaps we could encourage by further publicity the installation of such a system. Perhaps we could encourage the insurance industry to offer a premium break when one is installed. It costs only $50 to install and perhaps there could be some small break to encourage it. Perhaps local licensing authorities should ensure that taxicabs have such a system installed. Perhaps MTC could look at the regulations in the Highway Traffic Act to see whether we can make it a standard procedure.

11:40

Mr. Gregory: I am very grateful for the opportunity to say a few words on the resolution of the member for Dufferin-Simcoe, for whom I have a great regard for his past performance as Minister of Transportation and Communications. He is well aware of that of which he speaks. He does not often hear very many compliments from me, but this is possibly a new trend.

I totally support the initiative of this resolution. It has seemed to me for a long time, and it must be occurring to everyone else, that the greatest cause of accidents today on highways and on city streets is the rear-ender, as my colleague from across the way has mentioned.

In my opinion, this is because of many things. The chief and most obvious one is that a driver on the highway at night is required to pay constant attention to the car in front of him. He is not required to see a stop light coming on; he is required to see an intensity in the light. All cars have the regular red running lights on. When the brakes are touched, the only thing that happens is that the red light increases in intensity.

While everyone should drive with his attention focused fully on that, it is impossible when you are driving a long way on the highway, sometimes under adverse conditions. Your mind is not sharp enough to discern immediately that increased intensity of light. You become almost hypnotized by the lights ahead, and the sudden change of intensity does not always catch your attention as soon as it should.

The installation of an eye-level light changes that whole situation. As soon as the brakes are touched, a new light comes on where there was no light before. It seems like a very small point, but it is very important when you are driving at night, lulled into a feeling of comfort, relaxation or whatever, and a new red light suddenly flashes in front of you. That gets your attention very quickly. It is not that the regular lights do not get your attention; it just takes a little longer. Sometimes that lapse in time is not enough to prevent a collision.

There is also the fact that as we get older -- and I am not using myself as an example; we are all getting older to one degree or another -- your vision deteriorates in so far as night driving is concerned, even with the addition of glasses. It is not a case of not being able to see, but of the quality and sharpness of your night vision deteriorating. Perhaps we need this extra boost of a new light flashing to get our attention. With advancing age, reactions also tend to slow down for some, although not for me as yet.

It is something that is recognized by the police. You do get lulled into a slowdown when driving long distances at night. This can be accentuated not only on highways where there are no lights but also on streets where there are lights; they tend to add to the confusion when driving at night.

The other thing that frightens me when driving on highways is the transport trucks. Transport drivers are competent and probably very capable drivers. At the same time, they have a tendency to tailgate. There is nothing more frightening when one is driving along a road than to glance in the rear-view mirror and see only a transport's headlights which appear to be two inches behind the rear window. This scares anybody. You know that when he is there, you cannot stop because he cannot stop. Unless you want to be a sandwich, you virtually try to get out of the way.

It would be a help, even to the transport driver, when he is driving along, to see a fluttering of the elevated eye-level light, so he knows he has a nervous driver ahead of him and he had better do something, maybe slow down, and give the fellow a little space. That would be very helpful.

When I am planning a trip out of town and will be driving on the highway, I try to calculate at which time the transports will not be there. Frankly, they scare the devil out of me. I see this as not a very big factor in alleviating my fear, but it may help the transport drivers themselves to get a sense that they are scaring the bejabers out of that driver in the little Japanese-built car ahead of them, which they can probably run right over if they want to.

It is a positive step that the federal government is taking steps to make this mandatory in all automobiles. I would like to be assured -- and I do not have this assurance at present -- that this is going to apply not only to American-built and Canadian-built cars but also to cars manufactured in other countries so it is mandatory that these lights be installed before the cars are admitted for sale in Canada. Is that true?

Mr. McCague: Yes.

Mr. Gregory: I have the answer to my question, so I am totally relieved. It will be mandatory that all imported cars have this. That relieves my feelings on it. We can look forward in the near future to all cars having eye-level brake lights.

The only other thing is that any car older than right now or anything older than 1987 does not have these as mandatory equipment. This is a difficult thing indeed. The intent of this resolution, if I read it correctly, is to make these lights mandatory. This means all owners of cars built before 1987, or before it became mandatory on new cars, will be required to install them.

It would bode well for Ontario if the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton), in concert with the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Nixon) and the Treasurer -- they are both the same person -- were to make some arrangement to eliminate, possibly on a temporary basis, retail sales tax on this equipment. I do not think we are talking about a great deal of money. I am not sure the elimination of the seven per cent retail sales tax is going to make everybody charge out to buy them; however, any inducement or incentive at all to attain what we are trying to do would be helpful.

They might even go further. I know the Treasurer is a generous man. They might want further to encourage people with some sort of financial incentive. It seems that people do respond to financial incentives. Even with the knowledge that what they are doing is perhaps going to save their lives, people do not always react quickly and put something on the car that will save their lives. If there is a financial incentive, they move more quickly. This is apparent with car seats for juveniles.

Mr. Knight: What about insurance companies and reduction of premiums?

Mr. Gregory: Insurance companies? Reductions? Very good. I thank the member for the suggestion. I did not have that in my speech, but I undoubtedly would have thought of it as I went along. The member across the way suggests insurance companies might well be encouraged to reduce premiums on automobiles equipped with eye-level brake lights. That is an excellent idea, and I encourage the member across the way to speak to the Minister of Transportation and Communications and the Minister of Revenue to do something. He is an insurance man himself; he can speak to the industry.

I am an insurance man, or was at one time, and between us we will undoubtedly get it done with the help of lawyers such as the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer).

I have said all I want to say. I fully support this resolution, and I congratulate the member for Dufferin-Simcoe for its introduction.

11:50

Mr. Speaker: The member for Welland-Thorold. I believe there is approximately nine minutes.

Mr. Swart: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I probably will not be that long. I want to start by saying that obviously we in this party support this resolution. I do not think anybody who has looked into the situation at all could oppose the principle of this resolution. We all recognize it is now a fait accompli. The federal government has taken action, after the lead from the United States. We do not need to promote this before this House or to try to encourage the federal government to take the action asked for.

This is primarily a federal government matter, and they have acted on it, but I suspect there may be some degree of regulation that the province can apply with regard to the extra stop lights. That aspect of it needs some further pursuit. Perhaps when the member rises to reply, he can answer my question about whether the present regulation enacted by the federal government applies to vans and trucks. The resolution mentions only automobiles.

Anyone who drives on the highways will agree that the greatest difficulty found in following another vehicle is when you are following a van or something of that nature and can see nothing in front of you. With automobiles, you can see through the windshields in front. All those who give instructions in good driving say you should always be watching the second or third car ahead. You cannot do that with a van. I hope the member can give some indication of whether vans and trucks are included or whether he intends to pursue that to make sure they are.

Because of what has taken place and the regulations already now in place on this matter, I am somewhat surprised the member did not substitute another resolution for the one we have before us to deal with something that needs to be done. Believe me, there are lots of things needing to be done in the field of transportation, such as those mentioned by my colleague the member for Hamilton Mountain, or improvement of the proposed Ontario motor vehicle arbitration plan to provide for greater protection for the purchasers of new cars. I thought we might have a resolution before us that would have been operable after we passed the resolution rather than dealing with a fait accompli.

As already stated, I do not think there is any argument about the desirability of this. The only question is why it was not done years ago. We have dragged our feet on this matter in this province, compared to what many other jurisdictions have done, including the US, where I understand exhaustive studies were done. As long ago as 1978, I am told there was a study of 525 taxicabs for 18 months in Washington, DC. There was a 54 per cent reduction in rear-end accidents in taxicabs that had a brake light installed in the rear window as compared to those that did not.

Another study, done in 1980 by the American Telephone and Telegraph Co. on 2,500 vehicles, showed a 53 per cent reduction in rear-end crashes. There was also a study of New York taxis which showed a 58 per cent reduction in rear-end crashes.

When we know that something like 17 per cent of all the collisions that take place in this province are rear-end collisions, it is very apparent the benefits that would accrue to the motorists and to the insurance companies in this province by having high-mounted brake lights in place on all vehicles.

The insurance companies have indicated this is very desirable. However, they have not gone so far as to say, as they should have -- and once again it shows a bit of irresponsibility on their part -- that a person who installs these should get some reduction in his insurance. They have refused to do that to date. It would have been a real incentive if they had done that. However, as always, they are more interested in the volume of premiums they get than they are in encouraging good safety features, as this would be.

Therefore, I am going to vote in support of this resolution, realizing the principle has already been accepted, but there may be some refining that needs to be done.

Mr. McCague: I thank the members who have spoken of their support of this resolution. The member for Hamilton Mountain mentioned that I should have done something about this when I was Minister of Transportation and Communications and that I had the power to do so by whatever means. I am not sure what he is referring to. I must point out to him that I did not have the regulation-making power to mandate these in a way that would have led to their use across Canada. It might be within the realm of the power of the Minister of Transportation and Communications to pass such a regulation, but it would be very difficult were it not done in the whole of the province.

I am pleased the minister put out a press release last fall. He did that after the introduction of my resolution, and I thank him for being in support, almost immediately, of the points I put forward.

The member for Halton-Burlington was very supportive. I am not sure how to translate the comments he made, but I will read Hansard later and get a truer picture of what was said. Then I may have to ask him what it meant.

I agree with the member for Halton-Burlington that we should standardize the kind of rear light that can be used. There are some rather fancy, razzle-dazzle ones that do not serve the same purpose; in fact, they may even distract drivers rather than get their attention.

I am pleased, of course, to have the support of my colleague the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory). He brought up some very important and relevant points in regard to this.

I did not change my motion after its introduction, as some members of this House have done, because I felt that if the federal government saw fit to mandate them on all cars sold in Canada after September 1, 1986, it was still very worth while to proceed with the retrofit side of it. The support it is getting from the insurance industry is interesting. I do not have any shares in Speedy Auto Glass, but Speedy Auto Glass and Royal Insurance have combined to offer $10 off for retrofits. It is a worthwhile project, and the president does come from my riding; so I congratulate him.

In answer to the question asked by the member for Welland-Thorold, I do not know what the situation is with vans and trucks. It is a good point, but as I recall, the lights on a van or a light truck are much higher from the ground than those on a car, and that may serve some of the purpose. The honourable member brings up a good point.

Not only do I support this resolution, but I am very much in favour of headlights being on all day. Perhaps the member for Welland-Thorold will bring forward a motion and extol all the virtues of that.

CONSTRUCTION DELAYS

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Offer has moved resolution 21.

Motion agreed to.

AUTOMOBILE SAFETY

Mr. Speaker: Mr. McCague has moved resolution 22.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 12:02 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LAYOFFS IN SUDBURY

Mr. Gordon: Since 1983, the Falconbridge work force has been reduced by 45 per cent. While working people were losing their jobs, production increased by 33 per cent. This corporation cries that earnings have not been sufficient and that small profits are not enough. Let us make no mistake about this, exorbitant profit is what they are after. The working people of Sudbury have worked hard and honestly for Falconbridge for decades. The working people of Sudbury made money for Falconbridge and its shareholders.

In 1984, Falconbridge's profits were in excess of $28 million, the following year they were $38 million, and now we have another layoff. Why is it that working people must time and time again be the anvil upon which multinationals hammer out the view that what is good for the company is also good for the community? It is time for the people to become the hammer for a change.

Falconbridge has spent $40 million to expand its facilities in Norway to handle Botswana ore, and in Sudbury we have a layoff. Falconbridge purchases nickel on the London Metals Exchange, and in Sudbury we have a layoff. Falconbridge purchased Kidd Creek Mines in 1985, and in 1986 we have a layoff in Sudbury.

It is time for the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to heed the request of the members of Parliament, the members of the provincial parliament and the regional people to have a public inquiry in Sudbury.

GO TRANSIT

Mr. Breaugh: Today I want to make a plea to the government on behalf of all those people in and around Metro who commute each and every day.

In the mid-1970s, the government of Ontario made some very ambitious plans to allow for expansion in the area -- particularly the one I am concerned with -- east of Metro. All of the municipal councils in the regional municipality of Durham have accepted their responsibility for a great deal of expanded residential commuter facilities. We have a problem that is growing worse and worse day by day.

The government is supposedly committed to the concept of GO rail transit to Oshawa and beyond Oshawa. We await with bated breath the final announcements that will put in place the plans for GO rail transit to Oshawa. We watched with some trepidation when these plans were altered as the previous government changed from a light rail transit system to heavy rail transit. We know the facilities are needed. We know we have accepted the housing. We know the commuters are there. We know the roads are clogged each and every day, twice a day.

We need GO rail transit, we need it now; and we need a commitment on the part of this government not only to plan wisely -- we have that -- but we also need the final commitment actually to put in place GO rail transit to Oshawa.

RECOGNITION OF SENIOR CITIZEN

Mr. Callahan: I have before me a recreation of Marguerite Bourgeoys, the first Canadian saint. This entire item was produced by handicapped people.

In the government members' gallery is Mrs. Alicita Marshall. She and her late husband were the founders of Marina Creations, which is an organization that employs handicapped people to create these dolls. There are 89 in all and they represent people in the history of Ontario and Canada.

This lady and her husband were also involved in opening up Marina Cardiac Lodge, which is the only facility that deals specifically with people who have suffered strokes and heart attacks.

I bring these matters to the attention of the House because this lady, who is 82 years young, has devoted her entire life to this project. She has instructed me to hand this over to the Speaker, compliments of Mrs. Marshall.

LIBERAL-NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY ACCORD

Mr. Baetz: Listen, everyone, it is storybook time again. Today it is the exciting story of Peterson the wolf who tried to blow down piglet Robbie Rae's house. Once upon a time, piglet Robbie lived in a house on the edge of beautiful Queen's Forest. For many months, Robbie romped happily and played games with all the other piglets who had organized themselves into committees.

One day Peterson the wolf, who was also king of the forest, heard that Robbie and the other piglets in the house were playing funny games that were against the rules and provisions of his kingdom. This made him very angry, but knowing the tellybirds, with their one all-seeing eye, were watching silently from their roosts, the wolf first asked Robbie, ever so sweetly, "Little pig, little pig, let me come in." But the smart piglet Robbie Rae knew the wolf wanted to eat him up, so he shouted, "No, no, by the hair on my chinny chin chin, you cannot come in."

When Robbie refused to let the wolf in, the wolf growled in a loud, menacing voice, "I will huff and I will puff and I will blow the house down." So he huffed and he puffed and he puffed and he huffed, but he could not blow the house down because piglet Robbie Rae's house was not built of straw or sticks, or even bricks, but of a magic stuff called accord that could withstand all the huffing and puffing of even the biggest and angriest wolf.

Finally, not being able to blow down the house built on accord, the wolf slunk away into the forest. What had made him so angry and frustrated was that he knew he had only himself to blame because he had taught piglet Robbie Rae how to build a puff-proof house.

Mr. Speaker: The member has huffed and puffed his way.

CONFERENCE ON NORTHERN COMPETITIVENESS

Mr. Wildman: The purpose of the Conference on Northern Competitiveness to be hosted by the Premier in Sault Ste. Marie next Monday and Tuesday is, to quote from the invitation sent out by Canadian Marketing Group of Willowdale, "to establish a dialogue among business, labour, government and community leaders."

This is a very laudable purpose, and we in the New Democratic Party are looking forward to participating in the conference, but we are concerned about how successful this conference will be because of the apparent haphazard approach to organizing it.

Southern Ontario consultants such as Coopers and Lybrand apparently did not begin to contact people until late this month. Consultation with interested parties over the last two weeks has been on a very short notice basis. Outdated mailing lists have been used for invitations, and organizers are still trying to obtain correct addresses even as late as this week. Particularly in the labour sector, it is quite obvious that a number of people who should have been contacted and consulted have been missed or are just being contacted initially this week.

On such short notice, I wonder whether this conference is going to be as successful as it should have been and could have been.

DR. R. GORDON BELL

Miss Stephenson: I should like to invite all members of the Legislature to join me in congratulating a most distinguished Canadian who happens to be a resident of the constituency of York Mills. His name is Dr. R. Gordon Bell. On Saturday of this week, he becomes one of two Canadian physicians to receive the Order of Canada, the Royal Bank Prize and an honorary doctor of laws degree from York University.

Dr. Bell is a graduate of the University of Toronto, in 1943, and is a most distinguished physician who has become a world-recognized expert in the successful treatment of alcoholism and drug addiction. It is a great honour for all of us to have a man of that calibre, that quality and that capability in our midst. Will members please join me in congratulating Dr. Bell on this achievement.

DAY CARE

Mr. Allen: I want to express my congratulations and, I am sure, the congratulations of the Legislature as a whole to the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, which, notwithstanding the reluctance of the provincial and federal levels, decided at its regional council meeting a week ago to engage itself in substantial additional funding of day care in this province in order to upgrade the underpaid and low-level wages and salaries that day care workers are currently receiving. It decided it would initiate new funding -- 100 per cent local dollars -- to meet the upgrading needs of the workers in that system in the Hamilton-Wentworth region.

That should be a good example to the minister opposite, who, I am sure, would like to carry all the weight he can into cabinet to secure the same thing across the province as a whole. At the same time, I congratulate Leslie Russell, who was recently given the provincial children's service award in early childhood education for her leadership of the day care centre of Northwest Communicare of Hamilton and, later, the Chedoke-McMaster centre. One of the leading figures in day care work in our region, she is one of the figures who have made the day care coalition in this province the kind of force it is today.

13:41

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

RICK HANSEN

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: On October 24, I had the distinct honour of welcoming an outstanding Canadian into Ontario on behalf of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the government of Ontario. It was my great pleasure to greet Rick Hansen, the Man in Motion, at a special ceremony and reception in Ottawa sponsored by Ontario.

Today I have a special announcement to make. The government of Ontario is recognizing the extraordinary achievements of this outstanding Canadian wheelchair athlete by proclaiming the week of November 3 to November 9, 1986, as Rick Hansen Man in Motion Week. By the time Rick wheels into Toronto on November 2, this dedicated athlete will have completed more than three quarters of his journey, which has taken him to four continents and 33 countries.

Many organizations and groups will be expressing their appreciation for Rick Hansen's efforts by holding special events and activities during the Rick Hansen Man in Motion Week. We are pleased that in the midst of his very exhaustive schedule, Rick has accepted our invitation to come to the Legislature on November 6. This will give us the opportunity to greet and honour a young man who has inspired people around the world.

Rick's arrival in the Legislature will be preceded by a luncheon hosted by the Lieutenant Governor, the Honourable Lincoln Alexander. This occasion is being held to pay tribute to Rick and the many volunteers who have been so helpful to the success of his world tour.

Rick Hansen is fulfilling a personal challenge to wheel his chair a distance equal to the circumference of the world. By completing this symbolic distance, he hopes to increase awareness about the abilities and potential of people with disabilities and to raise funds for spinal cord research, rehabilitation and wheelchair sports.

Through his courageous efforts, Rick Hansen is creating an historic event. He is providing a unique opportunity for Ontarians to recognize the determination and ability of all people to meet life's challenges. The Premier has asked me to encourage everyone to support the goals of Rick's tour.

In June, the Premier and I announced Ontario's Decade of Disabled Persons. The goal of the decade is to promote the fullest possible participation and integration of disabled persons into all aspects of society. With his commitment and perseverance, Rick's efforts will contribute significantly to this goal. Rick Hansen encourages all of us to work together to create a better life for everyone.

In closing, I would like to read the proclamation of Rick Hansen Man in Motion Week:

In recognition of the outstanding courage of Rick Hansen, the multimedallist champion athlete and one of Canada's outstanding citizens, in undertaking a global journey of over 40,000 kilometres across four continents, 33 countries and all 10 provinces of Canada in a wheelchair with such stalwart spirit and commitment; and

In appreciation of the inspiration that this achievement and heroic example of willpower is engendering among those with physical disabilities on how to overcome adversity and face challenges with renewed hope and confidence; and

In realization that the three-year wheelchair journey across the world is making a tremendous contribution to the public's awareness of the important accomplishments the physically challenged can and do achieve; and

In respect of the positive attitude that is being fostered for the integration of disabled individuals as full and equal participants in our pluralistic society; and

In praise of Rick Hansen's unselfish goal of raising funds for spinal cord research, rehabilitation and wheelchair sports and his dedicated efforts to encourage citizens of the world to contribute to the realization of these noble and humanitarian aims;

We therefore extend on behalf of the government of Ontario our sincerest congratulations to Rick Hansen and all the supporters of his worthy cause, with best wishes for continued success in helping the physically challenged members of our society to achieve their goals.

Whereas Rick Hansen has inspired us all and made us proud, we are pleased to recognize November 3 to 9, 1986, as Rick Hansen Man in Motion Week and commend its observance to the people of our province.

Mr. Baetz: I had the honour and the pleasure of joining the honourable minister to welcome Rick Hansen to Ontario when he crossed the bridge between the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. It was certainly a very inspiring occasion. They had a tremendous welcome for him in Ottawa. We were delighted to hear the announcement of a $100,000 grant from the Ontario government for Mr. Hansen's personal crusade.

We can only welcome Rick Hansen to this province. We can only promise from this side of the House our full support for him, his crusade and, above all, what he stands for.

I had frankly hoped in this announcement today -- and we can simply agree with every word that is in there -- we would also hear something a little more tangible, a little more specific in terms of grants that this government would make, not only to Rick Hansen's crusade but to the disabled generally.

Surely this is a time to be doing this, because one thing that has impressed me about Rick Hansen, and I think the minister would agree, is that during the International Year of Disabled Persons we had that wonderful slogan, "Label us able;" Rick Hansen has personified that fine slogan in action.

Rick Hansen could be no better served and no more pleased than if, during his stay here in Ontario, we heard this government make some very substantial, specific, concrete contributions to the whole field of the disabled, because we know that with some help we can have them live fulfilled lives.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I rise to praise Rick Hansen and to congratulate the government on recognizing a week in honour of the work he has done and the incredible travails he has undergone in his worldwide journey, trying to draw attention to the problems of people with his particular handicap but also to those of the disabled in general. For all of us, he has been remarkable and courageous example, especially in the lowest days when no one was paying attention and he was being robbed and harassed in various places. To have overcome all that and to re-enter Ontario in victory is a great tribute to him.

However, I stand as well with a little bit of cynicism. It is easy for us, as politicians and as governments, to attach ourselves to public heroes, people who have undergone these amazing travails in public and have drawn attention to their particular tribulations; but we seem to do so little to help those people who every day in their private lives are having to meet with a very private courage the troubles they have.

I have the strange privilege, it might seem, to have to exercise for cardiac rehabilitation at Variety Village. There I exercise with people with a variety of handicaps -- quadriplegics, paraplegics, the blind and others -- and watch them in their daily struggles just to strive to participate in life as it is in Ontario. I would feel much better standing here today if I had heard some major public announcement about overcoming some of the problems those people face on a day-to-day basis. Rick Hansen would believe there was some real response to what he is up to if he had that kind of response from this government.

Let me give members some examples. A member got up today to talk about things that are produced in sheltered workshops. Do members know what we pay people in most of the sheltered workshops in this province? It is hideous, the small amount of money we provide to those people and then deduct it from their family benefits.

How many members have tried to take cases of people who needed attendant care or assistance to get into schools? I remember one 21-year-old boy for whom I tried to get assistance at York. His family was going bankrupt with the cost of trying to get him a few more years of schooling, perhaps before he died, and was unable to get that kind of money from the previous government. It is just as difficult to get that kind of money today.

There is a fellow in my riding, a quadriplegic who is 40 years of age. He has been in Providence Villa for 20 years and has never ventured out. He is just doing it now; he is going back to school two days a week. He cannot get assistance from this government or from the Metropolitan Toronto government to provide him with the money for his transportation and extra school costs, if members can believe that. I wonder how Rick Hansen would feel if we were providing support to him rather than just getting up and announcing a week in his honour.

As I said last week, if Rick Hansen were single and living in Ontario today, he could be receiving as little as $329 a month to live on, if members can believe that. Surely we should be doing something about that today, not just announcing another week to draw attention to some of the problems.

Let me tell members about the 80 per cent of handicapped people in this province who are unemployed. The government offers one very small program, the work incentive program. Recent statistics that the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) has given me about the success of the work incentive program show that only 600 or so handicapped people out of the total 4,000 who are participating are using that program; of those, only 47 per cent have managed to get a full-time job as a result of that program and to stay with it. It has been a dismal failure when we have more than 50,000 people on family benefits disability in this province today.

All members have received letters from the Ontario Cerebral Palsy Sports Association talking about Bill 38, which I dare say, if the government got a majority, it would reintroduce. What could that do to sports for the handicapped in Ontario?

Rick Hansen's journey is a wonderful symbol of what all handicapped people go through. For years and years they struggle on their own, leading very rough lives, isolated in our communities. He finally has come to some prominence, but is it going to be fleeting prominence, or are we going to see some structural changes that are going to integrate those people in our society, as they should be?

The minister's estimates are coming up, and I intend to take him step by step through what he can do to make the handicapped part of our community in a real way, not with just symbolic gestures, such as a week in the honour of a wonderful man such as Rick Hansen.

13:55

ORAL QUESTIONS

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Grossman: This afternoon, I want to return to what is becoming more apparent day after day, a rather large coverup of the Urban Transportation Development Corp. transaction. My question therefore is to the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

The minister will know that this morning the standing committee on public accounts was studying the UTDC matter and heard from Kirk Foley, while at the same time the minister and his ministry staff were at estimates in the standing committee on general government.

At that time, Kirk Foley acknowledged that a report on the future of UTDC had been prepared for the government in the fall of 1985. We understand that report indicated quite a good future for UTDC and a concern over the government's dismantling of UTDC and suggested the corporation not be sold. At the same time, in another committee, the minister denied ever having seen the report.

Is the minister prepared this afternoon to acknowledge the existence of the report, apologize to the House for not having it distributed and made public and give it to us?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Possibly the Leader of the Opposition has done us both, and particularly his critic, a favour. In fact, the critic asked a very similar question this morning. There is a problem with both the public accounts and estimates committees going on concurrently.

The critic asked about a report with an uncertain title, an unnamed author and an unspecified date. Now that the Leader of the Opposition has identified the author, perhaps he can provide me with the title and the date of the document he is referring to, so I can locate it in response to the critic's question. I will be happy to deliver it to him. He asked that question this morning. I answered it. I said to him that I would attempt to track it down

Mr. Harris: What a coverup.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: There is no coverup. The question was asked in estimates this morning, and we guaranteed that if we could locate the author, the title and the date -- and the member has just provided further information -- we would do that.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory) have a point of privilege?

Mr. Gregory: I just want to correct the record, Mr. Speaker. I specifically told the minister the name of the report this morning, and I wish he would admit it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That could be a point of personal explanation; it certainly is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Grossman: The minister's answer indicates either the total disorganization with which he and his ministry have handled the sale of UTDC or, in the alternative, unparalleled arrogance in violating every speech the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has given about open government.

The report, as my colleague told the minister in committee this morning, was to the government of Ontario on the future of UTDC. It was prepared by Kirk Foley, who was then running UTDC. UTDC has been in front of the public accounts committee, and the minister has been asked for information on UTDC in this House for almost one full year. He and his government have hidden a key report outlining the future of UTDC and relating directly to all the questions that have been asked.

Is the minister prepared to acknowledge this afternoon that on the closing of UTDC, he received $10 million cash and that by the end of tomorrow he will have paid $21.2 million to Lavalin and got back $10 million?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The Leader of the Opposition continues to mix apples and oranges. His question is as empty as his benches. There is incoming revenue from old UTDC on the one hand and there is incoming revenue to the province on the other. The question that was asked of me this morning was whether I was in possession

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: In regard to the question about the one piece of information that may or may not have been made available -- obviously the Leader of the Opposition has it, and his member rightfully asked for that information this morning -- that was a document I was not aware of until the member for Mississauga East brought it to our attention this morning. He did not state the author and was not quite certain of the title.

Mr. Grossman: That was not the supplementary question. Get back to the question.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The member included it in his question, and I am going to include it in my answer. As I stated to him on the record, in Hansard, when we have located the report, he will be the first to receive it.

Mr. Grossman: When the Minister of Transportation and Communications who sold UTDC finds the report filed by the president of UTDC on the future of UTDC one year after it was written and six months after the announcement was made that it was being sold, he will be kind enough to share it with us. That outlines his attitude. Let us put it on the record.

Interjection.

Mr. Grossman: The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has just shouted across the floor that UTDC itself was an outhouse. Let the record show that is the Attorney General's opinion.

Interjections.

Mr. Grossman: Can the minister support that gratuitous insult, that arrogance shown to the workers at UTDC in Thunder Bay and in Kingston, as outlined by the Attorney General? Does that explain why --

Hon. Mr. Scott: Come on. Remind the member about the television.

Mr. Grossman: The Attorney General gets very antsy when we talk about him. I will ask him questions about women's issues or abortion if he is not careful.

Does that explain why the minister accepted --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: That was a good question.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the member for Sudbury East.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I think the member for Sudbury East heard more of the question. Perhaps he would like to answer it.

When I think of all the questions that have come in from the Leader of the Opposition about UTDC and when I think about Lavalin, about the employers, the employees and all the workers who are dependent on an ongoing and financially viable operation, I wonder why the member constantly asks questions and makes comments in such a negative manner, predicated on failure.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I am answering his question.

Mr. Grossman: We are now in day three, and the minister is continuing to cover up the sale price. We will be back to find it.

RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION LEGISLATION

Mr. Grossman: On the question of coverups, the tenants of Ontario are eager to know what rents they are going to be facing as a result of Bill 51. Let us try for a third day to find out from the Minister of Housing in a simple, skill-testing question what rents the tenants are going to be facing.

As a result of the questions I have been asking the minister, Gardner Church, his assistant deputy minister, alleges that on the facts I presented to the House, my figure of a 22 per cent increase is wrong and it can only be 15 per cent. We spoke this morning to Fred Peters, who the minister will discover is his executive director of the rent review division and his expert on Bill 51. Taking Mr. Peters through the fact scenario, he acknowledges that the rent increase possible is 19.25 per cent.

I invite the minister to select one of the following: our 22.25 per cent, Mr. Peters's 19.25 per cent or Gardner Church's 15 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I cannot believe the Leader of the Opposition would have the gall to stand up today to ask me any questions with regard to this when the report in the Globe and Mail conceded that those figures are wrong. I am appalled that he would use the tenants of this province in these tactics of giving erroneous figures, if the Globe and Mail is correct, just to manipulate and frighten millions of tenants in this province. He should be ashamed of himself.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I will just wait while the members have their conversations across the floor. I remind all members that interjections are out of order.

Mr. Grossman: Three days ago we gave the minister this fact scenario. This afternoon I want to ask the minister, does he agree with Fred Peters, who works for him as executive director of rent review, that under the scenario we presented, the possible rent increase is 19.25 per cent? Does the minister agree with his employee Mr. Peters?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The Leader of the Opposition brings hypothetical questions to us every day and then wants an answer. He searches for certain answers. I do not know how I can trust the figures he brings forward. I think I should stick to the facts. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition will present this to me and I will write to him. I cannot teach Bill 51 to him in question period.

Mr. Grossman: I agree with the minister. He cannot teach Bill 51 to anyone. I agree with him about that. The minister is right about that and silos.

I want to say seriously to the minister that he and his leader are doing a lot of sabre-rattling about having their way on Bill 51 or the bill will be withdrawn. If that is the proposition of the minister, it is only fair and responsible for the opposition parties to try to determine on behalf of the tenants of this province what possible rent increases they face as a result of Bill 51.

We have checked out, a not unusual fact circumstance, with his ministry, with Fred Peters, head of the ministry's rent review program. Mr. Peters has acknowledged to us that by his calculations, not ours, the possible rent increase is 19.25 per cent. My simple question for the minister is, does he agree with Fred Peters of his ministry that by this scenario, rents can go up 19.25 per cent under his legislation?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sargent: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am amazed at the licence the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) has. I have been tossed out three or four times for doing a hell of a lot less than that. He never asks a question. He just talks back and forth.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

14:10

Mr. Harris: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?

Mr. Harris: A question was asked by the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. The Liberal members all yelled, and you waited until the noise died down. Now we are ready to hear the answer from the minister.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the help of the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris). However, it is up to the Speaker to make decisions at question period time. From the attention I am getting now, I am sure we are going to continue to get that attention for the balance of question period. We will get in a lot of questions; therefore, we will have time for a brief response by the minister.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Our study at the ministry has shown that rents will increase far less than under the previous bills that were in. We had seen increases of up to 40 per cent or 50 per cent. We are now seeing an average increase of almost 4.7 per cent. If the Leader of the Opposition is bringing in figures that are wrong, as he admits, just to frighten the tenants of this province, he should act in a much more responsible manner.

PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

Mr. Rae: I had a question for the Premier, who was here. It was my understanding he was going to be here.

An hon. member: Here he comes.

Mr. Rae: My question to the Premier concerns equal pay. The Premier will know we had discussions about this in the House on Tuesday. There are reports in the press today that the House leader has been saying that if amendments are carried in the committee, it is his intention to pull the bill.

I would like to ask the Premier whether that is the policy of the government. Specifically, what is so wrong with our party moving amendments that are entirely in keeping with the accord, which the Premier and I both signed, which applies to both the public and private sectors, as he will know? Why is the legislation that is now before the House and before the committee not going to do anything for literally hundreds of thousands of nu