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

March 28, 1990

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

GOVERNMENT’S AGENDA

BUFFALO FARMING

SEXUAL ASSAULT

LITERACY

FERNDALE PUBLIC SCHOOL

HYDRO SERVICES

KINDERGARTEN

AGNES MACPHAIL

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

LITERACY

SMALL BUSINESS

RESPONSES

LITERACY

SMALL BUSINESS

LITERACY

SMALL BUSINESS

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO RATES

TIRE TAX

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

CHILDREN’S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

ROUGE VALLEY

ONTARIO HYDRO LABOUR DISPUTE

CULTURAL SERVICES

AMBULANCE SERVICES

HOSPITAL FINANCING

SPECIAL EDUCATION

TIRE DUMPS

MARMORA ARENA

NORTHERN FILM LIBRARY SERVICE

INTHRNATIONAL TRADE

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD

PETITION

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

SELECT COMMIYIEE ON ENERGY

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATH BILLS

PETITION

WASTE MANAGEMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

UNSOLICITED FACSIMILE TRANSMISSIONS ACT, 1990

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INSURANCE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1990 (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Allen: In his answer to my leader’s question on Monday on the elimination of government funding to food banks, the Minister of Community and Social Services seemed strangely untroubled by the effects of his action. News that some emergency food services in Toronto and elsewhere were already being forced to reduce their activity as a result of his move, despite increasing demand, did not move him in the slightest.

The minister calmly proclaimed that he had taken the money away because he wanted to put it into his long-term reforms of social assistance to help people get off welfare and become independent. A good objective, but surely the minister can see that what he is saying is that the hungry should now go hungrier so that at some unknown point in the future they may enjoy full stomachs. This is the old strategy of making the poor pay for the solutions to poverty contrived by the well-off.

If the minister is confessing that he does not have enough money to pay for programs to end hunger in Ontario, why does he not also confess that his government remains one of the few governments in the western world without a net wealth tax? Why is this government not using the wealth of those whose economic activity earns them booming millions and whose economic activity spins off the growing poverty in our time and place?

A one per cent wealth tax could raise as much as $2 billion, it has been calculated, in Ontario alone. The solutions to hunger and poverty in Ontario should be paid for out of our wealth, not at all by our poor.

GOVERNMENT’S AGENDA

Mr McLean: My statement is for the Treasurer and it concerns his attempt to blame the opposition for his government’s failure to control its own agenda.

During yesterday’s debate on the Treasurer’s resolution on interim supply, he blamed the opposition for delaying passage of his resolution. He blamed the opposition for not rubber-stamping a resolution that would result in the expenditure of $8.4 billion. He has tried to blame the opposition for a one- to two-day delay in the issuing of welfare and family benefit cheques to the needy and the poor.

The Treasurer should have introduced his resolution on the first day of the current session; instead, he chose to wait in the hopes that we would give it speedy passage without any meaningful discussion or input. When this failed to happen, he tried to blame the opposition just so his government could earn a little interest at the expense of the poor and the needy in Ontario.

He likes to blame the opposition for his government’s failure to control its own agenda. This is the same Treasurer who has introduced or increased 32 taxes since 1985. This is the same Treasurer who has increased the per capita debt for every man, woman and child in Ontario to $4,159 from $2,300 in 1985 and increased the debt of the province from $28 billion to over $41 billion. This is the same Treasurer who blames the opposition for not rubber-stamping legislation that could see the expenditure of $8.4 billion without any meaningful discussion. Shame on the Treasurer.

BUFFALO FARMING

Mr Adams: I have often spoken in this House on the diversity of agriculture in Peterborough riding. I frequently point out that the riding is a microcosm of Ontario in many respects, with a farming community which includes dairy, beef, hogs, chickens, sheep, goats, vegetables, bees, a variety of cereal crops and so on. But I think this is the first time I have spoken about Peterborough as an international centre of buffalo farming.

The farm of Dr Willoughby “Wild Bill” Belch in Peterborough is a mecca for buffalo farmers around the world. Bill has 250 animals which he raises for meat and breeding stock. He is a supplier of breeding stock across North America and around the world. Last year, some of his animals were exported to West Germany in a chartered jumbo jet to start a herd in that country. The animals had to pass the most stringent quarantine regulations.

Last winter, Peterborough hosted the seventh annual Canadian Bison Association convention.

I am advised that buffalo meat is better than beefalo meat, which is produced from buffalo-cattle crosses. Bill Belch says that for quality and taste there is no comparison. He says the only problem with buffalo is that they are rather wild, but that it is worth a little extra trouble to sit down to a real steak.

Another special contribution of Peterborough to the economy of Ontario: world-class buffalo ranching.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Mr R. F. Johnston: I would like to read from “For the Record” in the Globe and Mail today: “A 30-year-old Scarborough man has been charged with sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl early yesterday. Police said the girl was not seriously hurt in the incident...” and it goes on.

I understand the need to have concise reporting; I understand the need for the police to try to distinguish between people who are seriously physically hurt when a rape or a sexual assault takes place. But the kind of language that diminishes the effect on a 10-year-old child of a sexual assault, by saying she was “not seriously hurt,” when we have no idea how serious that impact will be on that child for the rest of her life, is not helpful kind of language.

It is not just the Globe and Mail that does this. I am sure a number of us do it unconsciously from time to time. It certainly happens in the judiciary, as we see from time to time. I raise it today to say that I did not want this to pass, having noticed it myself this morning, to say that we all have to be much more careful about how we deal with things like sexual violence in terms of its long-term impact on individuals and not to have facile kinds of statements like this being brought forward in our papers, in our courts or even here in the Legislature.

LITERACY

Mrs Marland: The year 1990 has been designated by the United Nations as International Literacy Year, a time for worldwide action to help wipe out illiteracy.

We used to think there was no such problem in Canada. After all, every child has the opportunity to go to school. Now we know better. In 1987, a survey revealed the shocking information that more than one in five Canadians cannot read, write or do simple arithmetic well enough to cope with a workaday life. They cannot read their child a bedtime story, understand the directions on a bottle of medicine, fill in a job application or even travel on subways or buses, where they have to read street names.

The feeling of isolation and alienation has a human and social cost. Forty per cent of the inmates in Ontario jails are functionally illiterate. More than three quarters of illiterate people in this province were born here and went through the school system here. Illiteracy costs business at least $4 billion a year in accidents, errors and lost productivity. It also jeopardizes our ability to compete internationally. In Korea 98 per cent of the population is functionally literate; in Ontario only 76 per cent.

Everyone including government, business and the educational system must work together to eliminate this problem. We can conquer illiteracy, and we must.

FERNDALE PUBLIC SCHOOL

Mr Dietsch: It is with great pleasure that I rise today to bring to the attention of the members of this House a large number of visitors, some of whom are sitting in the gallery. Two hundred students representing grades 7 and 8 classes from Ferndale Public School in St Catharines have made the trip here today to tour the Legislature and learn more about its history and its legislative process.

The school has an extremely active and extensive civic affairs program which creates a better understanding for its students with regard to the workings of the different levels of government. The program is in its first year as part of the history credit. It includes such things as mock council meetings and excursions to Parliament Hill in Ottawa, which 104 of these students present today are looking forward to in June.

The school’s principal, Al Unwin, and a group of teachers including Sandie Timco, Mai Mellikov, Tom Austin, Peggy Thorne, Dennis Goring and Sue Salvas are accompanying the students on today’s tour, which earlier today included a visit to SkyDome.

In closing, I would ask that my colleagues offer our visitors a warm Queen’s Park welcome, and I commend Mr Unwin and Mrs Thorne, their co-workers and the students for the development of and participation in such a valuable program.

HYDRO SERVICES

Mr Kormos: Back in mid-February down in Welland and Thorold, the communities were struck by a really incredible ice storm that had disastrous effects for large numbers of people. Among those impacts was the loss of hydro services, not just for hours but indeed for days. People and families suffered during some of the coldest weather of the winter without heating being available to them and with their fridges and freezers no longer working, losing large amounts of food. It was beyond mere inconvenience. It was a costly and risky experience for large numbers of people in Welland and Thorold.

The people from those communities have asked me to express their gratitude to the many Hydro workers, people like Jim Brown, Charlie Dixon, John Harper, Ron Holmes and Dave Smythe, who worked long and hard, hour after hour, getting the hydro services returned to normal as quickly as they could. At the same time, they recognize that this was a very costly experience for the Welland Hydro-Electric Commission. It is going to result in an unforeseen cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. That cost is necessarily going to have to be passed on to hydro consumers who can ill afford any more rate increases.

While they have asked me to express their gratitude to the workers who put the hydro back into operation as quickly as possible, at the same time they have asked me to express their concern to this government in the hope that some assistance, some aid, will be made available to them to offset the impact of this particular disaster.

KINDERGARTEN

Mr Jackson: I would like once again to bring to the attention of the Minister of Education the inadequacy of the provincial funding set aside for the kindergarten initiative in his government’s announcement in the 1989 throne speech.

The Metropolitan Toronto School Board has determined it would cost $47 million to launch full-day senior kindergarten. This startup cost includes money for portables, renovations and classroom equipment. It represents almost half of the $100-million capital fund announced for both junior and senior kindergarten programs for the entire province. In addition, it would cost this board $24 million in annual operating costs.

More school boards would embrace this program if the province would provide the necessary funding for salaries and accommodation, but it is clear that the Liberals are not prepared to do this.

The Waterloo County Board of Education has voted to ask the provincial government if it can opt out. When fully implemented, junior kindergarten would add $28.7 million to its budget. The Perth county and Carleton boards have also questioned whether they can afford this program.

The province has raised expectations about early childhood education without providing the dollars. Property taxpayers simply cannot afford another round of double-digit tax increases. We agree with Metro Toronto School Board Chair Mae Waese, who said:

“Trustees have to weigh the ever-increasing demands for more services and programs against their responsibilities to contain taxes. With financial assistance from Queen’s Park, this program would be feasible. But without any funding, it becomes a very tough decision for all of us.”

AGNES MACPHAIL

Mr Faubert: I know that on Monday colleagues from all parties spoke in this House on this matter, but I feel I would be greatly remiss if I did not add my voice to the tribute to Agnes Macphail and recognize that the 100th anniversary of her birth occurred last weekend.

When Agnes Macphail was one of the first two women elected to this Legislature in 1943, I had the privilege of meeting her many times, as my mother worked as her secretary here at Queen’s Park. After school, my brother and I would walk down from De La Salle up on Avenue Road to visit my mother in the Legislature and we would go to her office to pick up the gallery pass.

Miss Macphail would always spend a few minutes talking to us before going into the House, and I will always remember how her severe appearance contrasted so dramatically with her private personality and how warm a person she was to us or how she lectured us in a friendly way when we told her that the two most impressive speakers in the Legislature at that time were Joe Salsberg and Alex MacLeod.

Other speakers have referred to her record as the first woman elected as a member of Parliament and the first Canadian woman delegate to the League of Nations, how she was considered such a radical for her day and how she argued so passionately for a department of peace or that the priority of members should be people rather than party, or that minority governments are a good thing because they are the ones that force governments to bring forward forward-thinking legislation --

The Speaker: The member’s time has expired. I am sorry.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

LITERACY

Hon Mr Conway: In International Literacy Year, Ontario faces the critical challenge of meeting the needs of many of its people for training in the basic skill of literacy. It is important to remember that literacy not only opens the door to personal development, but it is also the base upon which all future education and training opportunities are built. To effectively meet this challenge, it is vital that we provide a wide range of flexible and creative programs that can be tailored to meet the needs of individual learners.

This can only happen through effective partnerships among governments, educators, community groups, unions, employers and volunteers. Action at the local level by these partners is a key to increasing literacy across Ontario.

I am pleased to announce today that the Ontario government will provide a total of more than $2 million to fund 94 literacy projects in workplaces and communities across the province; 25 incentive grants totalling more than $1 million will go to organizations that are involved in the delivery of literacy programs in the workplace. These organizations include community groups, colleges of applied arts and technology and school boards.

The grants will help these organizations develop greater expertise in delivering literacy programs through projects such as training literacy instructors, producing curriculum materials and exploring innovative ways of providing literacy training in the workplace.

In addition, incentive grants for workplace literacy totalling $175,000 will go to 10 employers to help provide effective training for employees in basic skills. Each employer has made a commitment to continue operating the program beyond the two-year period in which it is eligible for funding.

A further 59 projects are receiving grants totalling $754,000 from the province’s International Literacy Year fund and the access fund. The International Literacy Year fund will assist community groups with projects to develop and support the literacy field in Ontario. These projects include training literacy instructors, developing relevant resource materials, building partnerships through conferences and promoting public awareness about literacy.

The access fund grants will improve services for people with disabilities by assisting in the development or purchase of special learning and resource materials and special equipment. As well, some of the grants will support the improvement of access to the buildings and rooms where literacy training is currently being offered.

There is a growing awareness that people will keep coming back to education and training throughout their lives. As we move into this era of lifelong learning, we must all ensure that Ontarians have the skills they need to be full participants in our province’s future. I believe that these literacy grants are an important step in making this possible.

SMALL BUSINESS

Hon Mr Kwinter: On behalf of my ministry, I am pleased to announce that the 1989 report on small business in Ontario is now available. The report details emerging trends and provides statistics on growth and job creation in Ontario.

There are now more than 300,000 small businesses operating in Ontario. Between 1978 and 1987, small business created almost 75 per cent of all of the new jobs in the province, and in a one-year period, 1988-89, more than 160,000 new companies were registered or incorporated here. The number of people who were self-employed grew by 14 per cent. Across Canada, in the private sector, small firms now employ more people than firms that employ over 500 people.

The report was produced for the committee of parliamentary assistants for small business. This committee is chaired the member for Oakville South. The publication provides the basis from which the committee can analyse small business issues and concerns. At the same time, by keeping a finger on the pulse of this important sector, it allows ministry staff to fully understand small business needs and, as a result, serve our clients better.

The book details the world of the Ontario entrepreneur. It finds that a quarter of new businesses are headed by women, that the average age of a self-employed business person is 44 and that half of all new business ventures are started without outside financing. This year’s report also finds that approximately 50 per cent of all new ventures are incorporated and that these incorporated businesses generate higher earnings and employ more people than unincorporated businesses.

In addition, the publication provides new data on business failure in Ontario, reporting that slightly less than half of all startups fail in the first three years. This is much lower than the generally acknowledged 80 per cent failure rate.

The report also highlights the economic impact of small business and gives a comprehensive picture of the importance of this sector. For example, at the end of the 1970s, small firms accounted for about half of all new jobs. In 1987, firms with fewer than 100 employees accounted for 90 per cent of new jobs in Canada. In Ontario, the equivalent number is 75 per cent.

The role of government in the small business sector is also analysed. The report traces provincial government programs directed at small business from their inception in 1984 to the present. It describes the advocacy program, small business development corporations, new ventures, counselling programs, as well as the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology self-help centres.

Last year, my former parliamentary assistant, the member for Mississauga West, initiated a tour of seven cities in the province to seek out the views of small business owners on training. Not surprisingly, the preliminary findings show that small businesses that have invested in training have enjoyed significant benefits such as lower staff turnover and better staff-management relations.

In the four years since we first issued this report, we have found that the school system has been one of its biggest users. The report will be used by educators at all three educational levels as reference material for several new courses in entrepreneurship. It will also be used by policymakers, journalists and speechwriters and will continue to play an important role in generating awareness of small business.

One of the interesting findings in the report was that the most successful entrepreneurs spend at least an hour a day reading. May I suggest that this book might be an excellent choice for all members in their reading hour?

RESPONSES

LITERACY

Mr R. F. Johnston: I would like to start off by responding to the Minister of Colleges and Universities, Skills Development, and Education, who is taking what could be seen as the dripping-tap approach to funding these days. Little dribs and drabs come out now and then, and gradually, I suppose, the glass will fill some time before the election. That is the way it seems to be happening here.

On this matter to do with literacy, it is happening the same way. We had our major announcement from this minister some months back, at the beginning of this important year in literacy worldwide, and we thought perhaps that was it, that was all we were going to see from the minister at that point. But we should have known better; that we would see certain parts of it come back in different forms several times before the election and that we would also see new things brought out a bit at a time.

I am pleased with the dribs and drabs that have come down today. They are not drab, even though they have come out in little dribs. I just want to put this in context, though. Although this year there seems to be an infusion of some dollars into things other than just straight workplace literacy, last year this government froze all its community grants, did not increase donations to any new groups in the province or to any of those that were existing and only made moves in this workplace literacy side of things.

This actually raises some very important questions about what the government’s intentions are. The lack of co-ordination around literacy matters these days is mind-boggling; the lack of priorities as established by the government is also something which is very unclear. You will note from the minister’s statement that those groups delivering literacy programs in the workplace include community groups, colleges, school boards and private employers themselves.

The government itself does not seem to have come to grips with just who is supposed to do what, but instead is giving out these little bits of money to each of these groups to take it from their particular angle, rather than having an overview of this.

I would just say to the minister that we look forward to his next set of announcements. I think it is particularly helpful that access money was brought into this for disabled individuals who are illiterate. That is a useful addition. The other matter, the larger overview of literacy programming and co-ordination, is something which presumably we will see before the election comes as well.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr Laughren: I want to respond briefly to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology concerning his statement on the state of small business in Ontario. One of the lines in his statement states that “the publication provides new data on business failure in Ontario, reporting that slightly less than half of all startups fail in the first three years.

This is much lower than the generally acknowledged 80 per cent failure rate.” If 50 per cent fail in the first three years, perhaps that is what the report means when it states that entrepreneurship needs to become known in high schools, which can prepare young minds for the thrills and demands of entrepreneurship. I am nervous that this is the kind of thrill the minister has in mind.

I did want to comment on one part of the report. It has to do with the whole question of a training levy. The report appears not to come down in favour of a levy but simply to discuss it. For those who do not know, the report of the federal Advisory Council on Adjustment by Mr de Grandpré suggested that there be a payroll levy which employers would pay, and if they spent the money on training, it would be refunded to them. It would be a very neat way of providing more training for paid employees.

I am not happy that the report does not conclude that this is the direction we must go because it does state that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business found that the training effort increases as firms grow bigger, rising from 66 per cent in firms with fewer than 20 employees to 80 per cent of those with more than 50 employees. There seems to be a relationship between size and training, which perhaps should not surprise us.

I would encourage the minister to take a serious look at the whole question of a levy for training purposes, particularly in the small business community.

LITERACY

Mr Jackson: I would like to respond to the Minister of Education’s third announcement in as many days, which I have enjoyed the privilege of hearing about for the first time in the House. This is quite unlike the Liberal government. Normally, we pick up the Toronto Star early in the morning and we can generally rely on getting these announcements.

However, one star paper, the Windsor Star, will be covering extensively these three educational announcements this weekend with the government’s coming Liberal convention to deal with the issues of lifelong learning, this cradle-to-grave infatuation with education that our Premier seems to be fond of. But he does not seem to be as fond of funding the education. I see by the most excited look on the Treasurer’s face that there is good reason why he has not freed up the coffers in order to provide sufficient funding for these educational programs.

But this weekend’s Liberal convention is going to be an interesting backdrop.

The Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but there are too many private conversations.

Mr Jackson: Perhaps it is because they have already seen the agenda for the Liberal convention this weekend and they know that this government is positioning itself with these series of paper election announcements. We have seen them before. We saw them before the 1987 election, we saw them before the 1985 election and here we have them trotted out again in preparation for another election.

Mr Breaugh: Before the 1977 election, before the 1975 election.

Mr Jackson: Yes. I am only off a decade.

The fact remains that the minister should be considering some valid questions at this week’s convention. He should be considering the fact that the Ottawa Board of Education is cancelling the summer semester for its adult high school program because of lack of funding. If he really has the commitment to literacy and improvement of these programs, he would provide the necessary funding.

The minister is conducting secret discussions on the future of adult and continuing education in this province. The Ontario Teachers’ Federation and the trustee groups cannot get a straight answer from his government, let alone find the new regulations for adult and continuing education, and yet we have a wonderful statement about literacy.

In the throne speech announcement of 1987, when the government made reference to reduced class sizes, computers and new textbooks, its transfer payments clearly established budgets for each of those items. Yet in this last year with transfer payments, they mysteriously disappeared. What is it that this government is trying to hide? Is it still trying to hide the fact that it cut back its learning materials program? Are those really the soft underpinnings of today’s announcement about this government’s real commitment to literacy?

I leave the minister with those questions because I know that he will be wanting to raise them at this weekend’s convention in Windsor and, quite frankly, I think the city of Windsor is looking forward to having all these Liberals in order to tell them about these concerns.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr Sterling: I want to reply briefly to the statement of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Because my time is limited, I want to refer him to page 79 of his report, where it says that small businesses will pay a disproportionate share of the higher level of payroll taxes. It also says that the effect of the employer health tax, along with other tax increases, will raise payroll taxes this year 25 per cent in 1990, as compared to 1989. That is the kind of friend of small business we have in this government.

I also want to point out that on the next page, page 81 of the report, it says that unemployment insurance premiums, the federal payroll tax on small business, decreased in 1989 to 2.6 per cent of the payroll tax. What we have is that combined payroll taxes in this province now amount to 8.7 per cent of the payroll in this year, compared to 5.9 per cent in 1983.

What great friends of small business the Liberals are. Are they not just creating a tremendous atmosphere for small business in this province? I only ask small business to take the hour to read this book and it will find out indeed what great friends the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and the other gang of thieves are for the small businessman in Ontario.

The Speaker: I think the member for Carleton will certainly consider his words more carefully. The member for Carleton wishes to withdraw?

Mr Sterling: I would like to withdraw the word “thieves.” I do not know what other synonym would be appropriate.

VISITOR

The Speaker: If I could have the attention of the members, I have just been advised that we have a visitor in the lower east gallery, a former member of Parliament, the Honourable Martin O’Connell. I know you would want to join in welcoming him today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO RATES

Mr B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources, and the Minister of Energy as well, concerning the statements that have been made by the chairman of Ontario Hydro about what he expects hydro rates to be, heading into the 1990s. Mr Franklin is talking about rate increases. Last week it was 12 per cent, now he is talking about 15 per cent. That is a 25 per cent increase in the space of one week of speculation.

I wonder whether the minister can tell us why the government has not given the Ontario Energy Board the clear power and authority to set Hydro’s rates so that we will not have Hydro all on its own setting its own rates. Why not give the energy board the same power it has with respect to Consumers’ Gas, the same power it has with respect to other utilities? Why not give some power to the energy board to finally begin harnessing Ontario Hydro?

Hon Mrs McLeod: I think the honourable member is well aware that we have in past years been asking the Ontario Energy Board to review the rate proposals that Ontario Hydro makes and to advise on its analysis of the factors in the costing that Hydro has proposed in coming to its conclusions about those rates.

I think the honourable member is also aware that there is a review of the mandate of the Ontario Energy Board, and one of the issues under review is the role that the energy board should have in relationship to Ontario Hydro. I would also suggest that there is an appointed board of Ontario Hydro that takes very seriously its own responsibilities for provision of secure, reliable power at reasonable cost.

Mr B. Rae: It was no less an authority than the member for Niagara Falls who, when he was in opposition, pointed out to this House on many occasions that if you heated your swimming pool with an electric heater, you would get a reduction because of bulk use. In fact, the volume of your use would give you a reduction. If you used your stove to boil an egg, you would not get a reduction.

I would like to ask the minister, why does she not, as Minister of Energy, submit to the energy board the clear need for the energy board to give a break to the small consumer, to give a break to the people who use less energy and who conserve energy, rather than to the people who consume too much energy? Why not change the rate structure?

Hon Mrs McLeod: The honourable member again may be well aware that one of the issues we are very concerned about is energy efficiency in this province. I think it is a concern that is being accepted as an important responsibility by Ontario Hydro. In fact, one of the factors that affects rate increase proposals for 1991 is the inclusion of incentive funds to encourage energy efficiency. Quite clearly that is a focus we have. One of the encouragements we would make to consumers is that they carry out the energy efficiency measures that would in fact bring about a reduction in the cost of energy through that saving in consumption.

The honourable member will also be aware that we have recently introduced a discussion paper on global warming. One of the factors as an Energy ministry that we are concerned about in that paper is energy efficiency measures, and a review of rate structures that can be effective in bringing about energy efficiency is one of the focuses of that paper.

Mr B. Rae: The fact remains that the Ontario Energy Board does not have the power to set rates, and the fact is that this government has no position on bulk use any different from the position of the Ontario Tories for 42 years. They have not changed an iota of energy policy either with respect to the energy board or with respect to the question of bulk use.

I would like to ask the minister a final question. Does she not now see the need for some clear rate relief for lower-income people? I can tell the minister that the people in her riding who are going to be getting a 10, 12, 14 or 16 per cent increase – and we do not know how long Ontario Hydro plans to hit us with this -- are going to have a very hard time. The only kind of conservation they are going to be able to practise is to heat their homes less, to live in far greater difficulty and to have to go without other things.

The Speaker: The question?

Mr B. Rae: Does she not see the need for rate relief for low-income people and for talking to the Treasurer about the need? If he is not only going to collect the GST --

The Speaker: The minister. Order.

Mr B. Rae: -- why collect the GST through the rate structure?

The Speaker: Order.

Mr B. Rae: We should be giving people a rebate for it.

Hon Mrs McLeod: I certainly concur with the honourable member that the question of the cost of electricity is an extremely important one for residential users, as it is for industrial users, in the province of Ontario.

But I do think that the honourable member perhaps confuses somewhat the issue of the rate increase proposed by Ontario Hydro to cover the costs incurred in providing electricity in Ontario with the imposition of a goods and services tax by the federal government, which in fact, if carried Out, would bring about a doubling of the cost of electricity in the proposed increases for next year for residential customers. That has to be a very great concern. I think the fact that electricity would be taxed for the first time is an issue that we should all be raising in light of that concern.

TIRE TAX

Mr B. Rae: I have some questions for the Minister of Revenue concerning the secret negotiations that went on for several months with regard to the tire tax, the tax being paid by car renters. I am interested in how the Remo rate of 8.3 per cent was established.

It is clear from the correspondence which we have received that the minister’s senior manager of legislation started out by saying -- he is writing to Mr Kenmir of the Associated Canadian Car Rental Operators -- that the minister had indicated that his initial calculations produced a figure of 8.1 per cent to 8.2 per cent that would be applied. Mr Kenmir wrote back and said, “Our calculations may have been understated, and a more realistic figure of 8.3 per cent would appear to be the correct figure to use.”

You will be surprised to hear, Mr Speaker, that upon receiving that new figure, the government bargained hard and came up with a figure of 8.3 per cent --

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr B. Rae: -- which was the figure suggested by the industry.

On 17 July 1989, the rate was set and the agreement was made. I would like to ask the minister this question: Can he tell us how his ministry arrived at the 8.3 per cent figure?

The Speaker: The minister.

Mr B. Rae: Can he tell us what was the legal authority for these negotiations?

The Speaker: The question was well put.

Hon Mr Mancini: The matter was well explained yesterday.

An hon member: Remo explained it.

Hon Mr Mancini: Remo explained it very well yesterday. The member is right.

I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition, the industry was provided with three alternatives to collect the tire tax. Every alternative provided to the industry was fair. Confusion, unfortunately, surrounded one of the alternatives because the industry did not indicate on its forms the differentiation between the eight per cent sales tax and the 0.3 per cent which was to apply only to the tire tax. Because of that confusion, that option is no longer available to the industry.

The tire tax will be collected with the other two alternatives, as has been described in a circular which was provided to the industry. Nothing was done in secret. The circular is made public to anyone who is interested, and the Leader of the Opposition is not correct in his assumptions.

Mr B. Rae: If it was not done in secret, why was an announcement not made with respect to what the arrangements were? Why was it that when our staff phoned the ministry we were told that we could not get the agreement and that we would have to apply under freedom of information to get this agreement? That is what we were told. We were told that yesterday by the people who are responsible for tax policy.

I repeat my question: Can the minister tell us what the basis of his calculations was when he made this secret deal, how much money he has collected and what the legal authority is for the deal which he arrived at?

Hon Mr Mancini: You do not need a freedom of information request to obtain a circular that was sent to the industry and anyone else who was interested. This circular is one of hundreds that is sent out by the ministry in order to --

Mr R. F. Johnston: Hundreds?

Hon Mr Mancini: Maybe thousands, I say to the member for Scarborough West, who is vitally interested in this.

The circular was a follow-up to letters that had been exchanged between the ministry and the industry, explaining the three options it had. It was pointed out on the back of the circular how the matter had to be dealt with. It was clearly pointed out in letters how the industry would be able to collect the money, and because of the confusion that has arisen, it is now down to two options. Nothing was done the way the honourable member suggests, and this information has been available for months. The honourable Leader of the Opposition knows that.

Mr B. Rae: I am inclined to just let the minister talk rather than ask another question. But my question remains this: How much money has the minister raised under this tax in comparison with other methods of payment? How did the minister arrive independently, his ministry, at the rate which he established, I presume, of 8.3 per cent? What process of calculation did he go through in reaching that magic Remo rate, what is the basis for it and what is the legal authority for his rate? If it was so great, why did he pull it yesterday as soon as we made it public?

Hon Mr Mancini: I will tell the Leader of the Opposition why it was pulled yesterday. Because confusion -- if he will have his colleague to his right keep quiet, I will just tell him; those people there do not want to hear the answer, but I know you do, Mr Speaker. The industry was clearly told in correspondence that the eight per cent sales tax had to be clearly separate from the 0.3 per cent tire tax. The industry did not make that distinction clear. Members of the opposition confused the matter even more by saying it was an 8.3 per cent sales tax when in fact an 8.3 per cent sales tax has never existed.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Brandt: My question is for the minister responsible for francophone affairs. The minister is probably aware of a resolution that was tabled in this House late last night with respect to the position of our party in connection with Bill 8.

That resolution is in two parts. The first part of the resolution very clearly states and reaffirms the support of our party for the expansion of French-language services throughout Ontario.

Hon Mr Scott: There is nothing as desperate as a desperate Tory.

Mr Brandt: Second, the resolution calls --

Hon Mr Scott: Oh, Robarts and Davis are gone. You should be ashamed of yourself.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Brandt: With respect, it was the Attorney General who was asking for questions on Bill 8 yesterday. He is getting a question on Bill 8 today if he will listen.

Hon Mr Scott: I am getting angry. I apologize.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat?

Mr Brandt: I am glad I got an apology.

Hon Mr Scott: Mr Speaker, I apologize for the interjection. I am so angry.

The Speaker: Order. New question, through the Speaker, please.

Mr Brandt: The second part of the resolution dealt very simply with the concept of an all-party committee to travel the province to get input in connection with the implementation of Bill 8. Is the minister, and the government of which he is a part, prepared to support that particular resolution?

Hon Mr Beer: I appreciate very much the support of the leader of the third party for the principle of Bill 8 and, as he has said, for the extension of French-language services in the province of Ontario.

As I have said before on this specific issue, I believe there are a number of mechanisms available within this House to deal with the issues that are raised in the motion. I do not think we need a special committee to look at this. I have said often that, as the minister, I would be delighted to discuss the issues of the administration and the implementation of Bill 8 during estimates. I think that would give us an opportunity to look in detail at those various issues. So my answer is that I believe that is the process we should follow and that at this time we do not need a special committee.

Given the fact that the standing committee on estimates would not give the opportunity for any input from the public, would not allow for any kind of democratic input with respect to concerns that have already been widely spoken of in this province, would the minister shift from his position which is to hear only submissions before the committee dealing with estimates and deal with an all-party committee that would travel the province and take legitimate input on the question of Bill 8?

Hon Mr Beer: I believe that when honourable members gather in committee to review the estimates of a particular ministry, there is in fact a very democratic opportunity to look at the operation of that particular bill. I think that at this time, with the number of issues on the national scene that revolve around language, we should make use of the various approaches we have now in this chamber. The views that individuals are expressing -- certainly we are receiving them in letter form and going out in public meetings, and I think that all can be brought to bear.

As I have said on many occasions, if members believe that there are problems with the implementation and administration of the bill, we can deal with that here in this Legislature through question period, through estimates and through the various debates that we have. That is the most appropriate forum at this point in time.

Mr Brandt: With respect, for two and a half years our party has stated its position in connection with the need for input and discussion in connection with Bill 8. There is in fact a great deal of misinformation, as the minister is aware, with respect to this bill. If I could get the attention but not the verbal input of the Attorney General --

Hon Mr Sorbara: You don’t deserve his attention.

Mr Brandt: Well, the member says I do not deserve attention for asking for some input from the public in connection with an extremely important bill. I ask again, is the minister prepared to simply listen to the views of many who have expressed a wish to have some input on Bill 8, aside from the estimates committee, moving to an all-party travelling committee which would deal with this question?

Hon Mr Beer : I think there are many questions and issues around language policy, around Bill 8, around the future direction of the province and the country with respect to these issues.

I would remind the honourable member that in his motion he talked specifically about dealing with the administration and implementation of Bill 8 and I would say again that that is the proper purview of the estimates process. I think that, as we go about dealing with this issue as political and community leaders, we all know what the principle of Bill 8 is and we know indeed what it covers, and that in our own public discussion in town hall meetings and the like, we can discuss and address these issues.

This is a sensitive time in our country’s history. The federal government is launching a series of consultations, but we are responsible for Bill 8 and that is best dealt with within the Legislature in the normal democratic workings of this --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

CHILDREN’S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Brandt: I have a question to the same minister in his capacity as Minister of Community and Social Services. I want to make the minister aware that for six months now it is my understanding that he has been advised there are some 10,000 children waiting for treatment for mental health in the province of Ontario. Earlier this week he indicated in a statement in response to that particular suggestion that he was waiting for the Maloney report, I believe, before he was going to act.

My understanding is that this report is not going to be ready until June of this year. Is he prepared in fact to do absolutely nothing whatever between now and June, to leave those 10,000 children without services until such time as he receives the report?

Hon Mr Beer: I will reiterate very clearly to the honourable member what I said in answer to the question earlier this week. Indeed we are not waiting. As I explained to his colleague the member for London North, I met with the executive of the Ontario Association of Children’s Mental Health Centres and we laid out a number of things that we are going to be doing jointly.

I made very clear the fact that the report of the Maloney committee would be available in June and that it is going to be very important in terms of the future direction that we take. I also set out very clearly that in resolving the issues that face the mental health area, we have got to involve all of those involved in children’s services.

If the honourable member would speak with those active in other organizations dealing in children’s services, I think he will find that there is a growing consensus that we cannot isolate different compartments of children’s services, but we have to work together. There is much that is going on and more will follow the Maloney report, but I think it is very wrong to suggest that nothing is happening.

Mr Brandt: I want to advise the minister that there is also a growing consensus and a very real concern among those who are providing services for children in the mental health field that the budget difficulties they are experiencing at the moment and the uncertainty they are experiencing with respect to their funding is of growing concern to them.

The minister last month received a letter from Windsor and Essex county, and in that letter there was a list of some of the children who require assistance at this time. Let me read to the minister, if I might, from that list: a child, aged two, sexually molested by her father; parents separated, child vomits and displays hysterical behaviour when father visits. Another example from the same letter: child, aged three, exposed to family violence, attacks parents and uses excessive profanity, violent tantrums.

The Speaker: The question?

Mr Brandt: These are but two examples of the many, some 300, that are in that particular report. When is the minister going to provide the assistance that is necessary to provide the help that these children need?

Hon Mr Beer: As the honourable member will know, we have over the past number of years increased significantly the funding to this area. As with many, the demands continue to grow. I think it is interesting, though, that it would be he who would talk to us about the funding that we are putting into the broad area of social services when it is his colleagues in Ottawa who have now capped the Canada assistance plan program and who will be cutting some $160 million out of the programs which we would have been using in our programs, including those that are directed at children’s mental health.

One of the reasons that we placed this program within the purview of the Ministry of Community and Social Services was so that we could have access to those funds. We have demonstrated up to this point that we are moving dollars into this field. We would like to do more. It would help tremendously if the honourable member would speak to his federal colleagues and urge them not to cut the basic program of CAP, the Canada assistance plan, which is dedicated to helping those who are least able to help themselves.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Brandt: On behalf of my party I would be delighted to speak to the federal government as soon as I have the time available after speaking to the municipalities, which are concerned about the budget cuts they are experiencing from the Treasurer of this province. As soon as I am done with those discussions, I will take up that other commitment.

Let me say to the minister that in that same letter he received from Windsor-Essex there were three 15-year-olds all of whom have attempted suicide over the past short period of time. There is a growing list of children and young people in this province who frankly have nowhere to go. The number that has been suggested to the minister, and which I believe to be very accurate, is that some 10,000 children are going underserviced or without any service whatever and are on six-month to one-year waiting lists. I suggest that is far too long.

There are many programs this government can cut. This is not one of them. What is the minister going to do about it?

Hon Mr Beer: I think we are in fact doing a number of things about this. I would underline again that we will only resolve these issues when we bring all the players together, when we recognize that the issues facing those dealing in children’s mental health and children’s aid societies, all of those active in that area, are common and there is a recognition among the players and by this government that we will resolve this by working together and by continuing to put the money where it is most required.

But I must insist that if we are truly going to attack this problem, it is time that the federal Conservative government came back to the table and began to put some money into children’s services in the same way we are doing.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. New question, the member for --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It might be time for a recess if we are not careful.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. What a waste of time.

ROUGE VALLEY

Mrs Grier: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Just about a year ago in March 1989, when the Premier announced plans to solve the greater Toronto area’s garbage crisis, the Minister of the Environment was conspicuous by his absence. Just last week when the Premier announced the creation of an urban park in the Rouge lands, the minister was there, but unusually for him, somewhat inconspicuous.

Can the minister tell us whether this low-key approach reflects the fact that he is ashamed that within the Rouge lands there is a site that has been identified as a potential landfill site and that he has refused to designate that site under the Environmental Assessment Act? Is that why he is not very conspicuous on the Rouge issue?

Hon Mr Bradley: If I were there to take the credit for the announcement that was made, the member would say I was taking credit for it. As I indicated in the House on many occasions, there were some interesting discussions that took place throughout this piece, putting together all the components of the announcement. I indicated, when the member for Mississauga South asked me a question in the House earlier in the week, that I thought I would like the announcement the Premier was making at that time.

I indicated that I thought I would be pleased with that announcement, and indeed I am, because I think it is the kind of announcement that has been looked for by the people in that specific area.

I know that the Save the Rouge Valley System group, which I met on a number of occasions and which other members of the government met on a number of occasions, put forward, I think, a very compelling case for as much as possible of the area it asked for to be encompassed by a green belt. I certainly am pleased that announcement was made. I listened to the people who were there as well, who were speaking on behalf of the residents in the area, who expressed a good deal of enthusiasm for the announcement the Premier made on that occasion.

Mrs Grier: I did not hear any reference to the question I posed. We have in this province a rather peculiar practice of allowing logging and mining to continue in parks, but I think this will perhaps be the first occasion when a landfill site or a garbage dump will be considered a nonconforming use in a park. I am not surprised the minister is ashamed of the fact.

Why will the minister not today rule out that site as a possible candidate for a landfill site? Why does he not complete the great announcement that he says he shares in by doing his part to protect the Rouge Valley lands?

Hon Mr Sorbara: Are you volunteering Etobicoke for the site?

Hon Mr Bradley: The member for York Centre makes a very good point. I suspect that no matter what site Metropolitan Toronto or any other community would choose for a landfill site, the member, by nature of being a member of the opposition, would be opposed to it.

I recall very well my years in opposition and that is the role of the opposition: to criticize, no matter what is put forward by the government. So it would be unfair of me to ask the member where she would like garbage from any community in the province to go, because of course that would put her on the spot to say where it should go. “That’s not the opposition’s job,” she would say.

The member is well aware that there will be an environmental assessment of this in terms of the Ministry of the Environment, and other commenting agencies of government will comment on it. There will be a hearing with the Environmental Assessment Board taking into consideration all the environmental concerns related to this, and Metro has put forward --

The Speaker: Thank you. That is a fairly complete answer.

ONTARIO HYDRO LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Runciman: My question is to the Minister of Energy. She is probably aware of the results that have just been announced of the vote by the Ontario Hydro union, with close to 96 per cent rejecting the contract with an 85 per cent turnout. I wonder if the minister would be good enough to advise the members of the House and the public what steps she and Ontario Hydro management are taking to prepare for what looks like an increasing possibility of a strike come Sunday.

Hon Mrs McLeod: As I have indicated before, in the House and to the public through the media, my role as Minister of Energy is to work with Hydro to ensure that any eventualities are being considered and that contingency plans are being developed to deal with eventualities that may develop.

I do feel compelled, though, to recognize that there is, even with this recent vote announcement, a collective bargaining process that Hydro and its union are engaged with, and that there is still a focus on the collective bargaining table and on resolution of this issue. But certainly, as Minister of Energy, I have been working with Ontario Hydro to ensure that it is putting contingency plans in place in order to deal with any eventuality, should there not be a successful resolution at the bargaining table.

Mr Runciman: The electrical consumers of this province require a more detailed answer than that if the minister is going to be fair. The nuclear generating stations are going to be shut down initially. They provide something like 50 per cent of the power in this province. The minister herself, I think, has suggested that Ontario Hydro does not have the ability to take up that shortfall. We could be faced with blackouts, shutdowns and serious disruptions within the Ontario economy.

I do not think most of us have the confidence in the management of Ontario Hydro that perhaps the minister has. We can only look at the shutdown of a nuclear facility this winter during a peak period, at running out of oil in the Kingston area during that same peak period, and at the Lambton station now, shut down for annual maintenance turnaround during a possible strike time. I think the minister should give us more specific answers. The people of Ontario deserve more specific answers with respect to what she is doing to prepare for the possibility of a strike.

Hon Mrs McLeod: The people of Ontario are certainly going to be concerned about the specific impact of any possible work disruption and disruption in the delivery of electricity service, should that occur, and they are going to want to know what they can expect, whether as individual residential customers or as industrial customers. I am very much aware of the kinds of concerns electricity users will have in contemplating any possibility of a work stoppage. But when the member asks me to give specifics, he makes, first of all, several assumptions in asking for them.

In referencing the fact that there could be a shutdown of nuclear stations, he makes an assumption, first, that there will be a labour disruption, and second, that this is the form it would take.

Unless we are in the situation and know what we will be confronted with, I cannot give the member specific information about impact. I can tell him that Ontario Hydro, which manages very effectively the provision of electricity service to people in this province, has been working with its individual utilities, the municipal utilities that actually deliver the power in those communities. The municipal utilities are working with their individual customers to determine their needs and how to manage the impact.

CULTURAL SERVICES

Mr Miclash: My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications. As the minister is aware, the Dryden regional office of her ministry was recently closed. What I would like to ask the minister today is what she can tell the residents of Dryden about the future of cultural services in this region.

Hon Ms Hart: I can appreciate the member’s strong interest in the service that has been given to Dryden and to other parts of the north by my ministry. I have also heard and seen the uneasiness of the cultural community about these changes that have been taking place. They have brought them to my attention. It does not even take that to know that there would be a potentially negative impact on client service.

We have a consultant in Thunder Bay, as the member would know. That consultant will be spending days in Dryden on a regular basis. I want to say to the member for Kenora that I am watching this very carefully because my top concern is that the clients, the people who are interested in the services of the ministry, get the best possible service in Dryden.

Mr Miclash: What I am concerned about is what the minister is prepared to do personally to safeguard the services that were previously provided by this regional office in Dryden.

Hon Ms Hart: As the member for Kenora will know, the two ministries used to be one, the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture. In the process of dividing the two ministries and their regional offices, a report was made to both ministries and action has been taken to divide the offices in the way in which it is hoped -- although, as I say, we will be watching it -- the best possible service can be preserved. The high level of service to cultural clients is, as always, the priority of this minister and the ministry.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Health. We have with us today in the visitors gallery, a number of ambulance officers, health care workers and representatives of their union, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. They are here today, quite frankly, to try to get the attention of the government.

Given the decisions of the Ontario Public Service Labour Relations Tribunal in the Collingwood and Owen Sound disputes that these employees were indeed crown employees, is the minister now prepared to meet with the union to ensure that units currently coming into a strike situation in the province do not have to face the frustration their colleagues in Owen Sound and Collingwood experienced?

Hon Mrs Caplan: As the member knows I am very aware of the recent decisions, so I want to inform him that the ministry will fully comply with the decisions of the tribunal. It is my understanding as well that the Owen Sound ambulance service employees will be back at work as of 29 March at 8 am -- that is the information I have -- and that the service will operate as a crown agency and negotiate with the Human Resources Secretariat.

Mr Mackenzie: I hope the minister’s answer means that the judicial review will be dropped. She will understand that I was talking about those units now coming into a strike situation. Is the minister ready to meet with the union to negotiate a province-wide agreement with all ambulance officers represented by OPSEU in the interest of more efficient service for all Ontario citizens without the kind of disruption we have experienced to date?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I am pleased to inform the member that the Attorney General’s office is making application for judicial review of the tribunal’s decisions on both McKechnie and Owen Sound. I would tell him as well that the ministry is constantly monitoring the delivery of ambulance services and makes adjustments to the services as needs and resources are available.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr J. M. Johnson: My question is for the Minister of Health. As the minister is well aware, a commitment was made to the people of Guelph and Wellington county almost three years ago for much-needed capital construction, including upgrading and expansion at Guelph’s two hospitals, Guelph General and St Joseph’s. As a matter of fact, the minister even participated in the sod-turning at St Joseph’s in 1987.

Now we find that the Minister of Health has completely reneged on her commitment. There will be no funding for Guelph General Hospital or St Joseph’s Hospital. However, instead, a brand-new hospital will be built with the same funds some time in the future -- perhaps. What will become of St Joseph’s and Guelph General hospitals?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I am pleased to say to the member opposite that I recently reaffirmed the commitment the ministry made of over $58 million to the people of Guelph to provide for acute care services and long-term care services. I sent a letter to both of the hospitals informing them of our decision to establish two committees to see that the process is expedited so that we can meet the needs of the people of Guelph. I want to acknowledge as well the leadership of the member for Guelph in helping the community come to the decision to actively pursue planning for the needs, not only for today but for the future as well.

Mr J. M. Johnson: The minister is completely missing the point as usual. Both of these hospitals have been told on numerous occasions that funding would be forthcoming. They undertook ambitious fund-raising campaigns and had plans and site surveys drawn up, putting much time, effort and resources into these capital construction projects. This government made a promise to the people of Guelph and Wellington county just prior to the 1987 election. The minister reneged on that promise.

This government has no credibility with the people of Guelph and Wellington county. Why should they believe the government now? How are they to know this is not just another empty campaign promise, a commitment to be broken just like the last one?

Hon Mrs Caplan: The member opposite could not be more wrong. I would be happy to share with him correspondence I recently had with both Guelph General and Guelph St Joseph’s, informing them of our commitment to meet the health care needs and requirements of the people in the community of Guelph and restating our commitment of over $58 million to see the development of those facilities. We are moving expeditiously to establish the kind of community-based committee to see that those are planned appropriately and as expeditiously as possible.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr Daigeler: My question is to the Minister of Education. Recently my colleagues and I met with parents who represent trainable mentally retarded pupils in Ottawa-Carleton. The parents and board representatives appreciate the progress we have made in education for TMR students. However, they expressed concern about older students who are at the lower- to mid-functioning level of achievement. Some of these students could derive significant benefits from attending school beyond the age of 21. May I ask, therefore, whether the minister has looked at this matter and whether he has any plans to permit school boards to provide education beyond 21 years of age for special needs students?

Hon Mr Conway: I want to thank my honourable friend the member for Nepean and others in the Legislature for raising this issue with me. I can tell my honourable friend and the House that I have been looking at this particular issue in education. The issue has been raised not just by members in the Legislature, including my friend from Nepean, but a number of parents and educators have also raised the matter with me. I expect in the not-too-distant future to be bringing forward amendments to the Education Act which will, I hope, address this particular concern, among others.

Mr Daigeler: I am pleased that the minister seems to have some rather firm plans on permitting the proposal that I have just mentioned. Can the minister perhaps be a little bit more specific about his plan as to when in fact he might introduce those changes?

Hon Mr Conway: Ministers are always a bit nervous to indicate specific timetables. Looking at the Attorney General, I am reminded I could say the early fall, but I can tell my friend the member for Nepean that we have been looking in the ministry at a number of changes to the special education provisions of the Education Act. I am aware of the current difficulties for the group of individuals to whom the honourable member has made reference and I would very much hope to have the amendments before the assembly in the fall sitting of this year.

TIRE DUMPS

Mr Allen: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment, who was here just a moment ago and seems to have disappeared. Is he in fact nearby and in the House, hiding around a corner?

The Speaker: You may proceed. I think he can do two things at once.

Mr Allen: I have got a bigger job for him than just walking and listening.

The residents of Hamilton, and especially Hamilton West and Hamilton Mountain, are understandably nervous about the continued failure of the minister to take action on the illegal Mount Hope tire dump which lies nearby. The minister ignored the dump for years. After recent weeks of heightened concern, the minister is still playing games with the owners, the Musitanos.

It is a clearly illegal dump. The only actions, however, that the area residents see are a few guards and a dog named Joey keeping an eye on things. When is the minister going to use the clear powers he has under the Environmental Protection Act to clean up illegal dumps and safeguard the residents of this area from the potential threat of airborne toxic chemicals produced by a tire fire?

Hon Mr Bradley: As the member knows, this site and all of the other major sites in the province have in fact been visited by representatives of the fire marshal’s office and by representatives of the Ministry of the Environment to determine the particular situation. There have been orders, it is my understanding, that have been laid on this particular site to which he makes reference.

There is, as has been indicated, 24-hour security at the site. It has been present for some period of time now. This is independent security in addition to what was there before. The fire prevention authorities have issued two orders requiring compliance with the fire code, a point which perhaps the Solicitor General might be able to expand upon if the member gets a chance to chat with him.

The owners have applied for a certificate of approval, but I recognize it is the old dilemma of local residents who naturally would prefer to have no such site around and yet, on the other hand, if there is such a site they would like it so that there is a minimum risk to the people in the area. That is what the officials of the fire marshal’s office have gone through. It is my understanding that the owners of this particular site have agreed to comply with this and when the new laws come into effect, it will --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Allen: It does not sound like much more than the old ring-around-the-rosy that was being played with the Musitanos in a low-key, behind-the-scenes kind of way before the Hagersville fire.

What we have there now, of course, is Pal Joey, but what more is happening? What assurances do we have that the minister, after he plays this game of charades with the Environmental Protection Act, the Fire Marshals Act and the Ontario fire code, is in fact going to take any action that is any different than he did before?

There have been no clear assurances. The charade goes on. Why the charade, why the delay, and what assurances have we got that the minister is going to act the moment he has some legislative action to take further action on?

Hon Mr Bradley: I think, unfortunately, the supplementary was written before the answer to the question was anticipated. I remember I used to have to do that as well, I say to the member for Hamilton West, where the supplementary was written out as well.

I can simply repeat to him -- and I know of his own personal concern in this regard, and it is quite genuine -- that the fire authorities have in fact been on the site. The ministry officials have been on the site. I would not characterize his evaluation of the efforts that have been made in the past the same way he would, but I can say that with all of these circumstances, with the passing of the amendments to the fire code and with the passing of the amendments to the Environmental Protection Act, it will be very clear that the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the Ministry of the Environment have the right to go in and take whatever action is necessary.

I recognize as well that there is a concern that the tires are there, and so it is the old dilemma that people are going to face. I think they would like the tires to disappear from the area completely and have it out of sight, and that is understandable for the people, but what we want to do --

The Speaker: Thank you.

MARMORA ARENA

Mr Pollock: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. As the minister is well aware, the government will not fund any project that has been started before the official approval has been given. However, on 8 March 1989, the then Minister of Tourism and Recreation told the people of Marmora and area that he was giving them a letter stating that they could proceed with their arena project. He also told them that their application was in order and he could see no reason why they would not be getting the funding. He stated that he might not be the minister in January 1990 when grants were announced.

The people of Marmora and area did firmly believe that they were getting provincial funding for their arena, which they deserve and are entitled to. Would the minister explain to this House why they did not get that funding?

Hon Mr Black: I appreciate the opportunity to address the concerns raised by the member for Hastings-Peterborough. I should tell him, first of all, that he is absolutely correct in identifying that we do not approve grants after the fact and that once construction has started on a building we are unable to approve grants for that particular project.

I should also indicate to him that we have had discussions with the representatives of the town of Marmora and understand their concerns and how interested they are in having funding approval for what I agree is a very worthwhile project in that community. Unfortunately, we are not able to fund all the applications that we received for funding for recreational projects in this given year and we have encouraged the people of Marmora to once again continue their attempts to pursue that arena project.

Mr Pollock: That arena was condemned in November 1988. They missed the hockey season in 1988-89, they missed this last hockey season, and if they do not get the funding soon, they are going to miss the next year’s hockey season. That is three years without an arena.

I would just like to mention the fact that Dummer township, in October 1983, had its arena condemned and in September 1984 it had an official opening for its arena. They just missed one year of hockey. That is the track record of the previous government. Why can these people not get the funding? After all, they are entitled to it.

Hon Mr Black: I think we could spend some time addressing the track record of the previous government in a whole range of issues and that is some time that we perhaps could spend profitably. I am sure that I could identify for the member and for his colleagues many areas in which their track record is less than it should be.

However, to come back to his immediate concern, which is the people of Marmora, we are going to look very carefully at proposals from the area of Marmora. We are going to work with that community to try to address its needs and to try to assist it. I thank the member for his concern and interest in the project.

NORTHERN FILM LIBRARY SERVICE

Mr Campbell: My question is to the Minister of Education. In December 1989, the Ministry of Education announced that its northern film library service, which has been based in Sudbury for many years, would end in its present form this year, on 15 June 1990. This service is well known to teachers and principals across northern Ontario who have ordered films from the library and had them shipped to their schools for use in classrooms and assembly. Can the minister tell the House and the people of Sudbury what assurances we have that this service will continue to operate in northern Ontario?

Hon Mr Conway: I thank the member for his question and his interest in a matter that I know is of concern to my colleague and other members from the Sudbury area. I can assure my honourable friend that we intend at the Ministry of Education to provide the service, though in a different form. We are divesting the service as a matter of course. Discussions are under way with a number of school boards.

Mr Campbell: I want to thank the minister for his response, because not only is the library service itself of concern, but the future employment of the film library’s eight employees is at stake. Will the minister tell the House what plans his ministry is currently undertaking to relocate those employees within the Ministry of Education or in other jobs in Sudbury, perhaps in consultation with the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, which is opening its headquarters in Sudbury this summer?

Hon Mr Conway: My friend has raised a very valid concern. I know there are a number --

Mr Laughren: What about Dryden?

Hon Mr Conway: My learned friend the member for Nickel Belt is intervening. I just want to say through my friend the member for Sudbury to my friend the member for Nickel Belt that I take very seriously the concerns of the public servants, who have done a very good job over the years in the ministry providing that northern service. We are expecting that their future job requirements will be met through a variety of means. Discussions are well under way at the ministry’s human resources branch to place these individuals and I am confident that we will be able to do so.

I want to say again that the member who has raised this question has made very rigorous and vigorous representations that that be done and I have indicated to the deputy minister at the Ministry of Education that every effort must be made to ensure that they are provided for in this divestment.

INTHRNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Villeneuve: To the Minister of Agriculture and Food: The Ontario government in recent months has blamed Ottawa for just about every problem that occurred here in Ontario, in spite of the fact that his ministry has been chopping funds to agriculture. Can the minister tell us whether the Ontario government and his ministry support the position put forward by Canada and the Honourable Don Mazankowski on 14 March supporting

article 11 of the GATT?

Hon Mr Ramsay: I am quite happy to say that yes, I do and yes, we do in the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. In the last few months I have been bringing the message to Ottawa that it is very important that Canada present a strong position on

article 11, that the GATT discussions that are happening now in Geneva, the Uruguay round, clarify and strengthen

article 11 so that our commodity boards can manage the imports coming into this country so that we can satisfy the supply of basic foodstuffs for the people of Ontario.

Mr Villeneuve: The minister may be aware that the Premier in the past has threatened to ignore the GATT and pull out. Changes do take place in the GATT. Is the Ontario government ready to abide by international trading rules or is the minister ready to put our food industry at stake? Does he intend to call his election promises, as he did on free trade, and veto the GATT decisions if he does not like them, the same as he did on free trade?

Hon Mr Ramsay: What a delicious question to talk about today. As I am sure the member from across the way knows, being a leader of a ministry in a provincial jurisdiction unfortunately just does not cut it in international trading negotiations. Obviously it is the country of Canada at the federal level that is involved in federal negotiations, international trade negotiations, but also, as a province and as a country, we believe in adhering to international law as we do to any law. Our tactic at the moment is to present what Mr Mazankowski has presented, and that is a very strong position in the international trade negotiations that are happening this year, so that we strengthen and clarify

article 11.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Minister of Labour with respect to plans from the regional office of the Workers’ Compensation Board to move its handling of claims for workers from Sault Ste Marie and the district of Algoma from the Sudbury office to the Thunder Bay office.

The minister must be aware that Thunder Bay is as far from Sault Ste Marie as Toronto is and this would totally defeat the whole purpose of having regional offices to serve people closer to their home communities. The minister has received communications on this over the last several months from my colleagues from Algoma and Sudbury East and myself. I would ask whether the minister will now ask the Workers’ Compensation Board to reconsider its decision to hold meaningful consultation with workers and their representatives in the Sault and to relocate all appropriate Workers’ Compensation Board services closer to the workers, right in Sault Ste Marie in the district of Algoma.

Hon Mr Phillips: I guess I would first recognize that the Workers’ Compensation Board is going through a number of organizational changes, all of them, I might add, with the approval of its board of directors, which in the end is responsible for the administration of workers’ compensation.

I am aware of the correspondence that has taken place. Based on reading that correspondence from the Workers’ Compensation Board to various individuals in Sault Ste Marie, I would hope that the residents of Sault Ste Marie are satisfied that they will continue to receive excellent service in Sault Ste Marie.

I understand from the correspondence that there is a portion of the services that are currently offered in the Sudbury office that will indeed be moved to the Thunder Bay office, but I understand from that correspondence that there will be little, if any -- virtually no -- requirement for anyone to travel to Thunder Bay. So based on my understanding of the response, I would hope that the people of Sault Ste Marie are satisfied that they will receive a high level of service from workers’ compensation. I would encourage them to continue to discuss it with workers’ compensation if they have any further concerns.

The Speaker: That completes the allotted time for oral questions and responses. Motions?

Petitions.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, I am standing in my place and would like to introduce a motion that leave be given to introduce a bill.

The Speaker: I will call for introduction of bills in due course. I will draw it to the member’s attention when I come to it.

PETITION

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Daigeler: I am submitting a petition signed by 14 people in my riding, at their request, even though I do not support the intent of this resolution. However, it concerns the question of Bill 8.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

SELECT COMMIYIEE ON ENERGY

Mrs Sullivan from the select committee on energy presented the committee’s interim report on climate change.

Mrs Sullivan: The select committee on energy has been very energetic in undertaking the first phase of its mandate. It has engaged the Royal Society of Canada to assist in the scientific and economic evaluations which we will require further on in our work and we are pleased to be associated with the expertise and the independence that this body will provide.

In our first phase of public hearings, the committee heard from national and international experts in climatic modelling, in the atmospheric sciences, in ecology and energy policy, as well as from representatives from the governments of Canada, Indonesia and the Netherlands.

We learned that while there is not full certainty of the time and rate of climatic or precipitation changes, nor of the specific regional impacts which may accompany global warming, none the less we believe strongly that the need for co-ordinated action between the public and private sector in reducing emissions of greenhouse gases is urgent.

In the next phase, the committee will further examine the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the production, generation and use of energy in Ontario. We will refer, in our examinations, to all sectors which use energy here.

The report further outlines some of the issues which we will consider in the next phase. I want to thank the members of the committee for the extensive work that they did in preparation for the public hearing phase and in the preparation of the report.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATH BILLS

Mr Callahan from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr8,

An Act respecting National Capital Children’s Oncology Care Inc;

Bill Pr44,

An Act respecting The Royal Canadian Legion;

Bill Pr49,

An Act to revive 393598 Ontario Limited;

Bill Pr58,

An Act to revive Gursikh Sabha Canada.

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr47,

An Act respecting Lake of the Woods District Hospital.

Your committee would recommend that the fees, and the actual cost of printing at all stages and in the annual statutes, be remitted on the following bills:

Bill Pr8,

An Act respecting National Capital Children’s Oncology Care Inc;

Bill Pr58,

An Act to revive Gursikh Sabha Canada.

Motion agreed to.

The Speaker: I have to ask the House for unanimous consent to revert to petitions. There were so many members on their feet, I missed the member for Hastings-Peterborough. He would like to present one petition, and I am sure the members would agree.

Agreed to.

PETITION

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr Pollock: I have a petition, signed by 1,248 people, which reads as follows:

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

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

“We, the Hastings County Federation of Agriculture and residents of Ontario, want a stop put to landfill sites and to have steering committees look at the use of energy-from-waste systems that promote the 4Rs -- the programs of, first, reuse; second, reduce; third, recycle; and fourth, recover -- and recovery of energy.

I would like to pay tribute to Betty McCarroll and John Lyle for their efforts in collecting this petition. I have affixed my signature.

The Speaker: I will now call for introduction of bills, but I also inform members that they can make a motion to introduce a bill at this particular time.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

UNSOLICITED FACSIMILE TRANSMISSIONS ACT, 1990

Mr Cousens moved first reading of Bill 118,

An Act respecting Unsolicited Facsimile Transmissions.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Cousens: We are increasingly seeing the use of facsimile machines as part of business, and more and more people are relying upon them as a way of communicating with one another. It is almost like the phone call that you get that you do not want to get. It is a recording. Someone interrupts your supper or your sleep or your own personal activities with an unsolicited phone call.

The problem with unsolicited facsimile transmissions is that they can tie up the machine that you have allocated for a specific purpose and you end up having the cost not only of the lines being tied up and the cost of business time being lost, but also the use of the paper and other expensive materials that are part of it.

This is a bill that, hopefully, will address this as a concern to business and will be presented in due course to the Legislature to give the members a chance to read it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

INSURANCE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1990 (CONTINUED)

Consideration of Bill 68,

An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Insurance.

Mr Cousens: When the committee adjourned last we were discussing and debating Bill 68, and I was in the process of making some preliminary comments to the bill following the earlier presentation that had been made by the New Democratic Party. I had completed the first five points of my presentation. With the permission of the House, and knowing how this committee operates, I would like to be able to continue with that at this time.

The Chair: You had adjourned at that moment. I was about to ask for questions and comments to

section 1, but since you were not finished, you may proceed.

Mr Cousens: When we begin again in the House to look at this bill, we are dealing with one of the worst pieces of legislation this Legislature has looked at in the last four years. We are seeing a piece of legislation where the minister has come in with 30 amendments, and probably more to come, and he probably has not even added up the number of amendments he has altogether.

We are dealing with a piece of legislation that is in response to a statement made by the Premier of this province on 7 September 1987 when he said, “I have a very specific plan to lower insurance rates. The Premier of this province did not and does not have such a mechanism to reduce automobile insurance rates.

There is no doubt that the people in Ontario have had a problem with automobile insurance rates in this province for some period of time, there is no doubt that action needs to be taken and there is no doubt that every member in this House would have a solution for it. but I have to tell members that there are a number of people, other than the 94 Liberals, who have a different opinion. We will do everything we can to make sure that the Liberals who are here and who will be voting on it will have every chance to reconsider their positions.

What might happen is that this government might come along and try to close off discussion and force an end to the debate through the use of its majority so that there cannot be a full and complete dialogue about this bill. I have that feeling because the other day when we came into the House there was not any doubt that the Minister of Financial Institutions was in a hurry to try to get the bill passed in one day. That is just impossible.

The minister has 30 amendments. There are hundreds of clauses in this and there are many points that have to be made. He has not understood the points we have tried to make up until now. We hope that through the dialogue that takes place in the committee of the whole House the government will come to its senses.

As we looked at this bill last week, I touched upon a number of the points. Just to give myself a position in my speech, the first one had to do with the fact that the Premier had reneged on his promise of lower automobile insurance rates.

Hon Mr Elston: You mean to reorient yourself.

Mr Cousens: This minister should be on a comedy show rather than running one of the most important ministries. His interruptions and interjections I enjoy, but the fact of the matter is they just tie up the House even longer and will cause us to debate those specific points. If he wants to, I would be pleased to have the back-and-forth dialogue, but rather than tie up the time of the House in antics, I would rather get on with what we are really here for, and that is to deal with Bill 68.

First, I want to make some preliminary remarks on the bill and on the point I am really making, as to why I and a number of others in our caucus cannot support it and why I think the people of Ontario should rise up from their television sets and out of their seats and throw those guys out of office. That is what I am looking for. I think on this bill alone you are going to lose two or three or four seats. You are losers. What you are doing is losing control of the government, losing control of everything and you are interfering and meddling.

The Chair: The member for Markham will address the Chair.

Mr Cousens: This bill is an example of that.

The first point I made is that the Premier, with his fantastic sense of humour, in Cambridge on 7 September 1987 said he had a solution to it. It is now proven with the 30 amendments coming in to Bill 68 he did not. That is my first point and I can make that one again and again, and I will make it again and again.

The second point is that the government’s bungling of automobile insurance has cost taxpayers dearly. The other day I went into just how it has cost taxpayers dearly.

My third point was that the government plans to implement threshold no-fault car insurance, despite damaging criticism levelled against it in the Osborne report. How odd it is that the Osborne report singled out as the one way not to go, this mechanism now being considered by the Ontario government.

My fourth point, the government would have the public believe that lawyers are driving up the costs of claim settlement. When you really start looking at the facts and the data and realize the bafflegab that we have had from the government, what it has done is slammed notable professions and really has not come forward with a background of information that justifies the action it is now taking.

My fifth point had to do with the wording of the threshold that is part and parcel of this bill, and the fact of the matter is “the threshold” are key words that people in the province of Ontario will begin to know, maybe even memorize when they have been through it, because any injury they have or we have will be tested under the following words: is it a “permanent serious impairment of an important bodily function caused by continuing injury which is physical in nature”?

Last week I did go into how there are so many holes and problems with that definition or how in fact in Michigan, where a similar definition is being used, we are talking about some 1,200 different cases before the courts now in trying to resolve that matter.

I continue now with my sixth point. When we start looking at this new insurance commission we are talking about very limited powers. I suspect that before too long, once this insurance commission has been established, the government will be coming back to re-establish new terms of reference for it. This insurance commission that will be established with this bill will replace the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board and the Ontario superintendent of insurance. The honourable Minister of Financial Institutions has said that the new commission will have broad powers of intervention and enforcement and will also be responsible for protecting the interests of consumers and regulating rates.

However, the new commission will do nothing but review and approve rates. Insurance companies will continue to set the rates. It is not clear if there will be any rate ceilings. Why does the government not have a look at some of these matters? Maybe this is something that will be looked at as we debate this bill. That is just a small point among many, many others.

My seventh point has to do with the fact that there is no cost saving for consumers under the new system. There is no cost saving for consumers under the new system. The minister has said that drivers in urban areas can expect their rates to rise on an average of eight per cent next year, and drivers in rural areas should see no increase on average. What does an eight per cent increase on average mean for some people in Toronto?

Mr Kormos: It means 50 per cent.

Mr Cousens: I thank the member for Welland-Thorold. It does mean 50 per cent for some people and it may mean just one or two per cent for others. But you are talking about a wide range of increases and you come along and take the average, who knows how that average has been calculated. I would be most interested in seeing how the government can rationalize and explain away this eight per cent increase on average next year.

When I hear the minister indicating as well that there should be no increase on average in rural areas, that begins to raise the spectre of questions as well. Rather than paying a projected 30 to 35 per cent increase next year under the existing conditions we have under present-day law, the new system will generate, as the minister says, a saving for consumers: rates will rise by eight per cent on average.

I guess the question really is -- as a business person, I ask the question -- how can you ever call a rate increase a saving? It is a saving relative, I suppose, to the increases you can have otherwise, but it is not a saving. You are still going to be paying more. And when the truth comes out, people will realize they are paying more for less.

Yet the government, in its grandiose way of describing what it is doing, says it is going to have a saving for the automobile insurance payments in Ontario. That is not true.

The government should start using the words wisely and well and become straight in the way in which it presents the facts. When it comes along as a government saying, ‘There is a saving for you,” people think there is going to be a saving, there is going to be more in their pocket when they are finished paying than there was otherwise. But, no, there is still going to be more out of their pocket; they are still paying more; they are not going to have any more to spend on anything else.

What happens a year after this? Has the minister gone into the future with his little crystal ball and tried to determine what it is we will see in the years 1991 and 1992? What I would like to know is how he predicts the future rates to go. Is he relying on regulatory powers yet to be formed? That is something this legislation does not make clear.

What we have really seen here is an eight per cent premium increase on average for drivers in urban areas, and that is just an average. There has been no cap on the individual rate of increase that people can experience in Ontario. So it is virtually all over the map. Why is it that it has to be this way?

Let me tell members how it has to be. The next point I make, point 8 of my 10 points, is that the new system allows for continued cherry-picking. It is not the Niagara Peninsula we are talking about, where you actually grow cherries. We are talking about the kind of cherry-picking where those companies that want to pick up certain policies will pick up the policies of corporations and businesses where there is the least outlay of risk. If they can reduce their risk by insuring only those people who are guaranteed all kinds of benefits, then those are the people who are going to be insured by the insurance companies. Why not? It means less to pay out.

You do not have to pay as much out when you are dealing with someone who is with a big corporation, because the big corporation provides so much in the form of services to their employees. The company benefit programs are part and parcel of the benefits that this government is looking at in this heinous legislation. In this way, insurance companies are going to be facing more of a risk with those people who are not with large corporations, where individuals do not have accident benefits provided for in their employment.

The minister says he is not in favour of a two-tier system of risks, but may I suggest to the members that we are seeing in Ontario a whole new form of insurance being formed which is becoming a very important part of insurance, and that is the Facility Association, the insurer of last resort. The Facility Association is the insurer when you cannot find an insurance company to insure you and your car, your family and your car, your kids and your car.

We would be in big trouble without it, but the Facility Association certainly has the largest way of gathering money out of people because of what it charges for insurance coverage. It is not a competitive scene. What happens is that a person who wants insurance goes to an insurance company and says, “Look, I want to get insurance on this car. My wife and I will be driving it to work and back,” and away we go. They search through the Yellow Pages and then they apply to all the companies. They go to all the brokers in town and they say: “Look, I have got a good record and I just run a small company.

I am sorry, I have a few tickets here but, look, can I get coverage?” What they say is: “I’m sorry. We are just not able to insure you.” More and more they are going to say to people: “No. You can’t be insured by the insurance companies. You’ll go to the Facility Association and the Facility Association will look after your needs.” Then they are out of the competitive scene. They are into a situation where the prices are extraordinarily high, much more dear and expensive than if you went through the regular insurance channels.

What has happened just in the last short period of time, as insurance companies are being more and more selective of whom they will insure and whom they will not insure, those who are not insured end up going to the Facility Association, and what we are seeing are some very interesting statistics. From 1 November 1988 to 31 July 1989 the number of people insured by the Facility Association increased by 103 per cent, compared with 71.3 per cent a year earlier. In other words, they are growing faster than the insurance industry itself. What a way to gain and grow.

Once you get the government meddling in it, coming through -- oh, you guys love this. I look at my New Democratic friend the member for Welland-Thorold.

The Chair: Order, please. The member for Markham will address the Chair.

Mr Cousens: They are going to have the public purse pay for it, so we are dealing with two villains, those guys smiling away, looking for more, and then these fellows ripping off the public with their Facility Association. I have to say that they are encouraging the building up of cherry-picking. If it was promoting agriculture and farming in Ontario, I would be far more supportive, but instead, what do I see? I see a kind of selective process that eliminates people from the choice of the insurance coverage that they want to have and need to have. They are forced into the Facility Association, which is far less than competitive.

Next is point 9, as I move rapidly towards my conclusion. The introduction of the new system will cost consumers $773 million. Not all of that is in the first year, but we are talking in the range of hundreds of millions of dollars that are now going to be spent on insurance that were not spent before.

If only the consumers knew that when they were electing the Premier and his sweet Liberals in 1987, when he had a solution to solve the automobile insurance rates, if they knew it was going to cost a heap of money out of our pockets, when we do not have the money -- we could be using it in deficit reduction, we could be using it on education, we could be using it on many other things.

If the people of Ontario had known that this government was going to be digging into their pockets again searching for more money -- and I mean “searching” because the pockets are getting thinner and thinner, especially the way the Liberal’s 32 tax hikes over the last five years have taken more and more away from us and we are getting less and less government.

But here is another example of it. We are talking about $773 million more being spent on insurance that is going to come out of the pot. Let me just break it down so that it is on the record, so that Hansard will record just where that breakdown takes place: $480 million is the amount the insurance companies will save in compensation payouts for pain and suffering, so the insurance companies buy this one. No wonder they like it -- $480 million they are saving through this program.

The next one: $150 million is the amount that insurance companies save in compensation payouts for economic loss under the new threshold, and $95 million is the revenue the government will forgo by eliminating the three per cent tax that drivers currently pay on insurance policies written in Ontario. That $95 million is every year from now on, without fail; $95 million that they have thrown away that taxpayers would now receive through the tax. That three per cent is paid for by drivers in paying for their insurance policies.

Some $48 million is the amount that insurance companies will no longer have to pay OHIP` for medical services provided to innocent victims of car accidents. It all adds up to $773 million. Some of that comes out of the moneys the insurance companies previously had to pay and another part, the smaller part, comes out of the pockets of taxpayers.

You could build a lot of homes in my riding for people who need homes. You could build another couple of intersections and a grade separation and do an awful lot with the $150 million or so that the government has just thrown out on this one. When we start saying that there is no money to do certain jobs in our communities, to build schools for our children, to get rid of the portables and factors like this, here is another place where the government has just thrown the money away.

Another factor to the cost of this system to consumers is that no-fault insurance will cost employers substantial amounts of money. The legislation requires employees to exhaust all medical, surgical, dental, hospitalization, sick leave and income-continuation benefit plans before being allowed access to the

schedule of no-fault benefits. Is that not something? Is it any wonder that people are concerned about what will happen to them if they have an automobile accident?

The teachers are a classic example of this. Where a teacher will have accumulated a certain number of days for sick leave and has a car accident, rather than being able to apply to the fund for assistance while recovering from the automobile accident, instead the sick leave he or she has accumulated as a teacher will be reduced for every day that the teacher is sick. Then when he is well and back to work again what will happen, if he is taken sick and has a heart attack or something else, is that his sick leave will have been completely eaten away, possibly, by the nature of the sickness he had.

The fact of the matter is, the system is costing consumers. It is costing all of us, and yet the government does not stand up and admit it.

My 10th point has to be the fact that the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus has presented responsible alternatives under the leadership of our critic responsible for Financial Institutions. The member for Leeds-Grenville does not have anything like the staff that the Minister of Financial Institutions has. We have not spent anything like the $20 million or so that they have, studying answers. The member for Leeds-Grenville is able to work with one researcher from the party.

Hon Mr Elston: How much are you spending on those misleading ads in the Financial Post?

The Chair: Order, please. Members will have a chance to make all the comments they want one after another, not all at the same time.

Hon Mr Elston: I would like to apologize for interjecting.

I was merely requesting information on how much the PC party had paid for the ads in the Financial Post when it has a $4-million deficit, that is all. I am sorry.

Mr Kormos: You should apologize for this legislation, now that you are on your feet apologizing.

The Chair: Order, please. The member for Markham only.

Mr Cousens: There is an awful lot more to be said, in fact, but I wanted to just put on the record that there is a tremendous commitment that has been shown by our party for a responsible solution that provides a balance between what we really need to provide, some regulatory control to solve some of the problems which we all acknowledge exist in the automobile insurance industry, and a responsible track that allows us to balance off the needs and requirements that should take place in a free-enterprise environment.

When I hear the minister talking, I realize that maybe what he needs to do is read the papers and watch the news to see what is happening in eastern Europe, where people are finally becoming free of the yoke of socialism and the control of government. Now what we are saying is that the members of the government do not know how to listen, they do not know how to respond, they do not know how to react to people who have points to make.

Fortunately, the people of Ontario have at least elected 17 Conservatives to stand up and make the point, and in the next election it could be reversed.

Mr Mahoney: You might get 18.

Mr Cousens: The government members could be sitting over here and that could mean a lot of the yowling voices that are here yelling and screaming but doing nothing would have a chance to criticize something else.

Mr Cousens: The Ontario PC party has called for a number of key points.

Mr Kormos: The New Democrats are going to form the next government.

An hon member: Maybe you are on drugs.

Some hon members: No.

Mr Mahoney: Not today, no.

Mr Cousens: I think there has been a very provocative statement made.

The Chair: Yes. All members should stop making interjections, whether they are in their seats or not, and only the member for Markham has the floor.

Mr Cousens: Maybe the member should apologize to the other member for the statement that has been made.

Mr Callahan: You called them socialists. You should apologize.

Mr Cousens: No, they will accept being socialist, but the chairman did not hear the remarks that were made by the member from Mississauga. I think it is unacceptable for a member to say of another that he is on drugs, and I think that is what he is saying.

Mr Faubert: Like to know what he is smoking, that is all.

The Chair: The member for Markham may proceed.

Order, please.

Mr Cousens: I think you have to be very careful. The Liberals make very light of this legislation and of the commitment that others have to it. I suppose when they are just allowed to come in here and interject and make statements and points but never stand up and speak, it really begins to tell me and many others that the Liberals are just falling in line like a pack and doing what the Minister of Financial Institutions or the Premier wants them to do. They have ceased to think for themselves and ceased to realize that there are other ways of handling the automobile insurance situation in Ontario, and that is to my point.

Our caucus, through the member for Leeds-Grenville, has suggested that, first of all, we abolish this rate-setting bureaucracy that we have, just dissolve it; second, that we should establish a rate review system comparable to that of Alberta. Alberta has established a way of handling this. We are saying: “Look at it, analyse it, assess it. Could it be a way in which we could handle it here in Ontario? Will we retain something of the balance between business and industry and government?”

We have asked for the appointment of an insurance ombudsman. We happen to have an Ombudsman in Ontario right now who is extremely busy understanding how the insurance industry is different from the kind of issues that are dealt with by the Ombudsman. Certainly the insurance field would require someone specialized and very skilled in this special field. So we have suggested that there be an insurance ombudsman appointed. It would also give all of us a chance when we have someone who has been referred to Facility insurance when in fact the other insurance companies have turned him down without cause.

Then he would have recourse to go and say, “Hey, why is it that I am not being considered’?” It would force some accountability in the decisions that are made by large corporations.

We are dealing with a country made up of many people. We have nine million people in Ontario. Why are we not willing to serve them and make sure that their interests are properly responded to? By having an ombudsman, we would be in a better position to respond to the concerns and problems that they might have.

The member for Leeds-Grenville has also suggested that there be wide-ranging tort reform measures. In our amendments that we will be bringing forward in this bill, there are a number of issues that tie into that. It has to do with this government’s desire to beat down and beat up lawyers. They have said, “Let’s remove their QC,” and they have said, ‘Let’s try to control this or that.”

Now, in this kind of bill, one of the issues that has been raised by virtue of the way the bill has been presented publicly and privately is that in looking for tort reform, they are saying, “Well, the lawyers are making too much money.” What they are really failing to address is, in having tort, they are protecting the rights of an individual to be able to have some recourse to issues and concerns that he has.

I really believe that in the presentations that have been made by our critic for Transportation, the member for Lanark-Renfrew, who has been calling for more driver education on the roads and better forms of licensing, there are a number of things that could be done that would help us all with regard to the way people drive and how they drive and just what they are doing with their cars. In fact, driver education has to be given a far greater emphasis so that we are able to see that the people who sit behind the wheel of a car understand that it is not just a right but a great responsibility.

Finally -- not “finally,” because there are many other recommendations that have been made previously, but just stricter enforcement of highway and traffic laws would be a way of helping to make sure that people on the roads are safe.

We are talking about a complicated bill. With Bill 68, as it has been presented to the Legislature, we are talking about 56 pages of fine print. It ties into the Insurance Act. It is not something that anyone can quickly pick up. Politicians end up picking up on a few key points. I think that is part of what I have wanted to say in my presentation this afternoon and the previous day: There are just so many aspects to this that for us to come along and quickly try to deal with it and get it out of the way is to fail to understand the ramifications that Bill 68,

An Act to amend certain Acts Respecting Insurance, will have on life in Ontario.

These are a few introductory remarks, and I hope that the Chair will allow members to participate in this debate. I look forward to doing so.

The Chair: Before we proceed with the next member, may I remind members of two standing orders. Members are always referred to by the name of his or her riding, never by name. All remarks are always addressed directly to the Chair and not through the Chair, and no “you” and second-person singular or plural.

Do other members have general statements to make on

section 1?

Mr Kormos: Mr Chairman, I have made my brief introductory remarks, but I understood you to indicate there was going to be an opportunity for members to respond to or question the member who just spoke. That is what I understood your ruling to have been mere moments ago.

The Chair: In committee of the whole, members can speak as many times as they wish. They can make responses, questions, comments; there is no limit.

Mr Kormos: Thank you. I am going to be very brief because I do indeed want to respond to -- oh, oh.

Hon Mr Elston: In fairness, Mr Chairman, last week when we started this off, the intention that was expressed was that there be brief introductory remarks by members who wished it. Now the gentleman again is abusing what was given, I think, as a very liberal

interpretation of where we were headed. Now he wishes to speak again. Mr Chairman, it is obvious what is going on here, but of course I am leaving it with you.

Mr Pouliot: Mr Chair, the rules are there. You, with your wisdom, sir, have taken this opportunity to spell it out. Our side, the opposition, did understand very, very clearly, and we intend to adhere meticulously to what the rules of the House say. I find it somewhat appalling that the minister would try, at this late stage in due process, to use it for a matter of convenience. We can speak as long and as much as we want.

The Chair: In the habitual process of clause-by-clause in committee of the whole House we may permit short, brief introductory statements. What we usually do is that members can discuss, at length, clause-by-clause. We have not even started

section 1 yet. What I would like to do is start with

section 1. Whoever wants to make comments may do so with no limit of time; questions and comments, clause-by-clause. This is what we call clause-by-clause.

Mr Philip: Mr Chairman, I was a member of the committee. I have a statement I want to make on the nature of this bill, having had the hearings, and I would like my opportunity to make a statement similar to the statement that the member for Markham has made; maybe not as long as his.

The Chair: The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale can make his comments.

Mr Philip: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I take this opportunity to rise and to reflect on the extensive hearings that we have had on Bill 68, which is

An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Insurance.

It is usually the case that when you look at the title of a bill you can tell the contents of the bill, and I suggest that perhaps the title of this bill is not entirely as descriptive as several titles that perhaps I could suggest. I would suggest that perhaps a more appropriate title to this bill would be

An Act to provide the Transfer of $1 Billion of Funds to the Automobile Insurance Industry. That would be an accurate title of this bill, because that is exactly what this bill does.

Another title, of course, that might be appropriate to this bill would be

An Act for the Expropriation of Property without Compensation, because that is what this bill does. It takes the sick benefits that working people have negotiated through their collective bargaining or that professionals have negotiated with their employers through their skills and the talents they have to offer, and expropriates that money, takes it without compensation whatsoever and transfers it to the insurance companies. We know, of course, from the hearings and from reading the bill that if one is injured and has a health insurance program, one must eat into that health insurance program before getting any kind of compensation from the insurance company.

Another title that we could use for this would be

An Act for the Provision of Welfare Payments to the Insurance Companies. That would be a perfectly appropriate title for this bill and perhaps the best title, for after all, those poor impoverished insurance companies, which in the last quarter made only $314 million, surely need the help of the taxpayers of Ontario.

That is what this Liberal government is doing for them. They are saying: “You poor poverty-ridden companies, you’ve only made $317 million in the last quarter. Therefore we want to transfer close to $1 billion out of the pockets of the people of Ontario into your coffers.”

Mr Kormos: The highest profits in eight years.

Mr Philip: The highest profits in eight years, my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold tells me.

What we have is a massive tax giveaway of $140 million or so, $823 million in reduced benefits, using the government’s own actuarial figures. What we have is a system in which the taxpayers have already paid some $20 million for study after study; yet i